How Religion Survived

the

Coming of the Scientific Age

by

Howard Hill

GODLESS HOUSE

Posted on Scribd

Sunday, 16th August 2009.

The Scientific Study of Religion

by Stuart Jordan
The following article is from the Secular Humanist Bulletin, Volume 15, Number 1.
Why are so many people in the modern world still religious ? This was the featured
topic of a multi-disciplinary conference on “The Science of Religion” held on
December 5 and 6, 1998, at the prestigious New York Academy of Sciences.
Cosponsored by the International Academy of Humanism and Free Inquiry, the
conference featured 11 excellent speakers who spoke on the many reasons that
religion remains a pervasive feature of human culture, despite the lack of reliable
evidence for its remarkable claims.
The religious impulse undoubtedly reflects many complex, interacting biogenetic and
cultural factors at work in Homo sapiens. Fortunately, the conference presented
outstanding thinkers and researchers from many of the different academic fields who
contribute to our understanding of religion. Perspectives included those of three
philosophers, a biblical scholar, three anthropologists, a social psychologist, a
political scientist, a scientifically trained science writer, and a newspaper columnist.
Several of the speakers made it clear that many of these relevant factors are still not
adequately understood. There is need for a great deal more research in many fields
before the religious phenomenon can be well understood on scientific grounds.
Many of the contributors to the New York Academy of Sciences meeting will discuss
the same topic at the Council for Secular Humanism annual conference in Chicago in
May 1999. Of particular note are the philosopher Paul Kurtz, the anthropologist
Lionel Tiger, and the biblical scholar Hector Avalos. Professor Avalos also brings the
insight of an unbeliever who was a Pentecostalist faith-healer in his childhood. I look
forward to the continuing exploration of this important and fascinating topic.
________

The above was taken from the internet today, Tuesday, 12 August 2008. I am
not a humanist. Humanism is Christianity without God ; here, we do atheism. So lets
get on and answer the question Jordan poses above.

Contents

Page

Preface 8

PART 1
SUPERORGANICS
Ch 1 The Oil and the Water of Social Life 17
I The inflexible mantra of the ‘gene’. 20
II Immiscible knowledge 24
III Religion is identity 25
IV The human animal is a superorganism 36
V Disabling science 37
VI Can knowledge segregation suffice in a scientific age ? 39
VII Sterile science 40

Ch 2 The Physiology of Corporate Identity 43

I Trojan horses found alive and well 44
II Freedom 46
III Normality 50
IV Secular delusion 53
V Pivots of observation 55
VI The meaninglessness of sentience 57
VII Fitness and religion 58
VIII The impotence of true knowledge 59
IX Identity as organic accumulator 59

Ch 3 Convoluted Knowledge 61
I Artificial Knowledge 62
II The roots of rational thinking 64
III Why humans ? 66
IV Life engines 68
V Chosenness 70
VI Identity differentials 72
VII Religious skin 73
VIII A little convoluted thinking of our own 74
IX Religious infiltration 75
X Darwin’s blinding flash of light 76
XI A word on truth 78
XII Fighting for freedom establishes slavedom 79

Ch 4 Orchestrating Science 81

Ch 5 Why : The Key to Social Power 86

I Sociology 88
II Structural violence 90
III The horror of religious servitude 91

Ch 6 Why Religion ? 93
I Scientific simplicity 94
II Linguistic underpinnings 96
III Emotional levers 96
IV Religious growth 98
V Identity 99
 VI The force of religious identity 100

Ch 7 The Origin and Nature of Language : How and Why

Language Evolved 103
I A religious stench 104
II Colourful scent 105
III Evolving forms 107
IV Human slugs 109
V Perfecting linguistic form 110
VI How and why 111
VII Public opinion 115

PART 2
MASTER ORGANICS

Ch 8 What is a Jew ? 121

I Atheist parasitism 122
II Dualistic dodgems 123
III Jewish atheism 124

Ch 9 Jews 127
I Means of power 130
II Hierarchy : power of identity accumulator 133
III Integrity 135
IV Jewish presence 137
V Jewish spectre 139
VI Taking authority from reality 144
VII The nature of Judaism 147

Ch 10 The Functional Nature of Anti-Semitism 151

I How to make a hate crime 152
II Christian fanaticism 152
III Forging myths 154
IV How linguistic force manufactures social structure 158
V Technical considerations 162
VI Never enough 163
VII Political creeds as manifestations of identity 164
VIII Unbridled corruption 164
IX Default Jews 166
X Mind cleansing 167
Ch 11 The First Law of Sociology 170
I Inevitable history 171
II Love of knowledge 172
III Arks of the future 175
IV Petrified science 176
V Perfect knowledge 179

Ch 12 The Religionless Religion of a Covert Theocracy,

Otherwise Called a Democracy 181
I Academic priests 182
II Theocracy as democracy 183
III Going covert 184
IV Twisted times 186
V Crime 188
VI Cut and reap 190
VII Selfhood : our worst nightmare 191
VIII Culture as corporate mind 194
IX Core immortality 196
X Six degrees of separation 197
XI Priests 199
XII Science and sociology 200

PART 3
HISTORICAL

Ch 13 Higher Organicism 205

I Taboo : the maximum intensity of linguistic force 222
II Manufacture and use of identity accumulators 223
III Identity watersheds 224
IV Latent identity potential of Islam 225
V Powerlessness 227
VI Black and white 228
VII Reconstituting the social fabric 230
VIII Anarchism 232
IX Racial identity 236
X Natural humans 237
XI Ultimate principle 239
XII Centrality of human biological nature 240
XIII Escape velocity of religion 240
 XIV Annan’s biography 241
XV An atheist cause 243
XVI Apologising for Darwin 246
XVII Mining authority 247
XVIII Is a rose a dangerous animal ? 249

Ch 14 Denying Darwin : The First Fatal Attack 252

I Religion dominates post Darwinian science 254
II Jenkin’s essay 255
III Scientific advances 256
IV Missing the force 258
V Jenkinising Darwin 260
VI Religious Darwinism 261
VII Negative proof fallacy 262
VIII Energy as the basis of evolution 263
IX How to demolish Darwin 265

Ch 15 Denying Darwin : The Scientist Speaks 269

I Presenting human evolution 270
II Genuine v fake 270
III Proof as linguistic device 273
IV Anti-Darwinian ranks 276
V Willis 279
VI Constant reality 281
VII Age and Area 282
VIII Sacred science 284
IX Precious apathy 285
X Age 286
XI A science friendly alternative 288
XII Dark art 290

Ch 16 Denying Darwin : The Enigma 293

I Subtle suggestion 293
II Attack by becoming 294
III Exclusion by inclusion 295
IV Severing science from religion 295
V Perfect liars 296
VI Contemporary critics of Willis 297
VII Ecological implications of superorganic physiology 298
VIII Perfect linguistic cloaking 300
IX Read behind the lines 301
X Something to authorise 302
XI Antigens of identity 303
XII Knowing sterile science when you see it 304
 Ch 17 Lessons From Ancient Atheism 308
I Theoretical versus practical denial 308
II Unspoken regulation 309
III Correspondence is the basis of atheist science 310
IV Judaism as atheism 313
V Judaism as law 317
VI Sophist rhetoric : a model of Darwinian deceit 319

Ch 18 Fear of an Idea : Lets have a Moments Doubt 327

Close 331

Bibliography 339

Preface

It is a plain and simple fact that religion and science cannot exist in the same
place at one and the same time. It is therefore the intention of the author to explore
exactly how the impossiblehas been achieved. The first step toward understanding
this miraculous ‘appearance’ of the impossible is to rephrase the impossible condition
by understanding that : it is a plain and simple fact, well known long ago, “that
Religion and Science cannot in reality be at variance” ¹ ; there must be an
accommodation to allow the ‘appearance’ of compatibility between religion and
science to exist. So the ‘impossible’ is achieved through an ‘accommodation’, which
can, by definition, only be a deception.
Religion is an integral feature of human existence, there has never been a
society in which the religious impulse could not be discerned. As inherent as religion
undoubtedly is to the human condition, to the casual observer the impression we get
of religion in society is not so clear cut. History tells a tale of religious enthusiasm
constantly vying with the imminent death of religion, and in our own times religion
appears to us to have a chequered history in which its permanence is by no means
something to be taken for granted. The fact that religion is as old as humanity does
however suggest that if we want to ask questions about the nature of religion then we
must take a long term view of this bedfellow of ours, just as the geologist was obliged
to look into the depths of time before they could make sense of the historical record
written in the rocks.
 Taking a long view of religion,the ups and downs indicate an ebb and flow, but
no prospect of total obliteration. Religions do die however, just as one band of rock
gives way to another. In both cases a change in conditions is indicated, but at no time
does a human society emerge on a stable basis which is thoroughly without anything
that can be called religious. Communism is avowedly atheistic, but this declared
political stance is not all that it appears to be, and so far the endurance of communist
states has proven nonexistent. If communism is compared to a geological deposit it
would barely rate comparison with the most sparse deposit of rare elements indicating
the violence of a meteoric impact.
Religions may die then, but religion neverdies. Nevertheless, in terms of our
subject, concerninghow religion has survived the coming of scientific knowledge, the
fact that religions die out is suggestive. If we ask why those religions we are most
familiar with from the perspective of European history,gave way to new forms of
religious idea, then we find a link between the advance of knowledge in general, that
is naturalistic knowledge that can be considered akin to scientific knowledge, and the
cycle of change in religious ideas. Without naming specific religions we can identify
the most famous transition of all, that from polytheism to monotheism. This shift
away from localised gods is certainly required if ideas of a scientific kind are to
become more pervasive, even if there are other more important reasons of a religious
nature why this transition should of occurred, such as allowing religion to perform its

¹ Lubbock, Pre-Historic Times, p. ix.

unifying function on a grander scale.
The fact that religion is a constitutional feature of human existence, means that
religion plays a major part in the detail of human life. Changes in the form of religion
effect the way people live theirdaily lives in ways that are related to the different
forms of religious idea. Polytheism, sacrifice, idol worship, the sanctity of life,
reincarnation and so many other significant ideas have an impact on the way people
think and the way people live. Hence changing religious practices mean changes
inthe social structure that human activity constitutes. In this sense religion is a very
personal thing, because it makes for differences between individuals which are highly
significant to individuals themselves, yet at the same time there can be nothing less
personal than religion because, taken on a grand scale, no one gets to choose their
religion any more than they get to choose their language or their skin colour.
These intimate details of religion are of no concern to us, the personal
ramifications—whether we eat meat or prey to the setting sun, or venerate a particular
animal—is of no consequence, or limited consequence, to a scientific investigation of
religion that seeks to understand religion itself. It is not the personal detail of
religious difference that interests us in this essay, it is the impersonal reality of
religion that affirms the observation that no matter what form it takes, religion is
endemic to human life.

That the survival of religion should be immune to any change, of whatever

kind, is implicit in what we have just stated, therefore the fact that religion has
survived the arrival of the scientific age need not of itself surprise us. But while the
survival of religion can be taken for granted, the transformation of religion, which
involves the total demise of existing religious forms and the emergence of their
replacements, does raise questions of great interest regarding the current situation,
which has an appearance like no other before.
Firstly, there has been no religious death in modern times. Keeping matters
simple we can think of the resident religion in England, where we are now, the
Christian religion. This religious form lived half a millennia ago, and today it thrives.
In the intervening period our world has gone from the pre-scientific era all the way
through the complete unfolding of the scientific potential available to humanity,
bringing us as fully into the scientific age as we could ever hope to be. So this is all
we need to say in order to make the point that religion lives today, within the so called
scientific age.
Secondly then is the matter of science, which we set in opposition to religion
by asking this question regarding religion’s survival. We have suggested that
religions are obliged to transform under pressure from increasing knowledge about
reality, that religion is always bound to be connected with because religion always
pretends to represent reality. The idea behind our question concerns the radical
transformation of knowledge about reality, which, in the shape of science, we might at
least of expected to induce a transformation in religion, but where, as regards our
resident Christian religion, this most certainly has not happened. Religious
spokespersons will assert that Christianity has changed, that it has adapted itself to the
reality of scientific knowledge. But when all is said and done, this says no more
about religion than the fact that criminals adapt to changing police methods. Crime
remains crime and religion, viewed in terms of its contrast with science, remains
religion, no matter how it adjusts its totally ludicrous dogma to rid itself of aspects of
that simply cannot be sustained any longer.
This is the setting for our investigation, Why has the radical transformation in
our knowledge of reality not brought about the death religion, forcing a radical rebirth
in the light of new knowledge ?

Ultimately, we willassert that science is dead, so that the only hope science has
of living is to turn to philosophy. This account is therefore offered as a work of
scientific philosophy, which characterisation makes its author a philosopher, but the
desire of the author is to write science in a world where science does not exist.
Professional scientists will be bound to say to a man such as myself, indeed it has
been said to me, “So you think that philosophy should tell science what science is do
you ?” To which I answer, “Yes”. It should not be this way, but as those who
practice science do not do science, there is no choice but for a philosopher, a none
scientist, to step into the breach left by a corrupt academic establishment.
But more subtle and potent than this simple, far from radical notion that
science is dead, is the really novel idea that we produce here, namely that science is a
new form of an old religion ! It is by extending itself in a new form, that the
dominant religion of the West has survived, and that new form of an old religious
mantra is what today, we call ‘science’. The foundation of this new form of religious
expression was created, as all new religious forms are these days, by the publication
of a text, serving as its gospel, and for science that text was The Origin of
Speciespublished by Charles Darwin in 1859. The title of a book I noticed the other
day, called Evolution as Religion by M. Midgley, 1985, indicates that the interest in
viewing scientific ideas as alternate expressions of the religious impulse is not
peculiar to us. I have no idea what this book says, it could be a Creationist work with
an overtly religious agenda, I would have to take a look. Religious advocates are
always keen to reduce any persistent none religious ideas about the nature of
existence to the status of just another belief ; they like to call atheism just another
religion or belief, for obvious reasons, to do with disempowering any potential
alternative to religion by reducing everything to the same inane level of mindless
belief.
It is our contention that Darwinism, through its status as the theory of
evolution, evolution being the most fundamental scientific concept underlying all
aspects of the universe, has subverted the whole of science to the cause which
Darwinism serves. That cause being the preservation of religion in an age dominated
by scientific knowledge. Thus Darwinism is the root of the deception we identified as
an accommodation that made the impossible actual, apparently, by enabling religion
to persist into an age dominated by a free and unconstrained scientific exploration of
the nature of existence. Because Darwinism is religion, then all science is rendered
religion too. And this is how religion has come to survive in a scientific age, by
making an extension of itself in a scientific guise. Given our first principle, that
religion and science cannot exist in the same place and time, this solution as to how
we come to live in a deeply religious world totally dominated by scientific
knowledge, is obvious really. But it is all very well to say this once you know the
solution, with the benefit of hindsight, but try finding you’re way to this conclusion
on your own, that is quite another thing.

This work will allow you to forego the need for any such exertion on your
part. If you want to know what reality is, how to prove God does not exist—or what
God is—what Judaism is, what the Nazis were, what Darwinism is, what science is, or
what the correct, final solutions, to any such questions are, then you have come to the
right place, and all you need do, is read on. As indicated, I am not a scientist, I would
have to consider myself as coming within the category of philosopher,if my ideas
were to attract sufficient attention to warrant a definition. Here is a good
summarisation of the primary scientific role of philosophy :—

The social tradition, in the course of its development, has been

enriched by the successive separation or analysis of the world of phenomena
and the generalization and recombination of them in explanations or theories.
Gradually out of empiricism and “common sense” have been evolved more
and more methodic examination and purposeful explanation, i. e., science and
philosophy. Although differing chiefly in range and exactness of explanation,
science and philosophy are therefore in a broad sense complementary
processes of the social mind, which seeks not only knowledge of details, but a
conception of the whole. Philosophy, in one of its functions at least, is a
“science of the sciences.”

(The Social Mind and Education, Vincent, 1897, p. vi)

Vincent is not assuming science has been killed off, corrupted by the demands
of society, as we do, but he is nonetheless asserting in a fine way, that philosophy is
the means by which pedestrian scientific work is turned into profound scientific
knowledge. This is what we must believe too, albeit for wholly different reasons to
those indicated by Vincent.
The principle upon which our work is offered to the world is based on the fact
that :—

Philosophy is the Science of all Sciences.

Scientists insist upon the integrity of their mutually exclusive enclaves of

specialist knowledge, exclusive in that they deny an outsider the right to presume to
interpret their work. The case of the playwright Robert Ardrey’s ingress into
anthropology with African Genesis, 1961, being a classic example of the reaction
scientists have to being intruded upon by outsiders—they did not like it. One of their
number pretendedto write a play, and asked how Ardrey liked that ! Scientists can be
disappointingly puerile, far too easily. A philosopher, conversely, rejects all such
constraints, and insists upon the ultimate unity of all scientific knowledge. If
scientists cannot, or will not unify their work, then someone else must !
While this description of philosophy as the ‘science of science’ represents the
perfection of the idea of philosophy, as being the superior intellectual form to that of
science, we may sample the work of a scientist who indicates why this is so :—

Technology is not Science

Much of modern technology is based on science, but this recent association

obscures crucial differences and the failure to distinguish between science and
technology has played a major role in obscuring the nature of science. To put it
briefly, science produces ideas whereas technology results in the production of
usable objects. Technology — by which I mean the practical arts — is very
much older than science. Unaided by science, technology gave rise to the
crafts of primitive man, such as agriculture and metalworking, the Chinese
triumphs of engineering, Renaissance cathedrals, and even the steam engine.
Not until the nineteenth century did science have an impact on technology. In
human evolution the ability to make tools, and so control the environment,
was a great advantage, but the ability to do science was almost entirely
irrelevant.

(The Unnatural Nature of Science, Lewis Wolpert, 1992, p. 25)

Wolpert tells us he is no philosopher, and he does not tell us the reason for the
“failure to distinguish between science and technology”, which is a facet of the
relentless war between religion and science, whereby this ‘failure’ helps ensure that
scientific method will not intrude upon religion. Instead he treats this failure as part
of the sincere effort by people from different disciplines,who are trying to understand
reality according to their own tenets. This failure is however carefully crafted through
the corruption of academia, and it is the reason why only a true, that is a lone
philosopher, not an academic philosopher, acting on their own behalf, independent of
all authority, can make science real, can make science produce true ideas, and not just
exquisite technology. Darwinism, viewed as an extension of traditional religion that
exists for political purposes, being needed to preserve religion in a world dominated
by scientific knowledge, becomes a technological tool of the mind. Darwinism is not
a scientific achievement of any kind, but rather a technological achievement of the
intellect, serving a pragmatic, political end.

The motivations behind technology and science are very different. The
final product of science is an idea, or information, probably in a scientific
paper ; the final product of technology is an artifact – the clock or the electric
motor, say.

(Ibid. p. 31)
 Here we see Wolpert struggling to express the difference between science and
technology in terms that make science a ‘way of knowing’. This is a difficult position
he, like ourselves, is forced into by the absolute rule of religion over the structure of
our world, which ensures that science as a way of knowing can never exist, for if it
did science would negate myth as the way of knowing reality.
Science is a way of knowing reality that cannot be known by any other means.
A child does science just by knowing that the earth is a spinning ball, while the most
accomplished scientist fails to do science simply by failing to know that science is,
first and foremost, a way of knowing reality.
Lets look at an example of such a scientist, who is not so much useless, but
worse than useless, for they take the places that should got to real scientists and make
it possible for us to be deluded into believing we live in a scientific world, when there
is in reality no such thing as science in our world :—

Science and ideology

by Edward O. Wilson
Vol. 8, Academic Questions, 06-01-1995.

Edward O. Wilson is Pellegrino University Professor at Harvard University

and Curator in Entomology at the Museum of Comparative Zoology (Agassiz
Museum), Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138. Presented
here is his keynote address to the November 1994 convention of the National
Association of Scholars in Cambridge, MA. A portion was taken in slightly
modified form from Professor Wilson’s autobiography, Naturalist
(Washington, D.C. and Covelo, Calif. : Island Press-Shearwater Books, 1994).

I have composed this text with considerable humility because it is

addressed to scholars and scientists many of whom speak more authoritatively
on the history and philosophy of science than I. My own preferred reading list
on the subject would include Gerald Holton’s Science and Anti-Science and
the wonderfully scorching book, Higher Superstition, by Paul Gross and
Norman Levitt. For a full reading list that could compose a complete college
course on the subject, I would add John Passmore’s Science and Its Critics,
published in 1978, and Steven Weinberg’s adamantine image of the power and
ideology-demolishing reach of modern physics in his book Dreams of a Final
Theory. In many ways I would defer to these authors.
I hope they nonetheless might agree with me that the nobility of
science as a human endeavor was well encapsulated by the physicist
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar when he used the Icarus metaphor in praise of
Sir Arthur Eddington. He said, “Let us see how high we can fly before the sun
melts the wax in our wings.” And on the appropriateness of the rosette of the
National Academy of Sciences, the other NAS, that is splendidly symbolic in
this sense : the gold of science is placed solidly in the center, surrounded by
the purple of natural philosophy. Members are elected primarily or solely on
the basis of objective discoveries they have made, expressible in clear
declarative sentences, and not by any ideological test.
By science in common parlance is meant natural science, which
gathers knowledge of the world as an organized, systematic enterprise and
attempts to condense it into testable laws and principles by a wide-ranging and
shifting set of methods. The diagnostic features of science that distinguish it
 from pseudoscience are, first, repeatability : the same phenomenon is sought
again, preferably by independent investigation, and the interpretation given it
confirmed or discarded by means of novel analysis and experimentation. And
second, economy : scientists attempt to abstract the information into the form
that is simplest, most easily recalled, and most aesthetically pleasing—the
combination called elegance—while yielding the largest amount of
information with the least amount of effort. Third, mensuration : if something
can be properly measured, using universally accepted scales, generalizations
about it will be rendered less ambiguous. And fourth and finally, heuristic : the
best science stimulates further discovery, often in unpredictable new
directions, whose content confirms or modifies the parent formulation.
Science is thus not just a profession. Nor is it a delectation of mavens
[Someone who is very highly skilled]. Nor is it a philosophy. It is a combination of
mental operations that has increasingly become the habit of educated peoples.
Its a culture of illuminations hit upon by a fortunate turn of history, of
uncountable small and large steps, of adjustments to reality during the past
four centuries that yielded the most powerful way of knowing about the world
ever devised.

Wilson, as we can see, has not the slightest notion what science is, here he
tells us science is all about technique, being associated with technology. Notice how
we get a long list of definite things that science is not—not profession, genius, or
philosophy. Instead we are told a series of vague things it most definitely is—
illuminations, flukes and adjustments, from which arise the most powerful way of
knowing reality. So in the end we get the correct observation, but it is so confused by
the meandering obscurity of Wilson’s self eulogising description that the one part we
want to hear, that science is a way of knowing reality, pure and simple, so that
whoever knows reality, does science, and whoever fails to know reality does not do
science, is entirely missing. We may notice that just as Darwin, as we will soon see,
undermined science by removing the purposive dynamic from the idea of evolution,
so Wilson sustains the same disempowering deception by removing the causal
dynamic from scientific knowledge. Instead he imposes the debilitating idea that
science is just a lucky game we play, like roulette, that can occasionally throw up the
most incredible and delightful results.
Nothing could be further from than truth. Science is absolute knowledge,
perfect, Godlike, and utterly unassailable. Science is the only way to know anything.
If something is known, by whatever means, then that ‘means’ is science. If
somethingis known by some means that is not science, then what is known is not real.
If there is a God, then this fact is a purely scientific fact, and the method used to
obtain that knowledge of God is the modern scientific method. If some other way of
knowing there is a God is used, then that knowledge of God is not knowledge at all, it
is something else, what else, only science can say. However we express ourselves, the
one message is that there can be no compromise in science, no tolerance, science is
all, science is everything : there can only be one way of knowing anything.
The statement immediately above, establishes the principles upon which I
pursue knowledge, principles that are essential to what I call ‘Atheist Science’ ; a
name prompted by the contrast between the ideas resulting from these principles and
those ideas pervading our worldtoday under the name of ‘science’. A kind of science
especially formulated to be sterile as regards the production of absolute knowledge, a
science that exists to serve religion, which is the traditional repository of absolute
knowledge. There can only be one repository of absolute knowledge, hence religion
and science cannot exist in the same place and time. There is only one way to know
anything about reality.
I say we live in an absolute theocracy, where there is no free access to
knowledge of reality, hence no freedom of thought and obviously, therefore, no
freedom of expression. The only way to deal with this state of affairs is to have a
parallel science, an atheist science to run in parallel with religious science.
Accordingly we are forced to adopt a stringent definition of what science is. An
uncompromising definition that will ensure that the usual techniques of subversion,
corruption and outright destruction, enacted by the theocracy’s academic
establishment, cannot be used against us.
Atheist Science makes the assumption that religion is a part of reality that can
only be understood by science. Only science can say what religion is, or what
religion means. Only science can explain morals, tell us what morals are, or what
any, or all moral imperatives mean. Only science can tell us anything, in terms of
reality, of what reality is. As such there can be no assumptions taken at face value, of
the kind involved in the idea of divinity. Atheist science is true science, plain and
simple. It only bears the prefix ‘atheist’ by virtue of its opposition to established
science, the fake science of the theocracy that we endure today. In a world without
religion atheist science would just be plain old ‘science’.
This is a war, make no mistake. The enemy is ruthless beyond conception,
cares for nothing and for no one, the enemy is pure unadulterated nature, red in tooth
and claw ; mindless, deterministic, causal. If we want freedom and knowledge, we
must wrest it from nature’s grasp, and as regards the knowledge of human nature, with
which we are really concerned here, nature fights back against us. For it is our role,
our function, our ‘purpose’, as far as nature is concerned, to be dumb agents of its
processes. And nothing demonstrates this fact more, than the truth that religion is an
eternal feature of human existence, thus far. Hopefully, together, we can change this,
for good.

Finally then, I suppose we must recognise that because of the situation we find
ourselves in, living in a world where religion persists, atheist science is what it says, it
is about making an assumption that religion is the eternal enemy of knowledge ; if
science is God, religion is the Devil.
The war against religion has to be the rallying cry of all true scientists. The
total eradication of all religion from the face of the earth, has to be the
minimumrequirement aimed at by all scientists. We begin by insisting on a separation
of science and religion in the universities, so that universities exist that ensure all
people with any religious affiliation or sympathies are excluded, and only institutions
following the same rigorous rules would be part of the circle of knowledge, instead of
the exact opposite, which is the current state of affairs, where religious foundations
poison secular centres of learning, so that all is puss and corruption. It would be nice
if denominational schools were abolished, instead of taxes being poured into their
expansion as happens now. Ideally all religious institutions would be outlawed, the
dismantling of all places of worship should be prosecuted in an ideal, free world.
Take it slow, work our way up, gradually, there must be light at the end of the tunnel.
Ah, we can dream. We must insist that a world in which people call themselves Jews,
Christians, Muslims, Nazis, Communists, or by whatever political name, is a world in
which science cannot, and does not exist. This is an ideal, a bit like the medical
profession declaring anintent to do away with death ! But we have to start
somewhere.
 The task is futile of course, if it were not then we would not be in this horrible
position of having to seek freedom from the fascism of religious belief. Religion
exists for a reason, and I am about to tell you what that reason is, if you want to know,
if not, stop reading now. I have no desire to communicate with anyone, except
atheists who think exactly as I think, as indicated in this prefatory opening.

PART 1

SUPERORGANICS

Chapter I
The Oil and the Water of Social Life
 The Capacity for Sociality

That man is social animal is an observable fact : humans everywhere live in groups,
which range in size from small bands and tribes to states comprising hundreds of millions of
inhabitants. When such groups disintegrate the constituent individuals do not then live on their
own or with their immediate families, but in sections of the original group which may then
become independent in their own right. The size and cooperative division of labour achieved
by humans is one of our distinguishing characteristics, found in no other species where each
of the members potentially reproduces sexually. Such complex sociality is not an inherent
prediction of evolutionary theory : in contrast the expectation that selection will generally act
most strongly on the lower levels of vehicle indicates that organisms will only live in groups
in exceptional circumstances.

(Homo Biologicus, Charles Elworthy, 1993, p.101)

Oil and water cannot occupy the same space at the same time, if we try to
force them to do so we end up with an emulsion in which the qualities of the two
fluids are more or less compromised, but where one fluid, the natural spontaneous
fluid, destroys the refined properties of the other. Our opening remarks on the nature
of our topic,suggests a similar contrast exists where religion and the knowledge of
tangible reality are concerned. These two ways of knowing reality cannot occupy the
same space at the same time without effecting one another in such a way that the
natural spontaneous product of human nature, which is religion, always destroys the
refined product which is science.
When we impose an accommodation between religious knowledge and real
knowledge we create a kind of intellectual emulsion, a metaphysics, which, according
to common usage, is neither religion nor science, but which exists to serve religion by
subverting science, and therefore is best understood as a facet of religion. Philosophy
in general, like metaphysics, especially when produced by academic philosophers—
who are trained to foil the attainment of truth in order to preserve mystery—tends to
be an emulsion of the same intellectual kind. I mentioned Evolution as a Religion in
the preface, by Mary Midgley, and a copy of this book arrived today. It is in fact a
philosophy text, it was published in 1985 and is one of many such works, from all
sorts of fields, that were struggling to suppress the scientific impulse released by
Edward Wilson in 1975, with his publication of Sociobiology : The New Synthesis.
Wilson proved to be a false dawn, a let down in the long run, but that is another story ;
and lets face it, the man was a professional academic ! What hope of anything but let
down from such quarters ? Midgley’s work is not a Creationist text, as I suspected it
could be, but it is of the same nature, promoting religious sentimentalism while
denouncing scientific reason. She uses the scientific authority’s hate term of ‘Social
Darwinist’ for people like ourselves, who want a genuine scientific account of
humanity that recognises that human society is a facet of nature, indistinguishable in
terms of its organic nature, from any other facet of nature. This phrase is something
to be on your guard against when following a genuine scientific account of human
nature, based on the knowledge that humans are a superorganic mammal. The enemy
has had many decades with all the resources in the world at its disposal to help it
thwart the pursuit of knowledge, so that all its strategies are firmly in place,
barricading religion against any assault any lone worker can ever hope to devise. The
accusation of Social Darwinism is the foundation of their mindless attacks whenever
anyone tries to apply science to society in a genuine, that is a biological manner.
Social Darwinism has many negative ramifications built into it, all due entirely to the
malignant work of the priests of theocracy—from Darwin to Hitler and all the way
down—so that professional scientists and their cronies spit venom when they use this
phrase. Which goes to show just how terrible Darwin was for science, for atheism
and hence for freedom. But of course this was Darwin’s job, the purpose for which he
was created by the natural forces of theocratic order. Philosophy has always been the
backbone of theocracies. Philosophers are always people to treat with maximum
contempt : science is all that deserves any credit from anyone interested in knowledge
of reality. I am pained to call myself a philosopher, except there is a get out of
conundrum free clause for me, bearing in mind that we live in an absolute theocracy, a
world where there is no science, so that, bizarrely, an inversion occurs where the
radical, independent philosopher, harking back to the original philosophers of science,
the people who searched for knowledge in the ancient world before scientific
knowledge was methodically corrupted, because it was yet to be established on firm
ground, suddenly becomes the only hope of freedom in the search for truth in a so
called scientific age.
We shall often talk about all sorts of things that are not religion, but which,
because they exist solely to serve the continuing existence of religion, we shall simply
call religion anyway, because it is reasonable, and pleases us to do so. So that all
science today is in reality religion, as it always was in the past. We live today in an
absolute theocracy, a society in which there is no free access to knowledge because
religion must be preserved intact, as the basis of social authority. If we look at
science this characterisation does not appear at all reasonable, it seems quite
ridiculous, but if we address ourselves to the scientists then the exact opposite is true.
The demeanour of scientists in their pursuit of their subjects, is indistinguishable from
that of a priest in a church, their dogma is sacred to them, and nothing will budge
them from their bigoted and ignorant ways.
A classic case is that of Richard Dawkins, who clings to the ludicrous idea that
the only way to understand evolution is through the material substance of genes,
bolstered by the inviolable principle that evolution has no purposive, no forward
acting momentum. If it is not possible to associate a gene directly with the creation of
a feature of existence, then that feature does not exist as a natural product of
evolution ! No more ignorant and mule headed man ever pranced about behind a
pulpit than the rampant, self-styled atheist, Richard Dawkins : the Gatekeeper of the
Theocracy, to give him the title he deserves, by the standards of Atheist Science.
Science may not appear to be religion, but scientists most certainly appear to be
priests. Our only purpose in bringing oil and water to mind was to provide a
visualisation that makes the point clearly, namely that religion and science cannot
occupy the same space at the same time, aside from this simple proposition we mean
to extract nothing more from this analogy.

But I do have another little analogy to help you visualise this last tricky idea,
that science is religion. Our difficulty is justifying the idea that something which is
not religion, such as science, can be called religion, without making ourselves
contemptible by asking too much of our audience, most of whom will be as keen as
mustard to ridicule us, without any encouragement from ourselves. I think in this case
any pretence of deep seriousness, mimicking the pretence of those who think that
because they are validated by society that means we are stupid enough to think they
are valid in fact, would be a waste of time, because the ideas offered here are so far
beyond the pale of current thinking, in all sorts of ways, that we are lost if we
pussyfoot around. Therefore we must be brash and bold, go out on a limb as befits
our own inclination and let the sparks fly where they will. And so we say, science is
religion. And to aid the noviciate in atheism grasp the logic of this incongruous
remark, think of this. If we were to say that ‘escape’ is the primary objective of a
bank robbery, would we be right ? Absolutely not. ‘Money’ is the primary object of
committing bank robberies. But think of all those movies we have seen in which
thieves conspire to commit such crimes. Ninety nine percent of the movie is about
how to pull off the snatch without getting caught. The money is the goal, but what of
it, it is the escape that counts for everything.
And so it is with religion. Religion is a simple thing, as we shall see shortly,
and in its simplicity religion becomes an object to be possessed, the ‘cash’, the
‘prize’, that everything else exists to realise. Science is done so that religion can be
possessed ; just as escape is prioritised so that excessive wealth can be stolen. It is not
just that by controlling science so that religion is safe from corruption, that science
must be made a slave to religion, made into religion, as we claim. But since religion
is in actual fact all about social power, about the possession of society by becoming
the ‘mind’ of the superorganism, the material side of science is also useful to those
who need science to be castrated. So that science cannot be dismissed entirely. The
Chinese Empire is said to of fallen to the West because it adopted a strategy of
minimal technological development, which produced a superorganism with great
longevity, but which ultimately, just meant eventual death by incorporation, when
another superorganic form picked up the power of practical knowhow, and made that
power its own. So we could say that what religion does by creating false knowledge
such as Darwinism—by corrupting science—is to rob the bank of human nature,
where the corruption of knowledge is the escape plan that allows the priests to enjoy
their ill gotten gains in peace and security. But treachery is what nature always uses
to tease its pet projects, its life forms, since life feeds on life, so we should not hate
religion for this, we should just destroy it, and do something better.
I do not want to become distracted from my present argument, but having
mentioned the position of China in the modern historical context I have to take notice
of the fact that China is now emerging as a new global power. We want to think about
such matters scientifically, not politically. Once a superorganism is dead, it cannot be
reborn. China was incorporated into Western culture, the former independent Chinese
superorganism died in the process. The re-emergence of China is portrayed in
political terms, as if old China still existed, but it does not, its essence, its core
identity, has been ‘stolen’—one more raid on the vault of human nature—expressed
more scientifically, it has been replaced by an alien identity, if you like, by ‘our’
identity in fact. China is now a ‘slave’ of what we call Western Civilisation, or, again,
more correctly, China is now an integral part of the living, global superorganism that
bears the core identity of Western Civilisation. Although of course, we are not
supposed to think in these organic terms. Our culture trains our minds to think
historically, then pundits of all kinds, having undergone the same social induction
experience themselves, feed us appropriate stories that conform to the dictates of the
universal training programme. But we will have to wait until later to elucidate the
logic behind this reasoning. For now we may just note that the implications of a true
science of human nature are vast, hence we have not attained the freedom to pursue
such knowledge as yet.

The inflexible mantra of the ‘gene’.

Having berated the famous evolutionary scientist for his total

miscomprehension of his own subject, it is only right that I explain the issue before
continuing. By following the argument of Dawkins given in his The Genius of
Darwin series on Channel Four in the summer of 2008, we learn that his ideas are
based on a rigid adherence to the prophet of evolution Charles Darwin, who
revealedthat nature is a process of ‘natural selection’. From this show we learnt that
genes are the sole means of creating life forms or living structure of any kind.
Therefore we may surmise that genes produce a bird’s wings, but not the specific acts
of flight that these wings enable, acts of the flight are produced by the action of the
bird usingits wings. The fact that a bird chooses to fly over a river one day, and over a
house the next, is not controlled by nature. There are no genes in the bird that oblige
it to fly in one direction one minute, and in another direction the next minute ; these
specifics are subject to the freewill of the bird, as influenced by prevailing conditions.
This interpretation of his idea of the evolutionary process, we deduce from the manner
of Dawkins’ sermons on evolution. So the power of flight is not a product of
evolution, we might be tempted to say. I am sure Dawkins would not say this, but it is
easy to make words weave this silly statement in a way that sounds reasonable, based
on what Dawkins preaches. When it comes to describing how people act, this
silliness is what words alwaysweave, especially when used by scientists. A scientist
like Dawkins exemplifies the point, despite being the best we have in terms of
promoting a mechanistic idea of life, while also indicating, as he should, that there is a
war raging between religion and science.
Our discussion of bird flight directed by freewill is both reasonable and
irrelevant, because flying behaviour is so closely related to the possession of wings
that even Dawkins would surely admit that the genes are responsible for the day to
day behaviour of the bird, and we have no need to claim that birds have freewill. But
in the case of humans the same basic question is miraculously transformed. In
humans nature has created an individual physiology that has a highly specialised
behavioural function, so that nature has created, in human form, a kind of sentient
brick, a unit of living architecture that is given the instinct to build social structure,
just as a bird is given the instinct to fly. The equivalent physical attribute of human
nature, to that of the bird’s wing, is the power of speech. Just as a bird’s wings oblige
a bird to fly, so human speech obliges humans to form social structures. Thus a bird
must fly because it has wings, and humans mustknit themselves together into social
structures to the maximum extent of their potential to combine socially, that has been
built into them by evolution, as seen in the physiology of human bodies. Thus as
genes create flight in birds, so genes create all social structure and social activity in
humans. But Dawkins is oblivious to the connection between the form of an animal
created by its genes, and the product of an animal’s form ; or at least he pretends to be
when his chosen animal is of the human variety. That degree of stupidity in one so
clever seems incredible, and we are driven to assume he is just a regular lying priest,
of the kind we always find behind a pulpit. Although we must remember that as a
professional scientist Dawkins is part of a huge social structure, that has the biological
function of controlling knowledge. This structure has made Dawkins what he is, it
selected him for the role he plays as a leading component within the academic
structure that made him. Therefore we are not accusing a personof dishonesty when
we indicate he is nothing more than a lying priest. The dishonesty is a facet of
institutional structure, created by nature for strictly physiological purposes, from
whence it is imbued into all those that the academic structure influences and employs.

The first and most obvious natural endowment concerned in speech is

that peculiar organization of the larynx, trachea, and mouth, which enables us
to produce the various sounds required. Man started at first with this
organization ready for use, a constitution of the atmosphere adapted for the
sounds which that organization was calculated to produce, and, lastly, but not
 leastly, as will afterwards be more particularly shown, a mental power within,
prompting to, and giving directions for, the expression of ideas. Such an
arrangement of mutually adapted things was as likely to produce sounds as an
Eolian harp placed in a draught is to produce tones. It was unavoidable that
human beings so organized, and in such a relation to external nature, should
utter sounds, and also come to attach to these conventional meanings, thus
forming the elements of spoken language. The great difficulty which has been
felt was to account for man going in this respect beyond the inferior animals.
There could have been no such difficulty if speculators in this class of subjects
had looked into physiology for an account of the superior vocal organization
of man, and had they possessed a true science of mind to show man possessing
a faculty for the expression of ideas which is only rudimental in the lower
animals. Another difficulty has been in the consideration that, if men were at
first utterly untutored and barbarous, they could scarcely be in a condition to
form or employ language—an instrument which it requires the fullest powers
of thought to analyze and speculate upon. But this difficulty also vanishes
upon reflection—for, in the first place, we are not bound to suppose the fathers
of our race early attaining to great proficiency in language, and, in the second,
language itself seems to be amongst the things least difficult to be acquired, if
we can form any judgment from what we see in children, most of whom have,
by three years of age, while their information and judgment are still as
nothing, mastered and familiarized themselves with a quantity of words,
infinitely exceeding in proportion what they acquire in the course of any
subsequent similar portion of time.

(Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, Robert Chambers, 3rd Ed. 1845,
pp. 217 – 218. First pub. 1844.)

Vestiges was the really radical, liberating work,that epitomised the need for the
theocracy to come forth with some miscreant pseudo scientist like Darwin. Here we
see that Chambers was so much more advanced in 1844 than we are today, for unlike
modern scientists, he was aware that language was a natural feature of human
physiology. A million years of research could not improve on what Chambers says
about speech here, there is nowhere else to go, except backwards. Just as, once it was
proclaimed that the Earth not at the centre of the universe, but rather, it was a planet
attached to a star, no amount of work could add to this fact, as an all inclusive
statement of the nature of the Earth,as a celestial object. All the work done since
Chambers’ time has enabled us to move progressively backwards, into an ever deeper
state of abject stupidity and ignorance regarding our true nature as an organism. So
that the significance of Chambers’ simple observations on the nature of speech as
definitive of human nature, is now completely lost. We now no longer know that
speech is made by nature, we think we make it ourselves !

Knowledge cannot advance beyond completion.

Without such retrogression in science, religion could not survive. So there it

is, with the power of language, anything can be achieved in terms of deception. That
is what language exists for ; as wings exist to enable flight, speech exists to enable
deception, with a view inducting individuals into the superorganic being.
 Aside from the inflexible mantra of the ‘gene’ as the sole vehicle for creating
living structure, the other fixed absolutism of the Darwinian dogma, that Dawkins
preaches, is that there can be no purposein evolution. Evolution is a process of ‘blind
chance’, that selects minuscule advances on a point by point basis, that accumulates
change over great lengths of time, to produce organisms adapted to an environment
that has selected the random changes occurring in the genes. This dualistic process
whereby random mutation occurs and environmental conditions select from the
resulting assortment of possibilities, crudely mimics human life by placing nature in
the position of man the artificer. It is a very simplistic, quite frankly childish notion,
that Darwin openly made use of by taking our practice of selective breeding in
animals as a model for much of his reasoning.
This system of gene based chance, organised by a selector, establishes a very
particular constraint on how life evolves. A constraint that means Darwinism must be
wholly and entirely wrong, because there is no way we can apply Darwin’s idea of
evolution to humans. And that makes no sense whatever. Darwin used humans as the
model for nature, which means that Darwin made Nature in man’s image, resulting in
a model of life that has no place for man within it, meaning man has to make himself.
The logic behind Darwin’s model of evolution placed man in the position
reserved by theologians for God the prime mover, a necessary being ; “a necessary
being is a being that must exist and cannot not-exist”, (Russell, Bertrand, The Existence of
God, in Why I am Not a Christian, 1957, p. 149.) whatever that stupidity means ! This
scientifically debilitating constraint, carefully built into Darwin’s theory of species
formation, is vital to the preservation of religion, for precisely the same reason that it
removes the evolution of humans from the clutches of science. A result that comes as
no surprise to the discerning atheist, since : Humans must be the source of their own
social actions if they are to have the power of freewill under God.
Under Darwin’s scheme the viability of this necessity for human freewill is
retained, for Darwin ensured that science had no deterministic ability regarding the
matter of human creativity. Darwin’s mantra of chance means that no particular life
force is involved in the creation of new species, therefore nothing purposive about
evolution has determined how humans have come to be as they are. Hence any
argument that seeks to say there ispurpose in human life, is free to do so, science, as
constructed by Darwin, can neither affirm nor deny such a claim. Darwin therefore
succeeded in sterilizing science, by creating conditions under which science and
religion could sing along in harmony, each proclaiming the freedom to do and think as
they please, in the certain knowledge that never the twain shall meet, because while
science chooses to be rigorous, religion exploits the loophole left by Darwin, that
allows people to be wishful. Leaving loopholes in the law is surely an ancient art,
which we may be sure our rulers are masters of.
Thanks to Darwin, both forms of absolute knowledge are rendered nothing
more than different ways of knowing the same thing, that cantherefore both occupy
the same space at the same time, that is they can exist in the same society at the same
time. But this appearance is a deception, obviously, as we saw Lubbock
acknowledging above, when saying that religion and science cannot be at variance
with each other. Darwin made the impossible possible by decoupling humans from
the process of evolution, making sure that humans had no place in nature, with the
ultimate objective of this trick being to decouple science from religion. However, as
we know from Dawkins insistent nagging, the supreme service that Darwin performed
for humanity, that makes him the scientific genius he is, is that he finally placed man
firmly within nature. How excruciating a deception is this ? It is as if the very man
who raped and murdered your mother has adopted you, and convinced you that he
captured and destroyed the criminal that broke your heart, so that you end up loving
the person you should hate most of all. Double jeopardy ! And this is precisely what
atheists do today. Darwin is their hero, yet it was Darwin that destroyed radical
atheism, that was battering at the door of the theocracy, thereby saving the absolute
theocracy which inflicts such almighty misery on us all, all the time, such that listing
its crimes would take longer than the planet has left to allow for the task.
Evolution is like every other process in the universe, it is driven by associated
forces that relate to the flow of energy that creates material structure. Evolution in
life is therefore driven by force, not chance, and there is nothing chancy about
material development driven by force. If there were then scientists could not predict
anything about our universe. So the evolution of life is as amenable to the predictive
ability of science as any other feature of existence, and it follows that humans cannot
escape this condition of existence. Which means that religion, since it persists, must
be a product of our evolved, biological, human nature, that we can understand in the
same way that science allows us to understand anything else in existence.
An example of absolute certainty in human futures is no doubt of interest to
all, so I will give you some idea of such a case, although you will not like it. Warfare
is as inherent a feature of human existence as religion, only we do not tend to harp on
about the this fact because war is supposed to be bad, whereas religion is supposed to
be good. Given the knowledge people possessed regarding the status of human
society as a superorganism in the nineteenth century, they could of predicted, with
absolute certainty, that world war was imminent. In turn, after the close of the last
world war in 1945, a future world war based on global terrorism, which began just a
few years ago, could also of been predicted with absolute certainty. When such
events occur, is not fixed, but given the stage of development of our superorganism,
the occurrence of such regular behaviour is predictable, for very precise reasons.
So, what of future warfare ? This is not the place to answer such a question,
there are important aspects of human existence to go into in detail before we can
discuss warfare in a meaningful way. But I felt the question about predicting human
futures was hanging in the air, so I wanted to at least acknowledge the tractability of
providing definite answers to such questions.

II

Immiscible knowledge

The different qualities of knowledge as compared to fluids, are considerable,

so we cannot labour our analogy without making it contemptible. The one point we
do want to preserve from our analogy is that regarding space and time. Lets elaborate
upon our subject by giving it a context. Forms of knowledge are always features of
society, this is true even where we have none human animals in mind. The old
matriarchal elephant’s knowledge of the waterholes that will hold out when water is in
short supply is a form of practical, or natural knowledge, existing in a social context,
from which the group benefit as one. This knowledge must be passed down the
generations through shared experience, so its possession must lead to the equivalent
of what we may call a ‘social mind’ when speaking of humans. We can also see from
this example that shared experience creates ‘culture’ that is part of a living economy,
generated through a pool of information contained within an organic body.
Information, as culture, is essential to life, it creates social structure. Social structure
is just as much a living structure as that which we consist of as living breathing
animals, but it is a socially shared life form. Think of a town which is lived in, with
all the minute complexity that keeps it going, not just the people on the streets, but all
the services that go with the people’s presence. Then think of a ruined town like
Pompeii, a tiny portion of a human superorganism’s exoskeleton, the whole beast long
since extinct, but still a near relative of ours, dug from the rock strata, and filled with
meaning to us, just as the skeleton of a dinosaur can be, because while such ruins are
lifeless, they show us how they had once been quite literally alive. The cultural
information that creates living social structure does not consist of genetic information,
but it is rooted in the genetic information that enables the creation of living social
structure. This point about the creation and nature of culture being rooted in a body
of shared information, is of great importance to an organicist model of social
existence such as we must apply to humans when we recognise that humans are a
superorganic mammal.
Religious and scientific knowledge exist in a social context, so that when we
say these two cannot occupy the same space at the same time we do not have some
airy fairy notion in mind, not at all. We mean that these two forms of knowledge
cannot share the same socialspace at one and the same time, where, by ‘social space’
what we have in mind is the entire space occupied by the whole of society. Therefore
we do not mean that we cannot have science and religion existing in the same
portionof social space, such as a university. We mean that religion cannot exist
anywhere in society, while at the same time science also exists somewherein the same
society. And, although it will become evident as we go on, we must explain now, that
we do not think of a society in the political terms used in ordinary parlance, where
societies begin and end at political frontiers. For us the term ‘society’ refers to a
biological structure, a superorganism, which is defined by one religious identity,
although that one identity may appear in an infinite variety of forms. This is a very
specific statement which carries with it all sorts of implications. It is from a
recognition of the reality of complexity within uniformity, focused upon social
identity, that our subject derives much of its interest for us as atheist philosophers of
human nature.

III

Religion is identity

Why be so absolutist about this question of coexistence ?

We are not beinganything. Things are the way they are. We only describe
what is. Religion exists for a very specific biological reason, that has to do with the
nature of the human being as a superorganic species of mammal. Religion provides
the superorganism with its identity, a function that imposes an all or nothing condition
in relation to the entire reach of social space, which must be defined by one uniform
identity throughout. The uniformity of identity throughout the being of a living
organism is essential to all life forms, to all organisms that is. I do not know what
current status organisms have in terms of a scientific definition, but the subject of
identity has an important place in our discussion of the biological nature of religion
and why religion and science cannot exist in the same space and time, which means
the topic of identity is worth spending a little time on.
 Life is information

The specific idea that humans are a form of superorganic mammal is unique to
me, as far as I know, but the general notion that humans are a superorganism, has a
long history. In one form or another, friendly or antagonistic, the idea of the ‘social
organism’ enervated the science of sociology prior to the First World War, and this
fact will form a major part of our studies as we go along, but I introduce this historical
note now because I want to draw on the work of a past scholar to assist my
examination of organic identity. The use of old work to aid present studies is justified
for two reasons. In the first place I made it quite clear in the preface that we live in an
absolute theocracy, where academia exists to ensure that religion survives, while at
the same time science can only exist in a neutral, sterile form. Some evidence of this
fact regarding our present interest in the nature of identity in living forms, came a
couple of years ago from the unpleasant experience of talking to a couple of young
students of biology who had recently obtained their degrees, and, with only their
professional attributes in mind, two more ignorant, contemptible young men, you
could never wish to find. Both claimed to be atheists, a necessary part of their
biologist’s disguise, but they wore their atheism like a name tag intended to tell
otherswho they were, it meant nothing to them. Still, they certainly confirmed the
idea that we live in a world where all science is corrupt, and the practitioners of the
craft are trained to be priests of their subject.
I asked these two what life was. As bold as brass and bursting with
enthusiasm, they spoke like two true believers, mindlessly they declared the great
mystery of life was inscrutable, saying that they could not tell me what life was, that
no one could elucidate this wondrous thing. I might of been in a church, rather than
an ale house. I was pleasantly pissed by this hour, we were in the pub, near midnight,
I had had my skinful and was in no mood to converse with a couple of intellectual
degenerates. When I gave them down the banks, they called upon me to tell themwhat
life was, so I did. It is not as if the question is mysterious, any true biologist would
have no difficulty answering this question ifwe lived in a free society where true
science existed. I said “Life is information.” They were silent, they evidently
recognised the potential of such an answer and were therefore unable to dismiss it at
once, and obviously they would hardly accept this idea either, since they, the
authorities on the matter, had just indicated that the question was forever beyond
resolution by humanity. However, this is my working hypothesis, that the nature of
life is information, that information is unique to living matter and therefore defines
life. Which then carries us over to the next element of such a discussion, What is
information ?
This is another large subject that attracts significant attention, we find talk of
data versus information for example. We have indicated that life comes into existence
when matter starts containing information, this perforce establishes a feedback
dynamic whereby life in turn must tell us what information is. It does require the
expertise of a professional scientist to discern the complex difference between
reactions occurring in a none living chemical soup and the reactions occurring within
a living body, and I am not going to pretend to be able to work on such material
distinctions. The most basic idea about existence that I know of, coming from the
physicists, is that energy and matter are equivalent to one another, in a mutually
transmutable sense. Where energy is a measurable phenomenon, that is therefore as
real as matter, even though we can only experience matter directly, and energy
indirectly through the mediation of matter. My working view of the nature of
information builds upon this founding conception of reality. The subatomic world of
the physicist has order, and this becomes coherently evident at a level readily
perceived by our minds when the periodic table reveals a series of distinct elements
arranged in the manner of a regular structural hierarchy.
Nuclear patterns are structural, their order is fixed within certain limits,
relative to the elements they compose, otherwise the elements would not be elements
at all ! Elements do not share information in order to come by their arrangement, but
the particles of which elements are composed are interchangeable between elements,
and they are self organising due to the constraints imposed by subatomic forces.
Subatomic forces are therefore the logical precursors of the determinants of living
structure that we call ‘information’. Which suggests that information is the life force,
hence : life is information.
If we want to extrapolate from the physicist’s world to the biologist’s world,
we might say that just as inanimate structure is organised via a hierarchy of subatomic
forces, so life structures must also emerge through the evolution of a hierarchical
array of life forces, revealed to us through a hierarchy of information types. Each
information type would naturally have a fixed quanta of life energy associated with it,
or each information type might denotea spectrum of life energy, with which types of
life could be associated. This would explain why life gradually evolved, first
painfully slowly as bacteria, then explosively as multicellular organisms, where the
latter explosion would indicate the realisation of a new information spectrum coming
on line in life on earth. We might even try to make sense of our exceptional
abilitieson the same basis, by saying that the power of human speech amounted to the
attainment of a new spectrum of life energy. Given that we have said that life is
information, this conception of human language would fit our model of life perfectly.
Although we would have to acknowledge that other superorganic forms existed that
must of transcended the genetic limit by producing symbolic information systems
capable of creating superorganic structure. Nonetheless the shift from pheromone
based symbolism, for example,to articulate speech is in itself a significant transition in
terms of energy involved in creating the genetic physiology of language, and the
potential for energy exploitation resulting from this evolutionary development. And
this augmentation of the information energy dynamic shows in the result nature has
achieved by producing an animal capable of creating its own mass extinction event,
threatening to exterminate itself, and most other life forms onthe planet. What nature
took a billion years to achieve, humanity has the power to undo in a jiffy ! If that is
not prowess, what is it ?
I do however hate to follow in the footsteps of those who relish finding ways
to make humans unique and exclusive, which, talk of a new transcendental level of
life energy, is a tad likely to suggest. Therefore I would use this model to pin us down
to the order of natural beings, while still allowing us to make sense of our truly
astounding capabilities in a naturalistic sense by getting at the underpinnings of what
makes life life, and hence humans human. In this way we humbly make our own
glory a reflection of universal magnificence, that has been show to us most
dramatically, perhaps, by the astronomers, whose work takes us to far off places and
shows us whole galaxies in the act of formation, and collapse ; and many other
wonders besides. With visions of such awesome creative power in mind, we can find
a connection, when we make energy the basis of our powers too. We are remarkable
beings, but the glory is not ours. Nor can it be that of some lame doll like figure
acting in imitation of our earthly prowess, cooked up within the amniotic phase of our
development. Our glory lies in the power of the universe which we are part of, we
need no further reason to bask in the delight of existence than we can find by seeking
to understand this connection, through science as a way of knowing reality, and
through this way of knowing science, and no other.
 With information as the life force, we are led to suggest that we might have a
genetic expression of life force and a linguistic expression of the life force, each
expression generating different types of living structure, namely somatic and social.
This same idea, if it were valid in reality—only scientists could say—could be used at
a higher level of discrimination, regarding the structural organisation of life forms
based on patterns of energy affinities, such that we might associate types of animal
with expressions of life force, revealed by the way life forms received or expressed
information, which would also have to be regarded as an expression of the manner in
which their physiology exploits energy. Such variation could be physical, as in flying
or walking ; it could be sensory, as in olfactory or sight ; and it could be linguistic, as
in pheromonetransmission or speech. Obviously these factors are not mutually
exclusive, and plants must not be ignored in the discrimination of life hierarchies
either. Each of these expressions of life force would be associated with different
types of life structure, but, as with regular physiological categories,energy
associations would reveal certain affinities in those creatures that shared them. By
relating life forms to one another on the level of energy affinity patterns, we would
perhaps discern the affinity of species through their natures, rather than simply
through their overt forms, where an ability to relate species to each other on this basis
would reveal a deeper quality of the life process that we call ‘evolution’.
From our point of view, where we want to reduce humans to the level of a
purely natural object, this approach to species definition, through the essence of their
being, rather than via the superficiality of their exclusively genetic form, is crucial to
any claim we have to be working on a scientifically valid basis. Thus we could say
that while humans have a physiological affinity with anthropoid apes, arising from the
genetic level of their information spectrum, they have a far deeper, essential affinity
with insects, that have also evolved a complex physiology pattern across a range of
individuals in order to give them a corporate nature, evolved to bring a superorganism
into existence, by developing physiology that realises a new symbolic spectrum of the
life force.
The above couple of paragraphs are a little self indulgence, do not give
yourself brain ache over what I say here. I occasionally find my ideas reaching a
critical point of fluency in my own mind, which I like to follow. That said, as
tantalising as I find the above myself, the fact is that they are just philosophical
musings on a theme, and only the arduous work of gifted professional scientists could
ever hope to see if the scheme of life I have just elaborated could have any meaning in
reality. Aside from the detail however, these thoughts do reveal important aspects of
the problem anyone faces who would try to argue that humans are a true form of
superorganic mammal, because we have most definitely been here before with the
idea of the social organism, which was well and truly hounded to death by the
scientific establishment, and is now thoroughly disgraced. I say this is because we
live in an absolute theocracy, where this true idea of human nature had to be destroyed
to preserve religion, upon which social power is based, for perfectly natural reasons.
But whatever the reasons, the fact remains that if we would resurrect this genuine
science of humanity,then we must do a far more thorough job of advancing science
than has ever been done before.

A Note on “The Social Organism.”—Herbert Spencer insisted on

regarding a human societary form as a “social organism,” and the metaphor is
not only suggestive but convenient—suggestive because it is profitable to
biologist and sociologist alike to follow out the analogies between an
 organism and a society, convenient because there is among organisms—in
aggregates like sponges, in perfected integrates like birds—a variety
comparable to the diverse grades of society.
It may be questioned, however, whether we need any other designation
for society than the word society supplies, and whether the biological
metaphor, with physical associations still clinging to it, is not more illusory
than helpful. For the true analogy is not between society and an individual
organism, but between human society and those incipient societies which were
before man was. Human society is, or ought to be, an integrate—a spiritual
integrate—of organisms, of which the beehive and the ants’ nest, the
community of beavers and the company of monkeys, are like far-off
prophecies. And in these, as in our own societies, the modern conception of
heredity leads us to recognise that there is a very real unity even between
members physically discontinuous.
The peculiarity of human society, as distinguished from animal
societies, depends mainly on the fact that man is a social person, and knows
himself as such. Man is the realisation of antecedent societies, and it is man’s
realisation of himself as a social person which makes human society what it is,
and gives us a promise of what it will be. As biologists, and perhaps as
philosophers, we are led to conclude that man is determined by that whole of
which he is a part, and yet that his life is social freedom ; that society is the
means of his development, and at the same time its end ; that man has to some
extent realised himself in society, and that society has been to some extent
realised in man.

(The Study of Animal Life, J. Arthur Thomson, 4th Ed., 1917, pp. 98 – 99.
First pub. 1892.)

Todaywe are not just fighting against the open void of ignorance. We are in a
war with the very thing to which we must appeal for our validation. We must not only
declare our desire to destroy religion, but in actual fact, we must seek to destroy
science as it is known today. It is clear from the model of life as information, set out
above, that ourideas would do just that. So that just as religion must pervert science
in order to serve itself, so science now, must destroy science so called, if it would
exist for real.
I found the book from which the above passage is taken just yesterday, in a
local charity shop, and this passing dismissal of the idea that humans are part of
nature, that can be understood by science, appearing in a science textbook, written by
a famous and much published scientist, showsexactly what I have in mind when I talk
about the perversion of science by theocracy. No more religiously inspired statement
could ever be made by anyone, nor any less of a scientific statement about the nature
of humans either. All this prattle about the sanctity of the free willed individual, it is
truly revolting. Passages like this are extremely rare, appearing as this one does in a
popular textbook, around the cusp of the idea of the social organism’s eradication
from society, when authorities were forced to mention the idea because at that time
every man and his dog accepted that this idea, in the light of modern science, was self
evidently true—humans were obviously a superorganism just like bees and ants, only
grander. As soon as the idea could be dropped—out of sight, out of mind—it was,
and it has never been mentioned since, outside narrowly confined circles of interest.
Until Wilson’s Sociobiology that is, which resurrected it, after a fashion, and that is
why his 1975 publication caused such a furore, as scientists went into a frenzy trying
and suppress what they saw as a chink in their armour, threatening the theocracy with
the eruption of genuine science once again.
The above passage is a lovely find, revealing a terrible fact, thatwe are slaves
in our own world. It providesa glimpse of the final moments before the light of
reason was blotted out from our world, leaving us doomed to ignorance and brute
nature, just like the insects that Thomson blithely declares were nothing more than an
intimation of what we have become ! Whereas in fact, they are a perfect likeness of
ourselves ; blind, ignorant automatons, insensible to reason, infinitely amenable to
mindless programming ; leaving us beguiled into unimaginable depths of stupidity by
the extravagance of our own intelligence !

Tabulated patterns of elements then, evidently represent the distribution of

energy in material form. My working idea with regard to the appearance of
information in material structures, which I say indicates the appearance of life, is that
living matter has an ability to build structure that creates its own code for the further
extension of matter into ever more complex forms, that can extend access to the
potential energy of life. Hence evolution occurs in life as it does in the universe at
large, on the basis of energy, as we would expect. The ‘potential energy of life’is
confined to a narrow band of the energy spectrum, the sun is the main source, but
geothermal activity provides a known alternative. In essence life requires energy in a
sufficiently intense form. But once living matter has captured such energy from a
none living source of potential energy, in other words, once life has come into being,
life itself becomes the main source of potential life energy for the further elaboration
of the life code, from which living complexity can arise by building upon that code.
That code is dynamic information, as distinct from the fixed structural magnitudes
found in none living structure. Information is the medium that produces living
structure. We know this code as DNA, and information extends its codifying reach in
symbolic, or linguistic form, thereby forming superorganic, or what we call, social
structure.
Information is then a structural facet of living matter, that directs the flow of
energy toward the creation of living structure. This is my general theory of the nature
of life, based on the theory of the nature of information, which defines living matter.
This theory is simply reasoned out, philosophically, from all the brilliant work of
scientists, which they fail to put together into a coherent scheme, but which must be
part of a coherent natural order. I did however work my way backwards to this
position, after realising that humans were a superorganism. This meant that language
had to be a biological medium of superorganic being, that nature used to create
superorganic physiology. This in turn meant I had to make language part of an
organic information continuum, at one with the genetic continuum that the priests of
academia had made the limit of nature’s influence on the creation of life.
Not withstanding my provision of a theory of information as the foundation of
life, I prefer to put aside this provisional idea, since it is my personal concoction, and
suggest we do not really need to get so fundamental in order to pursue our subject.
We did not need to define life in order to define human nature, it helps, it is nice to do,
but it is not essential. And besides, as we have just seen, we cannot define life by way
of science as it exists today, because the theocracy has produced a sterile scientific
world precluding any such advances in knowledge,precisely in order to ensure that we
cannot define human nature in biological terms, so that all science is corrupted by the
demands of religious continuity. Hence, when we do come at the problem from the
opposite end, by discovering what human nature is first, and then using this key to
work backwards, to the foundation of life, we can make a fair, philosophically
informed, scientific suggestion as to what the nature of life is too, without all the
complications of the kind I have just entered into for the sole purpose of nurturing
your enjoyment and relaxation, as you settle into the strange world of reality.
Even so, I hope it is not being presumptuous to dismiss the interface between
life and none life,as being irrelevant to our discussion of the nature of life in terms of
information. Suggesting instead that we move up a gear and place ourselves firmly
within the realms of life, where we recognise true organisms as living wholes, so that
we can take a look at a definition of an organism. This definition, as I stated above,
comes from a scientist of the past, someone we are interested in because he was
significant in the promotion of the idea of social groups seen as living wholes, or
superorganisms. This definition of an organism comes from William Wheeler, in The
Ant-Colony as an Organism, Journal of Morphology, 1911.

As I wish to describe a peculiar type of organism, I may be asked,

before proceeding, to state more concisely what I mean by an organism. It is
obvious that no adequate definition can be given, because the organism is
neither a thing nor a concept, but a continual flux or process, and hence
forever changing and never completed. As good a formal definition as I can
frame is the following : An organism, is a complex, definitely coordinated and
therefore individualized system of activities, which are primarily directed to
obtaining and assimilating substances from an environment, to producing
other similar systems, known as offspring, and to protecting the system itself
and usually also its offspring from disturbances emanating from the
environment. The three fundamental activities enumerated in this definition,
namely nutrition, reproduction and protection seem to have their inception in
what we know, from exclusively subjective experience, as feelings of hunger,
affection and fear respectively.

(Wheeler, The Ant-Colony as an Organism, p. 308)

We see here the usual evasiveness of scientists when it comes to fundamental

questions to do with life. Wheeler addresses himself to the material structure of the
living object, and tries in vain to discover what all such objects have in common on
this mechanistic basis. If we desire to discover what defines all organisms, we only
need recognise what defines one such object, and then all will automatically possess
the same defining attribute. That attribute is, as I have said, ‘identity’, and in humans
this identity, today, comes from religion, the human organism being a superorganism
composed of a multitude of cellular elements, ourselves. The key to producing an
organism from none living material is to fix an identity within which the processes
that Wheeler describes can take place, and as we have seen this fixing process is
enabled through the initiation of a life force, realised in the transmission of energy via
a pattern of codification called ‘information’. The same thing applies to human
superorganisms as any other organisms, and religion, which is the product of
linguistic physiology, is the information medium that fixes the identity of the living
superorganism. Given this power of structural definition, it is clear that there can be
no compromise as to the information package defining identity, an organism can
hardly exist as a complex integrated structure if there is confusion about the
parameters of its unity.
The organism defining identity can be expressed in a myriad of forms within
the same organism, giving rise to complexity and structure, but it cannot be expressed
in forms that contradict one another, since this would give two divergent forms that
would be anathema to each other. Primary identity, in other words, cannot be
compromised. Which in human superorganisms means that religion cannot be
compromised. Hence : there cannot be both religion and science existing anywhere,
at the same time, in the same society. To be quite clear about this most important
principle of human nature, that explains precisely why religion prevails no matter
what, and is found everywhere that humans exist : this problem arises because
religion isidentity, pure and simple, and nothing else. Religion is Identity.
It follows from this fact that the key requirement for making a sterile science,
is that it should allow this unifying function of religion to be preserved in full working
order, so that science must not reveal the true nature of religion as the medium of
superorganic identity. This is why religious authority has been so bloody-minded
down the ages, and why the radical and amazing turnabout, in the shape of the
Darwinian Deception, has been necessary to resolve a very difficult issue, which we
are currently seeking to elucidate by creating a wholly alternate mode of science to
that created by Darwin, that is a holistic, philosophically informed science, that we
call ‘Atheist Science’. Atheist science must destroy religion, which means the death
of the superorganism we are part of. But the nature of superorganisms being what it
is, such a death as this, by our own hand, rather than by slave incorporation into
another religiously defined superorganism, as happened to the Chinese in recent
history—and to ourselves so long ago it is no longer remembered properly—should
only mean rebirth in a new form. This is why, although religions die, Religion never
dies, because the immortality of religion is rooted in the superorganic nature of human
superorganisms. But I do not see why this could not change in the future, if we truly
did become something more like the free willed things we like to brag about being.
Comparative immortality, relative to the death we experience as individuals, is
a feature of superorganic nature, because the superorganism has no independent
existence apart from that arising from the sum of its parts. So it cannot die as a
sentient being, in the same sense that it cannot live as a self conscious being. We need
to recognise that to us death means something very special, and entirely absurd, in
fact. We know that all living things die, but nonetheless when we speak of death we
really have in mind somethingpersonal, so that we confuse life with consciousness
and death with the end of consciousness. All of which thinking is so much drivel,
from a scientific viewpoint, although obviously functional in terms of keeping us
stupid, and subservient to the being we exist to serve. This created much confusion
amongst the old organicists, who could not make sense of the fact that the social
organism seemed real, but had no actual consciousness of its own, such as we have.
The difficulty here is one of perception, the inability to think about something that
you have no knowledge of, or conversely,the difficulty of ridding the mind of
something with which it is filled. We just cannot think about a sophisticated living,
animal organism, that is not self aware, because we think that self awareness defines
advanced organisms. But it does not, identity, and identity alone, defines an
organism, awareness has nothing whatever to do with the matter, and the idea that it
does is just one of the tricks nature plays on us to get us to use our intelligence to be
stupid, so that we can function more efficiently as sentient bricks, who automatically
obey an instinctive impulse to build social structure, no matter how detrimental it is to
us, or how much we hate the society wemake. Again, this obeisance of individuals to
society, was very obvious to people living in the age of free science, when everyone
knew that human society was a social organism. Such wisdom is obvious when you
know the truth, this is why the priests blinded us, by destroying science, because real
science meant understanding that we could not have the society we would wish for
without the masters losing their power over all humanity. The world wars were a
small price to pay to recover their footing by destroying true knowledge.
 The above deals with competition between religion and science, and since I
have just acquired a nasty little piece of religious propaganda arguing the exact
opposite case, in the guise of philosophy pretending to analyse science, I think we
should see what this degenerate author had to say. In Evolution as a Religion, chapter
two, Do science and religion compete ?, begins thus :—

The Wilberforce legend

Political feuds, however, are hardy plants, very difficult to weed out of a
controversy once they have got into it. And this particular controversy was
already distorted by animosities drawn from an older warfare, that which has
been conceived as raging between science and religion in the nineteenth
century, centrally over the theory of evolution. That seems to have been the
point at which the idea of evolution and to some extent of science generally,
began to be seen as immoral and inhuman, while scientists began, in reply, to
see notions of morality and humanity as anti-scientific and obscurantist. The
whole idea of this warfare is a very strange one, and it is part of our business
in this book to understand it better.
It is very interesting to notice how far later tradition has exaggerated
the Victorian dispute and distorted our view of its nature. As James Moore has
shown, it certainly did not appear at the time as raging between science and
religion, but as cutting straight across both. Darwin’s most serious opponents
by far were the official scientific establishment of his day and many of his
supporters, such as Charles Kingsley and H. G. Baden-Powell, were
clergymen — as were, after all, many of those scientists who had already
established the far from Biblical age of the earth.

(p. 10)

As ever, without coming at the question from the point of view that humans
are a superorganic mammal, wherein every facet of human existence serves the
existence of the superorganism, there is no way to make sense of anything, so we get
this interminable rigmarole discussing the failure of people to understand one another.
And we see this farce were clergymen are also accredited scientists ! I mean,what is
this ? Can a man who rapes women be a feminist ? What if a practicing criminal
wanted to be a police officer, would we say Why not ? Can a meat eater be a
vegetarian ? Ludicrous ! So how can anyone who is prepared to accept the right of
people to be religious, albeit that they are themselves atheists, be called a scientist ?
The idea is insane. True in Morocco the Chief of Police sends his subordinates to the
illegal cannabis farms to collect his bribes come the harvest season, so it is possible to
be a criminal and a police officer, and it is true that clergymen canbe scientists. But
how do we cope with such incongruity ? Well, that is what we are answering right
now, in this work.
If you take a course in academic philosophy you will of course have your
mind moulded to cope with such absurdity. Early on you will be taught the basics of
false logic, upon which you will be expected to build all your extended reasoning as
time goes on. For a start you will learn that a meat eater cannot be a vegetarian
because these are mutually exclusive terms, which simply cannot be used in this way
without making a nonsense of language. Evidently then, ideas are developed that
ensure that religion and science are not defined in a mutually exclusive manner. But
that is why I like to bring the definition of these two forms of knowing to a head by
saying that they are both about understanding reality, both are absolute, and as such
they cannot be accommodated to one another. Certainly a man who rapes women
canbe a feminist, What is to stop him ? He may become a feminist to gain access to
women and obtain their trust. Just as a criminal might think that becoming a police
officer would be a useful way of developing his professional skills. And likewise, we
find that religious groups are always extremely keen to know all about advances in
science, so that they can work out how to commit their natural crime, which is the
perversion of knowledge, from which they, as a group, obtain social power.
But the point is that even a reformed criminal could notbecome a police
officer. Checks revealing a criminal record would mean they would be rejected
during the admissions process. So why do universities not have charters that oblige
them to ensure that no one who is in any way tolerant of the right of people to belief
in God, or to follow any religion, shall be excluded from their institutions ? It makes
no sense, these are the places where science is done, where knowledge is established.
How could a police force function if it welcomed active criminals with open arms ? It
could not, criminals would come pouring through the gates, there would be no place
for honest people who wanted to fight crime. We would be living in a real life upside-
down, inside out, Alice in Wonderland. Yet this is the world we find in academia,
where religious people pack the halls and corridors of intellectual power, just as they
do in Parliament, which funds the universities and decides what the type of schools
we shall be forced to attend to undergo induction into society. There is no place left
for the honest person in any positions of power in our world, in other words, we live,
as I keep saying, in an absolute theocracy.
It follows from what we have said that the definition of science, as a technique
for investigating reality, is essential if it is to be possible for people who are religious
to be scientists. This allows them to know reality through their faith, while
investigating the reality of existence under God, through their techniques. And this is
exactly why we have devised a definition of science that precludes this neat little
arrangement,that the priests have got going amongst themselves. So that we say that
religion is a way of knowing reality, which everyone agrees it is, and that science is a
way of knowing reality too, which no one says it is, except philosophers of the school
of Atheist Science, which so far only includes me, but that is a start.
It is clear that Midgley is dead set on suppressing any idea that a war ever
existed between religion and science, let alone that one exists today ! Books like this
exist by the score, but nowhere, never, has a book been published suggesting the
opposite, it makes you wonder where she gets her idea that people are forever talking
about such a war. There are a couple of books from the nineteenth century about the
war between science and religion, but their avowed aim was to show that there is no
such war, just a misunderstanding, that had been overcome, exactly as Midgley is
seeking to do. No matter what the subject, there can only ever be one message, and
that has to be a message approved by the theocracy, you just cannot have messages at
odds with one another, authority cannot stand that kind of competition. Which sounds
familiar, since we already know that identities cannot conflict at the level of their core
principles, which shows that : all knowledge is an extension of the information of
identity. From which it follows that all knowledge must be made to conform to
religion, since religion is identity. The trouble is authority is forever attacking people,
and this gives rise to the idea that there is conflict, and then as time moves on the
propaganda machine kicks in and this kind of stuff from Midgley and an infinite
number of other paid lackeys, or to use the generic term ‘priests’, earn their highly
privileged places within the superorganic physiology by suppressing the truth, by
pretending to be reasonable and honest. And it always works, as far as I can tell. We
are told that religion changes to respond to new ideas, and this is true. But this
equates to nothing more than the criminal who learns to do credit card fraud instead of
safe cracking, so that nothing really changes, religion continues in absolute authority
and science remains as sterile and worthless as ever, as a way of knowing reality. We
need to do away with a society based on crime, we need a society based on truth.
But think about it, What is the alternative ? The alternative is for a subculture
to grow up which relentlessly talks about the war between authority and the people.
Or, we could do away with authority, and just have the people. Why won’t this last
option work ? As it happens I found another book yesterday, in another charity shop,
and I am delighted with it. I would not read such a book, but its subject is the
appearance of new elite class, and since the author was dealing with something all too
real, that he knew at first hand, his account is beautifully clear cut, and nice to dip
into. I have not spotted any brilliant statements to quote, but here is a snippet I
especially like :—

In history, it is not important who implements a process, it is only

important that the process be implemented. Such was the case in Russia and
other countries in which Communist revolutions took place. The revolution
created forces, leaders, organizations, and ideas which were necessary to it.
The new class came into existence for objective reasons, and by the wish, wits,
and action of its leaders.

2.

The social origin of the new class lies in the proletariat just as the
aristocracy arose in a peasant society, and the bourgeoisie in a commercial and
artisans’ society. There are exceptions, depending on national conditions, but
the proletariat in economically underdeveloped countries, being backward,
constitutes the raw material from which the new class arises.
There are other reasons why the new class always acts as the champion
of the working class. The new class is anti-capitalistic and, consequently,
logically dependent upon the working strata. The new class is supported by the
proletarian struggle and the traditional faith of the proletariat in a socialist,
Communist society where there is no brutal exploitation. It is vitally important
for the new class to assure a normal flow of production, hence it cannot ever
lose its connection with the proletariat.

(The New Class : An Analysis of the Communist System, Milovan Djilas,

1958, p. 41. First Pub. 1957.)

This is a political analysis, not a scientific analysis. As such it is highly

myopic and thoroughly biased. But the description is inherently organic, with its talk
of classes being rooted in an inert biomass from which the power is derived by
forging a conceptual link. This idea resonates very well with all that we have been
saying above about the nature of language as an expression of the life force, that
creates social structure through a medium of ideas ; religious, political, scientific and
any others you care to chuck into the mix, they are all the same, all ideas have exactly
the same purpose, they all throw out webs of linguistic life force that weave people
into a social structure, a superorganic physiology.
A special concern in ourwork is to make it clear that the purpose of religion is
to act as the foundation of social power, as seen from a political, conscious point of
view, but this fact arises from our superorganic physiology that obliges us to form
social structures. We say that religion exists to provide political power and this is
why religious people seek true knowledge, in order to ensure they can pervert it, to
preserve social power based on religious identity. When we speak like this we are
being political, as Djilas is in his account. We cannot avoid speaking in this political
manner because this is the language we all speak, but while there is this semi-
conscious motive force bringing about social outcomes, our great desire here is to
make the point that ultimately,these activities are totally beyond anyone’s control, or
even their consciousness. And this is the point that Djilas does not make, he
recognises the existence of a biomass, and an exploitative class, and the natural
dynamic between the two, which is recognised as a power base by those who find
they have acquired positions of power, usually by inheritance of one sort or another.
These are the people who form an elite, such as a priesthood, who then try to use any
means to preserve their quarter. But all of this ongoing routine social orchestration is
dictated by nature, as surely as the development of any faunal feature of the planet’s
surface.
And obviously, Communism is just an identity, with which a priesthood is
associated, and thus it is simply one more alternative expression of the same uniform
religion that rules, and has long ruled, over our world. This our commentator does not
see. Many have seen that Communism is a religion of sorts, but none have ever
recognised its true nature, as a regular expression of our normal religious identity,
devised to meet the need of a temporary situation arising from new social conditions
of existence. To know this you must know that humans are superorganisms, and
religion is the superorganism’s identity, which can only ever have one uniform mode
of expression.

IV

The human animal is a superorganism

We do not ask our question regarding the survival of religion as an abstract

exercise in philosophical reasoning, we mean to examine the dynamics of knowledge
as they operate in society in terms of the interplay between religion and science.
Taking notice of the social context focuses our attention and makes it possible for us
to begin our examination. More than this however, the way social structures control
knowledge is by forcing all knowledge to be created on the basis of a false premise,
namely, on the basis of the idea that human animals are individual persons. We saw
this idea emphatically proclaimed in Thomson’s denial of the social organism in the
name of science, given above. The true perspective is however, that individual
persons are not individual animals, we are not organisms in our own right, as
Thomson says we are, his assertion beingself evidently not true. But the elite class
that rules us, needs this idea to prevail in order to retain power, and, in fairness, as
indicated by Djilas, this need is two-way street. Believe me there is no one on this
planet who hates my rebellious, and inevitably anarchic ideas,more than the working
man, all such people are interested in is economic security. This is not a servile
character flaw, it derives from their position in life, which relies upon a sustainable
economic system to keep them alive. We do not live hand to mouth, but in real terms
a complex society like ours is not far off such a status, the wheels must keep turning
or trouble would soon reach a critical pitch for most of us.
This is why I say in my closing sentence to the preface, that I have no desire to
address myself to anyone other than fellow atheists who already think exactly as I do,
and who simply would like to know what true reality is. No one wants to know such
things, except me, but I must assume that others like me do exist somewhere,
sometimes, and they would like to know this stuff—I cannot possibly be entirely
unique in simply wanting knowledge above all else—and as I have found the
knowledge I desired so much, to my complete amazement, I do not want to take it to
my grave, so here it is. Read it and get on with your life, instead of using your life
just to discover what lies behind the madness that everyone else cherishes, but which
looks like undiluted insanity to you, as I have had to do. I like to squeal about
destroying religion, it pleases me to get a little of my own back. But that is just
pissing about. All we can hope to do with ultimate knowledge is know it, you cannot
use it to change the world, so just enjoy it, if, like me, it is what you crave. If enough
people start to crave the same thing, then change will come, without anyone even
realising it.
The human animal then, is a superorganism, a social organism, to use the old
phrase. Therefore all knowledge about humans must be based on the social context,
knowledge about humans has no meaning outside this social context, and all pretence
otherwise is a sham that serves the purpose of controlling the individual within the
social setting, by denying them knowledge of their own true nature. The nature of the
human person is that of a ‘sentient brick’, possessed of a ‘sense of duty’ to form
social architecture. The method of control through false knowledge is perfectly
natural, individuals are formed by their genes to be subject to this method of control ;
this is why false knowledge is vastly more important than true knowledge, and why
religion always overrules science.

Disabling science

Having observed that religion and science cannot occupy the same social
space at the same time,it makes sense to examine this arrangement still further. The
bottom line is that these two ways of knowing are not complimentary, both are
absolute and exclusive. An accommodation has been worked out whereby the two are
supposed to deal with separate fields of inquiry, such that it is not deemed right for the
theologian to dictate the order of the natural universe to the scientist, anymore than
the scientist is to presume to tell the theologian what the meaning of religion might
be.
A considerable amount of philosophical rigmarole is required to organise this
conceptual separation because, no matter what transpires, there is a pressing
inclination for both parties to feel as though they alone can have the last word.
Religion is essentially self-sustaining. It needs no rigorous justification, it only needs
to have a sense of its place in society in order that social harmony can be preserved.
In other words, religion is the default condition. When we talk about possession
being nine tenths of the law, religion personifies the logic of this statement, religion
owns the world, so what does it care what is said, as long as it continues in its place.
Religion does not need to transgress into areas that would cause problems with other
social activities ; but religion is inclined to be all consuming because it needs all
facets of life to be accommodating to its existence.
Science is a different matter, science is a sophisticated endeavour, and if
science is to be precluded from any sphere of experience then there must be some
rationale to account for this limitation. In a nutshell, the justification for science
leaving theology to the religious, is that religion deals with matter beyond the reach of
scientific method. And this why scientists like Wheeler, whom we considered above,
are scrupulous about focusing their attention upon material aspects of existence,that
are subject to direct analytical examination. If science cannot gain physical access to
a phenomenon then it cannot apply its interrogative methods, and thus no analysis is
forthcoming and no evidence regarding the phenomenon can be put forward for
consideration. Science is not supposed to be speculative, it is supposed to be
definitive. Hence it is said that science cannot prove a negative, such as proving that
God, fairies or alien visitors to the planet do not exist, because these things are
speculative and may be believed in, but cannot be proven,either for or against. This is
of course absurd, since this sort of ‘speculative’ idea is all pervasive and as such it has
features inherent to itself, that exist whether or not the named images can be fixed
upon by hand, so that science can examine fictional images as material phenomena by
seeking the social function of imaginative speculation. And since information is
channelled through language to create superorganic physiology, we should have no
difficulty showing that speculative phenomena have a real meaning which science can
reveal in each and every case, with absolute certainty. Thus allowing science to prove
a negative by showing what something nonexistent is, in reality.
Irrespective of this last point the limitation placed upon science is of major
significance for our work here, because here we are creating scientific philosophy
which will produce a true and perfect science of a kind that science itself cannot
achieve, because of the limitation placed upon it by the manner in which it obtains the
content that goes to make up its material product in the form of scientific knowledge,
that can be applied to existence. Because science is obliged to extract information
from the tangible world and build up knowledge accordingly, it is inevitably fractured
into a potentially infinite number of branches, examples of the main divisions are
biology, physics and chemistry, while minor ones can carry a truly obscure title like
‘paleonutritionist’, meaning an anthropologist who makes the study of prehistoric
eating habits his speciality. This splintering is not simply an idle device for the
aggrandizement of scientists who each crave a subject of their own. A specialist will
have knowledge that requires dedication to his subject, the only caveat that may arise
is to what extent obscure subjects are worth the bother, but for science knowledge is
knowledge, and all knowledge is potentially valuable.
Having justified the fracturing of science into many pieces we return to our
objective in discussing this question at all, which is to indicate that science is
powerless to create science as knowledge of reality precisely because it is obliged to
fracture into many discrete departments, all of which are nonetheless obliged to abide
by a common code of good behaviour, which in science means letting the expert
speak to the expert so that each keeps to his own patch. This code smacks of
manipulation, it offers the opportunity for political intrigue, but even this code has
obvious reason behind it where real knowledge is complex and has to be acquired by
patient study. Moving closer to home, we are not interested in the mass of scientific
knowledge, we are interested in only one highly specific question concerning the
nature of humanity. What is the nature of humans ? That is the underlying question
that needs to be answered in order that we can prognosticate upon the detail of human
life. And yet would you believe that science actually has the gall to say that there is
no such thing as human nature ! The priest has no shame, that is sickeningly obvious.
This is where gamesmanship interferes and science is prevented from doing its
job by the political aspect of life, so that, while a real science of humanity could easily
answer this question, if such a science existed, such a science does not exist. The
usual fragmentation of science has been concocted where there ought to be just
anthropology—the study of man, or, the study of humans—but where there is instead,
firstly social and physical anthropology, and then sociology, economics, psychology,
political science, linguistics and no doubt a host of other specialities, that may
exchange ideas of common interest but which keep largely to themselves. What all
this means is that a perfectly justifiable organization of science into a family of
diverse modes of knowledge, has been applied as a device serving the political agenda
by allowing science to be contained and controlled. Science has thereby been
disabled and cannot serve itself in that part where humans are its quarry. So that true
science cannot come from a scientific source, it can only come from a mode of
inquiry that embraces the whole gamut of relevant material in order to find the desired
correct solution to the question, What is human nature ? And this is where philosophy
comes to the rescue, but in this day and age can anyone attain a sufficient grasp of the
panorama of existence revealed by science, to reach across the whole range of
knowledge and transform it ?
It sounds like Mission Impossible, but we accept the challenge because we
have the key. We know that human nature is corporate, meaning that humans evolved
to form a superorganic body at the level of social organisation. And this simple key
opens all doors.

VI

Can knowledge segregation suffice in a scientific age ?

We have seen that religion and science cannot exist in the same society at the
same time, because they each represent a supreme authority in respect to the nature of
existence, that must make them inherently incompatible with each other ; there can
only be one authority of this kind. We know we live in a scientific age, and we know
religion thrives, so the question asked here seems irrelevant, it is a none starter, the
answer must be yes, segregation has indeed allowed religion to survive, for all that
science rules our world today.

There is no question that we do have religion, that is an uncomplicated issue to

determine. The only other facet of the question is the status of our society as it exists
today. The question forming a subheading above asserts as a matter of fact that
society is subject to the effects of science, and hence we say we are living in a
‘scientific age’. But arewe living in a scientific age ? Between science and religion,
between the eternal authority of religion and the would be usurping authority of
science, to whose advantage is it that a compromise should be reached,whereby
science and religion agree to be confined to their own respective quarters ? Here
there can be no answer other than the one that recognises that the only beneficiary of
this segregation is religion. After all isn’t this what the conflict is all about, the
survival of religion in the face of new ways of understanding tangible reality ?
 The situation in society today must be working for religion, because religion is
thriving. People may debate the state of religion, religion ebbs and flows, but religion
is far from being a dead force in our world. So we have no need to ask if segregation
is working for religion, segregation is designed exclusively in order that religion can
be preserved. Meanwhile, the exclusion of science from any aspect of existence can
make no sense whatever. Science is the challenger, science is the emerging way of
knowing, where the state of knowledge prior to the modern era might be likened the
age of bacteria preceding the evolution of complex life forms. To all intents and
purposes, before the scientific age science did not exist at all, no matter how clever
we know the ancients were. Which leaves us with the question as to the real status of
science in the scientific age. Is there such a thing as science in the scientific age ? If
so, then why does science allow itself to be segregated from religion, or, put the other
way about, how has religion managed to segregate science from itself ?
This looks like an answer to our subject : religion survived by segregating
science. If this is so then it can only mean that we do not have science, even though
to all appearances we most assuredly live in a scientific age. Which sounds familiar,
once again. Darwin made the changing form of animals the key to his understanding
of evolution, to the exclusion of their essence, which our theory of life based on
information, totally inverts by brining essence to the fore, while making form
secondary. Which makes perfect sense from a scientific point of view,as we know
from the fact that creatures like whales are mammals and not fish, yet they have an
aquatic nature in common with fish. By defining a scientific age in terms of the
material achievements of science, we see that science itself is based on the
superficiality of form, to the exclusion of the vital question of essence. Which is of
course left to the musings of theologians to determine because an essence does not fit
in atest tube. We have the practical action of science derived from its many faceted
structure, but no essence of science rises from that structure to cloak all understanding
in a scientific form, because the nature of science is defined by material
achievements, not by its conceptual revelations. And so we now have another
question to address.

VII

Sterile science

We have suggested that religion survived the arrival of truly scientific

knowledge by separating itself off from science, whileimposing an obligation upon
science not to question matters touching on religious faith. Aside from the supposedly
abstruse matter of human nature, science has been free to investigate all things to its
heart’s content. And in this sense we mighthave science in a scientific age. What this
should mean is that all that passes for science is science, pure science uninfluenced by
the continuing existence of religion. According to our description of the
accommodation reached thus far, the suggestion is that the two have agreed not to
transgress upon one another’s rightful domain. This means that science does not get
to examine the nature of religion in a truly scientific manner, but at least what science
does isscience, and therefore science is not compromised where it is active.
Religion is endemic to human society. How many things are there in life that
we can speak of in such definite terms, covering all times, all places, and all
conditions in which people live or have ever lived ? Is there anything other than
religion that we can say is uniquely inherent in human existence ? There are features
of human existence that are inherent and special to our kind, the use of language and
the use of tools are two defining qualities of human life. We have already indicated
that warfare is as pervasive as religion. But there are not many things that are wholly
special about humans, and when all is said and done the religious motive is the most
supremely unique and special attribute of our kind. This assertion is all the more
powerful precisely because even in the amazing state of society in which we find
ourselves placed today, the religious impulse continues to be a force to be reckoned
with. From which it follows that for science to be barred from a total examination of
religion,according to its own standards, in complete disregard of religion’s own
values, is tantamount to the complete exclusion of science from any meaningful
examination of humans as features of the natural world. Therefore we are saying that
under the implicit terms of the supposedunderstanding between religion and science,
there can be no science of humanity whatever. Religion is so prominent a part of
human existence that for an alternative naturalistic view of human existence to come
into being is wholly incompatible with the continuing survival of religion. But we
know that there is an immense science of humanity, so by the same token we know
that religion does not exist. For if there is a true science of humanity in a world where
religion continues to thrive then we have science and religion occupying the same
space at the same time, and we began by saying this simply is not possible, because
the two ways of understanding the same facts are mutually exclusive.
Have we found evidence of an intellectual emulsion, a mixture of religion and
science, so complete that the product of the combination is neither religion nor
science ? Hardly, this is not where our reasoning leads us. Our argument can only
mean one thing, science is not science, science is religion in disguise, religion
masquerading as science. And the surest sign of this is that science is notostensibly
proscribed from investigating religion according to its own methods, for there is a
long established branch of science purporting to be the ‘science of religion’. This is
obviously essential, it would be too crass to simply bar science from religion. For
religion to control science, science must appear to have a free hand to look at all
things, and the mode of control must instead be imbued into the scientific method
itself. And this is exactly what happens, science is neutralised, sterilised, and made
safe for contact with religion. And in terms of a science of religion it is obvious that
defining the human person as an end in themselves, as the complete human animal,
given what we have said about what religion really is—superorganic identity—is
absolutely critical. As long as science regards the person as the object of study, it can
make no progress in terms of elucidating what exactly religion is, and that is how
much progress science has made in this department—none. Therefore we say again,
we live in a scientific age in which there is no science, for, like a virus that is
sterilised to make a vaccine, where the remnants no longer constitute a virus, sothe
dead remains become a cure used against its living brethren ! this is exactly how
religion uses science to thwart the scientific decay of religious knowledge, by making
officially produced pseudo science hold back genuine science. And so we come to an
important question, Just how did religion obtain this result whereby science was
sterilised ?
From what we have said the question of religion’s survival in a scientific age
is circumscribed by a limited set of factors, that are primarily concerned with the
nature of human animals. We have said that religion is the defining quality of the
human animal, and as such the point at which religion’s survival will be put in
jeopardy by the interrogative approach of the scientific method applied to nature,
occurs where that method applies itself to the nature of humans themselves. This is
the sharp end of the conflict, but the alarm bells start ringing long before we get this
far down the road of inquiry. Expressed in its broadest terms the department of
scientific investigation in which the religious forms must take most interest in the
scientific age is that of the science of life, biology. And so it is that while the conflict
between science and religion has gone on in all departments of knowledge, it is to the
life sciences that our attention must turn if we wish to understand how religion has
survived in the scientific age. Whatever else happened science could not be allowed a
free hand in the realms of understanding life. And this focused plane of engagement
required a major effort before there could be any security established for religion in a
scientific age. Before, that is, science could be made into an extension of the
information of identity that is religion, in conformity to the ruling religious identity of
our superorganic being.

Chapter II

The Physiology of Corporate Identity

UNEQUAL INERTIA OF GROWTH. The greatest evolutionary difficulty in the way of

continued regulation is the inevitable tendency of parts to grow unequally. That there is an
inertia of growth in varied metabolic gradients in all animal bodies is well known. And it
begins to be recognized, even by the most conventional biologists, that such unequal ratios of
growth are responsible for asymmetrical and unbalanced forms finally incapable of surviving.
Thus the Irish elk and the sabre-toothed tiger became extinct. This law of unequal growth
inertia is probably responsible for the giraffe which cannot become much larger without
destructive asymmetry. These phenomena clearly apply in a minor degree to many forms of
overgrowth, perhaps not yet dangerous. But the point to insist on here is that there are
undoubtedly social metabolic gradients among social organisms. Some slacken their rate, the
others increase it, and the peaceful, or comparatively peaceful, stage reached yesterday will be
perilous instability to-morrow. These are phenomena the peace advocate would do well to
ponder, for his success will never permit him to rest. There is no rest in evolution.

(Bio-Politics, Morley Roberts, 1938, p. 88)

Science is a professional activity. Even when science was too incipient to

command a professional bloc it was still so demanding a field of endeavour that only
those with some degree of learning, and the special circumstances to apply it, could
hope to make their mark upon the scientific field of knowledge. But there was
nonetheless some inevitable slack in the system of knowledge accumulation in the
early days, that was bound to recede as time went along, because, as a real facet of
existence, scientific knowledge is as limited as any dimension of the material
universe, and once taken it is gone for good—always assuming continuity in the
social domain. There have been breaks in the chain of wisdom, but the substance
from which scientific knowledge derives, is like land, they are not making anymore of
it ; not in terms of a human timescale anyway ! Scientific knowledge can be found,
and it can be lost, but it cannot be manufactured upon a whim. We cannot decide that
the latest round of earth shattering geological revelations was a mighty good wheeze,
therefore we would like a bit more of that. So that accordingly, we decide to have a
new super-dooper theory of plate tectonics, like a fourth instalment of some hit movie
where the hero has already been blasted to smithereens a few times, but miraculously
happens to be available for another round of obliteration for our further amusement
once more.
In many respects the emergence of science as a whole new way of creating
knowledge about existence, represents an act of release on the part of an absolute
theocracy. The story of this process whereby science unlocked the door to new fields
of inquiry, while in turn the old fortress of religious authority backed away, must be
more or less familiar to most of us interested enough to follow the ideas being
presented here. The church felt itself threatened at each point in the advance of
knowledge, and it resisted accordingly, the ceaseless war goes on unabated today, but
the battle lines are settled, so the war is in a state of tension ; not truce, not peace, but
tension. They have conquered us, but now they must hold their ill-gotten gains. Yet
to us mere mortals the state of tension between the two contrasting fields of
knowledge is mostly invisible. The scale of the struggle is too large for us to see
because the scale upon which this struggle is measured is that of time, not space, and
as we have already said, religion is immortal. For the social enclaves of religious
form, there can only ever be one state of peace, and that peace is a condition in which
one religion rules with absolute and exclusive authority, everywhere. If we find
ourselves living in a period where society seems to be something other than an
absolute theocracy this is, and can only ever be, a product of our own limited capacity
to see the full picture. The burst of free knowledge, such as it is, arises as an act of
release associated with the physical expansion of the social being defined by religious
identity. The forces of integrity then have to recover the state of tension at a higher
level of material organization, exactly as has happened over the course of recent
centuries.

Trojan horses found alive and well

Last night, 9/09/07, while flipping away from the Bond movie Golden Eyeto
let the adverts play out, I rested on BBC 1, only to find myself confronted with the
unpleasant image of Tony Blair and the Chief Rabbi fawning over each other like the
pair of sycophants that they are. The master Jew went on to present an excruciating
diatribe on the bliss of religious knowledge, as compared to the delusion of secular
ideas that dared pretend religion was a spent force. The crown jewel of secularism, he
declared, was the British Library, which, nonetheless had room to pay homage to
religion. We were then treated to a cursory look at some moderately old Hebrew and
Islamic texts which the rabbi said came from the Abrahamic religions that viewed
these texts as the word of God. This was a nice piece of religious propaganda for two
reasons. Obviously it was meant for the faithful, not for atheist degenerates like
ourselves, just as this work is not intended for the likes of Blair or Sacks ; but we
must be interested in what the enemies of humanity have to say, if we are to fight back
against their awesome power, derived from the subversion of knowledge that makes
religion into an occult means of knowingourselves by taking possession of the real
knowledge of reality. In this case we have a perfect example of how what should
bethe pre-eminent house of scientific law—to accept the rabbi’s description—was
reduced to nothing more than a pawn in the priest’s hand. Thereby serving as
evidence that we live in an absolute theocracy, but a covert theocracy, that uses the
shield of scientific or secular form to hide its subversive, criminal nature. It is not that
a scientific establishment should not treasure religious works from a dead past, but it
should not allow the religious enemies of true knowledge, to use its portals of true
knowledge in this malicious and dishonest manner ; to do so is to turn secularism into
a tool of theism, which makes a nonsense of the word ‘secular’. Secondly, we see that
the Jew had no problem recognising that Christians and Muslims were just as much
Jewish as he is, an askance admission we may derive from his inclusion of all three
identities under the umbrella of Abraham, the father of Judaism. To a scientist of
human nature, who knows a human is a superorganism, this fact is of the utmost
significance, although we only mention it here, in passing.
We may ask ourselves how the British Library could of refused the Jew’s
request to use its display as part of a broadcast celebration of the Jewish New Year,
and indeed such a refusal is unthinkable. But again, this only goes to show the
insidious effect of religion persisting in a supposedly secular society, and the utter
incongruity of such an idea. We were told that a Jew had originally donated a fine
collection of religious documents to the library, which sounds really nice of him, but
when we see the gift being used for the purpose of religious propaganda, intended to
undermine true knowledge, we are bound to suspect the donor of the most cynical
motives, disguised as an act of generosity. Even if the donor was sincere in his
motives, we then see how his own kind can abuse the sincerity of their brethren,
which ultimately brings to mind the admonition to “beware of Greeks bearing gifts.”
But of course the British Library is no more a monument to secularism than a bordello
is a nunnery. It serves the organic purposes that the Jewish priest is made beholden to
via his religious identity, to represent the library as a bastion of secular life, but
unfortunately for him, and his kind, while you can fool all of the people some of the
time, you cannot fool allof the people all of the time. And we are not fooled by his
snide pretence of wisdom. The library is an institution of the State, and the State is
the institutional substance of the theocracy, which the theocracy has managed to
represent as an independent arm of public opinion, as it does with all its slave
elements ; that is what living in a ‘democracy’ means : a slave society in which the
bonds are disguised as benefits. A misrepresentation so twisted in fact, that it is rather
like making the stomach of a fox the digestive system of the rabbit ! just because the
rabbit is digested in it. Exactly as secular freedom is digested in the corridors of
institutions like that of the British Library, the repository of secular knowledge, so
that the all powerful theocracy can continue unscathed into the interminable future.
By teasing out this actual example of how religion interacts with knowledge of
reality in a free society, where anyone is allowed to say anything they please, in
theory at any rate, we establish a basic ‘Trojan horse’ mechanism, that facilitates the
ingress of subversive religious ideas into the fabric of society, where they ought to
have no place if society is secular, free, and a home to science. The British Library, as
a public institution existing within a society that tolerates religion, affords us but one
example of how the persistence of religion corrupts science and secular life by
manipulating the institutional framework of society. Religion achieves this goal by
insinuating its ‘knowledge’ into the knowledge stores of the institutions under attack,
and public institutions are defenceless against this ruse when religion is not
constrained by law, as it should be in a free society, where the promotion of religion
should be seen for the criminal activity it is.
Morley Roberts, quoted above, was a lone worker, in that he was not a
professional academic, with a passion for understanding society according to a
biological imperative, an understanding that he saw was being betrayed by the
academic establishment of his day. He grew up when science was free, and as a
consequence he accepted the idea of the social organism as real. When he died
science was already well and truly dead, its gradual demise was what Roberts had
really been reacting to, although he did not know it, he was too close to the trees to
see the forest. Further down the road, we see what he could not. And in my turn,
taking the broadest view of my work, I follow in his footsteps by reacting to the
continuing decay of English culture, brought about by the realisation of a global
society. In common with all the earlier organicists of this phase of scientific freedom,
Roberts never really got the point of this idea, he did not understand the meaning of
the social organism in any real depth, and, in addition, he deliberately set the issue of
religion aside ; a fatal error in scientific work of any kind. All of which means that as
a unique character, in terms of his loyal adherence to a true theory of human social
existence, shown in the quantity of his published work, Roberts is an important figure
of the time, and a delight, but he is not a leader of the genre for us today.
And so we come to the most telling example of the Trojan mechanism of
knowledge control, that is fundamental to the preservation of religion in a scientific
age, namely the existence of universities of a religious denomination, so that, just as
we have Catholic schools, we also have Catholic universities. These centres of
learning have every kind of scientist trained within their midst, who are then accepted
as part of the legitimate academic world. As such these religiously trained scientists
produce science that is overtly religious, and inherently unscientific, that is then
drawn into other universities and used to corrupt the knowledge taught in
overtlysecular, none denominational universities. Hence we find anthropologists
discussing topics like the universal practice of infanticide amongst tribal peoples, met
with when Europeans dispersed across the globe, as if it were an evil crime, instead of
a functional behaviour. Catholic universities and such like are not compromised by
science, they corrupt science, and then they poison all society accordingly. Again,
this is a ruse made possible via religious control over the machinery of government.
The poison of religion can only be dealt with by laws forbidding the existence of any
kind of religious knowledge, if we want to live within a free society.

II

Freedom

When I speak of destroying religion in order that we can be free, I am

indulging myself. This is my work ; I am an atheist ; it is a philosophical work, not a
scientific treatise, so that aside from the solid substance that I want my argument to
consist of, I feel there is a place for my emotional rant to find expression too, now and
then.
Nonetheless, as a philosopher, of sorts, I recognise a key word when I use it,
and ‘freedom’ is such a word. If this work were to be flattered by lashing tongues of
criticism, a person might ask just what I thought ‘freedom’ meant in the context of my
argument. An observant critic may say the very notion of freedom in my organicist
world, in which individuals were mere sentient bricks existing only for the sake of a
superorganism, was inconsistent.
And they would be right. But as I have already had occasion to say, we
ordinarily speak in a political tongue, which means a subliminal bias validating
individual motivation is built into the language we use. So that we thinkin terms of
individuality as an end in itself, and if asked to think otherwise, we really do not have
the linguistic tools to do so. To think in ways reflecting reality is alien to us, which is
why we find people like Wolpert writing books called The Unnatural Nature of
Science, that we mentioned in chapter one. Human intelligence evolved to enable the
growth of a superorganism by reducing individuals to the status of programmable
sentient bricks. As such intelligence is the exact opposite of what we think of it as, in
other words, just as we would not call a machine like a computer intelligent, neither
should we call ourselves, as individuals, intelligent. As we build computers to serve
us, so nature has built us to serve an organism that we do not even know exists, other
than via the pathetic illusions of religious myths. This makes it decidedly tricky for
anyone to come along and offer a none individualistic model of human existence,
while still using the same language that we all speak, all the time. At moments when I
feel the urge to release some bile, brought on by talking about so vile a subject as
religion, by giving voice to an emotional outburst, this is when the contradiction
between the mind programme that is our language, and the reality we are seeking to
understand here, occurs.
Many of the words we use routinely, express a meaning that exists only in our
own heads, courtesy of the language we speak, reinforced by an external reality that
we create in the form of social fabric, that we construct in response to linguistic
routines composed of these ‘physiological meanings’. ‘Freedom’ is one such word.
Language, remember, is an expression of the information driven life force, that creates
superorganic physiology at the level of social organisation. So the language of
illusion that we thinkwith, creates social structure by directing the constructive
behaviour of the sentient bricks of which the superorganism is composed. A typical
product of such illusion driven behaviour is the construction of a house of God, i.e. a
church. But while anyone can see where I am coming from when I say this, the fact is
that pretty much everything we build must come under the category of ‘product of
illusion’. Although I suppose certain practical activities, like those associated with
medical structures, i.e. hospitals, are not really the product of illusion in the sense that
a church, a parliament or a court house most definitely are. It may seem odd to
suggest that a hospital might have some element of illusion about it, but the fact is
that much of the purpose of medicine is extremely bizarre. The very idea of saving
life is weird in the extreme, as if we can make people immortal. I was talking to a
man in the pub last weekend, someone I have known for years, and he said his brother
has just had a heart transplant. To me such radical medical intervention is too much,
why bother, if things come to that pass I would just as soon accept that my time was
nye. And much of our preservation of life is extremely cruel and brutal, an aunt of
mine died recently, after years spent rotting, brain dead, in a nursing home bed. Years
ago I worked for a brief spell in a hospice, where I watched a man die slowly, and I
felt relief for him, and his wife, when he died. I realised then that the notion of life’s
sanctity made many of us its sacrificial victims, who had to pay a price in suffering,
for values that had to do with society at large. So perhaps my reasoning was adrift
just now, perhaps a hospital isjust as much a ‘product of illusion’ as any other
prominent structure in our social world. This is only to be expected if the argument
that social structure is really the exoskeletal frame of a living superorganism is
correct.
‘Freedom’ describes a condition relative to its opposite, it is like ‘top’, that
implies ‘bottom’, such that top could not exist if there were no bottom. So there is no
such thing as ‘freedom’ existing in itself, and that is that. Freedom is not a physical
reality, it is not a feature of any reality whatever, and hence freedom cannot exist in
reality. But lets look at how I used this word in the sentence bringing the last section
to a close. I said that in order to be free we must destroy religion. This is an obvious
corollary of the central argument we are developing in this work, as I am sure
everyone will agree, whether or not they accept the argument. Clearly if religion and
science cannot exist in the same society at the same time, and in order to live in a
society like ours the impossible has been achieved by sterilising science, then it
follows that if science is to be free—of the restraints imposed automatically by the
requirements of religion—then religion must die. Which means that if we value
science, religion must die in order for us to be free too—in the sense of social
freedom, that is freedom within society, in respect to self knowledge. In this context
freedom is our condition, and the relative alternatives that exist in reality, our top and
bottom, our ‘slavery’ and ‘freedom’, are religion versus science. In other words we
are making the reality of knowledge’s existence, and our access to that reality, the test
of freedom. But in actual fact religion adopted the same stance in respect to freedom,
long ago. Only as ever, religion made the test of freedom an inverted condition of
reality, one in which the test was religion or more religion, in other words different
expressions of the one state of slavery, so that freedom never entered into the
condition of reality at all.
The word ‘freedom’ practically takes its meaning from the condition of
religion in the world, as we just said freedom shouldtake its meaning from the
condition of knowledge in the world. As a consequence it is worth making sure that
we understand how the idea of freedom came to be defined by the reality of our
unwitting slavery. It a curious thing how religious dogma routinely inverts the
meaning of words, so that ‘death’, in Christian mythology, means ‘life’ ; our life
begins when we die. Which is why early Christians were famous for their willing
martyrdom, and we see something similar in Islam today, where people talk about the
glory they will receive after cold-bloodedly murdering men, women and children in
the most evil way imaginable, by carrying out a suicide bombing in a public place.
Accordingly we should not be surprised that freedom of religious expression should
come to be the supreme expression of the meaning of the word ‘freedom’, even
though religion is the means by which we are unwittingly attached to the
superorganism, in a physiological process that, in political speak, we say has to be
called ‘slavery’, plain and simple. Religion imposes a natural state of slavery, a state
of slavery that we evolved to endure. But nonetheless, attachment to a religion
cannot, by any conceivable stretch of the imagination, be considered as anything other
than slavery, from a political point of view. Unless of course we are actually
religious, if the slave implant has taken properly then we are blind to the reality of the
condition that we find ourselves in.
Religion must be absolute, because of its slave making nature, it must tolerate
nothing that contradicts itself. A person cannot feel any compromise concerning their
sense of personal identity, which is imposed upon them, unwittingly, by the religion
they receive in life. In earlier stages of superorganic growth absolutism was the overt
political stance, so that religious persecution was invariably the norm. As time moved
on the growth of the superorganism made the incorporation of various religious
expressions functional, and so religious tolerance became the norm. Today the
superorganism has matured, as we have reached a state where one global
superorganism has incorporated the entire human biomass of the planet into one
unified body via a process of war, exploitation and indoctrination, bringing everyone
under the spell of one all embracing religious identity programme, albeit that one
uniform identity, appears in a myriad of expressions. Accordingly this one religion
now makes multiculturalism its golden rule. As ever, the priests follow a linguistic
formula which dictates the interpretation of reality through history, they report the
physiological developments we describe here in terms of individual existence, giving
them a political hue through an individualising bias imbued into the language created
by the core authority of society. And so it transpires that as easily as you like, the
extension of slavery is reported as the extension of freedom, freedom of religious
thought. And we have no means of resisting this blatant act of deception, anymore
than an ant taken into a slave maker ant’s nest as a pupae, can do anything to resist its
alien, slave cultural programming, when it pupates. Today this ideal of religious
tolerance is the greatest achievement, so called, of our society. Harmonious slavery is
an achievement of sorts, it is the achievement of nature, in the act of creating a
mammalian superorganism covering the whole planet.

Lets consider why freedom is an inherent absurdity in a human superorganism.

Firstly the word can only refer a state of individual existence, it does not apply to the
superorganism as a whole, which is always ‘free’ in so far as it just is ; exactly as the
planet Earth is free to do its own thing, but then the planet is held by forces, and so
are all living systems. Within a superorganism of a complex kind, existing on a
supermassive scale, there must be a hierarchical structure, exactly of the kind we
have, our hierarchy being delineated through a complex pattern of religious identities.
Thus inequality is inherent in the superorganic physiology that we know as social
structure. This means that there must be a tiny coterie of individuals who possess
infinite power in society, set against a huge mass of individuals who are totally inert,
in terms of social power. This describes the world we live in, ordered by religious
identity patterns.
If a world were to be possible in which freedom existed, it is clear that
freedom could have no meaning in terms of social power, which is how we
instinctively think of freedom, in brute, physical terms, in exactly those terms, that is,
in which freedom cannot apply. In actual fact our world does pay homage to the only
true sense in which people can have freedom, that is, with the notion of equality of
freedom before the law. However this is as romantic—to be very, very kind to it
indeed—an idea as could ever be conceived. Myself I always think of law makers as
criminals who have made it to criminal heaven, by being elected to the legislature,
from where they get to commit crimesthat aren’t crimes at all, because they make the
laws to see that it is just so. What about the scandal this last week, today being
Sunday, 12 July 2009, over the major defenders of righteousness in our society, the
newspapers, which revealed that these defenders of our liberty routinely commit one
of the worst crimes imaginable in a free society, namely, taking the part of an
insidious Big Brother, spying on anyone and everyone that takes their fancy, just as
fascist dictatorships have always done down the ages. A nuance of this scandal is that
the editor of the News of the Worldresigned his post a couple of years ago because of
his oversight of the paper when two underlings were caught spying on the royal
family. So then the whiter than white Tory leader, David Cameron, snapped up this
expert in crime that isn’t crime, as being just the man to organise his personal
propaganda war designed to make him the next democratic dictator of the British
people ; paying this criminal—who isn’t—£450,000 a year ! With a system like this
under your belt who needs to commit crime ? We could say that government is the
moderation of crime, where we understand crime as an ongoing feature of society, a
stimulus, that matures into a state of dictatorial order based on paternalistic lines.
Picking up on the generic theme of this freedom ideal, that is the notion of
freedom meaning equality of freedom under the law, we may come to the nub of our
argument, where we recognise that there can be no expressions of physical freedom in
our world. Where, if freedom were to mean anything, it would have to mean
something to do with investing ultimate authority in the individual, where every
individual was equally empowered by a condition of reality from which the word
‘freedom’ derived its definition. We cannot do this in any physical sense, we admit
this, we cannot create physical conditions in which there is true equality across the
board, not even remotely is this possible. Equality before the law is a physical sense,
this is why the notion of freedom represented by equality before the law is corrupted
by the law itself, through its administration and delivery. We cannot even hold some
criminal trials in this country at present because the barristers will not work for less
than a million pounds a pop.
The only way I have been able to conjure up a conception of a truly egalitarian
society, is one in which we have a Starship Enterprise like vehicle travelling through
space, where everyone is supported by mechanised life systems, which have
effectively replaced the base element of the social biomass, allowing all those that live
to be of the upper, elite class. But this is a highly abstruse idea, designed to indicate
what true freedom requires in order to exist according to the normal physical sense in
which we think of the word. Obviously if a condition of brute slavery is made the
test, then this can serve to define freedom by comparison, but that is hardly a valid
basis for a true definition of the word ‘freedom’.
There is then, just one sense in which everyone can be free, and be free
equally, and that is via freedom of thought. Freedom of thought requires, first and
foremost, free access to true knowledge. True knowledge is determined by material
reality, and by nothing else. Material reality is that reality which can be examined by
the scientific method, no other means of determining the truth of anything, in terms of
creating knowledge of reality, is valid.
This is what I mean by freedom : free access to knowledge. It is not possible
to have free access to knowledge in a world where religion exists. There is no means
of circumventing this absolute condition of human existence. Therefore religion
means bondage, and science means freedom.

III

Normality

A whole swath of implications arise from the idea that humans are
superorganisms, the creation of which is driven by language, that programmes how
we individuals perceive our existence, and so directs our every action and thought.
This leads to a major principle of superorganic being, the principle that :
everything that occurs routinely, is functional. In any life form where we find
behaviour routinely expressed, we take that behaviour as normal for the species in
question. Not so in ourselves however. We catapult ourselves out of this state of
normality, wherein all life forms travel along a logical trajectory that can be followed
by causal reasoning. We enter a behavioural orbit exclusive to ourselves, following
the principle of self made causes, where ‘logical causal reasoning’ no longer applies
because individuals possess the power to reason for themselves. This means
behavioural outcomes can take weird and wonderful forms, leading us to devise
special terms of reference for understanding humans, accordingly we say humans are
good and evil, because we are responsible for what we do, or do not do.
The most significant extraordinary human behaviour that I have been in the
habit of explaining through the ‘principle of normality’ is homosexuality. It has
always been obvious to me that homosexuality was natural, that people engage in
same sex activity of their own free will, and they therefore express a preference when
doing so. We are forced to think about a natural interpretation of homosexuality by
the religious condemnation of this behaviour as a perversion. But nonetheless, such
behaviour presents the naturalistically minded with a puzzle as to why an animal
would evolve such an odd form of reproductive behaviour as realised in males that
evolved to have anal sex with each another, to the exclusion of coital sex with a
female !
Needless to say, such perplexing thoughts go right out of the window once we
know that there is no such thing as an individual, existing as an end in themselves.
Homosexuality then makes as much sense as the invention of the wheel, for such
inversion of sexual interest, where genders are interested in their own kind, brings
into existence an elite class spontaneously. And although the elite that owns and
farms us today is not exclusively queer, it has a loading of such types beyond the
normal distribution in the general population.
If we take a look at Wilson’s Sociobiologyof 1975 it is very difficult to see
why this book threatened the world with the revelation of true science once again,
after so much hard work had been put into suppressing scientific knowledge. But
there is no doubt that the aftermath is a completely different story. We find ourselves
swamped with works tackling the new academic discipline of sociobiology. In
Wilson’s next work, which has all the hallmarks of being hastily put out to allow him
to make a retraction before the Pope, so to speak, though he was grovelling to the
scientific priesthood of which he is a part, we find this :—

The juxtaposition of biology and ethics in the case of homosexuality

requires sensitivity and care. It would be inappropriate to consider
homosexuals as a separate genetic caste, however beneficent their historic and
contemporary roles might prove to be. It would be even more illogical, and
unfortunate, to make past genetic adaptedness a necessary criterion for current
acceptance. But it would be tragic to continue to discriminate against
homosexuals on the basis of religious dogma supported by the unlikely
assumption that they are biologically unnatural.

(On Human Nature, Edward O. Wilson, 2001, p. 141. First pub. 1978.)

A passage riven with sycophancy and nastiness, but a sheer delight in terms of
saying what needed to be said, by way of denying the same. However weak and
meaningless Sociobiology appears to be at first sight, as an expression of organicist
sociology, which is what we are really talking about here, this passage in On Human
Nature goes to show just how potent Wilson’s line of thinking could be in regard to a
true science of human nature.
A couple of weeks ago, some eight years since reading On Human Natureand
being delighted by this reference to homosexuals as a specially evolved caste, I finally
found a modern scientific book dealing with homosexuality from this angle, well, sort
of. As with Wilson, we have to invert the meaning, of all that is said, to give what is
said its true meaning. Actually what is said in Straight Science ? : Homosexuality,
evolution and adaptation, by Jim McKnight, 1997, is so obscurantist it is nye on
impossible to tell what the hell is being said. But the mere fact of an extended
discussion of homosexuality on these naturalistic lines is significant in itself, and the
book is, as ever with professionally written pieces, full of lots of good information
that I simply have no means of discovering myself, such as the details of the first
modern theories on homosexuality written in the nineteenth century, of a kind I have
been casually trying to discover for years.
When we talk about inverting the meaning of a piece of work in order to
obtain its true meaning, we are obviously not intending to imply that by this means we
discover the real meaning intendedby the author. Though I must say that I cannot
help feeling that Wilson’s direct denial of homosexuality’s caste defining function has
always struck me as so direct, that I have always felt this wassaid in a sarcastic vein.
Stating something so obviously true in a denunciatory mode can only mean that you
intend it to be understood that you mean the opposite of what you are saying,
providing a verbal device that can be used where what you would like to say cannot
be said directly.
Homosexuality is only the beacon of ‘negative functionality’. Everything we
can think of that is ‘bad’, is in reality just as good as anything we can think of that is
‘good’. The point being that there is no place for value judgements in science, and
indeed this must be one of the greatest difficulties posed by an application of science
to human affairs. Which is no doubt why the theocracy wasted no time organising an
annihilation of science, and a return to religious idiocy, and spared no cost in the
process. This subject can be discussed at such length, that I will call a halt to the
present discussion so that we may proceed with the general subject in hand, without
burdening ourselves with too much introspective detail. The theme of good badness
will no doubt keep surfacing as we continue our exploration, so we have done what
was necessary at this stage by mentioning the topic in outline.
We can use our own arguments against ourselves here, indeed we do this
automatically as we unfold our argument and acknowledge that the things of which
we complain, are all exactly as they should be. So that if we speak of the farming of
the biomass by an elite, and the enslavement of our bodies through the imposition of
religious identities, we are always quite clear that we mean this to be understood as
perfectly natural. This is why people love religion, even though we hate religion
above all else. We seek freedom, knowledge, atheism, all things that are anathema to
our human nature, we yearn for a state living that cannot exist. We know this, so
when we profess a desire for the unattainable we know the limits set by human nature.
But we can perhaps have the knowledge portion of our desires, which will satisfy the
condition in which we say genuine freedom exists. Although I would hate this claim
to be misinterpreted as meaning we do not recognise the primacy of material freedom,
in so far as pragmatic realities are able to provide something approximating to this
most important requirement of a good life.

IV

Secular delusion

The church’s relinquishment of absolute authority, which took place just a

couple of centuries ago, was not really a release of control, it was an adjustment of its
grip. Meeting the challenge threatening the security of the theocracy in an age
empowered by science, was all about discerning those points where the church should
appear to relinquish direct control, and those where it might delay the process. This
involved devising ways to enact the release in such a way that the machinery of
governance would become a puppet, dangling by a multitude of invisible threads. We
saw an example of this in chapter one when we spoke of the ingress of religious
people into every walk of life where power was exercised, a deliberate behaviour
based on religious principles, one might say, where the church goers are instructed by
their controllers to pursue such career moves. This is a trait we see employed
unashamedly in America, but our Parliament is weighed down with this kind of
corruption from within, to the inevitable detriment of everyone except the mindless
morons and criminals who pay homage to religion. And even they pay a high price
for condoning corruption as a way of life, for this twenty first century Credit Crunch
is a direct consequence of the way that our social order is built upon the basis of
wholesale exploitation of this kind.
What this massive ingress into the corridors of power, great and small, means,
is, in effect, that the process of release that ushered in the so called secular society a
couple of centuries ago, is now slipping ever more forcefully into reverse, and this
type of social shift provides the most real demonstration of how religion ebbs and
flows in society, over time. This ebbing and flowing is always spoken of in none
temporal terms, concerning the personal attachment of people to religion. But in fact
it is in these matters, concerning the exercise of social power, where the real concern
lies within the priesthood. It is here that the priests always have their avid little minds
set fast upon—sources of power—forever waiting to pounce when opportunity
beckons, like the innately parasitic fiends that all religious degenerates are, at heart.
People living in an advanced society are not naturally attached to religion.
Left to their own devices they drift away from attachment to such disgusting ideas,
very rapidly. And this is the real lesson we should derive from the long term ebbing
and flowing of religious influence described above. This is a product of the
conditions that apply where modern religious identity patterns are the basis of central
power ; less so where primal cultures exist, because here the elite is embedded within
what is in any case a far smaller biomass of social substance, where there is no
complex notion of religion that had to be especially taught, and therefore needs
reinforcing and keeping up. Herein we connect with the most major consequence
arising from the idea that humans are a superorganism. For this reveals two
interdependent, opposing facts of human nature, whereby we acknowledge that people
are made to be enslaved to a superorganic identity, but, in order to facilitate this
process they have a permanent inclination to become detached, or drift, unless
continually re-engaged. This indicates the primary dynamic behind all of the most
dramatic aspects of our modern civilised world. In a primitive superorganic setting
stimulus is continual, life in the raw is seen all around, so the possibility of
detachment from the cultural milieu is nonexistent. But in civilised societies like our
own, we can make sense of all catastrophe of a man made kind, in terms of this need
to re-engage people with religion, warfare, mass unemployment, political upheaval all
galvanise large scale communities that have become loose in their attachment to the
ruling superorganic identity. And as a consequence our systems of control are
deliberately set to reset, so to speak, periodically. That is to say, they are built on a
kind of social precipice, where periodic collapse is inevitable, but where the
mechanisms of recovery are equally built into the fabric of superorganic physiology.
Being in the midst of a global catastrophe in the shape of a financial meltdown, as we
are right now, that the pundits have labelled a ‘Credit Crunch’, to make it sound all
nice and friendly, like a special kind of candy bar, is a wonderful time to get your
head around the physiological normality of disasters of this kind. Anyway, back to
reality. We see how the politicians have sat and watched the disaster unfolding as if
they wantedit to happen ; suspicious, no ? And having happened, they know just what
to do about it—raid the wealth of the nation and give it to the criminals, that is to
themselves and their backers, who have created the mess by milking society for
decades. In other words, such calamities as this are a kind of harvest period. An elite
class rules society, it owns all of us, the whole fabric of society indeed, and it farms us
at its leisure, exactly as farmers do with domestic livestock, we are no different. So it
is inevitable that, while we can be milked relentlessly, and are, an occasional cull will
also be required. And such a cull to the elite, is akin to the bursting of the mayfly to
the trout. A great bonanza, as we all know from seeing it with our own eyes. Such is
life for the maggot mammals making up the body of a vastly engrossed human
superorganism.

There can, however, be little doubt that there is some truth in the oft-
repeated saying, that English patriotism is, at any rate in some quarters, on the
wane ; that there is even growing up in some centres a bias of anti-patriotism.
This would seem to be due to two opposite tendencies ; the tendency of some,
on the one hand, to restrict the sympathies to the narrowed sphere of party ;
the tendency of others, on the other hand, to extend the range of the
sympathies beyond the limits of our island and its dependencies. For we must
remember that the units which compose the social organism are distinct ; that
they are to some extent independent, and to that extent capable of individual
evolution. During the quiescence of the organism as a whole, therefore, that is
during times of peace, the units undergo differentiation. Here is a group in
which the sympathies are narrowed down to this or that theological party,
political faction, or social clique. There is a group in which the sympathies are
so inverted that rabbits and monkeys are reckoned before suffering humanity.
Here again is a group who weep for the benighted South Sea Islanders, but are
deaf to the cry of distress in their own parish. And there, once more, is a group
whose sympathies embrace all men, and all in something like their due
degrees. Such differentiations go on within the social organism during peace,
the period of quiescence. But when war comes, and the organism as a whole
has to struggle for very existence, then factions tend to cease, and the units
tend to co-operate for a common end, the safety of the fatherland. Then that
struggle which was going on among the factors subsides, and all unite for the
common good. The tendency towards disintegration in the social organism
ceases, and is replaced by the integrating bonds of patriotism.

(Springs of Conduct, C. Lloyd Morgan, 1885, pp. 275 – 6.)

Here was a man lucky enough to live during a brief interlude when science
was free, a man who therefore had the benefit of growing up within a society which
knew that humans were a superorganism. And we see as a result, just how potent his
interpretation of human life is compared to the prevaricating rubbish we must endure
from all quarters today, as the theocracy wakes from its brief slumber, and begins to
reel in the cords that have kept it in control over the last couple of centuries or so,
readying itself to take a firm grip once again, and really nail us to the floor, returning
to the normal condition for a human society like ours.
 V

Pivots of observation

In the first chapter we explained that the normal, everyday mode of speech, is
political, whereby we express ourselves in terms of individual motivation, but that
whatever degrees of consciousness exist in human activity, all social behaviour is
dictated by our physiology, just as that of the bird is dictated by its power of flight,
regardless of the particular directions a bird happens to move in from moment to
moment. We need to make the same point again following our talk of an abusive
master class that owns and farms us, and has strategies to allow it to do this with
impunity, by engaging a cycle of seemingly accidental catastrophes that it creates,
then it cures, and in both cases extracts the desired reward of wealth, which supports
its power. So again we say that these outcomes are beyond the control of any living
individuals, they are built into the social infrastructure, the superorganic physiology.
The particular individuals concerned are utterly irrelevant to the political process, the
process will be what the process will be. In other words the process selects the
individual, not the other way round. The superorganism has to have an organ of
command, coordinating the flow of energy about the body to make it into one whole
meaningful living organism. The elite class is that organ of command, the brain of the
superorganism. And it is these same people who seek to ensure that come what may,
religion, that is identity, survives. And since the identity is the very essence of the
superorganism, this makes perfect sense. The brain is the organ of corporate identity.
Therefore our discussion here concerns the physiology of corporate identity.
Which comes first the chicken or the egg, the horse or the cart ? Silly old
sayings, but they come to mind now. Lets move this thought onto a more useful level,
where we can get at the real significance of this question concerning points of
reference within real systems, for that is what we are talking about when we argue
that there is the political representation of human affairs, and there is the reality of
human affairs. The question is all about pivotal points of view. Events occur, and we
all see the same events, more or less. But if those events are on a particular scale that
defies our powers of direct observation, then we are left with the job of interpretation.
Political events are social wide, they occur on the largest possible human scale, so we
can only understand them via a degree of interpretation. It is clear that there is a
natural dichotomy to social dynamics, whereby the composition of society based on
individuals, of which we are all one example, and the totality of the society, gives us
two potential pivotal points of conceptual observation from which to interpret events.
Depending upon whether we emphasise the person as the focal point of social energy,
or the society as a whole as the focal point of social energy, we are bound to develop
radically different interpretations of social events.
Obviously the society and the people it is composed of, are one and the same
thing, and neither can be separated from the other. But society is a dynamic system,
and this adds a third parameter to our calculations. But the third parameter is of a
different kind to the first two, they are material, whereas the extra condition is
energetic. So we have three factors dictating political events, two ‘objects’ and one
‘dynamic’. Now we are ready to make our interpretation. Along comes a political
event, this is an energetic occurrence and we want to interpret it. So we must relate
this event to our two objects, there has to be a primary initiating source of induction
causing our social event, but only one object or the other can be the dynamic source,
we cannot use both objects as the basis of our explanation for the event. We either go
with the individuals associated with the event, or with the social context in which the
event occurs. From this point all hell breaks loose, in terms of trying to find reason.
The trouble is that we have homed in upon the pivotal centre of human existence, we
have accessed the point at which we determine what makes our world happen. We
have two choices about how to interpret that world, we can either interpret events in
terms of individuals, that is politically, or we can interpret events in terms of nature,
that is scientifically. Unless individuals are the real source of political events, in
which case the political interpretations provided by politicians and historians will
already be scientific, they will just lack the precision of being analysed according to
scientific method.
What we are really asking then, is where the centre of energy is within the
social system. Individuals are a centre of energy in their own right, but so is the
planet the earth, does this mean the earth is the centre of energy in the system of
which it is a part ? No. But in former times the earth was made the centre of a
universal system because science manifested itself in astronomy, so that religion was
based upon this ultimate knowledge of reality. In order to obtain social power
religion must insinuate itself into the true focal point of universal energy, as best
understood by knowledge of reality at the time, as understood by science that is. We
could almost say the point of science is to locate the focal point of energy in the
system of which we are a part, so that religion can steal it away.
In reality of course we have no choice whatever in our choiceof focal points of
interpretation. The only interpretations allowed in our society are the political.
People make events, end of story, anyone saying otherwise is silenced by the
smothering weight of the establishment that will not tolerate any dissension from its
religious dogma—There are good people, evil people and stupid people, so events can
be chaotic, but whatever happens, people are totally responsible for all that happens.
This is one pivotal interpretation. But there is the other possible pivotal
interpretation, where we make society the reality existing in its own right. Within
which individuals exist as elemental components of the complex social entity,
revolving, as it were, about a focal point of energy at the core of society, which is the
essence of human corporate nature, that generates a living superorganism by
organising the behaviour of individuals, that we perceive as an endless series of
political events, because we are a miniscule particle of the substance that these events
manage.
We are obviously striving to base our interpretation on the latter pivotal point,
and when Morgan was alive he automatically based his interpretation on this same
pivotal point, that reduced people to functions of a greater whole. This kind of
interpretation is fatal to the theocracy, so that access to the true pivotal point of
interpretation had to be erased from society, and it was, brutally, ruthlessly and
without qualms or reservation. There can only be one point of observation from
which a true view of reality can be secured within a three dimensional space. I
wonder where the Ancient Greek interest in geometry came from, since they made it
the basis of religious identities, linked to mystery cults and social power. Something
of the power of geometry as a mystery can be seen when we tease out this argument
concerning the interpretation of social reality as revealed by ideas of pivotal points of
observation.

VI

The meaninglessness of sentience

 We also noted in the previous chapter that the superorganism had no self
awareness, but this was, however, irrelevant to its existence, to the question that is,
whether or not the superorganism really did exist or not. Since the only thing of any
consequence regarding the determination of what constitutes an organism, was the
presence of a defining identity, in other words, what mattered was the
superorganism’s possession of an identity.
In the above section we see that the brain of the superorganism is composed of
the elite that rule society, and these people are extremely jealous of the religious
identity upon which their power is based. So what these people care about, as living
individuals, is power. They do not care about identity as such, they have no idea what
identity is, they are inducted into an identity, and so they take it for granted, although
they do intuitively understand its precious value as a means to an end. So as we think
about the nature of the elite that rule our world, we must strive to see the real nature
of their power, and also the true nature of the religious identity associated with them.
Yes these people support religion, but the religion they support is the essence of the
superorganism they are part of, and it is the power of the superorganism they seek to
be in communion with. These people are therefore doing the bidding of the
superorganism when they affiliate themselves with religion. And as tricky as this idea
may be to be clear about in our minds, the simplicity of it derives from the fact that
this outcome is dictated by our individual human physiology, that moulded us into the
form of sentient bricks, designed to build social architecture. That architecture has
been built into a massive global superorganism, the living ‘bricks’, or cellular units,
come and go, but the structure, the exoskeleton of superorganic being, that we call
society, that remains. Individuals are inducted into the exoskeletal framework, where
they perform their predetermined function, as dictated by the structural conditions that
have emerged over the millennia during which the superorganism they are part of has
being growing.
With the switch from Bush to Obama at the head of the one real superpower
just this year, we have a prime example of the kind of material that would be used to
contradict our claim that individuals are irrelevant to the political process. But again,
any impression can be given by the establishment, and if everyone is singing from the
same hymn sheet, that is, adopting the same pivotal stance, the tune they play will
always be in harmony. The presentation of contrast between Bush and Obama is
exactly what is required, and the reality of contrast is too. But this difference in
personal attitude is an expression of the focus of energy invested in the state structure,
it is not really personal, and the reality is that the state structure is not the foci of the
system to which the state, not even the American superstate, belongs. In actual fact,
since we are here, we may as well say that Israel is the true foci of political power in
the global superorganism. Israel is the repository of superorganic identity, and this is
why Obama has, both before his election and since, repeatedly reaffirmed the
unquestioning dedication of the United States to the intimate relationship existing
between the greatest power and earth, America ; and the true foci of power on earth,
Israel. But I was hoping to leave this dangerous topic alone for as long as possible,
while we build up the basics, as we will be delving into it, in depth, later, and if you
are not with me by then, I am in deep deepies.

VII

Fitness and religion

 We have already declared that the ultimate field of battle had to be the life
sciences, because they led inevitably toward the investigation of humans as a natural
phenomenon. Science had to treat humans, in their entirety, as part of the organic
world ; and we shall be following this scientific principle here. The very concept of a
scientific age, and the question arising from it, as to how ancient and mystical forms
of social knowledge could persist into such an age, involves the occurrence of
something incredible, that something is the manner in which knowledge of tangible
reality is made available by the scientific method of investigation.
The application of the scientific method left no stone unturned, and there was
no question of religion simply letting go of its hold on those fields of inquiry that
touched upon the nature of humans. To do so would amount to the theocracy signing
its own death warrant. And we may assume that the ability to deal with an
antagonistic condition relative to science was inherent in religion, because it is an
essentially organic construct with a purely social purpose. The very form of religion
had to be such as to allow religion to compete and win out, over any naturalistic form
of knowledge that can be conceived of, and history certainly bears out this
supposition. It follows from this assertion that religion is intimately connected with
genuine knowledge of realty, and is always derived from ideas that people have about
reality. Hence when naturalistic knowledge develops it either constitutes a
blasphemy, or it forces religion to reorganise itself to take account of that which it
cannot suppress. Clearly then, what we are describing here is the organic fitness of
religion as a pattern expressing linguistic force, a pattern which constitutes a template
for the design and construction of a superorganism. Religion, in order to exist, must
always of faced up to the challenge of deleterious patterns of information of the same
kind, and overcome them. And this is precisely why today we find a uniform
structure serving as the basis for all expressions of one original pattern, whereby
sacred texts serve as foundation stones of new expressions of core identity. The
pattern which the text constitutes, dictates the formation of a physiological structure
that protects the pattern itself, thus setting up a feedback loop between the pattern and
the form it creates ; just as a familiar organism serves to protect and reproduce the
genome that created it. Thus we make linguistic force weave superorganic form at the
level of social organisation in exactly the same manner as genetic force creates
patterns in the guise of genomes, that weave organisms at the somatic level of
organisation. We may reject Darwinism as a misanthropic deception, but this element
of the central principle concerning fitness relative to the conditions of development, is
real enough. Lies are a spice that require a basis in truth, if they are to have any
potency.

VIII

The impotence of true knowledge

Naturalistic knowledge can never be the direct foundation of social power

because it can only ever be egalitarian in its nature. Knowledge of reality being
simply true, cannot be made the basis of a mystery sect, so it cannot be the kernel of
an identity about which an exclusive organ of authority can be formed by defining
none initiates as outsiders to be defined as a class to be owned, farmed and exploited.
 This is why religious people hate true knowledge, as manifested in science, as
an absolute way of knowing reality, because it negates the possibility of preserving
the basis of social power derived from an attachment to knowledge of identity,
expressed in their religion. Obviously a privileged elite preserve identity as a means
of self empowerment, but as Djilas noted in relation to communism, this requires a
base within the body of the biomass, which then has its interests attached to the
priesthood, whose special interests are deeply attached to the identity in question. The
‘base’ in this case becomes dependant, but exploited, and a balance has to be struck,
from which fact much of our political history arises, as the balance shifts this way and
that, between the two extremes of outright exploitation and enlightened paternalism.
And so superorganic structure is constructed from a multitude of sentient
bricks, organised into a minor organs of identity, which are linked into complex
arrangements of organs of common identity, and ultimately, via a number of other
such structural arrangements, such as nation states, realise a hidden point of
culmination in a superorganism that is known indirectly through the central object of
mystery, which we call God. And this brings us neatly to our first mention of the
proof that God does not exist, whereby we prove that God does not exist by showing
what God is, in reality : God is the superorganism.

IX

Identity as organic accumulator

The accumulation of social power requires that distinctions be made between

people, in order to create a hierarchy channelling power from the base to the pinnacle,
and back again toward the base in the form of commands. Commands dictate work
patterns, coming from the top down, while energy, expressed as wealth, is channelled
from the bottom up. Work denotes purpose, purpose equates to the dynamic of
organic being, which in humans means the servicing of superorganic being. This
metabolic model indicates the relationship of information, in the form of collective
knowledge, to the flow of energy running from the whole biomass toward a pinnacle,
and then back from the pinnacle toward the masses. Energy in life flows along
information pathways, this is predicted in our definition of life as information,
elaborated into a theory of life set out in chapter one. The pinnacle coalesces in the
form of an elite, in effect an organ of superorganic being, a brain or neural centre.
Which acts as an engine of social power, capturing the accumulated social energy
derived from the unified obedience to an idea, expressed in the form of religious
identity. From the process of energy accumulation, energy is focused into the
production of the uniform message that enabled the channelling of energy in the first
place. Thus an energy cycle is set up with regard to the information of life expressed
in linguistic force which drives the production of superorganic fabric as energy drawn
from the base enables the message to be promoted, that is directed toward organising
the obedience that generates the power the elite use to sustain the message. The elite,
based on knowledge, becomes like an engine running on coal, that is attached to a
machine for digging coal. All ‘brains’ are in effect in charge of the machines that
obtain the fuel, that empowers the brains that control the machines, and human elites
are no exception to this general physiological rule.
The evolution of a social hierarchy requires that artificial distinctions be made
between people, that are given forceby command over natural resources being secured
by an exclusive identity of class of identities, of which naturalistic knowledge, such as
we associate with science, is but one such natural resource. The preservation of social
power requires an ongoing effort, which depends upon a feed back loop operating
between the preservation of identity and the acquisition of resources, and the
concomitant control over knowledge. This discussion of social dynamics, that
associates identity with power, indicates that a hierarchy of identities is crucial for the
preservation of social power, where this means a spectrum of distinctions existing
between groups of people, all of whom live under the auspices of one overall
corporate identity, which is always religious. For power to exist in society there must
therefore be a gradation of identities, the pretence of communism is nothing more
than a mean deception, unfortunately, that appeals because it has a certain ideal of
equality at its heart. A society without a hierarchy would still contain energy, but a
society containing energy in a state of uniform distribution is void of any
meaningfully social power, in the sense that power refers to energy available to do
work. For energy to be able to do work there must be a gradient for it to descend in
the process of doing that work, and such gradients mean structure. This is basic
physics, and it applies in a superorganism as much as anywhere else in the universe.

Chapter 3

Convoluted Knowledge

The fourth line of attack is in many respects the subtlest, the most penetrating. It has
its distant origins in Greek scepticism. We hear it in Pascal’s remark that there is one truth this
side of the Pyrenees but another on the Spanish side. Or in Lenin’s dictum : ‘Do not ask
whether a thing is true or not ; ask only, true for whom ?’ The most recent form of this attack
is to be found in the social theory of the Frankfurt School, in Horkheimer’s, Adorno’s and
Marcuse’s critiques of the enlightenment. The argument is this : objectivity, scientific laws,
the concept of truth and falsehood, logic itself, are neither eternal nor neutral. They express
and enact the world-view, the economic purposes and power-structures, the class interests of
that dominant elite which began in the slave-economy of ancient Greece and reached its full
flowering in the mercantile-technological imperialism of western capitalist societies. The
notion of abstract truth, of the ineluctable fact, are instruments not of disinterestedness but of
the class struggle. What hungry man feeds on the theory of relativity ? ‘Truth’ is a complex
variable depending on the social context. There is no objective history, but a history of
oppressor and oppressed. Logic is a weapon of the literate against the intuitive-sensory modes
of speech and sentiment among the masses. The enshrinement and teaching of scientific laws,
be they Newtonian, Malthusian or Darwinian, reflects a conscious means of spiritual and
material control over society. ‘The truth, as taught by your masters, shall make you slaves.’

(Has Truth a Future ?, George Steiner, 1978, p. 9)

From the outset of what we call ‘civilization’ knowledge had been controlled
directly by religious institutions. The coming of the scientific age appears to
represent an end to that control, but this is only an appearance. It is not possible,
remember, for religion and science to occupy the same space at the same time, by
which we mean social space, therefore it is not possible for religion and science to
exist at one and the same time in the same society : if religion exists then science
cannot exist.
The total annihilation of religion is a precondition for the existence of science.
The overt control of religion over the knowledge freely dispersed in society is passed,
this much is true, But so what ? The slow process whereby the church relinquished
control allowed the theocracy to retain covert control of the knowledge that really
mattered. It is the manner in which religion secured covert control over the
knowledge that was crucial to the preservation of its existence that is central to our
interests here. It is not for nothing that the word ‘occult’ frequently comes up in
regard to the historical preservation and expression of social power through religious
observance. ‘Occult forces’ merely alludes to the hidden knowledge behind
coordinated social activity that is driven by secret knowledge, knowledge that is
precluded from most people, except in the most abstruse or pedestrian form, such as
we find in the Bible, filled as it is with lots of pathetic tales fit only for a weak,
immature mind ; and then the same knowledge is otherwise shared differentially, in a
graduated manner, amongst the initiated. The human biomass of which any society-
cum-superorganism is composed, therefore acts like a filtration paper absorbing
knowledge in an ever more refined degree, until the whole biomass is reduced to a
series of bands delineated by degrees of ignorance that equate to the distribution of
people along an identity gradient, which forms the basis society’s hierarchical
structure, or what we might otherwise call the physiology of the superorganism. In
saying this we equate the possession of social identity to a state of ‘ignorance’, which
is what social identity is, from a scientific point of view, because the components of
social identity consist of false knowledge about reality. We could call false
knowledge ‘artificial knowledge’, as it only exists as a product of human existence,
which means that religion is artificial knowledge.

Artificial knowledge

Artificial knowledge is knowledge created by humans about humans, so that

the objects of interest to artificial knowledge are entirely part of the superorganic
fabric of humanity itself. Artificial knowledge is therefore about features of existence
that did not exist prior to the coming of humans, but which does reflect a true reality
of existence that includes human beings. At the same time, this reflection of human
existence, that is artificial knowledge, is not real knowledge, because it is part of the
phenomenon of humans themselves, and as humans are superorganisms this means
that artificial knowledge, like all artificial structure, is part of human superorganic
physiology. As such artificial knowledge awaits interpretation according to the
principles of true knowledge, which reflects reality as it is. This contrast between
artificial knowledge that is functional within the social environment, and real
knowledge which describes all reality without the precondition of functionality, sets
up a contrast between the artificial and the real, whereby artificial-cum-functional
knowledge controls real-cum-abstract knowledge in the manner that may be described
as that of ‘over folding’ layers of linguistic fabric, that wrap around any true
knowledge that exists, creating immense complexity, that contains and manages the
reality of human existence, keeping it in harmony with the rest of existence in which
humans are placed. So that we get artificial accounts of reality making the earth stand
at the centre of the cosmos, for example, or making the creation of life follow the
human social process of competitive selection. These artificial schemes use objects of
reality and turn them into objects of fiction.
Artificial knowledge exists to create superorganic physiology, and as such
artificial knowledge always precedes real knowledge in importance. When real
knowledge encroaches upon artificial knowledgethe resulting interpretation simplifies
the knowledge forming the popular mystery of existence. For this reason when a
supposedly scientific explanation, but certainly a materialistic interpretation of life,
comes along in the shape of evolutionary theory, many denounce this as a sacrilege,
not only in the religious sense, but in the poetic sense that draws strength from the
wonder of life. These reactions against true, materialistic knowledge, voiced in the
name of false knowledge, are all very well, but from a scientific point of view
sentimentality must be regarded as yet one more facet of human behavioural
complexity. Scientists, expressing their intellectual approach in comparative human
terms, may ask what on earth is so sublime about being a blithering idiot ! Therefore
to a scientifically minded person the interpretation of sentimentality presents just one
more mechanism of defence against real knowledge, offering protection to artificial
knowledge that bolsters the armoury of the superorganism, that needs to keep its
cellular units attached to its corporate identity. This defence needs the complexity of
over folded layers of deceit to make it work, in the modern world of highly complex
scientific knowledge. So that the trueknowledge, which provokes howls of anguished
protest, must itself be an extension of false knowledge, as Darwinism is. Otherwise
the protests would be futile, for explanations of reality would be provided of the kind
we give here, and there would be no possibility of resisting these perfect explanations
of human existence. Darwinism mimics true knowledge by being materialistic, and
this is how the trick is pulled off. In the insect world the same mechanisms must
apply to allow deception to be adopted as a means of exploiting insect
superorganisms, whereby creatures can mimic ant pheromones of identity and move
freely in the nests. Darwinism is of course functional within the superorganism that
produced it, because it helps preserve the resident identity. But the same resident
identity is a slave maker identity that has replaced one superorganic identity after
another over the course of thousands of years, allowing it to reach the present level of
dominance where it embraces the whole of humanity.
This description lends itself to an understanding of why humans are so
emotional. Emotions give value to the artificial knowledge that is so vital to the
existence of the superorganism. Emotions are the basis upon which false knowledge
can be accepted without question, because emotions give false knowledge value that it
would otherwise not have ; this fact is undeniable given the impression we get of
religious fervour around the world, and throughout all history. Today, as it happens,
Friday, 10th July 2009, an item on the news reported the felling of a tree in Ireland,
that revealed an image of the Virgin Mary ! People came from far and wide to see it.
A women said she had great faith in Her, and she thought this event was wondrous,
and we saw her kiss the tree stump. This habit of finding religious iconography
within plant tissues keeps cropping up all around the world of late, it is as close to
mindless insanity as I would ever wish to get, but there it is.
However we must understand that the reward for being emotional in this way
is by no means hollow. By being rigidly fixated on the artificial knowledge that gives
the superorganism its integrity, its identity, the individual unit benefits from the power
of attachment to an empowered superorganism, and this relationship is the basis of
religious belief. This is the same as the ‘social power’, i. e. status, feeling of well
being, that a supporter acquires from being attached to a successful football team, and
we know how passionate people are about such attachments, even though the ‘power’
in this case is of a comparatively superficial order, compared to that delivered by
attachment to the superorganism itself ! No one gets to be prime minister purely
because they are a Manchester United supporter, whereas, Tony Blair became prime
minister purelybecause he was a Christian ; and Gordon Brown, and Margaret
Thatcher, and David Cameron, oh, but that last one is still to be. And, as we have
been keen to say, these inclinations are built into our physiology, the sense of need
that people have for this connection with a source of power is a feature of the ‘sentient
brick’, that we evolved to be.
For this reason we should note that our derogatory attacks on religion, and
those who are religious, are levelled more at the priests who know as well as we do
that religion is a game. The gullible minions are mostly helpless dupes, not because
of the work of the priests so much, though that does not help, but because of the
reality of how they feel, because of how they are made. Which appears to lend some
weight to the priest’s defence that religion is a comfort to old ladies and the like, and
we have no business seeking its destruction. There are subtleties to the debate, but in
the end we want knowledge, and we cannot have it because others want religion, and
that has to be our only concern when all is said and done. Simple folk would find
comfort under any dispensation backed by social authority, so we must recognise that
the ‘priest’s defence’ is just a ruse, they certainly do not give a damn about anyone or
anything, except themselves and power, and certainly not weak and simple folk.
Priests tend this flock to nurture a foothold in the biomass, upon which to build a
power base by manipulating the dynamics of superorganic physiology, which their
religious dogma instructs them how to do.
Being emotional to a degree of intensity that sustains religious devotion, that
is familiar to us all these days in the shape of people like Muslim suicide bombers, is
a highly functional biological behaviour of the individual from the perspective of the
human superorganism, since ‘emotional reason’ in individuals—irrationality in other
words—forms the basis of superorganic integrity. Irrationality is highly functional to
the human animal, and therefore to the parts of that animal, that only exist to make
that animal exist. Thus we see that human psychology can be made sense of only in
terms of superorganic physiology, as the philosopher Benjamin Kidd pointed out in
his immensely popular book Social Evolutionof 1894, where he said there can be no
rational justification in terms of individual interests, for the emotional commitment
people feel via their religious identity, that induces them to sacrifice themselves to a
future beyond their personal existence. But this is what the superorganism they are
part of requires them to do, if it is to be empowered relative to less well integrated
superorganisms with which it must compete for survival according to the crude ideas
of Darwinian evolutionary theory, so that those individuals who become increasingly
mindless benefit from being part of the winning superorganism their mindlessness
inevitably produces. Consequently individuals evolve that are most able to be
mindlessly emotional, and are, as a consequence, able to value artificial knowledge
without question. Then all that is required to create a powerful superorganism is a
body of artificial knowledge best able to exploit the potential of the resulting
proclivity for mindless obedience to an emotionally rewarding idea.

II
 The roots of rational thinking

This last observation reveals a feedback loop of evolutionary potential

operating between human intelligence and social knowledge, whereby ‘intelligence’ is
not intelligence in the sense of ‘perceiving true knowledge’, but rather in the sense of
absorbing artificial knowledge efficiently. Over time the competition between
superorganisms based on the elaboration of artificial knowledge drives the evolution
of a capacity for this kind of ‘social intelligence’, and the ability to represent artificial
knowledge linguistically in order to create an ever more powerful superorganic form.
So that from a primitive ability to attach to artificial knowledge on a purely emotional
level, such as we see in all kinds of social primates, an increasing capacity for real
knowledge emerges based on language. This sets up the relationship between
artificial knowledge that is fundamental to human nature, being the basis of human
superorganic physiology, and the capacity to discern true knowledge, that is detached
from a directly emotional base associated with biological imperatives. This gives us a
biological model accounting for the evolution of the modern human capacity for
intellectual knowledge of a real kind, within a world nonetheless dominated by
artificial knowledge of a social, or organic kind.
I am reaching for something here that I have fallen short of. Humans have an
incredible capacity for rational thought which has produced genuine knowledge of
reality. There is clearly a dualistic capacity to human intelligence, in that we have this
split between emotional knowledge and rational knowledge. In actual fact the idea
that humans are a superorganism means that all knowledge is necessarily part of the
fabric of the organism, so that these two contrasting knowledge components both
have a functional role within the superorganism’s physiology. The role is that
artificial/social/false knowledge provides, or is otherwise primarily associated with,
the organism’s identity, while rational/true/real knowledge ultimately provides the
organism’s physical structure, its exoskeleton. However the capacity for both forms
of intelligence are derived from oneform of intelligence only, from the false form.
This is what I was striving, and failing to express in the above paragraph, the roots of
the power to reason rationally lie within the power to reason irrationally. It is the
false knowledge of identity that is crucial, the elaboration of the capacity to produce
false knowledge must of been the basis upon which humans evolved the capacity for
speech, from which arises the further capacity for rational thought to be expressed.
This makes perfect sense, how else could an animal evolve to interrogate the
universe as to its nature and creation to the astounding degree that we do ? There had
to be a catalyst, the catalyst of rationality was irrationality. Rational thought is
inherent in all animals in the sense of responding appropriately to stimuli, but while
linguistic ability empowers the furtherance of rational thought, language is all about
generating abstractknowledge of superorganic significance. The capacity for rational
thought could not of driven the evolution of linguistic physiology, as scientists insist
by making out that human form evolved in response to the challenge of a changing
physical environment. This would mean that from the beginning of the process,
benefits would of needed to accrue of a rational kind, while even to this day the
accretion of benefits to individual survival mediated by the individual’s capacity for
rational thought are practically nonexistent. The primary requirement of any
individual who seeks to do well in life in the modern world, is a supreme capacity for
mindless stupidity, acting in obedience to the social programme. Hence from this
model we can understand the primacy of irrational ideas over rational, and why being
irrational comes naturally, whereas being rational is always a more or less alien
disposition ; rather as indicated in Wolpert’s work that we quote from in the preface
above.
At the head of chapter one is a quote from Elworthy, who produced a book so
thoroughly imbued with the idea of humans as a biological entity, that we could wish
for nothing more. But like Dawkins he stands upon the pivotal point of observation
built by Darwin, and from there he forces everything he sees or thinks to fit this
mechanical transit. His work is a monument to the facile nature of science in our
world, thanks to the relentlessly delinquent influence of religiously minded people,
obeying the primary command to be mindless in obedience to the social programme.
It is quite extraordinary how the most intelligent people can devote their entire lives,
working hard, and with passion, to produce knowledge that is so astoundingly clever,
and all to ensure that the simple truth cannot be known. And so science becomes
religion. This kind of intellectual product is the ultimate proof that the roots of
rational thinking lie in the irrational nature of linguistic expression, that evolved to
perform the biological function of producing superorganic physiology.

III

Why humans ?

In passing we may take the opportunity to make an important point about the
process of evolution, provided by our reference to primate society being related to our
own, in terms of its utilisation of emotional force in the organization of social
structure. With this thought in mind people are bound to wonder why other primates
have not developed into a human like social form, why should one primate make the
transition and not others ?
Last night, 23/08/08, on Channel 4, a science documentary about the planet
after we have become extinct, asked which creatures would replace us, Would
chimpanzees make the leap ? a talkster¹ asked. He answered his own question by
saying that ‘some scientists’ believed that it was easy for evolution to make animals
become this or that, but it may be a pure fluke that made animals able to look up at the
sky and wonder ...... bla, bla, bla. Providing another example of what we mean when
we talk about all science being corrupted, for it is all dragged into the job of making
humans unique, as opposed to natural ; divine, as opposed to part of the normal
evolutionary process. This is the kind of simplistic argument we might expect to be
spat out mindlessly by a Creationist, but this kind of question is engendered by the
ludicrous notion of evolution as a process of ‘natural selection’ based on pure chance,
that has been foisted upon us by the religious establishment through its support and
promotion of Darwin’s work, maintained ever since by the theocracy’s academic
establishment, represented by pseudo scientists like Dawkins. Obviously if
Darwinism were a genuine scientific idea then questions about why others have not
become like us, or what other animals could become like us, would be perfectly
legitimate, and we would indeed be faced with an impossible question to answer.
Fortunately Darwinism is pure nonsense from start to finish, nothing could be more
anathema to science than Darwinism. There is selection at the genetic level acting to
transform species, but it is nonsense to make this mechanism either the basis, or the
entirety of evolution.
 Why have other primates, or mammals indeed, not evolved into fully formed
superorganic species ?

Because the evolutionary process is about force relative to potential

energy latent in the form of a physiological engine, juxtaposed against an
environment.

¹ (Talkster – someone who provides ‘talk’ but who says nothing ; so that what they say is
equivalent to a stream of conformist reinforcing pheromones produced by a queen ant to sooth her
extended being. Subject : Conformist messaging in superorganisms.)
When a new ‘body engine’ comes into existence, such as that of mammalian
physiology, this event necessarily occurs in a localised place, it cannot occur
everywhere at once. Some might dispute such an assumption, some botanists for
example have argued about genetic mutations taking place across a population, in
order to account for aspects of plant distribution, and the influence of such debates
can be found in Darwin’s Origin of Species, but doubting this general assumption is
too bizarre for me to contemplate without being given solid reasons why I should. So
there is latent potential energy inherent in this newly evolved life engine, relative to
surrounding environments that do not contain such an engine ; the energy distribution
between life environments is thereby dislocated, creating an energy gradient between
the new body-engine and the environments void of its presence. This causes the
body-engine in question to descend the gradient in all directions, moving toward the
vacant pockets of energy potential that exist relative to itself. The process whereby
the generalised body-engine descends an energy gradient, and enters vacant
environments, is the process of evolution that Darwin dealt with according to his
selective method ; by which we mean selective in the sense of his selection of the
facts that he wanted to take notice of, not that he created a theory of selective
evolution.
As the body-engine evolves new forms relative to the potential energy of the
environments that it moves towards, the resulting expressions of the basic body-
engine become more and more adapted to the exploitation of the available potential
energy, until a perfect adaptation is realised. Thus a land animal becomes aquatic, so
that a deer turns into a whale. When the appropriate species is fully formed the
gradient between the generalisedbody-engine and the environment in question
reaches zero potential energy. A steady state is achieved relative to the basic body-
engine and no new species will head along the same trajectory unless similar starting
conditions apply elsewhere in time or space. This explains why no other primates or
mammals have become human like, there is only room for one such kind of
superorganic animal on the planet, when the latent potential of mammalian
physiology to become social is accessed, no void remains to be filled.
All deer will continue to be deer, and all whales will continue to be whales.
Evolutionary adaptation will continue within the newly formed species specially
adapted to the environment in question. Thus a new form of mammal evolves to
exploit the latent potential of an environment not previously occupied by mammals.
Once a mammal has evolved to fill such a potential energy pocket, the ‘engine void’
of that environment no longer exists, so that all other mammalian forms, with
approximately similar potential to evolve, no longer have a latent source of potential
energy to evolve toward. Humans have filled the void in the social environment, that
is a latent source of potential energy inherent in all body-engines, they have exploited
the potential of evolving a social physiology to form a superorganism, in which the
individual is reduced to the status of a cell within a body, therefore there is no unused
source of energy existing for any other species of mammal to use to fuel its own
evolution toward a superorganic form. When we observe primate society rich in
social behaviour fuelled by emotional energy, evoking a sense of our own superbly
refined intelligence, we are looking at the latent potential energy of the mammalian
form that was able to exploit the social environment that we are now adapted to. But
we are also looking at an animal form that has no possibility of following us through
the same evolutionary portal, for the door we passed through closed behind us.

IV

Life engines

We may put this idea of latent potential energy driving the evolution of living
structure into familiar terms by thinking of how our capitalist societies have
developed over recent times, whereby a society composed of a myriad of shopkeepers
has been reduced to a society composed of half a dozen major supermarket chains.
This transformation was made possible by the evolution of new modes of
communication during the nineteenth century, causing the commercial fabric of
Britain to be reduced to the status of a natural environment, relative to these new
engines of communication. There then existed a latent source of potential energy,
relative to any new ‘business engine’ that could develop a strategy allowing it to
absorb the shop to produce a corporation. Now that some half dozen major food
chains have been established however, the energy gradient between the corporate
engine and the family enterprise has been eradicated. The latent energy potential for
change no longer exists, so no family business existing today is likely to have an
opportunity of becoming a corporate chain of tomorrow, this possibility has already
been fulfilled, and the door has been closed behind it. Thus transforming the
physiology of the superorganism according to a new dynamic, that reaches towards
the limit of global potential.
Notice then that at the heart of the evolutionary process lies the engine: an
engine is any structure that can harness the latent energy potential of any living
system. Harnessing potential energy means the engine draws energy toward itself,
and then delivers the same energy back toward the source from which it was taken,
but in a new, modulated form, that unifies the chaotic source from which the energy
was drawn. A plethora of privately owned shops supplied by a host of market traders,
all drawing their goods from a variety of local producers, represents a highly
organised structure, packed with energy that is open to exploitation if a means of
creating a uniform order across a wide base can be introduced into the structure. A
corporation is just such an engine, and it is built through legal regulations delivering
ownership into the hands of anonymous boards of directors, that deliver uniform
instructions across a swathe of the social structure ; the potential for this new order of
organisation having been delivered through the material advances indicated. So in
this case of business regulation, legal regulation is the engine drawing energy toward
a focal point, and then redistributing it in a more efficient form that is seen by us in
the shape of corporate unity, with all the efficiency and bland mindless ugliness that is
typical of any uniform environment. And what do we find at the heart of this life-
engine potential energy process ? Information. The laws and regulations, not to say
the technical structures underpinning change, are all based upon the power to organise
information derived from genetically evolved linguistic physiology. Information is
the expression of universal force unique to living matter, and in this example we find
this life force driving social, or superorganic evolution.
 The regularisation of social structure is a biological process created by nature,
it is not a social process created by humans. Humans have no choice whatsoever in
the creation of the societies in which they live. No one chose to do away with local
corner shops to replace them with supermarkets. Well, we say no one, that is not
strictly true, the elite who own us and farm us, they most definitely chose this option
as a more potent means of exploiting us, just as most farmers choose to battery farm
chickens rather than employing free range methods. Except, even when we narrow
down the focus of the motivated decision making process, still, when all is said and
done, even these master individuals remain just individuals, who are also driven by a
process far more ancient than themselves, one which really leaves them with no
choice as to how to proceed. A thought that takes us back to the point made in chapter
one about China’s attempt to freeze itself in time, which meant that in the twinkling of
eye, a couple of thousand years, the whole Chinese civilisation was wiped from the
face of the earth, leaving its substance to be consumed by the Western superorganism
that Europeans have been part of for two thousand years.
The engineof energy regulation draws energy toward itself, drawing energy
from less organised structure and channelling it toward more organised structure.
This movement of potential energy between structures of ‘control’ and ‘controlled’,
always runs from greater to smaller, because the differential mass is what provides the
energy gradient to fuel the development of the new engine ; hence the reason social
elites are always small relative to their supporting biomass. By harmonising collected
energy elite structures are able to control masses far greater than themselves. This is
why religion, as the means of defining a master organ and connecting it to a biomass,
is the basis of power derived from linguistic physiology, and why religion is making a
massive come back in the void that was Britain, that had been created by the new
scientific ideas of the nineteenth century, that has now been destroyed by warfare,
combined with academic and political corruption, initiated and instituted by the usual
religious cliques. By means of a structure adapted to the source of potential energy,
which is itself a structure, but one of a less organised form, the social engine, in the
case of human society, causes social evolution to take place. It is this principle of the
organic engine that accounts for the evolution of elite structures, and structures of
social power in general, in civilised societies. Specifically, it also accounts for the
evolution of the Jewish identity that is the core of Western civilisation, and the global
superorganism, as a highly refined form of social engine. The Jewish identity
programme drives human evolution by developing social structures that allow the
latent potential energy of civlized societies to be geared up an extra notch, exactly as
we have just described in terms of the corporation relative to the shop.
Saying this begs a far more profound question. If developments in
communication in the nineteenth century, formed the basis of a corporate engine that
allowed one organisation to consume the shop, then, extending this principle to the
Jewish religious identity, as the identity of the global superorganism to which we all
belong today, What was the nature of the technological developments that allowed
Judaism to become the primary engine of social transformation at the embryonic stage
of the present global superorganism’s inception ? The answer to this question is fairly
obvious : writing, and all the social structure that goes with the development of this
complex medium of communication. Just as communications existed long before the
nineteenth century, so writing existed long before the rise of Judaism to the level of an
elite world order. But the rise of Judaism is associated with the final refinement of the
kind of writing we are familiar with today, and it is no coincidence therefore that the
Jews are known as the people of the Book. Communication is the key to the
evolution of life, for life is information. We have just noted that while technological
advances provide the means of imposing order on a chaotic biomass, it was the
production of legal machinery that formed the engine of exploitation for that latent
source of potential energy. Legal structure is synonymous with the power of writing,
for writing allows a programme to be created to run the superorganism. The religious
creed of the Jews, now imposed throughout the world, acts as that part of the identity
software programme delivering uniformity to the biomass through a uniform identity
package, while other legal elements provide physical control of the body structure.

Chosenness

By means of a differentialcreated between the conditions of inclusion versus

those of exclusion, a social structure is created that forms a hierarchy leading from the
mindless adherent, such as a Muslim suicide bomber, to the moronic high priest, such
as a Chief Rabbi or a Tony Blair. Maybe, I know not, there are some truly knowing
people too, somewhere. If any such knowingpeople do exist they will not be in the
shape of the face men just named, we know these face men well, and they are self
evidently bereft of any deep knowledge of reality. They have their heads jammed up
God’s arse, and the words they speak are appropriate to that condition. Any knowing
people will more likely be the private people behind power in the form of corporate
wealth, but those that in general keep off the public stage, not the likes of idiots like
Richard Branson or Bill Gates, who make themselves contemptible by doing
goodworks, thus revealing that they have all the mental agility of a typical priest.
Why should it be otherwise ? These men just happened to be in the right place at the
right time, they are the lottery winners of life, all that matters to nature is that some
such winners exist, who they are is an irrelevant detail. One thing is certain, truly
‘knowing people’, can never reveal what they know. After all that is precisely what
we are trying to do here, and as such we can only be considered as rabid anarchists,
supreme enemies of the society in which we live, and obviously the ‘knowing people’
we are talking about here, would be the lynch pins of the social world we live in, that
we are trying to unmask.
Whatever else, it is important to understand that we are never discussing a
conspiracy. There is no need to invoke a cabal of knowing puppeteers in the
organisation of human affairs. Nature runs the show through the evolved mechanism
of human physiology, which gives individuals, of all grades, the nature of a ‘sentient
brick’, that knows its duty is to form social architecture. The combined effect of all
the activity linked into a social chain, via an occult range of identities, all obedient to
one idea, will be a flow of social energy in a unidirectional manner, that will occur
without any but the highest priests having any idea what the ultimate objective might
be. A religion is only a highly formalised realisation of this basic social dynamic. A
dynamic that is itself created simply through the evolution of a talking mammal, since
it is the consciousness of identity, as a product of a linguistic programme, that makes
the plethora of identities possible. These identities are required to make a social
structure that is able to contain a flow of energy running from the base to the top,
through an ‘identity pile’ whose structure is reminiscent of that of an electrical battery,
creating a uniform flow of social energy attuned to one basic, overall programme,
united by a common identity. Albeit a common identity composed of myriads of
antagonistically defined identities, applied to individuals who are essentially oblivious
of their obedience to a universal programme, so that Jews think they are Jews,
Christians think they are Christians, Muslims think they are Muslims, and so on.
The irrelevance of self awareness

Why should the high priest know what the ultimate goal is, of an occult force
carried by an infinite number of discrete, unwittingly connected identities ?
What we are saying is that all religious identities, political identities included,
as expressions of the same kind, are of one overriding identity. As indicated above,
Jews, Christians and Muslims are, in reality, all equally Jews ; but they are only Jews
in terms of the broad, all embracing Jewish identity. This is so because the Jewish
identity is the identity of the superorganismthat all are part of, and like any organism
in nature a superorganism has, by definition, a physiology, which in turn implies a
structure, and hence the differentiation into the Jewish identity triad of Jew, Christian
and Muslim. All these identities are one, as indicated by the Chief Rabbi mentioned
previously, when he spoke of the Abrahamic unity of the three. Despite this, the real
nature of this uniformity of identity is completely unknown to alladherents of a
religious identity. It is quite mad ! But there it is, for all to see. The Jew states that
all Jews, Christians and Muslims are of the Abraham club, which means they are all
identical in terms of their identity, just as our legs, stomach, hands and so on are all
identical in terms of identity, because they belong to one body, even though they can
be identified separately. But this last conclusion would not be recognised by the
rabbi, and this is because the physiological hierarchy must be maintained for Judaism
to continue to serve as the supreme, all embracing identity of the superorganism.
And presumably our Chief Rabbi does not know about this physiological
unity, and could not know this even if he read these words, for he can only knowwhat
his religion tells him to know. So the ultimate priests in a mystery cult are oblivious
of the true nature of all that they live for. The rabbi would know that what is being
said here is true, but he knows this via the occult knowledge that taps into the living
being of the superorganism, by calling that superorganism ‘God’, and by saying the
Jews are the chosen people of God. To allow science to interpret Judaism is to allow
Judaism to be destroyed, because the occult code that channels superorganic power
into the Jewish identity is thereby decoded and made known to all : identity must be
exclusive, including when it is defining an integral partof a greater whole. But
following a discussion like this, which could be maliciously misconstrued as
suggesting Jews are parasitic, it is important to say that Judaism does not just tap
energy from God. Judaism creates the superorganism, for which it is the conduit of
energy, that results in Judaism being the supreme political power on Earth. It also
follows from what we have just said, that the word occult means, in scientific
language, ‘linguistic programme’ : a programme that symbolically identifies aspects of
reality in a socially functional form that is able to create social structure in the
likeness of an occult identity.
If we make ‘occult’ equivalent to ‘symbolic’ and link these two qualities to
reality through the physiology of speech, then we begin to tease out a number or
interrelated threads of superorganic being, that weave together to make the
superorganism via the elaboration of a religious mythology, whose pattern of identity
is reflected in the shape of the social structure we recognise on a daily basis. The
upshot of which, is that it is irrelevant what anyone, high priest or low acolyte, know
or do not know, as long as they follow the occult path, the identity programme. Self
awareness is irrelevant to the outcome of human action, because the whole substance
of human existence is dictated by the physiology of human nature that makes us
sentient bricks, evolved to create superorganic physiology. Herein lies the key factor
when discriminating between the political notion of conspiracy and the scientific idea
of causality.
A conspiracy requires self awareness, by definition, but exactly the same
conspiratorial result occurs where completely unwitting participants follow ideas
imbued into an occult agenda, buried in an identity programme, such as a religion.
The proliferation of conspiracy theories is just one more device muddying the waters
of reason, to ensure the clarity of science cannot come forth. Covert intelligence
agencies are often associated with the management of conspiracy plots through the
spread of misinformation, so the mechanism of conspiracy has a definite place in the
control of the masses, and it is surely important in the subversion of science by all the
forces of theocratic order. But the question for us is whether the individuals within
intelligence organisations know they are serving a superorganism, or whether they
think they are doing something else. Even the highest ranking secret service agent
surely thinks in political terms, not scientific terms, when they act in response to inner
motives of loyalty to an identity programme. In terms of identity, intelligence
agencies are akin to the most inner core of a superorganism, the very essence of a
brain. Above all else they are the guardians of identity, that is their purpose, to thwart
subversive movements by sensing them within the biomass, secretly observing, and
then nipping them in the bud. Today it is Islamic terror, when I was a child it was
working class, i.e. union activity, or student movements, when socialism was still
alive. But always science must be contained, and when we hear stories of the CIA
putting misinformation about UFO’s into the public domain back in the 50’s, we may
wonder just what goes on in these pits of perverted power mongering. But I always
feel that the programme dictating the loyalty of these agencies must cause these
organs of power to know that their ultimate goal is to protect the one religious identity,
to which we are all enslaved.
Conspiracy theorising is something we must treat as an especially vicious and
nasty piece of priestcraft, and as such a particularly insidious example of convoluted
reasoning, that wraps up true reasoning in a mesh of obfuscation, that appeals
intensely to emotional reasoning, and leaves rational reasoning impotent against a
conspiracy theory’s power to fixate the attention of the sentient bricks. Guarding
against the impulse to think in conspiratorial terms is a crucial discipline in the
science of human nature.

VI

Identity differentials

The quote opening chapter two is taken from Bio-Politicsby Morley Roberts,
published in 1938. Bio-Politicsis one of the greatest works of scientific sociology
ever written in English, or so I like to say, even though we have already noted that
Morley’s work is valued more for its spirit than its substance. So it is nice to pick
some choice selections from this great man’s work, a man who is unknown today
precisely because he was a real sociologist applying science to society, as opposed to
an officialsociologist guarding against the application of biology to humans. He was a
maverick worker, a loner, and as such a true philosopher searching for knowledge.
The reason for referring to this passage now is that I want to use it as an aid to filling
out the logic of the argument respecting the triadic macro physiology of the Jewish
superorganism, that we are all part of. Why could the Chosen People not just turn the
world into Jews who knew themselves as Jews, why did they have to evolve slave
identities, and not just one slave identity, but two, in order to accomplish their
objective ?
The answer lies hidden in these musings by Roberts, for he says that as an
organism grows it tends to do so differentially, and, as we have seen, knowledge of
self is distributed differentially in our society in such a way as to form a structural
hierarchy, which is nonetheless embraced by a universal imperative. Differential self
knowledge simply means attachment to different religious identities. This unifying
imperative then, is acknowledged by the rabbi referred to above when he says that
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all owe their origin to the prophetic wisdom of
Abraham. For scientists however, human society must be understood as a purely
biological phenomenon, and thus we make sense of the need for Judaism to trifurcate
in this way by recognising the tendency for tissue to grow differentially. Hence we
may deduce by way of Roberts’ guidance on these matters, that in order to retain order
across an extending biomass, identities must evolve that can retain a state of unified
integrity, while at the same time allowing for differential growth within the
superorganic body. Thus we see that as the hierarchy shifts from its primary identity
of Judaism, to its secondary identity of Christianity, and on to its basal identity of
Islam, the mass contained by each Jewish identity increases and the linguistic
programme dictating the social structure pertinent to each level, adjusts accordingly.
Changing from the exclusiveness of the Jews, to the mantra of one world identity built
into the Islamic Jewish slave identity, such that for a Muslim there is a universal
brotherhood, overriding the national boundaries that have proven so crucial to the
advance of the Christian creed. Muslim slaves of Judaism even have to perform a
regular physical act of worship, obviously devised to fix their minds on this universal
identity, to the detriment of any local affiliations. When we speak of such differences
between the identity programme created for each level of the superorganic being, we
sense some prior knowledge of what was required of these religious identities as they
were created by their authors—the prophets who knew God, who understood the
superorganism in other words—and it is here that we get our best clue that there were
grand masters, and that there still are grand masters, who know exactly what Judaism
is, these people being the pinnacle of the occult hierarchy of self knowledge, one must
suppose. Yet, do even they know the real truth that we are revealing here, or are they
only obeying a programme suited to their place in the exoskeletal framework of
institutions, which preserve religion and the programme of superorganic growth that
is religion ?

VII

Religious skin

Religion, no matter what alterations come about in society, always retains a

supreme position. Where once knowledge of reality was forcibly suppressed by
religion, now, in an age where knowledge of reality dominates the world, the
influence of religion upon this knowledge is disguised. If we visualise religion as a
thin layer atop that of science, we can envisage all knowledge as being filtered
through a religious membrane, so that science becomes the mechanics of society,
while religion forms the skin bearing the identity. However, as time goes by, it
appears that the submerged scientific knowledge is being converted by the veil of
religious knowledge lying above, into an ever more religious form. The two are
mixing, suggesting that in time society will become an overt theocracy once again,
but one empowered by modern science ; a remarkable thought ! So much knowledge
amid so much ignorance.
Viewed in this way it is as if the motion to and from an overt to a covert, and
back once again to an overt condition, makes religion appear like a social skin which
thickens and thins, and when it thins science is seen through the skin, when it thickens
science recedes out of sight. Roberts talks about the epidermal layer being the most
invasive tissue in the body, forever trying to extend itself into the areas where the
other tissues are trying to do their work, a tendency which I think he said is related to
the onset of cancer ; the study of cancer being a major stimulus for his ideas about
social dynamics. A that topic is veering too much towards Roberts’ way of
approaching this subject for us to explore here. But it is nice to try and make
connections with this hero of organicism, whose work provides an echo of the last
days of scientific freedom. Essentially then, knowledge is related to social structure,
and the interplay of religious and scientific knowledge is akin to the interplay of
identity and physical action in a somatic body composed living tissue.

VIII

A little convoluted thinking of our own

Our main theme in this work argues that all science is filtered through a
religious test. The struggle between science and religion has gone on remorselessly
since the first appearance of a scientific form of understanding. Religion being the
source of social power, generated an absolute authority in society, that has the power
to challenge new forms of knowledge. The scientific age was not the product of free
inquiry bursting the constraints laid upon it, the scientific age was the product of
material transformations in society, occurring as the society ruled by one common
religion extended itself. The extension of a uniformly defined religious society,
involved contact with hitherto unknown aspects of reality that could not be handled
without allowing new knowledge to be accommodated. The identity knowledge of
life, which is religion, only gives way to the architectural knowledge of life, which is
science, when it is expedient to do so in order that the superorganism can develop new
structure, and after a phase of extensive growth the skin recovers its opacity to
obscure the internal fabric once again. And this is the true nub of the issue we are
dealing with here, religion has only ever relinquished facets of knowledge formation
in particulate quantities, such as have been necessary in order to serve the living form
that religion is synonymous with, because religion is the identity of the human
superorganism, and as identity must always remain uppermost, so religion must
always remain supreme.
In speaking thus we have ventured into the realms of the nature of religious,
versus scientific knowledge, as organic phenomenon. And this was always going to
be required if we were to go anywhere with this discussion, because it is implicit in
the question asked here that knowledge must be something very specific in biological
terms, and both religious and scientific knowledge must be very definite and distinct
forms of that ‘something’.
So far then we have made religion inherent to human existence by virtue of its
expression of the essence of our being as humans, and science we have made inherent
as the representation of that essence at a mundane level applicable to all life. Which
explains why no matter what the relative proportions of the two forms of knowledge
existing at any given time, the religious essence always lies above the scientific
expression of that essence, because scientific knowledge is an expression of nature in
its universal form, while religious knowledge is an expression of humanity in its
specific form at any given time. And after all, we are humanity, we are not just
passive onlookers viewing a scene we wish to understand and describe.
We say that religious knowledge is of humanity at any given time, because we
have already seen that over time religions die, because the form of humanity as it
exists over time has changed, and the changes forced upon religion have been such
that only the transformation of religion into a new appearance will allow the new form
of human existence to live. The best example of such physiological transformation
related to religious transformation is that whereby civilised forms required a
linguistically based religion to supersede racial identity, and then produce an elite
form of social organ in the shape of the Jews, an organ that could act as a master race
able to drive the uniformity of all races toward the formation of one global biomass,
as we have been discussing above. We have however noted that despite the
extraordinary transformation in the kind of real knowledge pervading society in the
scientific age, as compared to the preceding period that was characterised by an
absolute and overt theocracy, religion has not died, it has adapted considerably. But
irrespective of any kind of adaptation, Christianity is still Christianity, and all that
Christianity stands for remains intact. Which means that in real terms there has been
no change, the essence of human existence remains the same as it did from the first
inception of the Christian dominion over society, a millennia and a half ago.

IX

Religious infiltration

The nature of scientific knowledge is so powerful that it would be bound to

eradicate religion completely if it were free to do so. A religious advocate would see
danger in such a statement, recognising the implicit suggestion that religion is
inherently false, but incapable of being overthrown. And they would be right. They
would therefore object that religion offers ways of knowing that are not susceptible to
scientific understanding, and the proof of this fact is the reality of religious endurance.
And they would be wrong. Religion endures, religion delivers a way of
understanding that sustains that endurance, but for all that validity in religion, evoking
the pragmatic validity of the famous nineteenth century American philosopher
William James—what works is true—religion is as prone to scientific investigation as
any other aspect of reality. If it works then science can understand it !
We said that religion and science could not occupy the same space at the same
time, they could not exist in the same society at the same time, and if they were to do
so this could only be enabled by allocating the two ways of knowing their own space.
This however is not correct, it is how the situation has been managed at the level of
social organisation, but the management method goes far deeper than the elaborate
show indicating a divestment of power from the absolute authority of the church,
turning academia into an independent authority with the power to determine for itself
what constitutes science. The fact is that religion survives as the supreme authority
over all knowledge, and it does this by acting as a filter, a membrane through which
all knowledge must pass, where that passing knowledge becomes subject to a test of
suitability to serve as science, in a society ruled by religion, a society such as ours.
Filters that handle knowledge, must be made of knowledge. Religion is a
primary filter, so that all scientific filters of knowledge must be constructed by
running them through the primary filter of religious knowledge. Perhaps knowledge
filters are best likened to a laser beam, that imposes conformity upon a ray of light.
Darwin’s Origin of Speciesis one such filter, designed to handle scientific ideas in a
manner friendly to religion. It should be clear to all that the establishment of this
work of Darwin’s, as the supreme founding authority on the nature of life understood
from a scientific point of view, is what makes Darwin’s work act as a filter of all
knowledge of life coming thereafter. It is the authority given to this filter, not the
content of the work, that makes the Origin of Speciesa religious, and not a scientific
work. The Origin of Species is only scientific in appearance, but this requirement
goes without saying, the whole point is that if religion wants to control science it
obviously cannot do it by appearing as religion, so that religion must appear cloaked
as science.
It might seem that this description of Origin of Speciesas a filter, is nothing
more then an artful manipulation of the situation, since any accurate piece of work
must act as a filter of knowledge for those who come after, and are lucky enough to
have the advantage of its guidance. True. But the point about Darwin’s elevated
masterpiece is that while it deals with life as a material entity, it fails to tell us
anything about the nature of life. And we have already taken notice of a far superior
predecessor of Darwin, namely Robert Chambers, whose book Vestiges, did evoke the
nature of life running right through all life, including humans. Darwin’s failure means
we cannot get at the essence of life by way of his mighty guide book, and hence we
cannot get at the nature of any individual element of life, such as ourselves. If a piece
of work automatically stands in the guise of a filter sorting the dross from the
precious, it is obvious that a suitably crafted filter can determine what is dross, and
what is precious, such that only carefully crafted dross emerges in the end, while the
precious knowledge is subverted to serve the purpose of the filtering authority.

Darwin’s blinding flash of light

Darwin’s failure comes across most pointedly when we are told that life has no
forward directive, that might be construed as purposive in life’s nature. This failure to
indicate the nature of something would be a serious flaw in any piece of fundamental
science, science should always have a predictive potential that evokes a purposive
dynamic, it is one its main proofs, like predicting an eclipse of the sun by the moon.
Darwin’s work should make it possible for us to locate all life forms in a natural
scheme, but it does not, mysteriously, it fails to place humans within nature at all !
We say this, but of course the great triumph of Darwin is that he did indeed do just
this, he placed humans in nature, he made them one of the ape family. Yes, but
humans are not apes, therefore Darwin’s blinding flash of light was just that, it was
blinding.
The knowledge Darwin gave us fills a void where the question was begging to
be answered, but it did not fill a gap, the gap remains. Darwin said we look like apes,
but he did not account for what we really are, he did not account for our social world
in terms of the biological process of evolution, even though his whole argument
demands that biological evolution must of created human society. We do not
condemn Darwin’s so called great work on a whim, we know why we condemn his
work as a fraud, it is because it fails to apply to humans, And oh how convenient is
that ? It is precisely why we manage to live in a world awash with evidence of the
stunning power of science, while still being ruled by the mind bending stupidity of
religion.
Unfortunately I want to keep this work closely bound to the subject in hand,
which is the question as to how religion manages to survive in a supposedly scientific
age, and therefore a detailed look at the impact of Darwin’s subversive science on
genuine knowledge of reality is not appropriate here. But such a study is feasible, and
has been prepared. It involves being aware of intellectual conditions generating a
need for Darwin’s blind revelations mimicking science, and then tracing the effect of
Darwin in the relevant departments of knowledge thereafter, most especially within
the field of sociology. This history has been sketched, though it is not easy to do
because evidence of the genuine science of humanity destroyed by Darwin, is thinly
spread through the decades. But its traces can be found, and that is why the product
of such effort would distort the main theme of this work, were it to be included here.
Instead we shall sample this history as we go along, Morley Roberts is one example of
such sampling, and others will follow.

The fact is that it is not possible for religion and science to exist at one and the
same time, and in the same space, and since knowledge of any kind is always social
the space that knowledge exists within is always that of one uniform society. It is not
possible to separate out discrete and independent parts of society such that two
inherently antagonistic ways of understanding reality can live harmoniously side by
side, it cannot be done. The construction of social structure, putting the idea of
partition into effect is part of a disguise. The truth is that academia is as dependant
upon religious authority today as it ever was, but that religious control is no longer
overt, religion is overtly confined to the church, and overtly expelled from academia.
But this overt display is not real, and it takes no great examination of the
circumstances whatever, to show that this pretence is not real, academia is riddled
with theology. But as we make these statements we only begin to touch upon the
exact manner in which religion managed its survival in the scientific age, there is a
good deal more to this situation than the window dressing of specially adapted
institutions of knowledge. The over folding complexity of knowledge is what we may
call this layering of knowledge, whereby religion generates science to ensure science
is made in the image of religion, so that throughout the social body the job of making
overt control become covert is thereby enabled. Trick follows upon trick, upon trick,
upon trick, and all that we see is a deception of one form or another, but all deception,
of all kinds, is always directed toward a common purpose, that of protecting religious
myth from rational interpretation within the structure of society. Religion forms the
structure, and the structure protects the myth.

XI

A word on truth
 The passage from Steiner quoted at the beginning of this chapter, provides a
nice jumping off point for a discussion of the nature of truth. The admonitions found
in the quote are a delight, but we have to ask, What of it ?
Steiner provides a nice little breakdown of the different angles from which
enemies of truth have sought to tackle the problem of true knowledge, that
undermines their self serving power base ; but for this summary you must refer to his
essay. I hate it when people assert that there is no such thing as truth, the idea is so
insane it beggars belief that anyone could come out with such a facile statement, it
wreaks of religious arrogance and degeneracy.
On the other hand, we have a partial advance on this infuriating posture, in the
argument that says intellectualism is a device used by the elite to oppress the minions.
But so what, What of it ? What good does it do to say thismuch ? You may as well
keep you gob shut if that is all you have to say. This reminds me of the endless drivel
coming from Richard Dawkins as he blabs on about religion. Fine Mr Dawkins, so
you do not believe in God, yes we know ; you hate religion, of course ; yes it is
mindless drivel ; it is child abuse ; blah, blah, blah ! Give it a rest ! We want to
scream at this annoying cretin. Tell us what is, not what is not ! Tell us what religion
is, tell us whyreligion exists ! This is what we want to scream.
Here, I do not just annoy with a self indulgent hatred for religion and
autocracy of all kinds, I tell you want is. My atheism is positive, which is why I call it
Atheist Science, because it offers an explanation of reality that accords with a
presumption that there is no God, and that all is accountable in terms of an absolute
truth, based on the authority of reality, that can be discerned by applying the scientific
method and using the fruits of that method to form a true knowledge of reality.
Resulting in a body of knowledge that is egalitarian precisely because it has no occult
element within it, serving as the basis of an exclusive identity.
We explain why this exploitative dynamic exists as a product of language. We
explain what human nature is and how language forms a functional part of human
nature, that exists to create a superorganism. This our great saviours, the likes of
Lenin, never do, and never have any intention of doing. All their whimpering was
ever about, was an appeal to forego slavery to one master serving the absolute
theocracy, and instead, to come serve a new master of the same theocracy. One who
was, if anything, worse than the former slave driver. And no surprise there, every so
called advance just turns the screw another notch, which is what it means to say
“better the devil you know”.

XII

Fighting for freedom establishes slavedom

In all circumstances, without any exception known to me, all revolutions

against theocracy are organised by priests of the theocracy. It is not necessary for
such ‘priests’ to know they belong to the theocracy, because in reality the theocracy is
the ‘mind’ of the superorganism. But we know they belong to the theocracy because
they always base their rebellion on the exact same principles of ‘obedience to an
absolute authority’, such that when the revolution is over, we find people are always
in exactly the same position as they were before. Only worse, because the screw of
social organisation has been turned one notch further towards an all inclusive
incorporation into the uniform superorganism, within which the organisation of the
biomass was becoming disordered due to growth of one kind or another.
In other words fights for freedom are always fights for slavery, exactly as we
would expect in a society which is an absolute theocracy, where freedom is defined by
our right to free religious expression ! If rebellion were not about the elite regaining
its grip on the masses, then huge civilisations like ours could not exist. Whereas they
have existed for millennia, they are incredibly stable, and in the past they have
cropped up all over the world, like superorganic weeds. Revolution harnesses the
power of the biomass, it does not releaseit. Human corporate nature is like a
quagmire, stand still and all is well, move, and you sink, move more, sink more ; the
more we sink, the more developed the superorganism. There is no escape from
ourselves, and the persistence of that most vile aspect of existence, that is religious
life, into the staggeringly beautiful age of scientific knowledge, tells us this is so in a
most depressing and painful way.
Our objective here is not to concern ourselves with the physical parameters of
freedom, that the likes of Lenin were so convulsed about, whereby they might well
ask whoever fed a family on the fruit of true knowledge. We assume a wealthy
nation, living in power and security. I am the product of a leading nation of the Earth.
My life has all the material luxury I, or any reasonable person, could ever need, or
wish for, unless you just want wealth for wealth’s sake. But the right to have true
knowledge is a thing of value too, and it seems to me that to live in a world where we
have everything, but only if we play the game of living a lie, then all that we have
chimes a hollow victory. True, I would feel otherwise if I were starving or brutalised.
But the admonition to look to those who are worse off than myself when I evaluate
the position I am in, never impressed me one jot.

____

In the light of our objectives in this work the idea touted by Steiner in his
discussion of truth is hilarious. He says that for the first time in history we can see “a
fundamental incongruence” (p. 10) occurring between the realisation of true
knowledge and our social values, or even worse, our survival. He offers three
examples, the death of the sun in five billion years time—you will have to read the
essay, I am not going to precis this point now —the innate need for humans to commit
wholesale murder as an expression of their human nature, and threats arising from the,
then still incipient, science of genetic engineering, posing questions that are a “matter
of life and death for the social system as we have known it.” (p. 13)
The hysterical thing is that our ideas are all about the fatal clash between
knowledge and society, past tense ! And of course this real life collision, which
society has dealt with and passed, at great cost to our world, has never been so much
as mentioned by reviewers of these matters like Steiner, How can it be ? No one can
name the real threat posed by true knowledge, without making the threat real and
imminent, as we are seeking to do right now, because we want to exterminate the
world as it has been, since civilisation began.
 Chapter 4

Orchestrating Science

The separation of academic institutions, formerly ruled directly by the church,

from direct religious control, enabling universities to become wholly independent
centres of learning, was a preliminary requirement for the development of a
sciencethat could be presented to the world as free, and independent in its own right.
The intellectual force of scientific inquiry was so powerful that there was no
possibility of containment by sheer force of might, therefore the only option was to
allow science free reign. It was however impossible to allow science a free reign
without destroying religion, and thereby annihilating society as we know it. And this
is why the first task faced by the social powers was to build a containment vessel for
science to exist within, according to conditions determined by religious imperatives.
This was the challenge that religion faced as the scientific age moved on, and began to
unravel ever deeper mysteries about the nature of existence, taking into its embrace
every aspect of existence.
Put as bluntly as this the development of free academic institutions is made to
sound highly conspiratorial, however we must never think of anything we talk about
here in so simplistic a manner. The idea that society is a superorganism, just like
other superorganisms in nature, such as ants, bees, wasps and termites—insects
providing the best examples of superorganisms, but not the only examples—is
essential to the ideas that are being presented here. The crux of the matter revolves
around how and why humans do what they do. Do humans act as they do in service
of their own individual selves, or do they act as they must do, as they are driven to do,
by their biological nature ? The only possible scientific contention is the latter, people
act as they do because nature evolved their form in such a way that they have to act as
they do. Birds have wings, so they fly ; this is not an optional activity for birds, birds
haveto fly. Humans have speech so they build social structure ; this is not an optional
activity, humans are forced to build social structure because they have language. So
we know from this simple observation that all human social fabric is created by
nature, just as a termite’s nest is built by nature. There is no difference between a
termite nest and a human city, in so far as both of them being products of nature is
concerned. As odd as this sounds, this means we are forced to think of our social
structure as an exoskeleton. And as odd as this seems, at least it has the beauty of
getting us out of the difficulty we find ourselves in at this moment, as we seek to
understand how science is controlled by religion, in a manner evoking the idea of a
conspiracy, but where there is no conspiracy whatsoever, where all that happens is
dictated by the physiology of the superorganism. If we think of the termite as forming
a superorganism we can easily think of its nest as an exoskeleton, therefore if we
think like scientists, we ought to be able to recognise that as superorganisms
ourselves, a human city, and all of its surrounding infrastructure, is also an exoskeletal
structure.
We are speaking of the transition of the academic structure away from overt
religious control, toward covert religious control. This shift is primarily concerned
with the structure of academic institutions, but it involves other social institutions
related to the issue of secularisation ; it is not possible to change the form of one
element of a living structure without affecting the form of all aspects of the structure
taken as a whole, the structure in question being that of the exoskeleton within which
we exist. The exoskeletal structure is not just a collection of buildings, those
buildings have associated with them a set of instructions dictating how their occupants
will operate within them, and indeed how the specific individuals will be selected to
operate within the structure. These latter conditions are the essential element in
understanding how religion converts science into a sterile form, that poses no threat to
religion.
Although we are selecting the coming of science, as represented by a
particularly powerful analytical approach to tangible reality, as the critical time when
religion had to meet a deadly challenge, the existence of the universities for many
centuries prior to this time indicates that the basic machinery for overcoming this
problem was well established, long before the threat materialised in a full blown form
capable of destroying religion outright. Certainly the individuals who were active
within the universities had to be working to secure religion from science, and they had
to be conscious of what they were doing, but the individual is so made as to be able to
believe in their cherished ideas with absolute conviction, and without any care for
alternatives ; this fact is a commonplace.
Between these two conditions then, that of the complex exoskeletal structure
evolved to control knowledge, and the zombie like quality of all individuals, the show
could go on without any true awareness on anyone’s part as to what it was that was
being done. Individuals will simply of been aware that they were preserving society,
morality, civilization—these code wordstake the place of thoughts. Whereby
consciousness creates mindlessness, which, in terms of its effect upon individuals, is
what language evolved to do —active individuals dedicating their lives to fighting
science for the sake of religion, people like Descartes and Darwin, will of been
oblivious to the fact that they were destroying true knowledge in order to preserve
social knowledge. For them the knowledge they were promoting would of been true,
and they would of been opposing falsehood.
Science however adopts a correct perspective, which makes it impossible for
such social bias to enter the equation. Therefore the first thing that is required of a
sterile science is that it should be fixed upon a false point of observation. The false
point of observation established by the likes of Descartes and Darwin, in obedience to
the religious dictates imprinted upon their brains and reinforced by their social
existence, was that of the individual as the human animal. Whereas the correct point
of observationis that which recognises the superorganism as the human animal. The
position we find ourselves in today in respect to our attempts at understanding
ourselves as part of nature, can, thanks to Darwin, be likened to the position biologists
would find themselves in if they tried to understand the body from the perspective that
each cell was an independent unit living in its own right, leading to questions about
why heart cells stayed in the heart, why they never became interested in living in the
stomach or relocating to the elbow ! And how do all these cells, living purely for their
own sake, without any way of knowing they are part of one body, come to form one
body !
The main area of conflict between religion, and knowledge produced by the
scientific method, centred on the life sciences. And here the battle raged for a century
or so, culminating in the unqualified victory of ‘science’, marked with the publication
of Darwin’s Origin of Speciesin 1859. Obviously if religion was to survive the
inevitable ingress of science into all departments of knowledge, then it had to control
the manner in which the final victory of science over religion was to take place.
There was no other way possible in which religion could survive the onslaught from
science. This means that religion had to orchestrate its own defeat in order that it
could survive. Darwin performed this amazing task, hence his extraordinary
veneration as one the greatest scientists of all time, that has been promoted by our
society ever since. From beginning to end the whole charade, in all its many facets,
has been about the preservation of religion, this is how religion has survived the
coming of the scientific age, by making science in its image.
This is a bold and novel assertion, as it must be if it is to stand any chance of
being true, otherwise the whole charade would of failed and religion would be dead
and gone long before now, or of been wholly transformed. In order to give substance
to this assertion we need to have some sense of how things might of gone differently
had Darwin not of been nurtured, to serve as religion’s puppet scientist. If Darwinism
is religious science, then what would a real science of life look like ? We must be
able to say what should be, not just what should not be. In order to be convincing we
need to be able to answer this question, we need to be able to show just what it was
that religion was scared of, because—and we may take this as a general principle in
the art of deception—in order to commit a fraud : the truth must first be known. To
present a false science it is necessary to know what it is that must be avoided, just as
much as those who deceive must know what it is safe to reveal when fabricating their
lies. It is the old trick of the accomplished liar, to tell allthe truth you can in order to
be convincing, while staying safe, by knowing just which fragments must be set aside
or supplanted. Having said this, we do not need to be trained to lie, we all know how
to lie as well as a fish knows how to swim, or a bird how to fly. So we do not need to
get too misty eyed when we speak of such abilities.
Darwinism then is nota total fraud, in the sense that every detail of its
substance is fictitious. It does not present the world with a wholly fake scientific
model of the evolutionary process, if it were a complete fraud then it would be useless
as a medium of deception serving the theocracy, because its purpose in the body of
religious myth is to supplant true scientific knowledge, filling the void where real
science would go if the production of knowledge were given free reign. At the least
Darwin had to account for known facts about how species were transformed by
domestication, for example, such facts were staring everyone in the face. We find
them mentioned in Chambers’ Vestiges, and radicals had long been using the new
knowledge of life’s nature to attack the foundations of the absolute theocracy that
rules our world to this day. The reinverted image of the fake Darwinian science, that
is called Creationism, isa total fraud, and while it claims to be true, it is really an
unashamed fraud. Creationism is a form of fascistic imposition of the kind we
associate with Stalinist communists and Nazis. It is produced by people who have
total freedom to do as they please, and the social power to exercise that freedom
unopposed. All religion is fascism, because it relies upon the exploitation of the
naturally robotic mentality of humans to impose itself on society. Religion crushes
the individual into oblivion, and since there is no such thing as an individual, this is
normal and natural ; but it is also alien to our delicate British culture, we are raised to
value our freedom as individuals, which relies upon free access to knowledge for this
kindfreedom to mean anything. The true fraud is vital to the entire charade, the
unabashed fraud reinforces the covert scientific fraud, by implying that the original
religious fraud carried out by Darwin is in fact real science, or at least the best that
science can do. Creationism reinforces the subversive power of Darwin’s fake science
of evolution. So the overt fraud reinforces the covert fraud, and in so doing the two
opposing frauds form a complete circle of fake knowledge, which, by rotating about
each other, so to speak, between them generate a force field of social activity capable
of keeping out all contenders, most importantly, capable of keeping out real
knowledge. Obviously if science wanted to destroy religion it could do so in the
twinkling of an eye, but science does not destroy religion, because there is no such
thing as science in our society, there is only that science which has passed through the
membrane of religious interrogation.

We have said that as the scientific revolution progressed, so the focal point of
concern for the theocracy narrowed. Initially it focused upon the field of life because
the study of life brought humans into the frame of natural knowledge. The struggle
over the way in which science was to understand humans went on for about a century
before Darwin settled the matter. With Darwin the final chapter in the opening of the
scientific age was written. Darwin marked the end of the scientific age, and the return
to an absolute theocracy in which all open inquiry was stopped forever more.
Stopped because with Darwin religion put in place a science that served the church.
The fact that Darwinism has been portrayed as the holy grail of atheists and as
anathema to religion is, when you think about it, exactly what would be required of a
fraudulent science if such a science were required. So that everything we know about
the life sciences as a social phenomenon supports our preposterousassertion. This is
why a critical examination of Darwinism is not relevant to our subject, what we need
to know is what would of happened if religion had not stepped in and imposed an
acceptable form of science, one that although controversial and seemingly disastrous
for the church, would none the less actually bear within it the seeds of scientific
impotence, and would in fact act like a vaccine consisting of knowledge that has been
sterilised, so that upon release it can flood the mind of those exposed, but it will never
have the power to bring about a fatal collapse of the information of identity that
derives from religion and provides society, the superorganism that is, with its
structural foundations. We do not want to study the lie, we want to know the truth.
Darwinism brought the focus of biology to bear upon humanity, and outraged
society by showing that humans were a special kind of ape. But humans are nota
special kind of ape, anymore than a whale is a special kind of deer, or an albatross is a
special kind of dinosaur. Darwinism is a total fraud, in the sense that any real ideas it
presents are provided simply in order to help impose a deception that subverts
science. Darwinism took the key dilemma in the scientific investigation of life,
concerning the nature and origin of living forms, and made that its subject. Then it
focused its answer upon the animal conceived of as an integral individual, that is to
say that Darwin made life in man’s image. But this is not how life is made ! What is
more, Darwin made life in the image of man as revealed in holy scripture, as a divine
being given the gift from God, of a soul, a personal existence and a sacred value. In
saying this we must note that applying this idea to animals, by making the struggle for
survival the key mechanism in evolution, thereby making individuals the focal point
of evolution, this did no corrupt humanity’s special status because humanity’s special
status was absurd when applied to humans, and when applied to alllife it was
ridiculous in the extreme. So that humans could be extracted from the cooking-pot of
Darwinian evolution and made distinct, just so long as the basic principle of
individual uniqueness was first established. Lets repeat that : the religious idea of
humanness is insane, therefore in order to secure the persistence of this insane idea, it
is necessary to make the whole gamut of ideas insane ; and that is what Darwinism
does by representing the evolutionary process as a political struggle of the strong
versus the weak.
This fraud was no amateur job, it took a century or more to concoct, and it was
developed in the hothouse of an open and free scientific forum. The theory of
evolution provided by Darwin was well constructed, and its release upon the world
was artfully managed, and the fraud is still maintained according to the same high
standards of commitment and expertise today. But it is still a complete fraud. The
theory of natural selection was designed to ensure that science could not damage
religion, it was notdesigned to allow the true nature of humans to become known.
And thus far it has performed its task perfectly. No scientist has the faintest idea what
humans are, and religion thrives as never before. This is the state of affairs one
hundred and fifty years after Origin of Specieswas presented to the awestruck world, a
century and a half further into a relentlessly progressing scientific revolution. By
focusing upon the obviously false notion that humans were a kind of ape, Darwin’s
theory was obviously never going to get anywhere.

So what was the true solution to the question so artfully and conveniently
answered by Darwin, how well did the theocracy know what it had to avoid, and how
well was the true solution known in general, if at all ?

Chapter 5

Why: The Key to Social Power

The art of survival, in the context of religious knowledge vying with

knowledge of tangible reality, is all about control.
We have seen that as the scientific age unfolded the potential of the scientific
method, arising in a newly constituted and expanding society, it was within the field
of biological knowledge that the attention of the theocracy became focused. The
focus of concern narrowed, and was finally cauterised by Darwin, who fixed the
understanding of the life sciences upon the physical form of the individual, which
tallied nicely with the divine conception of man as a free willed individual person.
The fact is that science has gone no further since Darwin. We know not one
jot more about ourselves today than Darwin told us in the first great work of ‘science’
that he bequeathed to the world. Meanwhile religion has gone from strength to
strength, there has never been a time when religion ruled our world more openly and
with more force than it does today. If we want to know why our world is troubled, we
have all the answers we could ever desire, it is due to the fight between good and evil.
If we should wonder what light science might shed on the subject, then we need
wonder no more. Spend a million years reading all that has been written on the
subject in the last hundred years, from a strictly scientific point of view, and we will
see that all the answers we could ever desire are there for our edification, it is all
down to the irrepressible forces of good and evil. Science is powerless, religion rules
supreme. But the all embracing fraud seeks to disguise this, of course, and therefore
the whole of our social fabric is induced to present us with the absurd notion that we
live in a scientific age !
Obviously we do live in a scientific age in terms of our material arts, and also
regarding much of our intellectual knowledge about the material universe, but we still
live in the dark ages of pitiful ignorance in terms of our understanding. Put most
succinctly, we live within the bubble of a scientific How, enveloped within the infinite
mystery of mythical Why.
Herein lies the key to understanding how the priesthood maintains social
power through the medium of religious identity, by allowing all ‘how’ questions to
run free, and be answered truly, while ensuring that at the same time all ‘why’
questions are unfathomable. We see this fact revealed blatantly in the
pronouncements made by priests, who often declare that for all its immense power of
knowing science can only ever tell us how, but never why. On the face of it this
sounds like a religious reference to the great mysteries that religion chooses to
surround itself with, but in reality, when we come to challenge the basis of scientific
beliefs, as in the case of Darwinism, we find that the key to Darwin’s success as the
author of a sterile science, is that his idea bears this hallmark of being well designed
to account for the ‘how’ of genetic mechanism, while being totally sterile in the field
of ‘why’. Which is why the great atheist and Darwinist scientist Richard Dawkins, is
able to shout about the proven theory of Charles Darwin, which yet indicates that
there is no purpose in evolution. Where there is no purpose in evolution, there can be
no ‘why’ type answers either.
Any validity given to the notion that we live in a scientific age can only be
justified if we set our material products above the contents of our mind, if we judge a
hammer more important than a periodic table of elements. Religion reduces us to a
state of contemptible ignorance, and in doing so, wouldn’t you just know it, it elevates
itself to the position of sublime deliverer of wisdom. Wisdom beyond the reach of the
mundane grossness of science, however magnificent science may seem to be, it is
only dealing with matter, while religion deals with spirit !
But it is religion that keeps our attention focused upon material reality by
depriving us of any true knowledge whatsoever of the essence of being, a trick
religion performs by being in controlof all knowledge, through its infiltration of social
institutions, by means of which it is able to ensure science is delivered in a form
conducive to sustained religious authority. Religion does this in order that it can
perform its biological function of providing us with our conscious connection to the
superorganism, which requires a separation between the two ways of knowing, that of
knowing the structure (material) and that of knowing the nature (spirit), or essence of
a structure. Which really means knowing what the wholeness of a structure is, and
thus knowing why the details are the way the way are.
The wholeness of a structure, which tells us what its nature or essence is, is
known by knowing its form. Darwin made the form of the human animal the person,
whereas the true form of the human animal is the social organism, or the
superorganism. There is no such thing as a person existing as an end in themselves.
It has to be said that even the most forthright advocates of society as a true living
organism were taken in by Darwin at the time, believing Darwin’s work to be a
masterpiece of science, the greatest achievement in the field. This was because
Darwin placed humans squarely in the natural domain ; the trouble was that this
apparent advance was a vast imposition upon science, that carried a sting in its tail,
because the formula created by Darwin for understanding evolution was a dead end, it
was sterile, exactly as the passage of time has proven it to be. Religion has to possess
the domain of knowledge concerned with the nature of forms, or the essenceof forms,
and therefore science has to be strictly confined to the material world, and limited to
tangible reality, exactly as we know it is, and not allowed to venture from a tangible
object to a proposition about the nature of things, based on its examination of reality.
This restriction is not particularly troublesome for science as a practical art that
discerns true knowledge, but what this restriction on the application of scientific
knowledge does, is to enable science to be fenced out of that special place that applies
most especially to the nature of humans, by preventing anyone from examining
human society as if its nature could be discerned from its parts, because : the parts of
a human society are supposed to be its nature ! And so this is the important point we
are coming to, how the split was made between the tangible reality of human
existence, and the true nature of humans as determined on the basis of a scientific
examination of this tangible reality.
It is self evident that by studying apes we cannot possibly hope to discover
how and why we manage to develop agriculture ; why we have the power of speech ;
why we drive motor cars ; why we commit rape and murder ; why we build banks ;
why we rob banks ; why we play football. What is it that is so different about humans
and apes ? It is not just that humans are social where apes are not, far from it. Many
animals are highly social, including apes, but what is special about humans is that
they exist intertwined within a highly elaborate social structure, and as time has gone
by humans have very rapidly, in evolutionary terms, developed extremely complex
social structures. Therefore if we want to look to nature to understand ourselves there
can only be one place to look, to the social domain revealed in nature, outside the
realms of human activity, for science always works by comparison, especially in the
life sciences.
And so it appears that as the scientific age progressed, and brought its
attention to bear upon humans, in a way most alarming to the theocracy, the needle
point of scientific attention should of darted straight past the point reached by Darwin
when he recognised the affiliation between humans and apes, and headed straight on
toward the formation of complex societies. Thus biology should of opened out into
sociology. But it did not, because it does not. So why not, what happened ; did
science evershift in this direction ? Yes, absolutely it did.

Sociology

It was not bringing the scientific method to bear on humans as individual,

living, breathing, flesh and blood, that threatened to ring the death knell for religion.
It was taking the final step, of seeking to place human societywithin the realms of
nature, that made this menace real. It was the application of science to society that
had to be avoided at all cost.
Today there is ‘sociology’ ; it is a big subject. The phrase ‘social science’ is
not unheard of either, but in truth no one would think of saying that sociology is
science. And this fact is not a disappointment to all those concerned, far from it, it is
a joy. It is the proof of how special we human beings are, not even the stupendous
power of science can scratch the surface of what human society is ! The reason is that
humans are not part of nature, and science is the study of nature. Humans might be
likened to an iceberg that sits in the water with most of its mass hidden from view
beneath the surface, where the bit that counts from our point of view, rises above in a
great white wall of ice. Darwin did all that science could, he revealed that part of the
human mass that lay beneath the surface of familiar appearances unique to humans, he
showed us that portion of ourselves that was ofnature, and as such was prone to
scientific investigation. But this left the rest, all that is trulyhuman, not the unique
appearances, but the unique essence. This essence of human nature stood proud of
science, floating out of reach of science, and, if it were left to Darwin, forever
doomed to be so. Thus science was made the great defender of religion in the
scientific age.
That it was religion that was doomed, had it been otherwise ; that it was
religion that waged the usual warfare against the progress of knowledge ; that it is
religion that defies science today ; tells us something about the nature of religion. It
was in the field of sociology where science met its match and came to a dead stop, it
was here, in the biological field of sociology, that religion would have no more. The
foundations of that impasse were laid by Darwin, whose theory of evolution fixed the
limit beyond which science could not go in its investigation of life, and that limit has
stood firm, and become even more entrenched as the years have gone by. To examine
a book like Homo Biologicusby Elworthy, that we have mentioned previously, is to
experience intense mental anguish. It epitomises everything we are saying here about
a solid wall of scienceacting as a barricade against science. The staggering amount of
deadly serious scientific work that this man makes evident in this volume, is
depressing, because it is all for nothing, in terms of science. It is not the first time
science has worked wonders like this, the ancient astronomer Ptolemy produced the
most astounding science ever seen, based on the idea that the Earth is at the centre of
the universe ; stupid tosser ! No ! He was not a tosser, he was a priest, just like
Darwin. That was his job, to produce scienceto prevent science from being known. It
is an old game. Answers cannot be left wanting when questions are being asked,
answers must be given.
That it was religion that resisted and thwarted science in the field of biology,
thus creating a break between biology and sociology, tells us everything we want to
know about religion : it tells us that religion is part of society. This may seem
obvious, but it is not how religion would be known. Religion is supposed to tell us
about something beyond ourselves, religion is supposed to connectus with ultimate
realities. When the theocracy puts its foot down and tells science enough is enough,
precluding the entry of science into the field of sociology, religion is in effect saying
that it is here that the natural nature of religion lies, within the domain of society.
Religion is part of nature like any other feature of existence that we may come across,
and if we are to have a natural history of religion it is inthe realms of society that this
natural history will be found.
Since we are dealing with religion as the antithesis of science, in that the two
constitute knowledge, and when they overlap one causes the other to disappear, it
follows from the location of religion within the social structure of human existence,
that religion must be social knowledge, and as such religion is part of the social
structure. Note : religion is social knowledge ; religion is not knowledge of society or
aboutsociety. Just as a genome is organic information, it is not information aboutthe
body. Therefore when we talk about society from a scientific perspective, we talk
about religion in the same way that we talk about other material forms ; science does
not communicate with religion, science does not address itself tothe religious.
Science in effect reduces religious people to the status of objects, or animals, that are
spoken about,but are not spoken to. So we do not mean that religion is knowledge
ofsociety, we mean that the fabric of society is the product of religion, making religion
part of the social fabric. When we say something like this we make an implicit
reference to the nature of knowledge as a feature of our natural form ; humans create
knowledge as birds create flight, these are both natural activities generated by
genetically programmed physiology. If science investigates society in an open and
free manner such that it recognises the natural role, that is the strictly biological role
of religion in the formation and maintenance of society, then it must alter the religion
it examines. In other words we cannot use knowledge to examine knowledge where
the knowledge we are examining is playing a living role in keeping us alive, because
to do so is to disturb the role that the life sustaining knowledge is playing in our lives.
This is only like saying we cannot remove a heart from a living person to see how it
works, without killing the person.
Although this is a little tricky to express in general terms, the truth of this
observation is plain to see when made specific. If science were free to examine
society, and in doing so it took cognisance of the part played by religion in society, so
that it explained in purely naturalistic terms why every detail of all and any religion
existed in the form that we see it existing in life, then the religious formulas that
people swear by would be reduced to matter of fact elements of a material structure.
They would be reduced to dead letters, like those religions of the past which we enjoy
studying for our amusement, but which have no part as living religions in society
today ; although the sacred nature of dead religions is still utilised by living priests to
reinforce the validity of their living myths by evoking the greatness, and the necessity
of human spirituality.

II

Structural violence

As with biology and the nature of life, summed up falsely in the ground
breaking work of Darwin, the only way that the problem posed by a science of society
can be managed is by deception ; all out, direct suppression, is no longer a viable
method in our world. In saying this we must understand that deception is a form of
violence just as much as suppression is, in that those carrying out the deception must
have power and be able to use it. And since a deception of this kind represents an
attack upon those of us who are deceived, it must be an act of violence, an act of
force, even though, to coin a phrase, it is a kind of none violent violence, a none
violent imposition of force, or, as we should perhaps say, a none violent imposition of
might. Well, lets not get bogged down in words, the point we wish to make when we
call deception violence is that it is not nice, and it is a form of attack by people against
people. However, the word violence carries a moral charge to it, a negative charge, it
is a word we use to denounce an enemy, or to label a criminal. We have other terms
for acts of force that are used by ourselves or our allies, so if the religious subversion
of science is an act of force exercised by an all powerful theocracy acting covertly in
order to preserve our living society, so that we may continue to enjoy our lives as we
have long enjoyed them, then it is a positive act of violence, it is therefore not an act
of violence at all, it is a blessing. We count ourselves blessed to be so abused, or, to
be so cared for. The meanings of words of this emotive kind invert freely, depending
upon the place from which we view the acts to which they refer. To us, the supreme
goodness of religion is the most vile and contemptible idea any human could ever
conceive of, and the great work of religion in freeing humanity from primitive
ignorance, is the most terrible evil humanity has ever known, being, as it is, the
personification of ethnic cleansing. But these are political points of view loaded with
bias, science must see all things, and find the wholeness contained within the parts.
To be calm and reasonable about this imposition of ignorance we must
recognise that it is not about interpersonal violence, the subversion of science is a
structural manifestation of social power. Religious oppression of the kind we endure
today, through the destruction and subversion of science, is a form of violence akin to
slavery. Today we are programmed to think of slavery as a form of violent abuse, but
in reality that is not how slavery appears in a world where slavery is legal. The use of
humans as slaves is then an ordered and regulated affair, it needs to be in order that
those who are slaves can be defined separately from those who own them. Slavery is
therefore not a violent act, it is a structural system, and that is also the nature of the
war against knowledge carried out through religion today. False science is structural
form of violence built into the social system.
There can be no doubt as to how those involved in the struggle to preserve
religious integrity, in opposition to scientific freedom, will think of the strategy of
subversion. They will think of their cause in good terms, and most people, having an
instinctive affinity for religion, or being content as long as they are fed and watered,
will accept this ruling. But the act of deception itself, whereby a sterilised form of
scientific knowledge is created, that can do no harm to religion, has to take place in a
social environment that manages all relevant factors bearing on the issue. The means
of creating and disseminating knowledge must be strictly controlled, but, as
Machiavelli might advise his prince, while academic and educational institutions must
be tightly held, they must be seento be free. Likewise, all other avenues of public
expression must also be subject to absolute control. This exercise in social
management has been developed in respect to science, to a very high degree, but it
took a century or so of intense turmoil to reach the point we are at now, where
scientific knowledge is fixed, stone dead, in just those areas that matter. While any
tendency for knowledge of a truly scientific kind to reverberate around society is
contained by an immense force of an unbelievable kind, a kind we can scarcely
mention, as you would expect. A kind that involves real violence, on a massive scale.
The stakes are high. We indicated that a true scientific strand of knowledge
was being unfurled, and hadbeen generated, and this would of run its course and
annihilated religion, thus destroying life as we know it, perhaps making human life
impossible. When we think of the work of Darwin, and the whole mass of ‘science’
that has been raised in its name, as nothing more than a fraud designed to ensure the
survival of religion, we can, if we permit ourselves to entertain this insane notion for
just one moment, gauge exactly how monumental a task this imposition was for the
theocracy to achieve.

III

The horror of religious servitude

The sentiments expressed in the closing part of this chapter evoke the idea of a
wholly different facet to the control of knowledge, that is menacing in the extreme.
This is because I know where my argument leads, but as I am now reviewing this
work, and I see that I chose to refrain from immediately presenting the logical
extension of this closing section by entering the fraught and challenging area of taboo
knowledge, that is generated in the name of religion by expressing ultimate ‘evil’ to
contrast with the ultimate ‘good’ of religion, I shall adhere to the layout as I find it,
just mentioning here, by way of preparation, that this argument leads towards a
discussion of the taboo against real knowledge, engendered by false knowledge as
perfected in Darwinism. The taboo is generated through the application of false
science to society in the form of eugenics, which had its harshest expression via the
Nazi ideology. This terrible feature of human nature, expressed through the control of
knowledge, will appear in due course.
 For now we may leave this section on knowledge control, by indicating that
the business of deriving power from the control of knowledge is by no means
something to be taken lightly. So far we have only discussed the negative, passive
facet of knowledge subversion, which, with its denial of freedom to us all is bad
enough ; but the positive, active expression of these alternative ideas, this is truly
horrific.

Chapter 6

Why Religion ?

Whether God exists or not, it is certain that the concept of the supernatural must have
evolved in the mind of primitive man — and this process of evolution forms the subject of the
third part of the book. In Chapter 6 the genesis of the concept is discussed, on the assumption
that religious activities represent man’s attempt to satisfy certain of his emotional and rational
requirements. Having established primitive man’s need for the concept of a supernatural
power, the remaining two chapters are concerned with the relevance of this power to the
personal salvation of modem man and the public morality of contemporary societies.
Chapter 7 examines that relation between reason, revelation, and faith — and in spite of its
agnostic conclusion, the final chapter deals with the value of the concept of God in the context
of the formulation and enforcement of moral codes.

(The Survival of God in the Scientific Age, Alan Isaacs, 1966, pp. 12 – 13.)

We have said that religion becomes embroiled with science because religion is
part of the living fabric of society. But why does religion perform such an organic
function ? It was permissible for science to unlock the profound fact that humans
were animals like any other, and as such humans had evolved from earlier animals
that were not human at all, an idea that was profoundcompared with the state of abject
ignorance that existed in the name of religion before science applied itself to life. But
it was forbidden for science to unlock the secrets of our trulyhuman form as we exist
today, in our vast civilisation. Therefore something had to ‘happen’ to present a
dislocation between the biological field of living flesh, and the sociological field of
human activity that religion plays a crucial part in.
To investigate a subject of this kind we must broaden our perspective. We
need to obtain a broader view of religion, we need to understand religion as part of a
natural continuum associated with life. This is after all the question we are asking, we
want to know how religion comes to be involved in the creation of society. Since
Darwin’s time, the process of evolutionary change has been shown to be determined
by a genetic code, that dictates the form that living matter will take. Here we are
saying that religion, which is just a form of knowledge—where knowledge is nothing
more nor less than information—creates social structure. This is why society is put in
jeopardy if we examine religion, because in doing so we decode the creative code that
delivers the structure we are part of, and that code can then no longer perform its
creative function.
Why does decoding the religious code cause that code to lose its ability to
perform its organic function ? There can only be one answer to this question,
religious knowledge performs a social function by interacting with us. The way we
experience religion determines the way we live. There is little mystery in the idea that
as imaginative creatures who thrive on emotional sentiments, amongst which hope
and desire form two of the most prized emotions, it only takes a disturbance to our
confidence in the things that we attach value to, for our framework of positive ideas to
veer off course. We are the tools that build the social substance, and then make the
structures we build perform their social functions, and religion is the primary
information programme, that tells us how to ‘work as tools’ ; in other words we are
the tools of the religious programme. Through us religion creates social structure,
structure which is actually the physiology of a living superorganism, wherein religion
is the primary core of that organism’s mind ; the mind being the information package
that runs an organism.
However this organicist idea strikes anyone, all must concede that this idea of
religion serving as the superorganism’s mind, accords with the idea that decoding the
contents of this ‘mind’ must cause trauma to the animal it belongs to. And having
ventured to describe the information that religion consists of as the mind of the human
animal, we may note that religious people are evidently the brain, the living tissue
which carries the mind. But such direct similes are not terribly helpful to a serious
argument about the nature of humans, so they are offered as food for thought, not as a
means of defining social structure in a precise scientific manner.

Scientific simplicity

Our approach to the relationship between religion and society is dead simple.
All science is dead simple, if it isn’t, then it is wrong. We are not talking about the
detail when we say this, we are talking about the sum of the detail that confronts us
when we look at the world. Thus we can learn that in order for many of the elements
that are found in our world to exist, there must of been a number of creative cycles in
which matter has gone through a process of manufacture within stellar systems that
have been born, grown, matured and disintegrated. This knowledge is staggeringly
complex and awesome, but its final rendition into a popular form is sublimely simple,
and delightfully easy for anyone to understand. So that we merrily go about saying
that parts of our body has been manufactured in supernovas. And the simplicity
comes from its truth. There is nothing that science can reveal that we cannot
comprehend and accept as beautiful.
With fake knowledge all is torture, pain and anguish. There are no final
answers, and such answers as there are, stultify and deaden the brain. But this is the
desired effect, after all the object of modern science is to ensure that the quest for true
knowledge goes on, and on, and on, and shall never be fulfilled, where it crosses the
path of human nature that is, and thus threatens the tenure of religion. I pulled a book
from a shelf an hour ago, Identity and the Sacred : A sketch for a new social-scientific
theory of religion, Hans Mol, 1976. The title is exquisite, it resonates with the
contents of our work so well, and we find the relationship between religion and social
structure firmly recognised in the book. But oh the misery, the suffering ‘brain-in-a-
vice’ feeling we get as soon as we actually try to read this stuff.
A big theme is the idea of sacralisation. “In this book the term ‘religion’ is
used in a very wide sense—as the sacralisation of identity.” (p. 1) Durr ! What the
hell is that ? OK, its jargon, it means making things sacred, nothing too fancy, but the
man starts out harping on about it, and his first chapter, Basic Argument, is obviously
intended to help us get in the swing of his thinking. He should of called it Maze
Entrance—enter here and follow if you can. Much of the work is pertinent, he sees
what we see. He talks about how science can be sacralised, in other words various
ideas like evolution become a sacred mantra. Indeed, we agree. But the crux of the
matter is that he sees the human world from the focal point of observation that says
the individual is an end in themselves. So he sees nothing, he sees everything we see,
but the logical filter he runs his observations through distort, instead of interpreting.
And the result is a book full of “he says this”, but “he says this”, followed by “he
should not say this about him” and “he should not of said that about it”, with an
occasional “now that was good” but “not good enough”, because “he says this”.
Mother, blinking bubbly-gum ! Its enough to make me blaspheme, but I am not sure
if I can, me being an atheist and all. Ah, the precious things we lose when we give up
religion.
So where we say religion is identity, and we explain why, on the basis that
humans are a superorganic species and religion is the identity of the superorganism,
into whose living fabric individuals are inducted via the implantation of religious
identity, he says religion makes identity sacred. This definition is a closed loop, that
defines religion in terms of religious dogma ; like defining justice as good because it
punishes evil. Pure idiocy. What does his definition tell us about religion, what is the
basis for this interpretation of reality ? It is as if a botanist were to describe the nature
of tress by saying that furniture makes trees useful. Durr ! Excruciatingly stupid. His
definition of religion completely twists reality arse about face, to make what any idiot
knows without thinking, the simple truth. But what any idiot knows, is not science,
and is not reality, and is notthe truth. That is the whole point of science, to discover
the hidden reality, underlying that which we see unaided, by using higher levels of
interrogation. Later on, when talking about Durkheim’s “positivistic” approach to
religion, making religion “reducible to a social entity” (p. 184), he says Talcott
Parsons “finds the opposite idea, that society is a religious phenomena, more
acceptable.” (pp. 184 – 5) Well stone me, there we go then, to this professor
knowledge is just a verbal selection tray of sweet ideas—take you’re pick, and spit
something back if you like ! It is as if when appointing their professors, the
universities had told them that they were just required to keep waffling away, that “we
have power” and it is your job to see that we keep it—possession is nine tenths of the
law.
As ever, what is lacking is the foundation stone from which to proceed. This
degenerate, this professor of religion, has the gall to tell us at the beginning of his
work, that there is so much confusion concerning religion in academic circles,
because there is a lack of systematics, that this jerk proposes to rectify. You want to
live in wonder, where you are free to nurture your pet preferences, be my guest, only
go do it somewhere else. Here we deal in absolutes, in total certainties, these are
wondrous in themselves, but they do not leave room for wonder. Here we all agree to
either wonder at the same things, or else we can just wander off elsewhere.
 II

Linguistic underpinnings

Linguistic code produces a programme that binds individuals into a social

structure. Individuals are not consulted by the language which controls their every
thought and action, they have no choice about what they think or what they do, and
the programme demands they do things which they would not do if they were able to
apply any form of conscious freewill in opposition to the programme. Therefore,
given our intelligence and sense of freedom, the code must present an illusion of
personal will and self interest associated with the instructions it imposes. The code
does this by generating social structure through which to develop the programme, this
is why we say language creates social structure. Elements of social structure
constitute organs of superorganic physiology, small machines that direct the flow of
energy through the organism, and this flow of energy is all controlled by the linguistic
programme that controls human behaviour. Individuals can have no idea that this
control is happening otherwise they would not cooperate with the programme,
individuals need to be motivated so they need to feel as if they instigate their own
actions. In effect we are saying that what we call ‘consciousness’ is in fact nothing of
the sort, it is unconsciousness, in that it always involves an unwitting obedience to a
programme that serves the existence of the superorganism, which the programme calls
God.
The old school of organicist discussion seemed to hit a brick wall when
confronted with the link between individuals and the social organism, at least many of
the detractors said that a social organism could not be real because individuals were
the active agents of social construction and action. In the first place however, most
people wanted to destroy this scientific approach, so our disappointment must lie with
the failure of organicist authors to make out lines of discussion such as we offer here.
However the difficulty is in part due to the lack of genuine scientifically minded
English speaking authors, we have Morley, but he is an eccentric case, nice because
there is so little else, but useless because his ideas are worthless in the long run.
Continental authors were better, but unless you speak continental you are screwed
when it comes to getting at their work, so that all we have are tantalising indications
of their fine approach to society, revealed in rare snippets of translation. This
suppression by failure to translate, was a definite positive strategy, long used by the
English religious fascists that rule our intellectual world.

III

Emotional levers

The actual language that controls all our thoughts is highly emotional, and
extremely irrational. Individuals are highly emotional, this is a physiological attribute
that gives meaning to linguistic symbolism, and hence to the social structure that such
symbolism exists to create. Everything is denoted according to a moral bias, words
are all loaded with meaning, resulting in bias ideas that force individuals to feel a
sense of attachment to the programme that controls them. This bias is what also
makes it impossible for the individual to be conscious of the existence of the
programme, instead they sense the programme as part of themselves, as an expression
of their own inner being.
As the programme reveals itself to them as their‘consciousness’, the
programme is as close as individuals get to having an inner being, even though in
reality their mind is entirely external to themselves, since it is just an information
package imprinted on the brain. If this were not so there could be no continuity of
ideas across generations, or, alternatively, ideas could not be transformed across
generations either : control must exist outside the individual for either fixity or change
in collective ideas to be able to exist. The only other means of creating ideas in living
forms is through genetic programming, that may support learned responses, all of
which taken together we tend to classify as instinct, and as such these ‘ideas’ are
internal to the somatic body, with some built in flexibility relative to the environment
the individual body happens to find itself exposed to. It is because animals are not
controlled by a superorganic, symbolic programme, that animal minds never change.
When we look at a wild dingo in Australia today we know its mind is identical to the
mind of its ancestors, that first arrived in Australia with humans thousands years ago.
The shift from fixity to change in humans, occurs because of the evolution of
complex structural physiology of a social nature, based on a hierarchical identity
structure that allows a master identity to force change on the social biomass forming
the superorganic body. This master-slave dynamic requires that individuals should be
run by a programme external to themselves. The ultimate act of possession is
delivered through the imposition of identity. It is no wonder that a slave ideology like
Christianity is obsessed with ideas of possession, because it is Christianity that takes
possession of the ‘soul’, and must therefore defend this aggressive action by asserting
that the imposed Christian identity is the real identity, and any other sense of identity
is a form of possession by evil spirits. The effectiveness of this Jewish slave identity
is all the proof we could ever desire of the utter roboticness of the individual, relative
to the linguistic programme that controls them and builds the social structure in which
we all live.
From this initial linguistic core of information, existing external to the
individual, preserved in the corporate being of the superorganism, all human social
evolution can be made sense of, from the most basic prehuman origins in Africa,
hundreds of thousands of years ago, right up to the present. For it follows that the
principles inherent in the preservation of structural information external to the
individual, offer an infinitely fine mode of growth. This is about evolution via the
elaboration of information, rather than the crude notion of evolution via the
elaboration of form, dumped on us by Darwin. In our world this mode of evolution at
the level of information has developed highly elaborate structure. The linguistic
programme has generated particular organic forms to preserve itself within groups of
specially programmed individuals, who are in effect the core of the superorganism.
Meaning that the programme continues to be external to the majority of us, while still
being preserved within, what to us, is the external body of the superorganic being,
where the programme is secured within a special religious caste.
Religion exists to preserve identity, religion is identity, in other words. It is
not surprising that degenerate intellectuals toy with notions of religion projecting
identity onto a sacred plain, for they are trying to make sense of phenomena that stare
us in the face, while being castrated by Darwin. The professional academic is forced
to make the celestial sphere of life rotate about the person, when the person is nothing
more than a sub-organic particle of a far greater whole. Sub-organic : an integral
level of organic organisation, subordinate to that of a whole organism. A whole
organism is defined by the inclusive reach of one unified, exclusive identity.
 This is why we have a hierarchical arrangement in the one religious identity
programme, as discussed above, giving us the Jewish master identity preserved in
living Jews, supported by the inner circle of Christian elites, preserved in living
Christians, followed by the outer ring of Muslim masters, who preserve the Jewish
identity programme within the fabric of their own bodies. Preservation external to the
individual only ever needs a sufficient store, it never needs to be uniformly fixated
throughout the biomass, because individuals are not the relevant entities, they are
expendable, only the living whole matters in the long run. Democracy is based on the
mathematical logic underpinning this linguistic identity programme, which is just
what the theocracy needs to secure its dominion, and this explains why contemporary
religious fascists insist that all societies adhere to democratic principles, so that we
now fight wars in order to impose democratic fascism, as the next phase consolidating
the global Jewish superorganism. The more efficiently a programme can develop
itself on the back of this principle of external fixation, the more powerful it will be,
Judaism is the perfection of this linguistic system, and democracy is but a nuance of
Judaism, because a process cannot be an identity.

IV

Religious growth

Religion is the very expression of emotional energy. What is most interesting

about religion is that it becomes part of our individual being, so that religion is
virtually shatter proof. To destroy religion we must destroy ourselves. This gives
religion immense resistance to change, but as with all living things such endurance
cannot just be a passive attribute. If religion seems to be passive then it is only
because great bulwarks of defence have been built up, so that the threat of decay is
extended over such lengths of time that we need a scientific perspective, focused upon
relevant aspects of the subject, in order to see how the defence is maintained and
where the threats arise.
Society arises from the interaction of human individuals, but humans evolved
their biological form in order to act socially, and religion is the mechanism that
determines the shape of this interaction in the modern world, and during the course of
recent millennia. Religion is just knowledge, and knowledge is essentially linguistic
in its nature. Religion as we know it is knowledge, even though religion harks back to
the precursor of linguistic knowledge, in the way it stimulates our emotional
responses and builds superorganic physiology. When we ask how religion survived
the coming of the scientific age we are asking a question about a very narrow period
of human existence, and as we delve into the topic we find our ideas of what religion
is, are being extended because we are attributing to religion a social, that is to say, a
biological function. Once we have placed religion in a social context of this
substantial kind, we have placed religion in a tangible region that is prone to scientific
investigation.
The modern philosophical ruse that supports the validity of religion, says that
society is the product of human will, so that we freely create the world we live in.
Therefore people freely believe in religious knowledge too. But this is not so.
Humans are animals that are made to form social bodies, and the extension from
living structure, made of living tissue, to social structure arising from living activity,
is created through the sense that people have of their place in relation to each other.
Given that human sociability is an evolved attribute, in which people have no more
say than a bird has in its ability to fly, or a fish has in its ability to swim, then we must
be able to discover a guiding principle directing human social activity, and this
guiding principle must culminate in religion, since we have already declared the
nature of religion to be the organization of social structure through the deliverance of
a sense of common being.

Identity

The usual way of naming a sense of common being is to speak of a person’s

identity, to say I am/we/they are British, etc. Although we are in the habit nowadays
of referring to our personal sense of identity, the truth is that our realsense of identity
is anything but personal, it is in fact entirely social. We only know who we are by
virtue of our place in society. The reason why our personal sense of self is taken from
society is biological, we evolved to take our identity from the social space in which
we live. There is much toing and froing around this fact in public debate, because
homing in on this fact cuts close to the bone that is religion. The central point of
contention in our current focus upon the survival of religion in a scientific age
revolves around the personal, versus the collectivenature of humans. Identity is at the
heart of this question of individual status, versus collective status. It goes without
saying that the whole and its parts are one and the same thing in terms of their
identity, the tussle is over whose identity identity is, Does Britain get its identity from
me, from you, and so on, or do we get our identity from Britain ? The argument is
facile, since the collective body is clearly the repository from which individuals draw
their identity, as the individuals just come and go, while the core identity remains
comparatively constant, the location of permanence being especially apparent in terms
of identity’s language component. But the real importance of this fact only emerges
when we know what the true human form is, that form being a superorganism, a form
that has only one identity, to which we all belong, just as any organism has only one
identity to which all of its parts belong. The argument about these things only exists
as part of the on going effort to keep us all ‘idiots’, unaware of our true nature, a
necessary strategy in order to subsume us all under one common identity based on a
linguistic programme. Hence, intellectually speaking, the argument is facile ; but we
all take part in the struggle to impose idiocy upon ourselves, for being idiotsis our
greatest joy. Being idiots allows us to fulfil our human nature by being part of the one
being we evolved to form. Without mindless idiocy we are lost.
Religion is our collective being, religion gives society its identity, and since
we obtain our identity from society, religion is ouridentity. Once again, we can see
why recognising this fact in scientific terms, that are absolute, must destroy the
validity of the religious formula. Because religion has to appeal to our emotional
sense of self, in order to perform its function of organizing social structure, by acting
upon the motivation of individuals in such a way as to induce a sufficient state of
uniformity for society to function. This is true even for an atheist like myself,
precisely because identity is not personal, but social ; I can only have the identity of
the society in which I live, my atheism counts for nothing in terms of identity,
personal or otherwise, because atheism does not shape the social landscape.
 VI

The force of religious identity

My atheism makes for an interesting micro-study of the identity dynamic in

human superorganisms. I consider my atheism to represent the perfection of the
English identity, the supreme expression of the freedom that being English stands for.
But this identity is a localised phenomenon, it arose in very special conditions, in a
society at the peak of political importance in the world, and it occurred while the one
supreme identity, which is Judaism, was being put under extreme pressure, so that the
resident Jewish slave identity, Christianity, was flickering like a candle in the wind. I
was born when the world had just finished its work of wrapping itself up against this
fatal gust of reason, fuelled by politically empowered freedom. I was part of the tail
end of what it meant to be English, in a truly meaningful sense, a sense potentially
detached from the absolute rule of Israel, and it is small wonder that we have an
incessant flow of propaganda coming from the priests, via our television sets, trying
to sooth us through our transition from Englishness, as we shift through the
generations, and make a smooth return to the overt rule of an absolute theocracy in
which Englishness means nothing more than a street number in a row of terraced
houses.
My atheism is a localised phenomenon that indicates why social fabric has to
be continuously remade in order that the master identity can retain its control over
society, because identities tend to emerge in pockets over time. Which further
indicates why warfare and cultural mayhem are vital in a complex superorganism, in
order to prevent the decay of the primary identity into localised alternative forms,
such as that which we call democracy, a political form that can only exist where the
official status of the political identity is atheism, otherwise the machinery of
democratic order simply becomes corrupted by religious infiltration, exactly as we see
in America, and exactly as is happening here in Britain, right now. Just as we cannot
have science in a society where religion exists, so we cannot have democracy in a
society where religion exists, and for the same reason in both cases. Those who
subscribe to religion make it their business to infiltrate the institutions of control and
impose their identity mantra on everyone, this is what happens, this is how religion
comes to rule our world. The ability of religion to do this rests upon the mindlessness
of the individual with regard to intellectual truth, the individual is only concerned
with their place in the social whole, a place that is delineated through social identity.
All the person wants is to be affiliated with the power base, so that once religion is
established it becomes like a planetary core, it heats upas it amasses social energy,
and draws all that exists unto itself. Stray bits may fly off at random, but these can
never be of any consequence in themselves, though the tendency to fragment must be
resisted by the religious identity programme through its implementation by the organ
of religious identity, which is composed of people strongly attached to religion as the
basis of their political power.
If science examines society according to a naturalistic plan it will observe that
human biology evolved to create individuals that were made to actively form social
structures, and it follows from this observation that there must be some physiological
machinery dedicated to bringing this social structure into being. Language must be
central to this biological process, and so science can fairly easily present us with a
model of human society created by nature, in which language plays a central role.
Thus in place of religion giving us our social being, we have science showingus our
social being. These two different types of information, the emotional and the factual,
impart two different ways of knowing, and these two ways of knowing are
notcomplimentary, they are mutually exclusive. We cannot know ourselves as a
devotee of Jesus, and simultaneously know that Jesus is a myth that exists to enslave
us to a social body, to possess both states of mind simultaneously would be to make
the first state of emotional knowing a sham of which we were fully aware. Thus it is
not only on the scale of public teaching that science negates religion, the same
condition applies to the personal state of consciousness, and this is why so much
irreligious sentiment existed in the Victorian era when the knowledge of our true
nature as a social organism was commonplace.
The difference between giving and showingis immense, indeed it is all. If
there are ten starving people in a room and someone enters with a plate of bread and
cheese, which is shown to all and given to one, the point is sufficiently well made.
And since religion gives us our identity, an identity that we cannot live without,
whereas science only showsus the same identity, science in effect takes that identity
away from us. Religion is the ‘plate of bread and cheese’, figuratively speaking, for
religion empowers us, while science is the denial of our sustenance, it is small wonder
that everyone cooperates with religious oppression. And much of the argument
against science expresses this very idea. Those who wish to suppress science and
defend religion, openly speak of science robbing them of that which is most precious
to them. Religion is precious for good reason, for the reasons we have been
describing, that humans evolved to form social groups and at this point in time those
groups are formed through the medium of religious identity, which everyone must
have in order to get a piece of ‘bread and cheese’ : religion gives, science shows;
religion feeds science starves. This is because religion is part of the organic fabric
that we are all part of too, whereas science is merely a way of knowing what the
organic fabric is.
This effect of religion is dictated by human biology, it is not because religion
is good while science is bad, even though this is how we experience the contest
between these two ways of knowing, because we have a vested interest in the
operation of knowledge in social space. Knowledge is the medium of social space,
we have said knowledge is linguistic, but we can generalise this idea and include all
the ways in which we experience social existence, so that knowledge can be defined
as something much more than linguistic, knowledge can be defined as cultural. In this
sense knowledge is best reduced to a more fundamental quality, to the status of
information, so that we might still feel entitled to say that the word ‘knowledge’ really
ought to mean that which can be known, and can therefore be communicated by
spoken language.
In terms of our subject however, the extended field of cultural information is
vital to our full appreciation of the nature and function of religion. Religion as we
know it in the scientific age is only the living face of the past forms of cultural
information that have been unifying human groups since humanoids first came into
existence millions of years ago. The great fuss over religious paraphernalia that we
see in English society today, with the new conditions whereby religions from other
parts of the world have become part of our living fabric, and each segment of the
composite social structure needs to define itself more clearly than by words alone,
indicates how the more ancient ways of delivering social identity to individuals were
carried by cultural cues of a visual nature ; I have in mind the garb of Muslim women,
head scarves and veils, and the bangles of Hindus that a school girl recently, today
being 09/09/2008, won the right to wear to a school that forbids the wearing of
jewellery.
 ______

Regarding the quote heading this chapter. In a work of this name, I thought I
ought to carry something from one so similarly identified, if only to indicate how two
such similar titles could name books so diametrically opposite to each other. I spent
no time looking for good passages to serve my purpose, I grabbed the first indicative
bit I could. And as can be seen from the piece selected, Isaacs’ religious concern for
the survival of God in the scientific age, despite his being a professional scientist,
bears no relationship to our scientific concern. Isaacs in no sense whatever treats
religion as a natural phenomenon, for him it is a political attribute of human life. He
does not even treat humans as a part of nature. He is a good little priest, who tells us
that, despite his atheism, he loves religion and wants us all to be ruled by it !
A point of interest in Isaacs work is the way he begins by talking about the
disillusioned youth of his day, saying that while this condition is normal in all times,
youth of those days perhaps had more to sneer at than most. This was the sixties. I
was eleven years old in 1966. Yesterday I ordered a book I happened upon called The
Godless Students of Gower Street, 1968, as I was curious about why this history of a
London university should of especially chosento describe these students as ‘godless’,
it certainly characterised me at this time. I was of the godless generation, and I would
now like to think that as an adult, I amthe godless generation. So, anyone who would
care to try and analyse my rabid atheism from a cultural perspective, the sixties would
be a good place to start. Tony Blair a few years back, cursed the sixties, saying it was
to blame for all the current woes of society. His meaning being, I believe, that as the
sixties generation was now adult, its anarchic roots were showing in the waywardness
of the generation it had spawned. Not showing enough, we hoped lowlife scum that
had ruled our world forever, would be extinct when our time was come.
But our time is now, and look at the world, as bad as ever—riven with war,
iniquitous wealth juxtaposed with abject poverty, corruption thrives, ignorance rules,
religion persists—only worse. How wrong could we of been, and don’t people like
the Blair’s show it ! He wanted us all to be brought up as obedient little slaves of
Judaism, just like him. I find young people today are just that, wormish, snivelling,
mindless things, just what our education system exists to produce, a sold foundation
upon which to build mindless obedience the priesthood. I curse them as a betrayal of
the youth revolution ; but I have done no breeding myself.

Chapter 7

The Origin and Nature of Language :

How and Why Language Evolved

Yet another generalization of like universality expresses the process of organic

development. To the ordinary observer there seems no unity in this. No obvious parallelism
exists between the unfolding of a plant and the unfolding of an animal. There is no manifest
similarity between the development of a mammal, which proceeds without break from its
 first to its last stage, and that of an insect, which is divided into strongly-marked stages—
egg, larva, pupa, imago. Nevertheless it is now an established fact, that all organisms are
evolved after one general method. At the outset the germ of every plant or animal is
relatively homogeneous ; and advance towards maturity is advance towards greater
heterogeneity. Each organized thing commences as an almost structureless mass, and
reaches its ultimate complexity by the establishment of distinctions upon distinctions,—by
the divergence of tissues from tissues and organs from organs. Here, then, we have yet
another biological law of transcendent generality.

(Transcendental Physiology, Herbert Spencer, 1892, pp. 66 – 67. First pub.

1857.)

Language evolved in order to unleash the potential, of the already evolved

physiology of superorganic being. How should we understand the coming of
language ?
Language is the key to understanding the nature of our being, and now I am
going to tell you both how, and why, this miraculous ability came into existence.

I have no intention of detailing the precise progress of human evolution, even

though that would doubtless be the correct scientific approach to take before
proffering so profound a piece of knowledge as that which I have it in mind to deliver
this very moment. There will be some material below on the manner in which we
transformed from anthropoid mammal into human mammal, but I had, just the other
day, as I read Roberts’ great masterpiece of sociological science Bio-Politics, a
powerful insight into the essence of the transformation, as it bears on this most
important quality of speech. I offer the following raw presentation of that
inspirational moment as is, for what it is worth, but I do so in this way because I feel
my insight has the worth of a great moment of comprehension, that is best not overly
messed with.
On page one hundred and thirty eight of his masterpiece, Roberts mentions the
forebrain, which, if I remember rightly is the especially human part of our most
human of all organs, the part associated with the power of speech, which he says
evolved from the most primitive of animal senses, that of smell. I detail the origins of
my moment of inspiration because I am not inclined to check these details of basic
physiology, as I think the detail is not terribly important, for reasons I hope will
become clear to willingreaders, those seeking to understand what is being said rather
seeking ways to dismiss naturalistic ideas about human nature. I have a well
established idea of my own regarding how we evolved, and the role of naked skin and
sweat in this process is very much a part of that idea, so Roberts only prompted me to
add a small, but significant twist to my personally established ideas.
While Roberts saw fit to belittle the grandiose notions that people have of
themselves, centred on their intelligence, by stating that the seat of our special gift had
developed from a very basic instinct, I saw this idea quite otherwise ; although the
basic principle of dismissing human self glorification on the basis of high intelligence
is something of which we must approve. My usual contention is that language is a
natural force that creates social structure, and forces being what they are, they should
be discernable in a series of preceding forms, where that feature which defines current
forms had not yet come into being. This is so because forces remain constant as the
forms they generate change. This is why, once life established the basic elements of
the genetic code as a blueprint for life, that basic information package has remained
unchanged no matter how the forms it has scripted have developed. The same
principle applies to the creation of a global human superorganism, based on one
unchanging religious identity, Judaism. Once the elements of Jewish identity were
established, then no matter what new forms of religious identity arose where Jewish
influence existed, these new forms would always be Jewish—no matter how much
matters may appear otherwise, to our strictly limited perception of ourselves—
because Judaism is a master identity.
Human nature is corporate, which means : the form of individual physiology is
evolved to create a living body at the level of social organization. It follows from this
statement on what human nature is, that human nature must of existed long before
humans existed, and likewise, it also follows that linguistic force must of existed long
before language ! We can, on the same basis, say the same of Christianity and Islam,
both existedlong before the mythical birth of Christ, or the ‘fantastic’ life of
Mohammed. This sounds odd, but it is not odd at all. What are we to do ? We can
only know what is before our eyes today, and name things accordingly. But as the
special insight of science reveals hidden depths to that which we see and know
readily, we become aware that what we have named for its most prominent attributes
today, must of existed long ago in a form that did not display those most prominent
attributes at all. Thus what we rightly identify as a force creating social structure
today, via the power of language, which leads us to call language a natural force, is
really the contemporary expression of a more fundamental social force. Hence :
linguistic force is a social force, a force creating superorganic being.

A religious stench

The revelation that the seat of our high intellect, especially the power of
speech, should of arose from the sense of smell is absolutely perfect, since I see the
loss of protective body hair as the means of creating mammals that would be inclined
to form closely bonded units. Where the sharing of sensual intimacy through all over
bodily touch, skin to skin, occurring within an invisible odorous mist, contained
within a common shelter that required to be kept at near body temperature for
comfort, would make a primitive sense like smell the ideal primordial medium of
social force, creating social structure. Personal identity under these prehuman,
embryonic superorganic circumstances, would be mediated by smell, but it would be a
shared identity because the smell would belong to the social body. Each person
would be a carrier of the common sent, and as such the shared smell would be
invisible to them, while any other group’s scent would appear strong and obnoxious,
rather as religion is to us today, where being inductees makes our creed normal, and
all others at the same time incomprehensible, and hence detestable. According to
Mol’s scheme for understanding identity, mentioned previously, this physiological
means of creating social identity, must be akin to the sacralisation of body odour. But
his model of identity would not be able to reach back to such organic foundations,
because the word ‘sacralisation’ forces us to exclude biology from our consideration
by assuming that religion is a product of language, and that language is a means of
empowering individuals to perform such acts as making their identity sacred. We can
see from Mol just how the academic priest carefully crafts the language they use to
allow them to fabricate a robust dogma, able to negate science while protecting
religion.
 One occasionally comes across references to the appalling smell of native
people around the world, as experienced by the first European travellers, for whom
the collective mist of identity imbibed via the nostrils, was a lost part of their world.
Sadly it is a revitalised feature, as people seem enamoured of the most vile perfumes
these days, so that one frequently finds oneself nonchalantly walking along without a
care in the world, suddenly struck by a severe gas attack, as a person carrying an
invisible commercial odour drags their poisonous cloud across your personal space,
leaving you gagging for breath and snorting like a whipped pony, in a violent attempt
to clear the nostrils. I have actually had people tell me I should apply such chemical
sewerage to myself, rather than impose my sweat on their nostrils when labouring,
damn cheek ! Women can be bad, especially the older ones, but men are the worst.
This representation of early hominid origins does not say much that is
different from the way social insects know their themselves personally, yet in a social
manner, through their exposure to pheromones. From this physiological logic, it
follows that as the area of smell was an early seat of social unity, acting at the
psychological level, so this is where a sensitivity to audible expression of a highly
complex kind, directed at empowering the same sense of social unity would be likely
to arise. Being aware that modern science is amazingly good at discerning the detail
of our evolutionary development, this description is meant to be suggestive of the
mode of transformation, it does not pretend to be an actual account of the detail.

II

Colourful scent

To say this much is only to make a beginning. In going this far all we have
done is to indicate that by becoming bipedal, dextrous, naked and sweaty, evolution
had only produced the basic form of a superorganic unit, possessing the physiology of
the individual as we know ourselves today.
The special, ‘magic trick’ of language, was to unleash the potential of the work
achieved thus far. We had a sticky little ball of human tissue, glued into a close
confederation consisting of units, physically discrete in their own right, and
possessing a degree of independence, emphasised by a mortality that was self
contained relative to the immortality of the glob they were part of. This discrete
physiology gave rise to independently defined units of life, each possessing all the
basic elements of a true superorganism. Being the source thereby of the
superorganism’s basic power of absolute unity, due to a physiology evolved to deliver
interdependence between individually independent molecular units of life. Ultimately
defined as units of lifeby a mortality that contrasted with the immortality of the
mammalian glob that these molecular units brought into being, by virtue of their
evolved social physiology. This model gives us our superorganic embryo, the
precursor of humans, the physiological melting pot within which language came into
being.
To release the potential of the social physiology invested in the individual
units, it was necessary for the power of the social bonds existing between the living
units to be retained, while the distance between the cellular units of the embryonic
superorganism, was allowed to increase. Hence we may speak of the releaseof the
latent potential of superorganic form, built up in the physiology of the individual
units, and released through the expansion of the superorganism, facilitated via audible
signals containing information on the regulation of the inter-unitary structure, that we
call society. Clearly language does just this. Language releases the potential of
superorganic physiology, vested in our individual form. In so doing, language
becomes the new medium of the social force, creating social structure. According to
this proposal, we might say that language is a sophisticated form of smell, and nothing
more. Does that last idea work ? Well it is just a thought. But I do often think of
linguistic messages, such as a religion, as nothing more than a colour ; which is why
the content of religions can be virtually anything, no matter how stupid, all that
matters is that the message can be absorbed and identified with, exactly as insects do
by means of pheromones.
This model of linguistic evolution evinces an energetic continuum existing
between the genetic programme creating the physiology of our bodies, and the
linguistic programme creating the physiology of the superorganic being to which we
belong. Thus language is made the seamless continuum of genetics, acting in the
social domain. Where language extends the reach of biological information in order
to advance the organism toward the latent potential of social organization, that genetic
evolution has invested in mammalian physiology.
As indicated, this model is not intended to be scientific in any technical sense.
But we may say that it is intended to be scientific in a philosophical sense, as it draws
from the naturalistic idea implicit in science. It is speculative, but it is based on the
idea of force driving evolution, rather than the absurd notion of form driving
evolution, that was bequeathed to humanity courtesy of Darwin. Whether or not the
details of this model, indicating a slug of humans evolved into the cellular elements of
an embryonic superorganism, is an image of reality as it happened, or not, the basic
principle of force as the leading idea in the development of evolving form, is an
incredibly powerful means of accounting for the evolution of life forms. This said,
we should fit the role of form into our energetic model, because forms are the material
evidence of the whole shebang.

III

Evolving forms

The urge to evolve toward our present form can, from the outset, be related to
a physical imperative within nature, to produce a mammalian form able to exploit the
latent potential of the social domain, just as mammalian forms were demanded, by the
laws of nature, to exploit the latent potential of the other major domains of life,
namely land, sea and air. Mammals of course evolved on land, therefore the
terrestrial condition was normal for mammals, meaning terrestriality was the baseline
from which mammalian physiology began. What we need in order to round off this
explanation of linguistic evolution, is a statement on the role of form in a process of
evolution driven by force.
In the first place evolution is driven by force because life is a form of matter,
and matter is created at the behest of energy, thus we may say that matter needs
energy, therefore matter is drawn to energy in order to develop its structure. This
mode of speech is not ideal, it is too ‘human’ and lacks analytical precision, but it will
hopefully be adequately detachedfor our purposes. Besides this is meant to be a plain
person’s guide to reality, written by a plain speaking philosopher, as opposed to the
professional stuff that has ‘Keep Out’ written all of it, rather than ‘Enter’. And when
the low life do invite you in, via a simple TV documentary or such like, it is to rob
you of your wits, by taking advantage of your dependence upon what they say, so they
tease us with a syrup of finely crafted drivel, that tantalises, but doesn’t feed your
intelligence one bit. The opposite arrangement makes no sense, we cannot say that
energy needs matter, because, while matter does containenergy, it is matter that has
complexity where energy is neutral ; energy conceived of as a pure entity must be
without structure, pure energy. Not that I know whether this description would make
sense to a physicist, but the point is that in relation to material forms with which we
are familiar, energy remains a constant while the form changes, therefore it is the
uniformity of energy that acts as the basis of complex form.
I was listening to a programme called The Fossil Detectiveson television a day
or so ago, today being 27/09/2008, and they were talking about a fossil of a marine
creature that had baleen plates like whales, and was a suspension feeder. The
presenter asked if modern creatures, porpoises and dolphins possibly, would of been
around then, and the expert said that the event that killed the dinosaurs saw the demise
of this giant species we were looking at, then the porpoises and dolphins moved into
the shallow seas that this giant creature had vacated. So in effect the extinction of this
early whale left a void in the energy continuum of life and new species evolved to fill
that void. The replacement introduced a new kind of animal form, utilising a different
feeding strategy, but the essential factor in the change is the utilisation of potential
energy available in a system. As I listened to this account I thought how nicely this
description of the process of evolution in action, accorded with our dynamic model of
evolution, which so completely contradicts Darwin’s individual based, competitive
model. Our model shows that evolution does indeed have a purpose, which is to seek
available energy. Of course we should not use the word ‘purpose’ in this context, but
in truth there is really no such thing as purpose at all, anywhere, humans have no real
idea why they do what they do, so how can they have purposes ? ‘Purpose’ is yet
another example of a code word carrying a motive bias, that relates to the construction
of superorganic physiology.
Forms are drawn towards sources of energy, but forms are not entirely passive
features of the evolutionary process. It is implicit in the relationship between form
and energy, that we have just outlined, that all life forms constitute an engine, because
they are complex forms dedicated to the pursuit, and use of, energy. Life forms
evolve to exploit energy potential, and in doing so they are transformed into new
types of engines, and as we have seen in the discussion of marine transformation
above, it is the shift in the energy profile of environments that is likely to induce new
types of life engines to emerge ; which makes perfect sense. The process of
developing a new type of engine is gradual, and it represents the life form in question
ascending an energy gradient. It is the manner in which life forms ascend this
gradient, by competing with their own kind,that gives Darwin’s closely circumscribed
account of organic evolution some genuine application to the evolutionary process,
albeit a partial validity, that does more harm to science than good, but which does at
least have the saving grace of protecting religion from a complete and virile scientific
model of human evolution. Darwinian competition is about the evolution of life
forms as engines only, it is nota theory applicable to the whole process of evolution.
Darwinism only takes into account of the interactive development of associated
features of life forms, that derive from competition between individuals. Darwinism
does not include an understanding of the nature of life itself, as a form of matter
seeking to exploit the latent potential energy environments, where social structure
represents one such environment.
Darwin’s account is confined to the upward movement along an energy
gradient, that life forms traverse on route to becoming something different.
Competition within species is of its nature localised, and within the local setting the
time must come when a structural form ascends to the maximum potential offered by
local conditions. The energy gradient has then been climbed, now all that remains is
for the resulting organism to descend the energy gradient and to become delocalised,
or universal. Descent must occur spontaneously in these conditions, for the energy
potential of the surrounding environment has effectively become void of life relative
to the new engine of exploitation, the world is the new form’s oyster. This is akin to
the state of affairs created when Europeans introduced species of a hitherto unknown
kind into places on the other side of the globe. The newly introduced species had a
free reign to exploit the local energy potential, that had never evolved an engine of the
kind we have in our part of the planet. Taking a rat to New Zealand was like taking a
ball to the top of a hill and watching it roll inexorably down to the bottom, where
equilibrium is reached between the ball and the land upon which it sits ; in this most
telling way New Zealand thereby becomes Europeanised, in effect a new territory is
consumedby the old. The replacement of indigenous people by Europeans is a more
potent expression of the process of superorganic consumption, and before we run
away with silly notions of nasty colonisers, we should note that, expressed in these
organic terms, the ingress of millions of aliens into Europe since the second world
war, facilitated by the rulers of our continent, is an identical biological process, that
has exactly the same effect of causing social tissue to be consumed and turned into a
new form, or, since we are slaves of Judaism, via our Christian identity implant, the
ingress of slaves of Judaism of the Islamic identity implant, can be understood as a
reinvigoration of our Jewish slave identity, which was decaying due to the effect of
the scientific revolution occurring in Europe, that was destroying religious
knowledge. This is why Islam has been introduced into Europe on a massive scale
during our lifetime, such monumental developments can never be accidental.
Now we have united the localised process of ‘form making’ with the universal
evolutionary force, such that forms can be seen to be evolving locally, in such a way
that they will eventually devise a means of exploitation with the capacity to go
universal, to disperse until a new barrier is met with. Mammalian physiology itself
represents a new kind of engine, which is why it had to realise new forms capable of
entering all domains bearing a latent potential of life energy, of which social structure
was one kind.

IV

Human slugs

Relating this model to our human slugs, stuck together in a sweat box, we
have an image that is intended to provide a conception of the hominoid condition
prior to the onset of the linguistic phase of our evolution, the full potential of which is
realised in our kind as we exist today. The human slug is the embryonic form of the
human superorganism, awaiting an incendiary mechanism to release its physiological
potential, that incendiary was the additional physiology of speech.
This amniotic slug of cellular units represented the perfection of the
superorganic engine that was being drawn out of mammalian form, and towards the
latent potential of social energy, a potential whose presence was implicit in the
success of the mammalian form itself. This slug of human tissue, welded together,
must or represented a successful social unit. It was mobile and moved with one mind,
despite being composed of a number of units whose independence was defined by
their personal mortality, relative to the immortality of the ‘slug’ to which they
belonged. Such life forms constitute a faunal population that compete with one
another, thus driving the development of the engine that they all represent in common,
toward a new point of excellence, excellence as defined in terms of the basic goal,
which in humans means realising a fully fledged superorganic form.
This means that the central feature of this superorganic form will of been
under pressure to develop, the slug hadto become more mobile to compete with the
mobility of its local kind. At the same time the essence of its being, its sociability,
had to be the leading edge of any development that took place ; thus localised
evolution is always contained within, and is subject to, the additional parameters of
universal evolution. To express this scientific model in the traditional tones of
esoteric wisdom, that seems to be entranced with the mystery of this process, we may
say : wheels turn within wheels. It is under these conditions that a slugwith an
enhanced capacity for social integration, combined with an ability to disperse and
expand further than its local competitors, will of been fostered by nature. And so the
human superorganism emerged from its prototype to speak, and thus we came into
being as those that are spoken to.
I have adopted a Darwinian stance in the preceding account of how nascent
human superorganisms became fully human. But I am not sure we need to doff our
caps to Darwin at all. The fact is that humans evolved all the way from animals to
fully fledged us, in Africa. Africa is a big place, so there is enough room to fulfil an
urge to spread, but the key feature of our coming into existence is the realisation of
our amazing form. And the urge to realise this form was entirely built into the ancient
physiology of mammalian kind, it needed not inter-competitive urge to bring
superorganic form out, it was coming out anyway. But this is a philosophical work
based on speculation, where science has no material available to aid us, because
science is not permitted to treat humans as being evolved from animal life, except in
the crude sense of physical appearances, which is worthless as a scientific insight. So
we must do the best we can, while awaiting the arrival of a new scientific age in
which religion no longer exists to constrain our efforts at self understanding.

Perfecting linguistic form

Finally we must relate this model of linguistic evolution to the central theme
of our essay on the manner in which religion survives the coming of science. This is
easily done when we make Judaism an example of a new kind of organic engine,
evolving in the cauldron of localised competition occurring half a dozen millennia ago
in the Middle East. Once the pattern of structural formation became established, and
associated with an organic identity in the shape of Judaism, then the superorganism
associated with this identity constituted an engine at the top of its gradient. However,
at this point we are a long way from a slug of humanoids on an African plain. The
furnace in which Judaism was forged required a radically different product to emerge
before the gradient latent in the human form could move on from that location. And
here we come to an idea that no human being has ever conceived of before, despite
the fact that it is by far and away the most important idea any human could ever
conceive of, and it is incredibly easy to see, indeed it beggars belief that anyone could
miss it. In order to reach the next level of superorganic evolution a specialised organ
of superorganic being had to evolve, that was itself an abstraction of the core elements
of a complex superorganism. So the resulting new kind of master organ would be
based on the essence of superorganic being itself, and would function by taking over
the command of other superorganisms, thus drawing all superorganisms on earth into
one.
The evolution of massive superorganisms, what we call civilisations,
orchestrated by highly specialised elites, set up the conditions for competition to
occur between civilisations, that would inevitably drive humans towards the evolution
of an abstract elite, expressing the essence of the command entity. This abstraction of
master identities would have its own specialised attributes, first of which would be
mobility, combined with a facility for inserting itself into anyresident superorganism
in existence, that had developed the basic physiology of a complex form dependant
upon an exclusive elite class for its motive impulse. Judaism was, and is, this
specialised organ of superorganic being : the Chosen, as it calls itself.
Once established and well defined, this specialised elite core, instead of just
invading established superorganisms and taking over the machinery of control, it
would start to produce superorganisms in its own likeness, with its own control
systems built in as part of the extension of its own identity programme. From this
position the next stage was for the Jewish organism to descend the gradient,
consuming all other social organisms as it went along, hoovering up the local human
fauna and incorporating it into one global Jewish superorganism. This process
involved an extension and elaboration of the original Jewish identity programme, and
the process of elaboration gave rise to secondary and tertiary tiers of Jewish
physiology, that we call Christianity and Islam. With these extended linguistic
programmes in place, all that remained was for the Jewish superorganism to disperse
into all quarters of the globe, a process that is significantly advanced today, but that
still has some minor extension and consolidation to go before total completion.

I assert that I am the only person ever to think along these lines, but all sorts of
commentators approach the description of humanity that I offer, they just never join
up the dots to form a coherent picture. Oswald Spengler wrote Decline of the Westin
1911, and in it he apparently describes what he says is a hitherto unknown
civilisation, the Magi Civilisation, which incorporated the Jews some six millennia
ago. This is the kind of precursor of the Jewish master identity that we are saying
must of given rise to the Jews. The Magi civilisation would of been a model of
superorganic form, a physiological social structure. This structure will of required an
identity, and it will of been the operation of the linguistic force, that creates social
structure by laying down the lines of structural deposition, that will of induced the
evolution of the Jewish master identity, with all the attributes of Judaism that we are
familiar with through the historical record.
Jewish identity is a highly linguistic form, as opposed to a racial, or genetic
form. There is a feedback loop between the identity and the form of an organism, but
at the level of development we are discussing in human civilisation, the form must
develop first, and then induce an appropriate identity, because the identity organ has
to incorporate into itself the physiological strategies that give it its special
relationship, as a social organ of identity, to the institutional physiology of the
superorganism, that provides the command structure that the organ of identity forces
to serve its expressed ends.
The Jews are the people of the book, they have a built in regard for civil
authority, the law, and such like highly advanced mechanisms of superorganic control.
And crucially, the Jews have made the primary objective of superorganic physiology
itself, the primary objective of their identity. Jews have made themselves the Chosen
of the superorganism. Which in itself indicates that the physiology preceded the
organ of identity. They have thereby made theirreason for existence, the ultimate
subjection of all humanity to the Jewish identity, a ‘reason for existence’ that has been
attached to the physiology which has shown itself to be able to constitute a complex
superorganism. But in performing this action of attachment to the superorganism the
Jews have not half hitched the basis of human being, the nature of human being, has
produced the Jews as an expression of that corporate nature.

VI

How and why

I began this chapter with some bold promises that are bound to be thought
extravagant, at best, and more likely damned arrogant, by many. I said I was going to
tell you exactly how and why human language came into existence, and I would hate
to think we have reached the end of this chapter only for those who have read the
above in anticipation, to be looking on and thinking “Come on then, I am waiting.”
We have veered off along the way, at what might appear like tangents, but the
whole point of discussing the evolution of language is to apply our knowledge of how
and why language evolved to the consequences of its evolution. Now though, the
subject being of such importance and interest, we must conclude this chapter by
summarising the points made above, as they apply to the promises made at the
beginning of this chapter.
How language evolved: Language evolved as a gradual transition from prior
batons of corporate identity, such as shared scent. The identification of scent as a
medium of primordial superorganic identity can only be speculative, as only science
can confirm such claims. I recently heard a scientist describe how he had worked out
precisely when humans became naked, by examining the genetic history of our
various hair infesting parasites. The method and the results were exquisite, and these
are just the kind of hard facts we need. But here we delineate the principle implicit in
the recognition that humans are superorganic mammals, whose ‘corporate nature’—so
named because it means that individual form evolved to bring a living being into
existence at the level of social organisation—must of existed from the first moment a
human line of descent began, right up to the present time. We are following this line
of descent along the logical path of corporate nature, not the actualpath of corporate
form, generated by our corporate nature. Following this path means that we can
predict with absolute certainty, exactly how and why every trait of our kind, and every
feature of our existence, has come to be.
Logical paths are consistent with the recognition of force acting on a matter.
Actual paths are composed of the details condensing out of the physical expression of
logical paths. Logically we can say a vehicle may travel from Manchester to Oxford
on the A34, since these two places exist, as does the connecting road, so named. But
only by selecting an actual vehicle that has completed the journey, can we elaborate
any details of that logical trajectory by naming times and places reached, for example.
Even so, the ‘logical trajectory’ of such a real journey is just as real when not
associated with a specific event, as it is when the event itself is real, as opposed to
simply being logical. This is so because the relevant places are real.
Reality is a precondition of logicality, although much intellectualising
expressly refutes this fact by allowing artificial conditions to be proposed, which then
serve as a basis for logical extrapolation. We cannot have a logical discussion about
the existence of God, because the very idea that there might be a God is simply
insane, from any possible logical standpoint that is. Not that this ‘impossible
difficulty’ presents any impediment to professional philosophers, they excuse
themselves by saying, “Lets, for arguments sake, accept that there isa God.”
Excruciating, vile, ugly minded degeneracy. I hate it !! Such activity tends to be
facile as it is invariably meant to promote false knowledge of reality, though
imaginative exercise can be of genuine service if meant to extend the scientific
discovery of material reality as yet beyond our knowledge.
Logic is a quality of reason, not a quality of reasoning. Illogical reasoning is
extremely functional because of our slave status as units of a superorganism. Being
functional however, does not make illogical reason logical, though it does make
illogical reasoninglogical, because of the function it serves in the regime of
superorganic physiology. The fact that much of academia inverts this truth, by
allowing logical reason to be derived from illogical reasoning, not based on reality, is
a perfect example of how language exists to serve the superorganism, and not the
individual. This duplicity is also at the root of the antipathy between science and
philosophy, due to the fact that scientists despise the logical approach of philosophers
to reality.
By this same token of logical reasoning that we describe above, we can
discern the logical trajectory of human evolution through a path of physiological
transformations. We know an animal existed in the past, we know we exist today, and
like the A34, we know a direct, unbroken link unites the unknown creature from our
most distant past, and ourselves today. So we can make the logical journey from one
place to the other, along the road we know exists, as an historical reality. So we know
the path is real, we know actual transformations occurred, but we have yet to home in
on those actualtransformations because we are not allowed to have access to the
information we need to perform these studies. The point of departure for our logical
enterprise is sealed atthe very point of departure, where the first thing we must know
is what human nature is. ‘Human nature’ gives us our trajectory of human evolution.
All science is unanimously agreed that this is something that cannot be known,
because there is no such thing as a biologically defined ‘human nature’, because
humans are not subject to the laws of nature, being self made via the action of each
individual person, acting in cooperation with each other, all of their own free will.
The upshot of this self made status is that there can be no such thing as a
human biological nature, and hence no trajectory of evolutionary development,
informed by that biological nature. A factwhich is born out by the diversity of human
cultures all around the world, where we find that humans are always quirky, and never
the same. Well, that is what the lying priest says. When academics come out with
this kind of errant trash, they are being deliberately obtuse by short-circuiting the
connection between human culture and human physiology. And like any liar, as long
as they can get away with lying to protect their interests, why should they do anything
more—job done. We have already mentioned the fact that human diversity takes
place within strictly defined parameters, and the academic’s emphasise upon cultural
diversity is merely a device, akin to any other lying device used by a priesthood to
propagate false knowledge, in order to protect precious knowledge of identity with
which they are associated. We can see how vastly superior to such modern arguments
those of Spencer were, just prior to the time when that misanthropic work of Darwin’s
appeared, from the quote at the head of this chapter, for knowledge of which we must
thank our hero of organicism, Morley, who never tires of praising the inspiration
provided to him by Spencer’s essay Transcendental Physiology. Although Morley
does not fail to note the treachery of Spencer in assassinating his own brilliant
organicist conception of human society, something Morley says Spencer did out of
fear for where he eventually saw his ideas must lead, to the most degrading servitude
imaginable. Though personally I do not get this, had the man never been in a church !
Can any human conceive of a servitude more gross, obscene, vile and disgusting, than
affiliation to a religion ? Absolutely not. And the real misery of religious degradation
lies in wait for the rest of us who hate religion, but must obey the dictates of religion
as rigidly as any believer, because if belief exists, then it enslaves us all by taking
possession of all society, for that is the nature of religion. Today sociologists talk
about Spencer’s dilemma in the political terms of individual consciousness, saying
that Spencer was torn between his passion for individuality, and his appreciation of
facts indicating that society was a true social organism. But such modern sociological
analyses of individual motives, are no more useful than a child’s ruminations on the
mysteries of wetting your pants ; though both strategies can no doubt have purposive
objectives regarding the control of others, in view.
Setting aside the corrupt mantra of the scientific establishment, the central
point then, is that primordial human superorganisms must of possessed a carrier of
corporate identity equivalent to modern human language, and whatever acted as a
carrier of such corporate identity, we call a ‘baton of identity’. Scent could of been
such a baton, then again sweat is an interesting candidate for this function because it
is a unique feature of human physiology. It is the idea of sweat serving as a baton of
corporate identity that caused me to think of an embryonic superorganism consisting
of a small group of individuals huddled up in a shelter, sticking together in a state of
abject dependence, as a slug of embryonic tissue. That, and the fact that I don’t half
get a lot of slugs in my garden.
Generic why: Language evolved because mammalian physiology contained
within it the latent potential of superorganic being, as must all such primary, generic
life engines, as discussed above. We will in fact come to an alternative model of
evolution to that of Darwin’s later on, based on plants and called ‘Age and Area’ by
its exponent J. C. Willis. He argued that new species arise from fluke mutations, and
then over time they proliferate, giving rise to a family composed of many subspecies.
Which promotes an idea of evolution that we gather from Willis predominated prior to
Darwin capping scientific progress in 1859. In principle this accords with our notion
that evolution proceeds via the evolution of generic forms in a fixed locality, which
then diversify to exploit surrounding environments. Only Willis does not venture into
the realms of physics and forces, by expounding ideas about life engines existing to
exploit the latent potential of life. His main concern is with plants, so that his views
are inherently less dynamic, and indeed he blames Darwin, and all his subsequent
followers, for their concentration on animals, causing a failure to recognise certain
key facts in plant life, that prove Darwin’s competitive model, based on the selection
of the fittest, is nonsense. Unfortunately as a leading professional academic Willis,
who was active in the first half of the twentieth century, was made congenitally blind
to the realities of the ongoing warfare between religion and science by his academic
training and position. Hence he was oblivious to Darwin’s crucial role in that war. So
that he completely fails to understand why science will not accept hard evidence that
flatly contradicts Darwin.
Any scientist that ignores religion is doomed to wander blind and stupid
through life, wasting their efforts, except in so far as they bolster the war of religion
against science by proliferating junk knowledge, that hinders the path of any that
would seek to follow where the first modern scientists led the way.
Specific why: Language evolved as the means of mammalian superorganic
integration, because verbal communication best utilised the terrestrial physiology of
specifically mammalian form. Ears, tongue, air breathing, and whatever other basic
elements of mammalian form are relevant to speech, had already been established
before differentiation shifted toward the form of a superorganism. Audible
communication is a characteristic of mammals, we find it made the basis of vision in
bats, and a means of symphonic communication in whales. Hence speech emerged as
the medium of symbolic representation in humans, that allowed nature to write a
programme for a specially evolved sentient unit of architecture to follow.

VII

Public opinion

We often hear of public opinion saying this and demanding that. A frequent
line used by reporters on television is “The public outrage . . . . ” It was used many
times recently as the politicians hit the headlines over the expenses debacle. The
reason for this debacle was the drip drip effect of the Guardian newspaper’s daily
revelations over the misuse of parliamentary expenses. This method of stimulating
public opinion certainly caused public outrage amongst us plebes over the thieving
habits of our lawmakers, even when people already regarded politicians as the lowest
form of criminal life in society, as I do, and always have ; its one thing knowing the
unknown, its quite another to have your nose rubbed in it !
Today, Tuesday, 11 August 2009, a journalist used this line, invoking the voice
of the people in relation to the ‘baby Peter’ murder case, a nasty case, but hardly
unusual. This is the sort of item I normally think of when I wonder just what basis
these pumpers of the people have for saying the public are outraged. Not to mention
that any vociferous outrage that may be discerned by these professional seekers after
sensation, is always stoked by the process of broadcasting itself. However, I have
been prompted to insert a section on public opinion by beginning to read Atheism in
Pagan Antiquity, by Drachmann, 1922, in which he repeatedly refers to the basis of
religion being held in the public body. So that he makes a huge distinction between
atheistic discussion that is speculative regarding the nature of the divine, and atheistic
expression that is a direct attack upon religious practices and ideas held sacred by the
public at large.
Naturally I hate this implication that people are the source of an affection for
religion, it inverts the idea that people are enslaved to a religion via priestcraft. We
have the old problem then, of the horse and the cart ;the chicken and the egg. So I
thought I should deal with this topic. The implication is that ignorance originates in
the people and is preserved by them. Which is the inverse of the logic that I assert,
which says that people left to themselves reject religion, and it is only organised
priestcraft that foists religion upon people as a means of creating a system that
supports a theocracy,based on privilege in a priest run world.
As ever in these cases, we have reality acknowledge by all, but interpretations
diametrically opposed to each other because of the pivotal point of observation used
in the act of interpretation, where the priest makes the individual an end in
themselves, while the scientist makes the mammalian superorganism the true object of
all human reality. The situation is complex, individuals want stability and security,
and many are predisposed to value religious observance when life is secure. But
much of our argument is based on the idea that slave identities like those derived from
Judaism, are initially forced on people, and as such they have a tendency to decay
over time, especially since the Jews do not actually operate as a politicalmaster
imposing the Christian and Islamic identities openly. So the first thing to accept is
that the situation is complex, but we must adhere to the scientific principles derived
from the knowledge that humans are superorganisms and individuals are to be thought
of as sentient bricks, evolved to build social structure.
More generally then, we may take an example of so called ‘public opinion’.
The reaction of Muslims around the world to the ‘insulting’ cartoons of the prophet,
published in Denmark a few years ago, are not a display of ‘public opinion’ according
to any genuine scientific analysis, although that is precisely what they are according
to the information punters, the media priests within the theocracy. Angry crowds
coming onto the streets and burning effigies, while chanting slogans threatening
vengeance toward the infidels, are expressions of linguistic force, derived from the
evolved physiology of the human animal.
A force is not identified by its impact, but by its point of origin. A tsunami is
not a display of the force of water, nor the force of the sea or a wave. A tsunami
expresses the force of geotectonics, such as an underwater landslip, or it may arise
from land slipping into water, or, as in the distant past, an extraterrestrial impact could
deliver the required force. Force derived from these sources is transmitted through
the liquid medium that we come into contact with in the form of a huge wave, so that
we experience the effect of a tsunami as an immediateforce of water. But that
immediacy cannot provide a definition of a tsunami in terms of a scientifically
understood event, scientific understanding must reach back to primary causes.
Likewise the public outrage in Islam over public displays of contempt for Islam in
Christendom, cannot define the nature of these impact events for science. Here too, in
the social domain, science must seek the point of origin for mindless behaviour
amongst humans.
With spontaneous public reactions to offences against decency, the act of mass
violence, viewed as a natural phenomenon, is akin to the reaction of water to a
landslip. Such public display is part of a definite natural system, and must be
understood by the anthropologist, as such. The human biomass within which such
reactions occur is a unified, fluid mass, unified by linguistic force, which creates
structure within the biomass as it flows through it in the form of pulses animating an
ever vibrating linguistic flux of identity. The publication of some cartoons in
Denmark are the equivalent of a landslip. Occurring because normal, ongoing friction
between the Asian and European plates of religious identity, composing two distinct
exoskeletal elements of the Jewish superorganism, caused a minor eruption of social
tension—the cartoons that is—which sent a shock wave of linguistic force, arising in
the Christian segment of the superorganism, through the unified body of the Jewish
superorganism, causing a reaction in the those portions of the body under the most
intense influence of the Islamic slave identity. At the root of these events then is
linguistic force, contained within the global physiology of one unified Jewish
superorganism. Ultimately such social happenings relate to the reorganisation of the
global superorganic physiology, they are normal and healthy, viewed from the
perspective of mammalian superorganisms.
Recent uprisings against a perfectly normal state of corruption in the process
of electing leaders in Iran, are also examples of a like kind to those of Islamic activists
reacting to the Danish cartoons in Pakistan or wherever. These mass reactions are all
related to the structural set up of the superorganic physiology, where the structural
identity hierarchy constitutes a map of the social structure, locating where points of
force originate in relation to impact events. The various bodies that ‘explode’
publicly, constitute preset physiological triggers, primed through the medium of their
identity programmes, which are fed to them and stimulated by primary sources power
within the physiology of the Jewish superorganism. The Tiananmen Square massacre
was induced by Western subversion stimulating normal conditions in China, working
students up to expectations of what Western priests call ‘democracy’. In Iran last
month, during the announcement of the election results, which were always going to
be crudely fixed—just as they always are in Britain, more subtly, but with the same
result in the end, in that the preservation of absolute theocracy is always guaranteed
by the system—the trouble was primed by Western influences, exactly as the Iranian
priests say it was.
Do not get me wrong, I value our ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, covert absolute
theocracy is a vast improvement on overt absolute theocracy, but that does not mean I
have to believe in its hype. This work investigates human existence scientifically, it is
not a piece of priestly pap, so here we tell it as it is, in the raw. Verbal distinctions
emanating from the priests that farm us, are always absolute in their tone, that is how
linguistic force needs to be delivered in order to generate political structures within
the biomass, creating blocks of unified superorganic physiology from which social
power can be extracted in return for delivering unifying messages. This is why our
politicians always address us as if we were congenital morons, if they tried to get
subtle and honest they would be crucified by those who mediate their messages,
because such a one on one style of communication does not engender mindless
uniformity, so the media priests react against it accordingly by demanding blunt
affirmations, forcing politicians to lie like idiots. Although journalists pester
politicians relentlessly, by demanding straight answers to questions that no sane
politician would ever answer directly, the journalists always give up after the second
attempt, except the odd twat, like the infamously aggravating Jeremy Paxman, who
does not get the idea. He thinks he is somehow being more effective as an
interrogator by persisting with inane questioning. The quizzing of political figures by
journalists is a ritual, nothing more, something a plonker like Paxman cannot grasp,
he seems to think that what he does is real in some absolute sense, or, more likely, he
is just another kind of showman-priest.
So, only a complete jerk thinks that the differences between ‘nasty’ and
‘nice’regimes is more than skin deep. However, that said, the appearance of skin deep
differences is of major significance, because humans evolved to make social structure,
so that all that is needed is just enough persuasion, and total cooperation is achieved.
It is like the difference between telling someone to give you their seat and getting
stabbed in the chest, and asking them politely if they will give you their seat, when
they know there is an implied threat, and they give it up gladly, because your
graciousness gives them a way to be servile while saving face. And that is the sum
total of the difference between a corrupt society like Iran, and a genuinedemocracy
like Britain. Here the pretence of freedom is taken very seriously, so we all show
willingness to stand by the result, and so the system works on a superior level. But,
beware those who would scratch the service, for beneath lies an absolute theocracy
quite as vicious and mean as anything any geriatric Iranian Imam could dream up.
And so, as I was saying, the Iranian people, like those of China a quarter of a
century before, were pumped up with linguistic force emanating from Western
structural elements of the Jewish superorganism—to which Iran belongs just as much
as anyone else. So that, as the results were coming out, opposition parties that the
Americans wanted to win, and who would of won under our ‘honest’ system, were
communicating via the internet, as it happens a newish medium called Twitter was
enabling rapid communication, and also as it happens, Twitter’s maintenance schedule
was set to coincide with a critical time regarding the elections. So the Americans
running the twit’s service delayed their maintenance for a couple of days, to make
sure that the pumped up people that had been stimulated to believe in democracy,
were kept wired up, allowing them to be brought out onto the streets, in unwitting
obedience to their Western programmers, to protest and get shot. The blokes who run
Twitter are such nice people that they wanted to help the Iranians fulfil their desire to
get butchered, simply out of the kindness of their hearts, as one of them boasted on
BBC 2’s Newsnight a week or so ago. But he also admitted that the government
requested they keep their system up long enough to make trouble for the Iranian
people. Sounds like being asked to give your seat up to me, asked nicely, but you can
hardly say no, eh. Then again, there is not separation between state and power of any
sort, in an absolute theocracy like America.
With the biomass wired up by hubs of identity buried within the tissue of the
superorganism, it is merely a matter of keeping the biomass pumped up with linguistic
force, by issuing pulses of reinforcement shaped in relation to the identity messages
with which the segments of living tissue have been primed. Thinkabout it, distance
yourself from the politics, from the meaning, and ask yourself, Why should these
various social bodies concern themselves with these various affairs ? Don’t imagine
they do so out of kindness, love, belief—no—whatever you do, do not degrade
yourself with such infantile musings. Where do the controllersget their sense of
direction from, how do they know that they want to support this thing here, that thing
there ? The answer is that they do not, nature decides these outcomes, because society
is an organic entity created by nature, there is no choice about the decisions taken by
political machines. Did you see the farce on TV tonight, Tuesday, 11 August 2009,
when Hilary Clinton got all uppity aboutsome student asking her what her husband
thought about some issue of state ? Hilarious. As if it makes a blind bit of difference
who answers such a question, politicians are not people, they are units of a machine.
We are all bricks making up a superorganic architecture, but politicians are special
bricks, they are messenger-bricks that give the rest of us our internal programmes,
which they receivefrom the core machine. What a joke, as ifthese people are really
people. If a women like Clinton, or her husband, ever had a radical thought, of any
kind, they would simply not be politicians, that is the point of the structure, to put
bricks in place that support its extension. No politicians ever had a place in public life
in any society in history, that was not on message, including Adolf Hitler, for
example, for reasons we have already gone into. You cannot have up without down,
positive without negative, that is why our social system nurtures evil, so that good can
come to our rescue, asking us nicely, to give up what we have just had demanded
from us, with menaces.
Where interconnected tissues of the identity hierarchy are set in modes of high
tension relative to one another, the transmission of high energy packets of linguistic
force, such as the prophet cartoon, or the democracy ragging which is a popular tool
of the democratic fascist powers that farm the biomass today, can be used to cause
seams of superorganic tissue to react as flexing muscular fibres, whichis part of the
dynamic of superorganic physiology. The whole array of messaging is always pulling
toward one common objective, Jewish global domination, as it has been doing for
over five millennia now. How else could the Jews of established the state of Israel as
one of the most powerful nations on earth, just a few decades ago ? By understanding
the physiology of mammalian superorganisms we can hope to understand the
subterranean forces driving our global relations, something that will be more and
more necessary as our incredibly powerful modern society, continues on a path which,
in terms of stability and survival as a modern civilisation, is as yet still headed
towards an uncertain future. The only certainty is the enslavement of humanity to
Judaism for as long as humans exist, and the ever increasing search by our masters for
a means of extracting more social power from us, for that is what a superorganism
demands, and the chosen must do that for which evolution selected them, or else, die.
 We chose a particularly interesting example of ‘public opinion’ to examine,
since we may say that the cartoons were a visual expression of a linguistic idea, and
as such their creation was an expression of linguistic force. But we began our
discussion of public opinion made manifest in displays of anger seen around the
world, and in terms of these being impacts resulting from the impulse of linguistic
force, they were to be identified with Islam, as the deeper expression of organic
linguistic force derived ultimately from human physiology. So that Islam as an
identity becomes a tool of linguistic force, a sort of hammer, able to create structure
appropriate to the force in question. So just as a geological force creates a tsunami, so
a linguistic force creates social structure, in this case in the form of a civil
disturbance. This disturbance is not negative, it is an act of physiological authority
delivering feedback between structural elements of superorganic physiology, forcing
the Islamic authority to be felt in Christian slave territories of Islam, which the
masters are working hard to bring into harmony with Islam at present. And this
violent reaction against free thinking worked. I was outraged that our freedom of
expression was crushed by these Muslims, I hate Islam and I want the world rid of it,
and this is my legitimate right, something worth fighting for, but as an atheist seeking
freedom for science, not as a sectarian from another faith. It is because of this logic,
that justifies hatred of Islam and Judaism on a rational basis, that priests want atheism
to be seen as a faith, just another belief, thus making hatred of religion expressed by
oppressed atheists a form of racism and intolerance. Our covertly run state media,
refused to print the cartoons and I looked everywhere on the net but could not find
them, I would of reproduced them here, just for the fun of it, if I could of found them
—maybe, maybe not. Can you think of anything funnier than driving those pesky
insects out onto the streets of Islamabad to burn cars and curse the infidel ? Well its a
Tuesday night, pubs are quite, what’s to do ?
The example of ‘public opinion’ that we chose to consider has a lot of fine
detail buried within it. For we could say that the pulse of linguistic force released by
the theocracy in the shape of anti-Islamic cartoons was itself expressed through the
medium of Islam, seen in terms of the original natural force of language, because the
Danes were responding to Islamic influences impinging upon them. From such a
discussion of social events relating to explicit examples of linguistic expression,
described in terms of the outcome of a release or transmission of linguistic force,
arising from a natural source within the body of the superorganism defined by its
Jewish identity hierarchy, we can see the potential for a science of superorganics
based on an understanding of political activity in terms of linguistic force, transmitted
through an identity hierarchy making up the superorganic physiology of one unified
living superorganism.
 PART 2

MASTER ORGANICS

Chapter 9

What is a Jew ?

It is inevitable that the Jews should be a subject of major interest to anyone

interested in the science of humanity, after all the Jews are the master race, and all
humanity isthe slave of Judaism. As a result of this fact I have a number of books on
the Jews, but the one question I would like to ask a Jew is, What is a Jew ? No Jew
would ever answer this question, to do so would be to destroy Judaism, it is the same
kind of question as, What is God ? No believer can answer such a question without
destroying that which they say is real. Accordingly it is a fundamental principle of all
belief systems that believers should never engage in genuine discussion with non-
believers.
Recently a collection of nine copies of Questionarrived from America, this is
an English periodical of humanist literature from a few decades ago. I specifically
wanted two items but a small extra cost got me this bundle. Question 6, January
1973, has an article entitled What does it mean to be a Jew ?, by Ernest H. Hutten. It
is a short item that I soon read. What miserable Jewish propaganda I thought, get on
and say something you bleeding .......... Then, as we approached the end, finally the
man actually says something bearing on the subject. It is the merest smidgen : “One
can be an atheist ; one still remains a Jew.” (p. 93) There is nothing before this gem,
nothing after it, but this isthe nub of the question I would like to ask a Jew, about what
a Jew is. On the next page we find this : “The Jews never were a nation in the modern
sense ; they have always been the People of the Book. The Bible is the basis of their
identity.” (p. 94).
Do we find any contradiction in these two statements ? Not half ! I was born
in a Christian society and over half a century on I still live in the sameChristian
society. As a child I went to church and Sunday school, at sixteen I took and passed
my O’level Religious Studies exam. But, while still a child, I became a passionate
atheist. By the time I was a teenager, when my idea of self was sufficiently formed to
express its authority, I would most certainly never of ticked the boxes found on forms
that asked what religion I was. I was not a Christian, How could I be ? I was an
atheist.
Yet this Jew says that being an atheist made him no less a Jew. Excuse me !
And what is more, he was the son of an atheist Jew. This obliges us to assume that
something about the culture makes a Jewish person a Jew even when they deny the
existence of God, and this cultural Judaism must then become a key matter of interest
as regards the question What is a Jew ? In the second quote we find Hutten declaring
that the sole basis of Jewish identity is the Bible, that is the religious text that is
necessarily kicked into touch by all atheist Jews, which, if this were really true, as it
most certainly is for a Christian, then the previous declaration would be nonsensical.
So within this short passage we find intense contradictions that are too glaring for any
idiot to miss, and this man was a professor ; searching for his name on a book selling
site suggests he was a professor of physics. In other words, by his own admission, the
veracity of the Bible as a religious text cannot form the substance of Jewish nature
and identity ; a Jew must be something more than a believer in a religious creed. Yet
we may note, that while this is the real state of affairs, the logic of this argument
cannot be pushed too far, which is why atheism can be tolerated as an expression of
personal opinion, but it cannot be allowed to become accepted as a product of the
extension of true knowledge. For if science were allowed to show that God is the
superorganism, and Judaism the expression of the superorganism’s corporate identity,
then all Jews would have to be atheists and the power base of Judaism, the Bible, as
correctly identified by Hutten in this extended sense, would become untenable and
Judaism would be dead.

Atheist parasitism
 In a sense then, we could suggest that as individuals, none believing Jews
become parasitic upon those who continue to believe. The truth is that I have often
been aware of the fact that my extreme antagonism to religion, which causes me to
seek real knowledge, or is a product of my desire for real knowledge, that I know is
fatal to the power and stability of my society, makes me very much a parasite upon
my Christian society, that I know could not exist if my greatest desire came to be,
which is to see a world in which true knowledge is known freely.
When I have pondered this fact, I have always recognised that it is the
immense wealth, mass and power of a leading modern nation like Britain, that not
only has a structure that facilitates rebel loners like me living without working, but
thereby makes it possible for such a loner to mature into a real philosopher, seeking
unknown knowledge that is fundamentally antagonistic to the society in which they
live. But there is no such thing as an individual existing as an end in themselves, and
therefore there must be some biological function attached to individuals who skirt the
periphery of modern superorganic physiology. In the case of the Jew, as ever, for here
the issue becomes most pertinent, we can see that a man like Hutten serves the
function of moderating the lunacy of beliefs that are essential to identity, while doing
nothing to harm those beliefs, so that by implication, he must be strengthening
religious beliefs by inserting a buffer between absolute belief and total rejection. It is
the old principle : if you are not for us, then you are against us ; and Hutten and his
atheist Daddy were evidently more for the Jewsthan any Jews that ever existed before
or after them. As to a more radical individual like myself, I serve a similar function.
If my ideas ever came to light they would be easily managed by the forces of
oppression, and they might indicate the need for an update in the slave identity
programme, exactly as occurred in the early nineteenth century, causing the
Darwinian imposition to be fabricated for the purpose of sterilising science, and so I
would unavoidably help in the vital work preserving the Jewish slave identity of
Christianity. There is no escape from human nature.
II

Dualistic dodgems

We discover a logical solution to the contradiction in Hutten’s account of what

it means to be a Jew, in the conflation of two dimensions of time, that are in reality
only one. Hutten first speaks as if he were an individual existing as an end in
himself : one who could remain a Jew while being an atheist. Then, without
acknowledging the hierarchical shift in his logic, he speaks in a detached manner, still
using the same object of interest ‘a Jew’, yet now speaking of the Jewish culture as an
extended life form : as some kind of superorganism whose identity depended upon
belief in God. Hutten therefore builds duality into his logic by jumping from one
perceptual rock to the other, shifting to and fro, as he traverses a logical stream of
thought, which in reality has no rocks in it whatsoever, aside from the ones he has
thrown there, or, we should say, the ones his culture has laid there for his kind to leap
upon in their progress through life. By leaping upon the same ‘logical rocks’ a culture
is made and preserved down the ages, and so Judaism exists. The same principle
applies to all similarly constituted, linguistic corporate identities, that rely on a pure
form of linguistic force to provide their corporate identity. This mode of expression,
employed here by Hutten, may be described poetically as “dancing on the force of
language”, expertise in this is exactly what we would expect from a Jew who is
presuming to tell us what is, while being careful to make sure he doesn’t. When we
look at leading priests like Marx or Freud, who were so vital in the suppression of
freedom and the imposition of the shackles of slavedom on our minds in the scientific
age, we must suspect that the Jews have some sort of cultural matrix that raises them
to handle language in this viciously devious, artful manner. We do of course find this
mode of deception, shifting from one level of a logical hierarchy to another, without
acknowledging the shift, all pervasive, in both religious and other deviant kinds of
intellectual material.
Although Hutten is very sparing with his thoughts, this piece offers rare hints
as to the nature of Jewish power, the nature of Jews and, as such, a sense of what form
the answer would take if any Jew ever deigned to answer our question. As it is all
Jews, including Hutten, are committed to their role as farmers of the slaves, and they
do not answer our question ; but here, in this work, I provide the answer.

There is a most intriguing reference to society as an organism in the closing

paragraph of Hutten’s piece. He says :—

So far, in spite of bloody horror, mankind has been growing up and

together. True, progress is not inevitable. The Jewish problem has been a
reflection of this general, social process exhibiting the paranoid-schizoid
mechanism at work. For all I know, the new problems of colour, or of
overpopulation and pollution, may equally be dealt with on the same,
primitive level. This, I think, would spell the end. But, equally, mankind may
reach a level of integration as an organism, and a degree of rationality in
thinking, that will allow us to survive and to develop further. The Jewish
problem will then find an answer, when all people have understood—what the
French students expressed so perceptively in 1968—that nous sommes tous
des Juifs Allemands.

(Question 6, Hutten, pp. 95-6)

According to my translator the French reads thus : we are all of the German
Jews, which tidied up must mean : we are all German Jews; though I must say I do
not really get it, what did they mean ? Certainly not what I mean when I say that we
are all Jews, because the global superorganism is composed of one uniform biomass
bearing the Jewish identity ; but still, there may be an obscure accord between these
ideas.
This organicism is nice, but it is bound up with lots of horrible self righteous
Jewish sentiment, that taken altogether just amounts to more of the same artful
propaganda. Notice that what he is calling for here is not a world in which religion,
that is Judaism, does not exist, but rather, he wants a world in which we all come to
understand that we are one, so that Judaism can exist along with all otherexpressions
of identity, in peace and goodwill. This is an extremely nasty sentiment, exactly the
kind of thing we expect from a Christian deviant, who loves to make out that all
Christianity is about, is Love. What this Jew is not facing up to is what religion is,
what Judaism is, what humans are, despite all the pretence to the contrary.
Humanism : just another nasty piece of Jewish miscreant work. What he is really
calling for here is the status quo, in which the Jews, the masters of all humanity, get to
continue into the eternal future, as they have emerged from a long past, abusing,
using, and farming humanity, according to dictates laid down by Nature, as expressed
in human biological nature. Judaism is the organism, what Hutten hopes for is
alreadyhere, not in the pathetic, soppy form he imagines, but in the real form nature
has fashioned, under the cosh of Judaism. There are no other identities in the world
today, there is Judaism, divided into master Jews, called Jews, and the rest of us,
called something else, anything else, it does not matter, because we are, most
definitely, nothing other than slaves of the Jewish identity programme, that has
brought into being the global superorganism we all hate and loath.

III

Jewish atheism

After writing the above yesterday morning, I inspired myself to look for other
work by Jews promoting atheism. I tried this search a couple of years ago because I
was sure I had heard of a Jew writing about being an atheist, but I had no luck.
Yesterday I spent hours, mostly using combinations of ‘Jew’, ‘Judaism’, ‘atheist’,
‘atheism’, in the keywords search box, and then panning the results. At one point I
thought I had found a book with something in the title about Marx, Freud and Einstein
being various kinds of unbelievers, and asking if they were really Jews. This seemed
as close as I could get to a discussion of the topic of how a Jew could be an atheist
and still be a Jew, but now I am damned if I was not hallucinating or something, for
the life of me I could not find the book, it should of been in my basket, but it was not,
and I could not repeat the find. I had nothing, then I thought of sending an email to a
dealer who said they had loads of Judaica, and asking if they could make some
suggestions, but which dealer was that ? Arrrrrgh ! So I took a shot at ‘Judaica’ with
‘atheist’, and bingo ! I got one, a title that was bang on target, plentiful, cheap, and in
England, so now we just have to see what is what, next week.
As it is Exodus to Humanism, 1999, a Prometheus publication, looks like
another load of bollocks in the shape of that which we have just examined courtesy of
Hutten. The author apparently rejects the notion of a modern state being based on a
religious motive, and hopes that in the future Israel will come to foster secular
expressions of identity in the manner of other modern nations. Yeah right ! like that’s
going to happen. Idiot. But the beauty of getting a full piece of work is that we have
more to nibble at, and we may even get a bibliography in a modern work, or at least
some references. The book apparently utilises the thoughts of twenty six Jews, so
who knows what we might find accidently tucked away in that little lot of nonsense.
Exodus to Humanism : Jewish Identity Without Religionby David Ibry, 1999,
has arrived. This is exactly what we were looking for ; no bibliography, no obvious
prospect of references to other works of a similar kind, but this short work certainly
provides some material to go at. Instantly we can see the shortcomings inherent in
such a work. When all is said and done, if this work is pretending to be something
other than a political treatise, that is if it wants to have some scientific merits, which,
as a humanist work we have no right to expect of it, then the author needs to take on
the question,What is a Jew ? In order to do this the logical continuum implicit in this
question needs to be addressed by the commensurate questions, What is religion ? and
What is a human ? It is obvious from the outset that these questions are not likely to
make an appearance by way of even passing answers. A Jew is assumed to be
something real, natural, inevitable, like a black man, or a fish, Jews just exist, and so
on.
The first impulse this book inspires, is to ask, Why should Jews survive ?,
because that is what this book effectively leads us towards, by saying Jews must give
up an outdated religion if Jewish identity is to survive when Judaism is no longer
tenable. As it happens I already have a book entitled Why Should Jews Survive ? :
Looking Past the Holocaust toward a Jewish Future, by Michael Goldberg, 1995.
Unfortunately this question is in fact a disguised statement, meant to be read
emphatically as Why Jews Should Survive. And apparently I am not the first person to
wonder about this issue, as if I did not already know this, but here Goldberg calls the
question of Jewish survival “that old chestnut” (p. vi). He also says that Jews love to
be talked about by none Jews, but he forgets to say that this talk is only welcome if
approved of by Jews. My work, as philosophy pursuing strictly unbiased science,
would be bound to be classed as vicious out and out anti-Semitism, I suspect.
Goldberg says Jews have to survive as an act of validation for the sacrifice of
the holocaust victims, and he is of course dead right about that. The holocaust was an
act of sacrifice, by the core organ of superorganic identity, performed spontaneously,
as part of a physiological process that was vital to the ongoing life of the Jewish
superorganism. This was not an isolated physiological reaction, as history proves, it
was just part of the normal growth pattern of a human superorganism, more grand
than previously because the superorganism in question had reached the stage of
planetary wide growth, hence the World Warswhich this exceptional, but normal act of
sacrifice, was part of. The whole point of the holocaust, as of the Nazi movement and
the two world wars, was to ensure the continuity of Judaism. So we are not going to
get any kind of directanswer to the question that appears here as this chapter’s title.
Goldberg however, makes exactly the opposite point to that expounded by Ibry.
Goldberg begins by saying that either Jews arethe chosen people of God, or they are
nothing ; and I could not agree more with this statement. As an atheist I say give me
in your face believers like Goldberg any day, I hate them, but they are at least in your
face degenerates. While atheist believers like Ibry really piss me off. They are the
worst, they pretend to be on your side, and throughout all human warfare it has
always been the spies and tricksters the provoke the most intense response from
people, the close proximity of the deception hurts. Fifth columnists are the lowest of
the low.
My expression of frustration with Ibry is echoed by a comment in the anti-
Semitic essay of Jeffree, The Jews in France, where he describes the views of a well
known anti-Semitic author :—

There lives not a Jew, M. Drumont tells us, whether he has given up
the exterior practices of his religion or not, whether he professes to be a
sceptic or a freethinker, who does not firmly believe that he belongs to a
superior race, the destiny of which is to rule over all the races of mankind, and
to become the arbiter of all the nations.

(Dublin Review, Third Series, Vol. 18, 1887, p. 328)

 Chapter 9

Jews

Confusion about the true physical nature of a social organism, be it a race or a

nation, or a nation called a race, was fatal to any hope of developing a conception of
the social organism which made sense in terms of human biology, as this idea required
in order to make scientific sense. What is so frustrating when we seek to understand
how nineteenth century organicist thinkers handled the idea of the social organism, is
that there was really no excuse for them being so downright stupid. It is obvious that
neither races nor nations could possibly be the incarnation of a naturally created,
biological social organism, as constituted on earth at that time. If we look at Worms
Organisme et Société we find the following commentary regarding the structure of
social organisms :

Les essais de systématisation que nous venons de rappeler reposent

essentiellement sur la morphologie, bien que des différences fonctionnelles
soient liées aux caractères anatomiques qu'ils invoquent en premier lieu. Voici
maintenant d'autres tentatives, inspirées directement, celles-là, par des
considérations d'ordre physiologique.
Deux d'entre elles, qu'il faut mentionner les premières, reposent sur des
notions de physiologie générale. M. Alfred Fouillée (1) a proposé de grouper
les formes sociales de la manière suivante : 1º Sociétés très rudimentaires et
décentralisées où le tout existe plutôt pour les parties que les parties pour le
tout ; exemple : les peuplades sauvages. — 2° Sociétés à centralisation et à
décentralisation encore imparfaites, où le tout existe autant pour les parties que
les parties pour le tout : « le moyen-âge pourrait » dit M. Fouillée « nous en
offrir plus d'un exemple ». — 3º Sociétés supérieures aux précédentes, où les
individus existent pour l'Etat plus que l'Etat pour l'individu. « On y peut faire
rentrer les Etats militaires fortement centralisés ». — 4° Sociétés très
supérieures où l'Etat existe pour les individus autant que les individus pour
l'Etat. « C'est la synthèse idéale de la centralisation et de la décentralisation,
synthèse qui est en même temps la forme suprême de l'organisme et de la
société ». — Le point de vue auquel se place ainsi M. Fouillée est assurément
intéressant. Nous doutons pourtant qu'il puisse conduire à quelque chose de
bien précis. Est-il fort juste, par exemple, de présenter les peuplades sauvages
comme des groupes « décentralisés, où le tout existe plutôt pour les parties que
les parties pour le tout » ? Ne semble-t-il pas, au contraire, que l'ensemble
exerce ici d'ordinaire une véritable tyrannie sur les individus ? Nulle part la
force de la coutume n'est plus grande que dans ces agglomérations, nulle part
le genre de vie n'est moins laissé à la fantaisie, à la liberté individuelles.
 Inversement, même dans « les Etats militaires, fortement centralisés », dans
les Etats despotiques, est-il bien exact de dire que l'individu existe pour l'Etat
plus que l'Etat pour l'individu ? Le gouvernement, ici, s'occupe fort de ses
sujets et de leur bien-être ; il s'en occupe même trop, en ce sens que ceux-ci
préféreraient d'ordinaire être moins protégés. Il vit donc beaucoup peureux,
s'il exige en retour qu'eux aussi vivent pour lui-même. D'autre part, ya-t-il une
différence bien grande entre ces Etats militaires, dont M. Fouillée forme sa
troisième classe de sociétés, et les Etats du moyen-âge dont il compose la
seconde ? On ne le pensera sans doute pas. — Concluons que le critérium
proposé n'est pas des plus rigoureux. A notre sens, ces expressions même : « le
tout vit plus pour les parties que les parties pour le tout » ou inversement, ne
marquent rien de bien exact. Les parties vivent toujours pour le tout
exactement autant que le tout vit pour elles. Car, dire que les éléments existent
pour l'ensemble, c'est dire qu'il y a entre ces éléments une étroite solidarité ; et,
si cette solidarité fait que chacua travaille pour tous les autres, elle fait aussi
que tous les autres travaillent pour celui-là. La vie générale et la vie locale
sont toujours en raison directe l’une de l'autre ; ou plutôt, elles sont une même
chose, considérée sous doux aspects différents. — La classification précitée de
M. Fouillée n’est donc fondée, en somme, si on veut la renfermer dans les
limites où elle est exacte, que sur le plus ou moins grand développement de
l'organe gouvernemental ; non pas même, comme M. Fouillée paraît le croire,
sur le degré de puissance du « système nerveux social », mais seulement sur le
degré de puissance de cette partie de l'appareil directeur des sociétés qui est
l'appareil politique. Ainsi restreinte, cette classification ne peut plus prétendre
reposer sur un caractère de physiologie générale, mais seulement sur un
caractère de physiologie spéciale. Nous la retrouverons sous cette forme quand
nous parlerons des classifications fondées sur la considération de telle ou telle
fonction sociale particulière.

1. La Science sociale contemporaine, livre II, VII, § II.

(Worms, pp. 288 – 290)

Which my computer renders thus :—

The essays of systematisation that we have just recalled rest essentially

on morphology, those of the functional differences that are linked to the
anatomical characters they invoke in first place. Now we have other concerns,
those inspired directly by physiological considerations.
Two of them, that it is necessary to mention first, rest on general
physiology. Alfred Fouillée(1) proposed to group social forms as follows : 1º
Very rudimentary and decentralized societies, where the whole exists rather
for the parts than the parts for the whole ; example : primitive peoples. — 2°
Societies imperfectly centralised, where the whole exists as much for the parts
as the parts for the whole : “the middle ages” said Fouillée“offer an example
of this”. — 3º superior societies to the preceding ones, where the individuals
exist for the state more than the state for the individual. “Militarised societies
are such strongly centralized States”. — 4° Very superior societies where the
state exists for the individuals as much as the individuals for the state. “This is
the ideal synthesis of centralization and decentralisation, synthesis that at the
 same time forms the supreme expression of the organism and society”. — The
view point Fouilléeadopts is assuredly interesting. We nevertheless doubt
whether his view is a precise one. Is it valid, for example, to present primitive
peoples as groups “decentralized, where the whole exists rather for the parts
than the parts for the whole” ? Does it not seem to be rather the opposite, that
the whole exercises a true tyranny over the individuals ? The influence of
custom is not less than in our cities, there is not more freedom left to the
imagination and individual liberty. Inversely, even in “the military States,
strongly centralized”, in the despotic States, is it correct to say that the
individual exists for the state more than the state for the individual ? The
government here takes possessive care of its subjects and of their well-being ;
too much care even, more than most might like to be protected. It therefore
promotes fearful lives if it demands in return that people also live for the state.
On the other hand, is there a big difference between these military States, of
which Fouilléeforms his third class of societies, and the States of the middle
ages of which he composes the second ? One does not inevitably think so. —
We conclude that the proposed criteriais not precise. From our perspective
these expressions : “the whole turns more for the parts than the parts for the
whole” or inversely, indicate nothing exact. The parts always live for the
whole just as much as the whole revolves about them. To say that the
elements exist for the body, is to say that there is between these elements a
loose solidarity ; and if this solidarity exists for all, then all exist for the one.
General life and local life always are in direct harmony with each other ; or
rather, they are the same thing, considered under less narrow aspects. — The
aforementioned classification of Fouillée was not therefore founded, on the
whole, if one wants to contain it within exact limits, mainly upon the
development of the organ of government ; not really, as Fouilléeappears to
believe it to be, by being focused on the degree of power within the “social
nervous system”, but only upon the degree of power serving as a partial
director of political power. Thus restricted, this classification cannot claim to
rest on the character of general physiology, but only on the character of special
physiology. We will rediscover it under this form when we talk about the
classifications based on the consideration of such special social functions.

1. Contemporary Social Science, BookII, VII, § II.

To judge by the opening paragraph taken above, the preceding section

considered the social organism as being defined by its functional delineation of
structure. This sounds good, but my inability to read French means I cannot do much
with this, as can be seen from the translation I am pleased to present here. I offer this
passage, and brief commentary, as an example of one of the most important works of
organicism, something requiring a full professional translation if modern twenty first
century science is ever to be provided with any real foundations in sociology. Worms
discussion of a famous piece of organicist philosophy, by Fouillée, is nice to find, and
the fact that neither of these works, nor any other work by an organicist has ever been
rendered into English, despite the major importance of organicist thinking at this time,
speaks volumes about how the Jewish theocracy was, from the outset, well aware that
organicism was the true path to knowledge, which led inevitably toward the death of
Judaism. A direction that had to be closed to academia forever, as it has indeed been.
 I

Means of power

How on earth does Judaism exercise such incredible control over society,
ensuring that no one translates works it deems to be antagonistic to its interests, thus
controlling the flow of ideas and knowledge ? This is a nagging question, so hard to
answer with a degree of precision that the answer does not appear trite and malicious.
As it happens I pulled a book off my shelf the other day, as I occasionally do as I
wonder if I can throw it away, as books pile up on my bedroom floor. I leafed through
Contemporary British Society, by Nicholas Abercrombie and Alan Warde, 1993 (First
pub. 1988), and hit upon the subheading The secret state in Britain (p. 507), which
aroused my interest. I ran an internet search using the title “secret state” and came up
with surprisingly little actually, but as a result I did buy a copy of New Left Review
190, 1991, in which there is a review of a book that appeared in my search results.
The review, entitled The Case for Dismantling the Secret State, was written by Tony
Benn.
A review is not what I was expecting. I was expecting an essay by Benn.
However it has inspired me to buy a copy of the work reviewed, Smear—Wilson and
the Secret State, by Stephen Dorrill and Robin Ramsay, 1991, which I had decided
against because it sounded too oriented toward politics. But the way Benn talks about
this work indicates that it offers a rare insight into the way real social power is
organised and controlled by hidden forces, thus hinting at precisely how the Jewish
theocracy maintains control of the world through an unseen structural system of
political control. I also ran searches for both authors. Ramsay has written a book on
the subject of conspiracy theories, which is a topic we wish to steer clear of at all
costs, as it is the anti-reason to our reason. Conspiracy is to us as a black hole would
be to a physicist studying black holes, they would want to get as close as possible to
their subject, but without falling in and becoming part of it !
There is an incredible paragraph in Benn’s essay :—

It is very important to remember that the campaigns against the Left, which
Dorrill and Ramsay write about, are still going on and have been intensified,
since those who now conduct them are doing so under the protection of a
sympathetic government. And it is because of the future—rather than the past
—that this book should be compulsory reading for all those who may be
invited to serve in the next Labour government, since, however ‘moderate’
Labour’s policies may now be, the security services will see them as
subversive, and seek to undermine them with equal vigour. We may also be
sure that the British and American security services have long since planted
their own people within the Labour Party, the trade unions, the Parliamentary
Labour Party, and hence within the new Labour cabinet and amongst their
advisers, and that they will use them as and when it seems necessary. But what
matters is not so much the identification of past or future conspiracies, still
less the unmasking of the conspirators themselves—who are, in the main,
quite ignorant people of no weight or substance—but the whole constitutional
process that permits this subversion of democracy to go on and flourish in
secret.
 (New Left Review 190, Benn, p. 128)

Stunning ! I frequently talk about the way Jews, Christians and fascists of all
kinds simply gravitate toward power, wealth and status, because this is all that is of
concern to them, due to their upbringing which programmes them to corrupt society
toward their own party’sends. How else could a society become Christian ? Here we
see a leading politician make the same observation in a most incredible way. How do
“British and American security services” plant moles throughout the fabric of
society ? It is fine to say such a thing, but think about what is being said. NASA puts
men in space, the fortieth anniversary of which we celebrated only yesterday, but this
is a piddling, almost pathetic accomplishment, compared to what Benn is saying some
‘body of people’ manage to do routinely, in all ages, and societies. NASA has a
massive budget, an open organisation, and a huge work force, many of whom are
brilliant intellectuals. Who, and what, is the body that is implied to exist when
someone talks in this way about “British and American security services” as a
coherent social organ ? What this means is that, ultimately, the state is always a
subversive organisation, one that may appear in two modes, overt, and covert, which
is exactly the position we assert the theocracy is found to be in. Hence we may say,
comparatively speaking, that left and right political organisations are equivalent to
theocratic and secularcultural conditions. All we really have in these alternate social
structures is a form of positive and negativecondition, always pertaining to the same
body, which has the same core identity. And this is exactly as social organization
would have to be for a cultural form, such as that which is Jewish culture, to exist
throughout so long and varied a period as it has, one in which the world has been
transformed from a myriad of forms, to the one form, to the Jewish form that is.
I have grown sick of the mindless coverage of the Jew’s ongoing war waged
against the Muslims in Gaza over the last fortnight, listening to the journalists
reporting on the vile activity of the Jews is too sickening, especially seeing these
monsters in the flesh, sitting like pigs relaxing in their own feces, smirking at the
world they despise. It is too much ! But I happened to flip back to a report on
Channel Four news a couple of nights ago, today being 16/01/2009, in which the
ensuing conversation suggested to me that the presenter had just said that the
Americans were following the Jews slavishly, because the guests were, less
provocatively, endeavouring to explain this, in one case, and to deny it in the other.
This would of been an ideal time to refer to Warner’s Jewish Spectre, in which it is
explained, over a century ago, that the Americans have no sense of purpose to their
existence without their slavish attachment to the Zionist cause. Which is inevitable in
any deeply Christian society. Zionism is implicit in Christianity, notwithstanding all
the anti-Semitism which Christianity has poured forth over the centuries. How can
the world be so blind ? Because the idea of the social organism, the only true account
of human existence, is not available to people, and this blind stupidity is the result.

I must insert a note on the public statement reported yesterday, 16/01/2009,

that called the Jews modern day Nazis. Wonderful ! The only downside is that this
remark came from a Jew, and as such we can see it is meaningless, as the masters can
squabble amongst themselves all they like. What we want is for the slaves to find
their voice, and of course this will never happen. The Jews would stomp on anyone
saying things such as we say here, like a bug. I made this note of the report as it was
aired on the six o’clock news on BBC 1 last night :—
 A leading Jewish MP, Sir Gerald Kaufman, said the Jews ruthlessly exploit the guilt
amongst gentiles to allow them to get away with committingcrimes in Palestine,
likening the Jews to the Nazis. We had an IRA bomb in Manchester that killed people
but we did not go to Ireland and kill 1,000 Catholics, he said. The Jews think they
can do anything they like, and they are slaughtering people without any good
purpose. We cannot defeat terrorists through arms, they must talk to Hamas. He said
his grandma did not die, shot in her bed by a Nazi, just to serve as a cover for Jews
murdering grandmas in Gaza.

No ? then what the hell did she die for ! Of course the world war, the Nazis
and the holocaust is just a cover for Jewish imperialism. This fact is fundamental to
any scientific analysis of human history as a biological process, in which the
superorganism is identified with Judaism. Kaufman’s denial reveals a hidden truth to
those in the know.
When public houses still existed in a true form, I would occasionally find
myself rebuked by some old timer, with the admonition that in pubs it was best to
adopt a policy of never talking about politics or religion ; too liable to provoke heated
debate I suppose. And it seems that in politics there is an unwritten rule that we do
not discuss religion. Not so long ago, religion was a leading political issue, as it has
remained in Ireland down to the present time. But nowadays, since there are no bars
to public life based on religious affiliation, the question of a person’s religious identity
is not routinely raised. But at rock bottom, if we are to understand the pervasiveness
of a secret political order that is the true power in society, we must recognise the vital
role of religion in providing the constitutional foundation, infused into the biomass of
society, for this kind of unwitting constitutional authority. Which in turn, explains
why our rulers will do anything to ensure that religion is preserved, while science is
perverted.
Benn discusses the dynamics of affiliation, his next paragraph continues thus :
—

What is really important about this book is that it tells us more about how
Britain is governed, and by whom, than most of the standard academic texts
put together, and the first thing we should learn from it is this : that the Crown
—as distinct from the Queen personally—remains, at the end of the twentieth
century, by far the most powerful element in our present Constitution. For
every single one of the treasonable activities described in this book were
undertaken by persons who had convinced themselves that their prime duty
was to the Crown ; that their bugging, burgling and smearing was done under
the authority of the royal prerogatives ; and, later, that the cover-ups were
necessary to protect their lifelong obligation of confidentiality to the Crown.
The secret state does exist, quite separately from our parliamentary system,
and the Crown is both its head and its cover, and thus gives it the legitimacy it
needs to destroy democratically elected governments or individuals within
them, if it believes that to be necessary to protect its own interests.

(New Left Review 190, Benn, pp. 128 – 9)

What Benn is saying here accords perfectly with our argument. Namely, that
there is an underlying force of identity creating the uniform block that constitutes the
true power in the world. What Benn is failing to do, is to reach beyond his political
perspective, toward a scientific perspective that explains why an animal who behaves
as we do, should exist. Benn is not observing the black hole, he is partof the black
hole, and as such he is oblivious to all information beyond the event horizon, set by
his own linguistically programmed consciousness. We extend Benn’s principle of
identity focused upon the Crown, to a universal, natural and biological factor of
identity, which is religion. Just this Christmas gone, although I would never lower
myself to listening to a Queen’s speech, I could not avoid catching the fact that this
old women had praised the value of the Christian slave identity, just like the pathetic
slave that she is, and cannot help being, as a ruling monarch within a Jewish
theocracy. Monarchy, like nationhood, is simply a device within the structural
framework that carries the organic identity that is always religious in its nature.

II

Hierarchy : power of identity accumulator

Layers of identity are necessary in order for a master identity to exist. This is
one of the most potent organicist principles almost enunciated in one of the most
famous English organicist works of the nineteenth century :—

In early times the quantity of government is much more important than

its quality. What you want is a comprehensive rule binding men together,
making them do much the same things, telling them what to expect of each
other—fashioning them alike, and keeping them so. What this rule is does not
matter so much. A good rule is better than a bad one, but any rule is better than
none ; while, for reasons which a jurist will appreciate, none can be very good.
But to gain that rule, what may be called the impressive elements of a polity
are incomparably more important than its useful elements. How to get the
obedience of men is the hard problem ; what you do with that obedience is less
critical.
To gain that obedience, the primary condition is the identity—not the
union, but the sameness—of what we now call Church and State. Dr. Arnold,
fresh from the study of Greek thought and Roman history, used to preach that
this identity was the great cure for the misguided modem world. But he spoke
to ears filled with other sounds and minds filled with other thoughts, and they
hardly knew his meaning, much less heeded it. But though the teaching was
wrong for the modern age to which it was applied, it was excellent for the old
world from which it was learnt. What is there requisite is a single government
—call it Church or State, as you like—regulating the whole of human life. No
division of power is then endurable without danger—probably without
destruction ; the priest must not teach one thing and the king another ; king
must be priest, and prophet king : the two must say the same, because they are
the same. The idea of difference between spiritual penalties and legal penalties
must never be awakened. Indeed, early Greek thought or early Roman thought
would never have comprehended it. There was a kind of rough public opinion
and there were rough, very rough, hands which acted on it. We now talk of
political penalties and ecclesiastical prohibition, and the social censure, but
they were all one then. Nothing is very like those old communities now, but
 perhaps a ‘trade’s union’ is as near as most things ; to work cheap is thought to
be a ‘wicked’ thing, and so some Broadhead puts it down.

(Physics and Politics, 1872, pp. 25 – 27)

The way Bagehot refers to a fellow superior, Arnold, gives a real sense of the
elite discussing reality. And Bagehot really knows what he is talking about. Identity
is what matters, sod practicalities, just get the team up and running, we will think of a
use for it later. And of course when we talk of identity, we are talking of religion.
And the hierarchy, the complexity of monarch, priest and so on, these must be
embraced by the same identity, as Hitler teaches us in his remarkable work on fascism
Mein Kampf, there can only be one message, though it may come in a myriad of
guises. A hierarchy is not a series of divisions, it is a complex arrangement. Bagehot
gets at the essence of sociability here, though there is more to do, and despite his
pretence of following Darwin he fails to grasp what should be the real point of
Darwin’s theory, namely that humans are animals, so that if our nature is social then
the story of that sociability begins with our bodies, not our politics.
This fact, that what matters is establishing unity, irrespective of what use it is
put to, is an excellent conceptual basis upon which to think about the evolution of
human form, whereby we think of the emergence of the fully fledged Homo Sapien
some 120,000 years ago, as the foundation of the basis of social unity, and since that
time our history on earth is the elaboration of that potential. History is the product of
thinking about what to do with sociability, or unity, we might say. The point of
sociability is to perfect one global superorganism, and that is the only point. It is
Nature’s point, although we find it reflected in principles that inform the priest’s
attitude towards the world, that have been venerated from at least the time of
Alexander the Great, who is recognised by some as a hero of universalism. History is
however a political representation of a biological process.

Each layer of identity creates a single step in the social pyramid, raising the
master identity to its pinnacle, as represented in the great symbol of Egyptian
civilisation, from which Judaic linguistic programming is supposed to derive many
linguistic routines. We can understand why each identity must express an antagonism
toward its alternatives, which, nonetheless, must reach an eventual accommodation.
Currently all the talk over the Gaza situation, 1,000 dead Palestinians having been
announced yesterday, 14/01/2009, is about how, eventually, the Jews and the Muslims
will have to settle down to talking, some American military commander having said
yesterday that agreements were never reached by killing people. But for all this
political machination, the true biological reasons for these seemingly antagonistic
features of human superorganisms, is that a structural tension is necessary in order to
achieve the kind of focused control of power that Benn is talking about, whereby an
institutional figurehead can be preserved instinctively, by a cohort of unrecognised
confederates, all pulling together in a way that would not be possible via the simple
organisation of one overtly identified, privileged class of people.
In other words a social pyramid cannot be constructed purely from one social
identity, such as Jews as Jews, there has to be a myriad of identities, each of which
has established its own distinctplace in the structure. When a void appears in the
social structure an affiliate of the core master identity seeks out the void and makes it
their own by applying a label, Jew, Christian, Nazi or whatever. This pretender then
fights a war, or engages in a struggle, to become established ; a Nazi being a special
kind of label never meant to become established, but intended to preserve the master
identity, Nazism is an anti-master mirage that dissipates once its defensive function
has passed. The anti-master identity still arises in response to a void appearing in the
social fabric, but a void of a slightly different kind to that which we have in mind
when we think about new structural conditions such as arose when industrialisation
took over from agriculture as the main occupation, requiring a new Jewish slave
identity for the resulting alienated biomass to attach to, which was provided by Marx
with his Communist form of the Jewish slave programme. The Nazis filled a
potential void opening up where Judaism was being made to vanish, due to the
advance of scientific knowledge. Once the Nazis had destroyed this void the Jewish
identity returned to full vigour, and the void then no longer existed. This is precisely
why we have the system of social control we are discussing now, that emanates from
the core identity and relies upon infiltration and subversion of all kinds of potential
social power, as indicated in Benn’s essay, and supported by our own arguments.
What war, and terrorism as a form of warfare, does, is to provide the conditions for
knitting together the structure that will settle the relationship constituting the complex
identity structure, that constitutes the physiology of the superorganism existing for the
ensuing centuries and millennia. This is why Jewish slave religions always provoke
warfare, to establish themselves, this is how Jews take over the social fabric, and in
Benn’s essay we get a hint of the result in close up view.

III

Integrity

An organism has to have integrity, we might almost define an organism by

saying that : an organism is a living biomass that has integrity unto itself. The basis
of integrity is identity. Indeed integrity and identity, in a physical sense, are
synonymous and interchangeable terms, that may be used differently depending upon
what aspect of a life form is being considered, whether the internal structure is being
discussed or the whole being. This definition indicates why Muslims are really Jews,
because when we look at the identity of Jews and Muslims we find that they share a
common identity in all but name, and we make the Muslim a Jew instead of the other
way around because we recognise a hierarchical relationship, in that Muslims came
fromJudaism. And the function of Jews in political society is that of a master race, or
organ of master identity, as indicated in the anti-Semitic work of the American
Christian industrialist Henry Ford, who was inspired by the incomprehensibly
ubiquitous presence of the pesky Jew, in otherpeople’s affairs. Duurrrh ! how do we
explain that presence ? Because, idiot ! the Jews are not otherpeople, they are our
masters and lords !! Blimey, how thick can people be ! But of course as a devout
Christian, Ford had no means of seeing this, because he took his Christian identity at
face value, as he was supposed to, as a sentient brick existing within the second
hierarchical tier of the global Jewish superorganism. He did not want the Jews to take
over his business interests, but he did not understand that this is what the Jews
function is within the superorganism, to own all forms of economic power throughout
the world. A good Christian would know this, and hand over to Caesar, that which is
Caesar’s ; resistance is futile anyway, nature sees to that.
What we are saying then, is that although the internal structure of the extant
superorganism, which is a global organism, is made up of many identities, each of
which is highly discrete in its own right, all these various identities are embraced by
one uniform identity, that defines the whole being and identifies the multitude as parts
of a whole. This conforms exactly to the case we would recognise in a person whose
body is made up of various major categories of tissue, such as muscle, bone and
nervous tissue, all organised into a multitude of organs, while all are at the same time
united into one uniform identity that defines the integrity of the organism. So the
Islamic identity possesses integrity unto itself, as do all other such social identities,
but the sole unique identity, which possesses integrity unto itself andprovides the
basis of identity to which all others are subject, is the Jewish identity, because this is
the core identity from which the global superorganism has grown.
This relationship between a multitude of integral identities and one uniform
identity is what we have in mind when we talk about the interchangeability of the
words ‘identity’ and ‘integrity’, in relation to the physical organization of living
beings. We cannot simply accept the autonomy of a localised condition of integrity,
based upon an identity that can be subsumed under a broader none localised identity.
To do so is to impose a political evaluation upon a biological phenomenon, and thus
to make language the definition of reality, rather than making reality the determinant
of the language we use to describe reality. This logical, or linguistic inversion, is the
ultimate case of putting the chicken before the egg, so that reality is made to derive
from language, though it is of course precisely what language evolved to achieve, to
create a convoluted organic structure, or what we call social structure, enclosing
individuals within an apparently self-madeworld, which is in reality the fabric of the
superorganism. Defined by the language that creates it, as we see when religious
people talk of their religion as if it were something real, a condition which applies
equally to secular processes such as lawmaking, which also presents itself as real,
even though laws are constructs of linguistic force, their principles having no validity
outside the strictures imposed by the social structure. So that murder, for example, is
an artificial or introvertedelaboration of a normal biological attribute of life,
generated by linguistic force in relation to the structural organization of superorganic
physiology. All of which organization therefore works by making the structure
humans create appear to be separate from nature, which is necessary in order that the
localised political structures should not be seen as elements of a larger biological
structure, thus destroying their integrity and hence their functional purpose within the
social structure. If localised integrity decays the whole point of language as the
medium of social energy creating superorganic physiology is lost. Judaism captures
the power of this linguistic force, being at the focal point of its creativity, which is
why when Judaism’s true nature is threatened the whole edifice of the superorganism
comes under threat and a new linguistic expression is required to repel the threat of
such dangerous consciousness, this defensive impulse is where the Nazis came from.

Regarding the ephemeral nature of law there was a most interesting item on
Newsnight, BBC 2, last night, 21/07/2009, about a cultural practice so alien and
offensive to English culture, yet widespread amongst young Muslims, that the law is
now being induced to change by an ongoing de facto process of Islamification that our
masters have been forcing upon us for over a hundred years now, if we include their
preparatory work in the form of the two world wars, used to soften us up. We are
talking about polygamy. They actually had a perfectly English, white Imam, a
professor at Cambridge, calmly describing polygamy as perfectly reasonable. A
lawyer was saying she would not like to denounce polygamy as it was an ancient
custom that had worked for millennia. It is so depressing, our culture has been erased
by aliens within, and we are powerless to do anything about it. On a more
dispassionate scientific note, this goes to show the utter meaninglessness of morality,
as Bagehot says, the only question is unity, how you get there—who gives a shit ?
Obviously none of the scum that run our society.
The only really sensible thing to say about this, concerns the matter we have in
hand in this work, regarding the fact that as with all other values, so with truth. No
one gives a toss, all that matters is unity. This is why truth was so readily destroyed.
And since unity is power, trying to hold onto values that are essentially of a cultural
nature, when the whole of a culture is in total meltdown, is impossible. It is plain to
see that I am disgusted by this latest revelation regarding the progress of the Islamic
poison in our midst, but in truth, as a natural born anarchist, I could not give a damn
how people live their lives, in principle. I do hate these religious practices though,
things like clothing regulations and all the rest, because these are tools of religious
power. They reinforce unity, they make these horrendous alien cultures massively
more powerful than our own indigenous cultural identity, based on secularism. And
because we had established a secular culture, this is precisely why our masters
bombed the shit out of us, and then proceeded to replace us with Muslims. And
finally, this ingress of sick and depraved religious cultures—as compared to atheist
English culture—is the very thing that makes science, our great liberator, the ultimate
expression of human value, impossible. We must destroy religion if we would be free
—but we cannot, and it is so sad, we just have to sit and watch as the low life destroy
our world, and take solace in the fact that death is at least the next big event in our
lives. And lets face it, the freshly programmed pupae, they know nothing, for
heaven’s sake, look at Sleigh, whose work we will discuss, you could wish no better
evidence of refined mindlessness than her. So what difference does it make, such is
life. It is just a bad time to of lived, that is all.

IV

Jewish presence

Most of the time Jews are treated as honoured people, today the politicians of
the Christian world unashamedly evince a sense that their world exists for one reason
and one reason only, to ensure Israel’s continuance. If the political elite had to choose
between the total annihilation of their own countries or Israel, they would have no
hesitation in choosing to destroy their own countries ; a hypothetical nonsense no
doubt, but it is certainly the sense we get, and it is exactly as it should be, this is how
nature has made the Jewish global superorganism come to fruition. I do not know
what the issue was, something to do with Israel violating another country’s air space,
possibly Syria’s, but when Jeremy Vine said to an American right wing commentator,
someone the BBC is always giving air time to, on Newsnighta couple of days ago,
today being 21/09/07, that Israel should explain to the world why she behaved in this
way, the hawk replied “ You must be joking ! ”, and then he went on to compare the
Syrians to the Nazis by way of justifying his arrogant attitude. To this yank the idea
that the master race were answerable to any authority is unthinkable, and this is
clearly what the Jews think too, and always have. I happened upon a copy of A
History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, by Allen, first published in
1928, in my local Oxfam shop last week, and while glancing through it I caught a
passage on the theories of royal prerogative, how, several centuries ago, before the
revolution, the King argued that he derived his authority directly from God. But I
mention this now because, as with this Yank and the Jews, the King was said to regard
any debate of this issue as sacrilege or treason, yet, we are told, how convenient this
was, because in reality there was no philosophical justification for this opinion, it was
merely the mantra of absolute power imposing itself on the powerless. Today of
course, thanks to the Nazis, the allies of Judaism, any discussion of the Jewish
Question, as outlined by Henry Ford, would be treated as an outrage.
So the historical aberration is Jew hating, despite its interminable periodic
appearance. And in what we have had to say of the most recent display of open anti-
Semitism during the 1940’s in Germany, it appears that anti-Semitism helps preserve
the integrity of the whole superorganism when it is threatened by the inevitable
periods of change, brought about by superorganic growth. The political conflict
centred around the Jews symbolised the underlying and all pervasive war proceeding
relentlessly between religion and science. The outbreak of open warfare was really an
attack by the theocracy on its own society, which allowed the fabric of that society to
be reconstituted, to bring society back into conformity with the Jewish master identity.
There was a book published in 1920, The Rising Tide of Color, by Lothrop Stoddard,
which focused upon the idea of race and interpreted the Great War as a “White Civil
War” (Preface, page vi), which is nice because it evokes the true nature of the two
world wars as attacks by the elite upon the masses of the society over which they
ruled, making these wars, biologically speaking, matters of internal physiology. But
this same work is nasty in that it makes the usual mistake of defining the social body
in racial, instead of biological terms, that is in racial instead of in religious terms, or
we may say in political rather than scientific terms.
The world wars were obviously wars conducted by the theocracy against their
own populations. How else can a religion survive against the forces of decay,
especially those arising in the scientific age when there was a great upwelling of
people only too happy to wage open warfare against religion, while the mainstay of
the contented population lost faith due to the nature of their understanding being so
primitive, and having no resilience when confronted by the new facts appearing
before their mind’s eye ? As we have been saying, in our world everything is always
inverted in the shift from reality to consciousness, so that even the antithesis of
religion, as in the case of Darwinism, is itself actually religion. Accordingly we often
hear about how we fought for freedom from slavery in the two world wars, but once
we know that the problem was that in terms of free access to self knowledge, science
was liberating us from our Jewish slave identity, that is Christianity, we can see that
the wars were really about destroyingfreedom, to ensure that we could remain
blissfully enslaved to our established social identity for aeons to come. How odd life
is when we know it for real. All we really want, is the freedom to be slaves.

Jewish spectre

I recently, today being Sunday, 18 January 2009, acquired a copy of The

Jewish Spectreby George Warner, 1905. I am somewhat amazed to come upon such a
book, I can find no indication of its existence on the net, and it was cheap, it came
from a dealer in far right literature that I was familiar with. I love the opening chapter
and so I would like to reproduce it here, in this chapter on Jews, and then say
something about why I find it interesting in relation to our discussion, because of the
way Warner discusses how we talk about the Jews. Today, as the war rages in Gaza,
every time the reporters say the “Israelis” did this or that, I always apply a mental
correction, and say to myself the ... “Jews”. The media would never dare speak the
name Jewin this context, and it caught my ear when they were interviewing a child in
bed in a hospital, who described the bombing of his house by “the Jews”, the
translator having used the correct name only because the child did. This shape
shifting via the manipulation of names used for our masters, is a subtle example of
how we are subliminally controlled by our them. Warner :—

CHAPTER I
THE JEWISH SPECTRE

THE Jewish Spectre is now visible in both hemispheres ; it hovers over New York as
it long has done over Paris, Vienna, Berlin and London. But, accustomed as we are to
the incoming of foreign peoples, it is not the apparition of an exotic race among us
that gives my subject its greatest importance. The question would be very simple, and
no more puzzling than the interference of other people in the affairs of our modem
life, were it not for the hovering vision of Israel that is thrown upon the screen of our
religious consciousness. This spectre carries on its front for us, in our childlike and
experimental condition of mind, many of the mysteries of the whence and whither of
life, and of the terrors of death ; and stands for us in such a relation that it seems to
many to be religion itself. It seems as though the whole fabric of our theology would
fall to the ground without this “Israel”—though we sometimes fancy we could get
along without Judah.
Most of us seem to think that Israel and Judah are exchangeable if not
synonymous terms. They were once quite distinct ; and they might be still, were it not
for that tendency in our language to blend and weave, in the interest of the romantic
and wonderful, unrelated words and images. We divide our modem races into specific
nationalities, as we also do the profane races of antiquity ; but it is only by the greatest
sacrifices that we pull Israel and Judah apart. No one has ever yet written a history of
the Jews without at least a preliminary chapter on the Israelites.
It is true that the spectre of our religious imaginations is a composite one, and
that it might well be called the Hebrew-Israelite-Jewish Spectre, if our inquiry were
limited to that ; but it is partly secular. This composite fabric of visibilities is a web of
history that few can unravel ; and those who can, dare not, for it is one of the fondest
possessions of popular belief. It is so sacred that few dare lift up even a corner of the
curtain that conceals it, like the Hebron peasants when the Ark of the Covenant was
returning to Beth Shemesh (I. Samuel vi.) lest they too should see that there is nothing
within, and meet with a like fate. There is no task so perplexing as to make out the
difference between the real and the spectral in this field.
The writer in the newspaper will ask why I say Jewish at all, instead of using
the softer word Hebrew, as he does when he means the Jews ; though there never was
a Hebrew nation, and it is doubtful if the term ever meant anything more than a
complimentary designation of the Israelites who once spoke the Hebrew dialect. This
tongue went out of use as the vernacular of any people something over two
millenniums ago, and is now among the dead languages, only now and then revived in
periods of national hope or expectation, and of interest for the study of the Scriptures.
It is a conscious archaism like classic Greek among the modem Greeks.
The publicist in the magazines will ask why I do not say Israelite, as he does
when he writes of the Jews ; though the term is much more polite than accurate, for
the Israelite, in both his houses, had his day and ceased to be anything more than a
reminiscence of history some twenty-five centuries ago. The term Judah would have
the merit of being accurate, descriptive, and unmixed with the hereditary rights of any
other of the heirs of Jacob. The use of the word Israel by Judah was a usurpation, or at
best an acquisition from Joseph by non-user, as a lawyer might say.
And it is probable that both scholar and reader will ask why I do not say the
Semitic Spectre as all-inclusive. I must reply that I do not mean the Semitic Spectre ;
for the application of the word Semite is plainly a European device to avoid the word
Jew, while at the same time it casts the lustre which belongs to the whole Semitic race
and period upon a small and unfortunate branch of it.
The reader must not cavil if I yield to the prevailing custom, and call this
Vision of the Imagination “He” or “They,” just as I use the word “we” to express the
opposite, the European-American side, my own side and preference in our
civilisation.
With Professor Kent, a late historian of the Jews, the composite being,
“Israel,” is “That miracle of succeeding ages which we behold with our own eyes in
the Jews of to-day.” His meaning is not quite clear, but his admiration is far-reaching.
Others say that the Jew is Immortal ; which word may have metaphorical limitations,
but there are writers who say boldly that he is changeless. These citations refer of
course to the spectral, not to the actual Jew, who sometimes dies.
Try as hard as I may, I cannot find terms brief and at the same time
comprehensive enough to put this spectre of the popular fancy before my readers.
Happily, it has been done so eloquently by the hand of another that I will give it more
than willingly in a full quotation. It is Mr. Hosmer, in the “Story of the Nations”
series, to whom I am indebted. He says, with all the inclusive recklessness of the
clergyman who is never contradicted in the pulpit :
“Give a comprehensive glance at the career of the Jews. It is the marvel of
history that this little people, beset and despised by all the earth for ages, maintains its
solidarity unimpaired. Unique among all the peoples of the earth, it has come
undoubtedly to the present day from the most distant antiquity. Forty, perhaps fifty,
centuries rest upon this venerable contemporary of Egypt, Chaldea and Troy. The
Hebrew defied the Pharaohs ; with the sword of Gideon he smote the Midianite ; in
Jephthah, the children of Ammon. The purple chariot bands of Assyria went back
from his gates humbled and diminished. Babylon, indeed, tore him from his ancient
seats and led him captive by strange waters, but not long. He had fastened his love
upon the heights of Zion, and like an elastic cord, that love broke not, but only drew
with the more force as the distance became great. When the grasp of the captor
weakened, that cord, uninjured from its long tension, drew back the Hebrew to his
former home. He saw the Hellenic flower bud, bloom and wither upon the soil of
Greece. He saw the wolf of Rome suckled on the banks of the Tiber, then prowl,
ravenous for dominion, to the ends of the earth, until paralysis and death laid hold
upon its savage sinews. At last Israel was scattered over the length and breadth of the
earth. In every kingdom of the modern world there has been a Jewish element. There
are Hebrew clans in China, on the steppes of Central Asia, in the desert heart of
Africa. The most powerful races have not been able to assimilate them—the bitterest
persecution, so far from exterminating them, has not eradicated a single characteristic.
In mental and moral traits, in form and feature even, the Jew of to-day is the same as
when Jerusalem was the peer of Tyre and Babylon. In the greedy energy of the Jewish
trader smoulders something of the old fire of the Maccabees. Abraham and Mordecai
stand out upon the sculptures of Nineveh marked by the same eye and beard, the same
nose and jaw by which we just now recognised their descendants. Language,
literature, customs, traditions, traits of character—these too have all survived. The
Jew of New York, Chicago, St. Louis, is, in body and soul, the Jew of London, of St.
Petersburg, of Constantinople, of the fenced cities of Judah in the days of David.
There is no other case of a nation dispersed in all other parts of the world and yet
remaining a nation.”
This is all exceedingly familiar to us, and I would gladly fill my pages with
more of such condensed illusion, but one more excerpt is a summary of all. I do not
myself make the same exegesis of the psalm. Exegesis, however, is not a science, but
merely a prejudice, and our author has a perfect right to his own. He says :
“In the fiftieth psalm stands the passage : ‘Out of Zion, the perfection of
beauty, God hath shined.’ If we understand the word Zion in this sentence to mean, as
it is often explained, the Hebrew nation, we find here an enthusiastic utterance by a
Jewish poet of his sense of pride in his race ; the Hebrew people is chosen out from
among the nations of the earth to exhibit the perfection of beauty—is, in fact, an
outshining of God Himself upon the world. What is to be said of such a declaration ?
If it were made concerning any other race than the Jewish, it would be scouted and
ridiculed as arrogance pushed into impiety, a claim not to be tolerated even in the
most impassioned poetry. Can the world bear the assertion any better when it is made
concerning the Jews ? Such claims, at any rate, the Jews have always made.
Declarations of Israelitish greatness, scarcely less strong than that of the Psalmist, can
be found in the writings of our contemporaries. Says a Rabbi of Cincinnati in a book
published within a few years : ‘Had the Hebrews not been disturbed in their progress
a thousand and more years ago, they would have solved all the great problems of
civilisation which are being solved now.’ The Earl of Beaconsfield, glorying in his
Jewish blood, was accustomed to maintain, without qualification, the indomitable
superiority of the Hebrews over the most powerful modern races ; and alleged that, in
an intellectual sense, they had conquered modern Europe. In the immense extent of
time which stretches from the singer of the Psalms to the Cincinnati Rabbi and the
marvellous Jew who, a few years ago, superintended the management of the greatest
empire of the earth, there is no age in which Israelites have not uttered just as
confidently their conviction of Jewish supremacy.”
We have here, in the foregoing citations, the composite spectre of Israel and
the Jew in nearly every aspect. It combines the preternatural, the supernatural, the
superhuman, and the embodied divine outshining upon the earth. I am sorry to drop
down from these sublime heights and speak of vulgar things, but now for many pages
I must come to a lower level of this dream country.
I must defer to a later chapter remarks on the spectre in Europe ; and now
merely say that Leroy-Beaulieu gives us, in the picture quoted below, an indication of
the romantic view with which modern history teems. He says of the Jews of Europe :
“They are like birds just liberated from their cages, so swift is their flight ; they were
seen to dart from twig to twig of the thickly branched tree of our modern civilisation,
as though none of its parts were beyond the reach of their wings.”
The real Jew in America does not fly like him of Europe. He is ensconced in
marble palaces in Broadway, where the signs on the shop fronts look like the first
book of Chronicles, though all is not Jew which glisters there in German. He is the
bold speculator that makes Wall Street a wailing place—though seldom for Jews ; he
is that apparition that clothes the Sabbaths of Madison Avenue (in the newspapers)
with a splendour in which even the most splendid stuffed figure of history was never
arrayed.
More seriously, this is the threatening figure which Goldwin Smith describes
in the Nineteenth Century magazine as “likely soon to add America to the list of its
conquests,” and that is “getting American journals into its hands,” and has already
“got into its hands a considerable share of the wealth of the North, and a still larger
proportion of the West and the South.”
 This is the same personage who is said to be making the liberal professions
tremble for their emoluments, and is crowding the scholarship of the Yankee in the
colleges and universities, where he already “fills many of the chairs of learning.”
This figure is the most available stock in trade of the comic papers, and also of those
who affect solemnity and omniscience in the newspapers ; and it is most useful to fill
space in dry times. Perhaps it is superfluous to put into words, for those who read the
newspapers of the day, those phrases which cause in the mind of the reader
apprehension of disaster to business interests ; for none can have failed to see how the
paragraphing goes on which will inevitably make the newspaper fortune of the race.
He is always, in the papers, that “wonderful man,” “that remarkable race,” “that
unchanging type,” “that most persistent man,” and he is not often spoken of without
an allusion to the assertion “that his rate of increase exceeds that of all other peoples,”
that he is practically “immune from disease” in an almost miraculous way, and that he
dies, if at all, later in life than other men. It is an article of faith that “he takes care of
his own poor” and takes no “charity.” It is also an article of firm belief that he speaks
“Hebrew.” His mysterious “culture” is a matter of course. His “intellectual
superiority” is confessed by Waldstein, the author of the “Jewish Question,” who
himself has the “precious drop” of blood in his veins.
Another of its own race, Jacobs, said, not long ago : “And when the history of
the Jews has been told as it should be, it will be seen that they, above all others, have
earned the title of the chosen people of God. The great question for contemporary
Judaism is whether it will continue God’s work or cease to be. ‘Prophecy is of all
errors the most gratuitous,’ we are told, but I can see no meaning in history if the
richest product of humanity, which has shared in all the progressive movements in the
history of man, shall not have within it the germs of mighty thoughts and deeds.”
But the most important contribution of Mr. Jacobs to positive Judaism is
contained in the sentence which follows : “Judaism is not alone a religion, but a
Philosophy of History.”
They sum up all the observations in one comprehensive term, “Israel.” This
mysterious being, Israel, potent in the history of the world and in the most common
uses of our time, is equally supernatural, mysterious, learned, sagacious, skilful,
powerful, and dangerous, whether he guides a push-cart in the slums, careens on a
garden-truck wagon in the country districts, or, at the other end of the line of human
activities, does that most enviable of human acts, runs a bank.
This term Israel—soldier of God—is the sign of the modern superstition about
the Jewish race. It has nearly displaced Abraham, the Earlier Father, and it relieves the
mind of a certain uneasiness about the Patriarchal age. It relieves us also of the but
poorly legitimatised Jacob, the supplanter.
This Israel of the imagination bears slight relation to the historic Israel. Its
reason for existence is that the human mind dwells in fictions more readily than in
realities and likes to worship spectres. It is much more agreeable to the general taste
to take history in the form of romantic fiction in which ghosts walk, than to take it in
the form of a study of facts. I do not know what our final mental condition would
become if the critic did not put in limbo some of the imaginary personages with which
the world is crowded, and help to lay the metaphorical ghosts with which English
rhetoric has overstocked the world.

(The Jewish Spectre, Warner, 1905, pp. 3 – 10)

This chapter presents a fascinating observation, “our theology would fall to the
ground without this “Israel”—though we sometimes fancy we could get along without
Judah”. We adore Israel yet we hate the Jews, is what this says, indicating the
absurdity of the idea that Christians are not themselves Jews, and that Jews can
become Christians so that Judaism may then disappear from the world ; a delusion
which all Christians labour under due to their pathetic misconception of themselves.
Then we come upon a less pleasing comment, in fact it is downright
confusing. He suggests that ‘Israel’ and ‘Jew’ can be separated, and then he says this
is not correct, each having once been distinct, and now being united through linguistic
artifice, yet finally being inseparable. I wish I could find my way to clarity through
this passage, but in reality this discussion of the various names used to talk about the
Jews is entirely new to me, and I do not think the technical distinction matters.
Except in so far as this discussion connects with my comments on how our media is
always carful to speak of the Jewish ethnic cleansing in the Israeli imperial zone, as
being conducted by Israelis, not Jews.

VI

Taking authority from reality

Recently I have been rummaging about the net, looking for atheist websites,
and a number of them have attracted my attention because they veer toward my own
terminology and topics, most particularly talking about the clash between religion and
science. None of these sites are atheistic, all are religious, whether they know it or
not. But a feature they all have in common is their deference to dictionaries for their
definition of words, such as the word ‘science’. They display no true concept of the
problem here, how we live in an absolute theocracy where there is no science. Where
science is designed by the priests to ensure that science cannot exist, and therefore the
first place the priests began was the point to which these morons defer as their
ultimate source of authority, the dictionary.
A dictionary is just as much a part of language as the language we use. If the
language we use is a code that evolved to form a programme loaded with bias that
directs human behaviour toward a predetermined end, as we insist it is, then all
dictionaries are nothing more than code fixing books. Just as we, as scientists of
human nature, wish to break the programme code, so we must also break the
dictionary code that underpins it. Hence a dictionary cannot be used as a point of
reference for the meaning of words, when we want to understand human existence
from a scientific perspective, from beyond the event horizon of consciousness that
human life operates within under the auspices of religious autocracy. Science means :
taking authority from reality, not from words. In the second paragraph quoted above
Warner seems bogged down in literal definitions of the various names given to Jews,
as such this looks potentially interesting, but finally sterile.
There is something more that we can say about this issue. We constantly seek
to reduce all identities to one common identity, so that we assert that the Romans were
Jews, the British in the heyday of their empire were Jews and now the Americans are
the Jew’s vanguard of growth. Clearly this is utter nonsense as long as we think in
political terms as represented by history. This strictly naturalistic interpretation only
becomes obvious when we take a scientific view that recognises that the human
organism is a superorganism. I have often wondered how this scientific method
would work if applied to the ancient Jewish master organ, but lack of knowledge
prevents me from making any comments on this topic. However these remarks from
Warner seem to do the job for me, indicating that the Jewish organ of authority went
through a series of transformations that are identified in the historical records in these
various names associated with the Jews over time. Warner is taking the historical
method at face value, and not applying a scientific method at all, but if we applied our
biological method to his argument we would perhaps be able to trace our
representation of the structure of the Jewish superorganic physiology, through a series
of transformations receding away from the Romans, back towards the origins of the
Jewish superorganism.
Dismissing the dictionary as a source of definitions appears to present us with
an impossible conundrum, as this seems to dismiss the sole means we have of
defining words with authority. I obtained an interesting biography of a leading
Victorian philosopher this week, Leslie Stephen : The Godless Victorian, by Noel
Annan, published 1984. In it I was intrigued to see a brief mention of the technique
of subverting meaning as used by defenders of religion, who were put under extreme
duress from science at this time. Annan represents Stephen behaving “in the best
tradition of rationalist thought” by “a refusal to allow words to carry meanings other
than they are given in normal conversation.” We are told that “Stephen feared that the
logic of language as a means of communication would be destroyed.” (p. 247). He
then quotes Stephen :—

Treat believing as a branch of gymnastics and there is nothing,

however revolting, which you may not train yourself to swallow.

Indeed, religion being the first revolting thing that we associate with this
truism. Unfortunately Annan does not say where this quote is taken from, which is a
great pity because I would love to see the full argument concerning the nature of
language, which is only hinted at here. This representation of Stephen presents us
with an interesting predicament, for we see that because the priest is driven to extreme
obscenity in their perversion of words, to allow the authority of the most sick and
degenerate piece of modern literature, the Bible, to be preserved—being modern in
that it is still accepted as valid in the modern world—the rationalist is then driven to
defend the normal state of language, as used in ordinary conversation, which we have
reasoned is subverted automatically by the theocracy, in the normal course of
generating language. In other words, this is asking what the nature of language is, and
assuming our answer is that language is symbolic, the question arises as to where the
authority implicit in a symbol comes from. The answer here indicates a convolution
in the control of knowledge, that causes the process of linguistic programming to lie
beyond the consciousness of individuals, ultimately because the superorganism is
immortal in comparison to the mortality of the individual. Hence the reason I would
like to see a little more of Stephen’s discussion concerning the meanings attached to
words, and where he thinks they come from, and how he thinks the authority of
meaning, in everyday use, is established.
Sticking with the question of dictionaries, a little clear thinking, informed by
our general thesis that language is a coded programme, that delivers superorganic
physiology by organising individual activity, soon resolves the problem. We have
discussed the use of a word such as ‘God’ and determined that there is no such thing
as God, because God is in reality the human superorganism, and from this insight we
learn to apply the general principle that many things we have words for, do not exist
in reality. A good example would be the word ‘artificial’. We could look up
‘artificial’ in a dictionary and see that it means something to do with being made by
humans, not by nature. This makes perfect sense and the definition is fine, however,
as scientists seeking to understand human existence in wholly natural terms, there can
be no such thing as the ‘artificial’, for the artificial is, in reality, itself made by nature,
through the unwitting agency of human activity. This is so because nature made
humans to be dextrous and thereby to create the superorganic physiology that humans
know as ‘social structure’ or ‘society’. It is easy to prove this is true because if, for
example, humans made wheels then wheels could be any shape people wanted them
to be. A square wheel would still roll as effectively as a round wheel if wheels were
made by humans, in any meaningful sense of the word ‘made’, as used in the logical
context invoked by the meaning of the word ‘artificial’ that creates a distinct zone of
universal reality, defined by the evolution of the human animal. The idea of a human
zone of universal reality, specific to ourselves, being a truly insane notion if ever there
was one ! But while we may be capable of being insane, reality can never be, hence
the logical outcome implied by the idea of an artificial dimension to the universe, is
not real. Humans have to make wheels round, otherwise they will not be wheels,
because they will not act as wheels : a square wheel will not roll. The same applies to
all things that humans do, including the linguistic representation of these aspects of
existence, thatare likewise generated by nature, not by humans. If this were not so
then we would not find ourselves obliged to live in obedience to obscene nonsense,
such as we do when we pay homage to religion. However, as we learn from Steiner’s
essay on the future of truth, there is no shortage of arrogant braggarts willing to insist
that two plus two is five, in order to assert their right to believe what they please, so
for them our assertion that square wheels would not roll, would presumably be the
real voice of arrogance in this world.
When we say that a mammalian superorganism was inevitable because
mammalian physiology contained within it the latent potential of social organisation,
we are saying that something which did not exist, society, was nonetheless present, in
a dormant state, within mammalian physiology. In this latent form society must be a
biological phenomenon, so it cannot then be something other than a biological
phenomenon just because it has been realised as the inevitable consequence of an
unfolding biological process. Our symbolism may represent society as something
none biological, but that must be a categorisation, part of the social state itself, not a
fact of existence. Likewise, the production of an artificial world by human artifice
must of been latent in the physiology of prehuman anthropoids, otherwise the
physiology that is the foundation of our creative ability could not of come into being.
When the potential for human creativity lay unrealised in an anthropoid creature it
must of been a natural potential, so that now it exists in the shape of our human made
world, the production of this artificial world must still be an exclusively natural
phenomenon.
There is nothing artful about this logic of the nature of things extant lying
dormant, it is a perfectly scientific approach to understanding reality. It is used all the
time in reverse, so that just the other day I heard someone describing how birds were,
in a completely real sense, dinosaurs, because of the features of dinosaur physiology
that was preserved in living birds. If the method can be used in reverse like this, then
it is perfectly valid to adopt a past stance and project forward in order to insist upon
the continuity of nature existing in living forms, such as ourselves.
By making this point about a square wheel, saying that it would roll, we make
the meaning of the word ‘artificial’ tally with reality as it would be, if reality
conformed to the meaning we actually give to this word. But of course the meaning
we give to this word is not real, it is a functional device serving as part of a linguistic
identity programme, that severs our conscious link with our true nature and isolates us
an ends in ourselves. Leaving us doing the bidding of the superorganism, while
thinking we act of our own volition. And it is the master organ, realised in Judaism,
that acts as the stand in for the superorganism in our world, so we do the bidding of
Judaism. But Judaism is a physiological phenomenon that has realised the potential
of corporate human nature most perfectly, it is the chosen of the species, so that the
bidding of Judaism is the bidding of the superorganism, as it currently exists.
So the word ‘artificial’ only has validity within a circumscribed level of
reality, just as the fact that the earth is stationary only has validity at the surface of the
planet, where we experience stability. Move from the surface into outer space and the
world’s rotation becomes apparent ; move beyond the confines of social politics, into
the science of anthropology, and the artificial becomes physiological, exoskeletal, so
that its natural status becomes apparent. Language then, is about inflating a bubble of
consciousness about the whole of society, so that we all see the same image reflected
on the inner surface, wherever we look. This is how the unity Bagehot speaks of as
being of primary importance is realised in reality.

We have been getting at the very nature of the meaning of words, and
demonstrating that meaning is ultimately valid for science, only when taken from
natural phenomenon, where meaning is not allowed to be built into a house of cards,
such as linguistic art so freely produces, whereby meanings are based on the authority
of meanings previously established by authority. Which is a recipe for religion, and
the foundation of a priesthood, if ever there was one.
From our argument it follows that a dictionary is part of the linguistic
programme that organises individual activity, it carries the codified definitions that
operate in life, and, to use our cosmological analogy, a dictionary therefore lies within
the event horizon of consciousness. Science steps outside this event horizon, and in
doing so the words that are defined by a dictionary may vanish from the lexicon of
reality, that is the only reference manual to which the scientist can defer. Many
objects that words in a dictionary refer to would also exist beyond the event horizon
of human consciousness, such as ‘planet’, or ‘round’, because these are universal
attributes of reality, that are not dependant upon human existence for their meaning.
It is only a portion of the words within a dictionary whose face valueis found to be
null and void when examined by science, such words as ‘history’ and ‘politics’, that
have to do with social formations, are suspect. These words vanish too, revealing
something else, that is a meaning entirely other than the meaning these words purport
to carry. The word ‘history’ can be used in a scientific sense to refer to a time bound
process of change, this word only becomes misleading when used to talk about human
biological processes, like social development, where historicalis meant to suggest the
application of human will to human development. This indicates the complexity of
the problem we are faced with when we try to disentangle ourselves from the web of
deceit imposed on our minds by language, by decoding the linguistic programme that
gives us our consciousness, gives us our minds indeed, and so creates the
superorganism to which we belong by organising our behaviour, from a point of
control lying within each and everyone of us.

VII

The nature of Judaism

 The idea that there are few people who can unravel the true nature of Judaism,
and that those who can, who must be very special people indeed, dare not, is
delightful. But Warner’s reason, that Judaism lies at the core of popular beliefs, is a
gross, pathetic and most ignorant throwaway excuse for such a profoundly inscrutable
subject. We want an explanation based on the science of human nature, which is what
we provide here. So, straightaway we understand that Warner is going to be yet
another mealy mouthed writer on Judaism, and as such ultimately worthless, like all
the others.
This man had the great privilege of writing about the nature of the Jews at a
time when everyone knew the human animal was a social organism, yet he concludes
this diatribe in a manner that befits the ignorance of the miserable condition that we
poor sods must endure in the twenty-first century, pathetic.
Two points seem worth saying after reading this nice introduction to Jews in
the modern world, as we gaze in horror upon the devastation in Gaza today,
20/01/2009—so much for their divinity. As we can see from the frenzy of attention
given to the parasitic nature of the Jew as indicated by Warner, without the Nazis, and
the vicious taboo the Nazis created to shield the Jews from examination of this
negative kind, the survival of the Jews was clearly doomed to an immanent death.
But, that said, bear in mind that this meant the death of Christianity too, and that fact
indicates both the practical means, and the reason for creating the Nazis. Warner
affirms the peculiar notion Christians have of their independence from Judaism,
which, he rightly indicates, is a delusion.
The fascinating thing about Warner’s book is that it makes us realise that the
spectre of Judaism that Warner, and the world, foresaw at this time, was
misunderstood. When the spectre arrived, as it most definitely did, it came in the
form of an apparition whose true materiality was misconceived, the Nazis, in other
words, were the spectre of Judaism in the flesh. This no one either foresaw, nor has
yet seen. A truly remarkable deception, one that gives meaning to Warner’s
observation that few can grasp the true nature of the Jews, and those who could, if
they existed, would not dare. Nothing in existence, ever, contradicts this conclusion.
The satisfying thought that comes from this realisation is that the horror of modern
human behaviour, the world wars being the supreme personification of all that
humanity is capable of, and all that humanity stands for as an animal, is that these
behaviours make perfect sense within the context of the economy of human nature.

There is just one item I have come across over the past seven or eight years
during which I have been searching for information on the nineteenth century idea of
the social organism, that alludes to the ultimate implication of this idea, by intimating
that Christians are the slaves of the Jews, and it is this :—

One standing instance, no doubt, shows that the union of

progressiveness and legality does not secure supremacy in war. The Jewish
nation has its type of progress in the prophets, side by side with its type of
permanence in the law and Levites, more distinct than any other ancient
people. Nowhere in common history do we see the two forces—both so
necessary and both so dangerous—so apart and so intense : Judaea changed in
inward thought, just as Rome changed in exterior power. Each change was
continuous, gradual, and good. In early times every sort of advantage tends to
become a military advantage ; such is the best way, then, to keep it alive. But
 the Jewish advantage never did so ; beginning in religion, contrary to a
thousand analogies, it remained religious. For that we care for them ; from that
have issued endless consequences. But I cannot deal with such matters here,
nor are they to my purpose. As respects this essay, Judaea is an example of
combined variability and legality not investing itself in warlike power, and so
perishing at last, but bequeathing nevertheless a legacy of the combination in
imperishable mental effects.

(Physics and Politics, Bagehot, pp. 63 – 64)

This is the one and only statement I have ever found that asserts anything
remotely akin to a recognition of the deep seated organic relationship between
Christians and Jews. It is this phrase “For that we care for them.” that really grips me.
It seems to contain within it, all that I have been asserting in terms of the status of the
Jews as the master race, realised through their identity. This appears especially so
when we see above that Bagehot made identity the foundation of unity, that was
expressed in religion. Here we see that he makes Jewish power take a strange twist,
where, instead of becoming militaristic and ruling in its own name, it remained
incongruously religious, and thus died, but left a legacy of “imperishable mental
effects.” And a most telling feature of this deep insight into the nature of Judaism, is
that Bagehot frustratingly tantalises us with his grasp of what Jews really are, by
declining to tell us more !
The beauty of this unique passage in Physics and Politics, is that it comes
from the main period when organicism was a natural way of thinking, and it appears
in a work that shows that influence, as in the quote above, which has an organic feel
about it. This indicates an important connection between organicism and Judaism,
whereby, seeing organicism as the perfection of science applied to humans, we find
organicism on the verge of uncloaking the age old mystery of Jewish identity,
something that could not be allowed to happen. At this time anti-Semitism began to
intensify. By the early twentieth century we find German anti-Semites voicing the
secret openly—Christians are the slaves of the Jews, Christianity is a trick that the
Jews have used to take possession of the Germans—was their outcry. What we have
here is the transformation of scientific revelations into a political ideology. This
culminated in Hitler and the holocaust, and if we read Hitler’s Mein Kampfthe
organicist logic informing his fascist philosophy is unmistakable. As a consequence
organicism is openly attacked by sociologists today because it is said to of created the
monstrous Nazi, and so it is that Hitler saved the Jews from the consequences of a
genuine science of human nature. This was not a conspiracy, this is the dynamic of
identity operating in relation to superorganic being, played out in the most dramatic
and astounding fashion. Because this bout of Jewish reaction occurred during the
modern era, we can, if we know what we are looking for, trace it ; it is like looking for
the origin of a specific religion in reverse, a very tricky thing to do because of the
ficticious nature of all religious mythologies. But once this historical investigation
had been conducted successfully, once we establish the biological function of anti-
Semitism, we discover the power of Judaism as a master organ of superorganic
physiology, empowered by the linguistic force acting through the dynamics of an
identity hierarchy, which is always an accumulator of social energy.
This observation is unique to me, I have never seen anyone else point out that
the Nazis were the ultimate savour of the Jews, and that the holocaust must therefore
be viewed as an act of sacrifice by the organ of superorganic identity, the sacrificing
of a tiny portion of its biomass, to maximum effect, in order to preserve the whole
biomass for the future. With these thoughts on the true functional nature of the
holocaust in mind, we could say that the Jews carry out their ‘militaristic’
engagements through the manipulation of identity dynamics, to take up Bagehot’s
observation regarding the Jews loss of militaristic prowess. This observation is very
apposite to the idea of the Jews as a specially evolved master caste, it is exactly the
kind of physiological device we would expect superorganic physiology to evolve in
order to produce an elite caste capable of creating a global mammalian
superorganism, as the singling out of the Jews for mass extermination is a most potent
expression of linguistic force, focused on pure identity, that is possible to imagine.
And the Jewish identity is the very essence of linguistic force arising at the pinnacle
of the identity accumulator, that produces the social structure we call a religious
hierarchy. The holocaust focused energy on the identity of the Jews, and thereby
supercharged that identity with the linguistic force that creates the superorganism,
boosting the Jews to an incredibly high status in the world ; which is what allows the
Jews, alone of all people on earth, to appear on our television screens and spit in our
faces when we ask them to account to us, for their actions. (See below) It is a truly
remarkable biological system.
But as unique as my specific insights are, a similar set of observations is much
in vogue, whereby Darwin’s ideas are said to of inspired Social Darwinism, which is
the derogatory label devised by modern academics to describe organicists, allowing
academics to refer to organicism without giving the oxygen of publicity to organicist
ideas, because Social Darwinism is an establishment perversion of organicism. Such
duplicity is all very clever, or sick, as I would prefer to describe these machinations.
Social Darwinism is beyond the pale of the modern pseudo science touted by the
academic institutions of our theocracy. But more than this, Darwinism itself has been
singled out as an inspiration to Hitler, and the reasons for this are familiar to us all, to
do with the ‘survival of the fittest’ and the political interpretation of this principle,
leading to the eugenics movement. So my particular observation, as wild, dangerous
and extravagant as it will be to the priests that rule our world, is an inevitable
consequence of my discovery of the lost science of organicism.

Just a little aside. Yesterday, 24/01/2009, the news reported that the BBC
refused to broadcast an appeal for aid for the Palestinian people because they
broadcast directly into Israel. Evidently the Jews simply would not allow their main
broadcasting service to be used for anything they see as serving anti-Semitic
purposes. If ever there was a simple demonstration of the master identity of the Jews,
there we have it in the cold light of day. Their excuse was that this appeal would
compromise their independence as a newscaster, but this lie was shown up for what it
was on Channel Four, in an interview conducted with a leading BBC stooge.
Reminds me of the BBC removing my posting to a freethought discussion forum a
few years ago, in which I revealed the true nature of the Jews as a master organ of the
superorganism to which we all belong.
 Chapter 10

The Functional Nature of Anti-Semitism

It is apparent from all that we have had to say here, that the rise of the Nazis
has been the saving grace of the Jews as the master race, as the core about which
Christians and Muslims revolve. The theme is constantly picked up as we exam
different aspects of the history of the destruction of science by religion in the
scientific age. But the essay by Jeffree on The Jews in France gives us a wonderful
opportunity to examine the roots of the race-hatred Nazi reflex, serving the true
master race. We say ‘reflex-hatred’ because anti-Semitism is a reflex mechanism of
the superorganism, triggered in defence of its identity. Anti-Semitism obviously
exists only to serve the elite caste, something which an elite caste, shorn of it
militaristic powers, as the quote from Bagehot describes above, must have as a
defensive device support the other ‘levers of identity’ control functions.
I have yet to read the fifty six page essay, appearing in two consecutive issues
of the Dublin Review for 1887-8, but having obtained a copy of one of the anti-
Semitic volumes named in these essays, La Russie Juive, Wolski, 1887, I was
examining the book in conjunction with the essay and then following up my
investigations by searching on the net for material, whichsoon brought me to a crunch
point. Jeffree translates a snippet of a large opening quote in Wolski, that is supposed
to come from an English diplomat whose name was John Retcliffe, who quoted a
speech delivered by a senior Rabbi in a secret meeting, in which the Jews desire to
rule the world was stated openly.
The simple scientific fact is, that the Jews are the master race, so they dorule
the world already, and have for millennia, but not in the crude manner spoken of in
political terms. This is a biological fact relating to the physiological structure of
human superorganisms, that are formed via the impress of linguistic force. Political
expressions of power are never real, outside of themselves, they are always aspects
ofthe living structural order, not descriptions of that order. We frequently say the
same about religion, religions are never real descriptions of reality, they are part of
reality, which is why science is the only means of knowing what religion is, or what
religion means.

How to make a hate crime

How should we make sense of the peculiar habit of great swathes of

misinformation pouring forth vitriolic material against the Jews, that in the end is so
transparently fake that it is more transparent than Darwin’s Origin of Species! Taken
in isolation this misinformation makes no sense, but as a smoke screen covering real
anti-Semiticarguments about the nature of the Jews and their shenanigans in the
world, overt anti-Semitism makes perfect sense. Obviously real anti-Semitism is not
anti-Semitism at all, because it describes realaspects of social life, but such real
descriptions are absolutely fatal to Judaism, precisely because they are true. Hence
they are antagonistic to the well being of the master race, and therefore, from a strictly
Jewish point of view, true descriptions of Jewish power are quite literally anti-
Semitic, being anathema to Jewish interests within the slave territories that Jews
control by virtue of their status as the chosen identity organ of superorganic
physiology. The question is, how are the people who control all crucial structures of
command in society, going to transpose ideas that are antagonistic to them alone, into
something that everyone will recognise as purely antagonistic, and as such hate
crimes, and nothing else ?
Do the Jews have a controlling influence over all the important facets of our
social structure ? It is implicit in all that we are saying that they do, but developing an
argument to confirm this is a very dodgy exercise to engage in since Hitler did his
worst. So we will make the assertion and leave it at that. Save to say that much of the
discussion conflated with anti-Semitic invective, revolved around this topic of Jewish
‘parasitism’ within Christian societies. It would be very easy to write a lengthy book
detailing the work done to prove that Jews were primary owners of our social fabric,
and nothing has changed in this respect since the days before the Jews put their Nazi
defence in place, making this kind of historical exercise taboo. A book I have on my
shelves, which I have never really even glanced at, says it all in the title alone, The
Assassination of Robert Maxwell : Israel’s Superspy, by Thomas and Dillon, 2002.
Such work can only serve to justify the general point we are asserting here, without
even opening the book ! While images of Tony Blair when prime minister, in close
cahoots with leading British Jews and Israeli statesmen, again, reinforces casually,
that which it is taboo to examine methodically.

II

Christian fanaticism

Where then, does the anti-Semitic smoke screen come from ? This is like
asking where Nazis came from, since the rise of the Nazis can only be understood as a
Jewish mechanism of defence. In physiological terms, the answer is that the anti-
Semitic defence always emerges from a pool of Christian fanaticism, and we see this
clearly whenever we examine rightwing fascist ideology. Christians always cover all
bases. They are the fascists, the socialists, the capitalists, the communists, the Nazis,
the British National Party, Racists, Klu Klux Klan, whatever, you name it, the
Christians are always the core identity within any such movements in a Christian
society. And this tells us a lot about the nature of the functional dynamic that causes
human superorganic physiology to take on a triadic macro structure. Here is a
passage from Jeffree which includes a segment translated from Wolski :—

They break out into rhapsodies when they talk of the eternal rights of man, of
the sovereignty of the people, of the sanctity of the people’s cause, the people’s faculty
 of self-devotion and power of self-sacrifice—and they oppose every working-man’s
candidate on the hustings. Only one real working-man, Brialou, has hitherto
succeeded in being elected to the French Parliament, and he has been elected in spite
of the combined manœuvring of the Jews and the Freemasons. They affect on
principle to be the friends of the people ; it is only in order to be able to use their
influence on the masses for their own purposes, as the following curious declaration
bluntly acknowledges :

Our interest requires that we should at least simulate zeal for the social questions of the day,
those especially which claim to have for their object the amelioration of the lot of the working classes ;
but in reality our efforts must tend to get this movement of public opinion into our own hands, and to
direct it upon public questions. The blindness of the masses, their tendency to be carried away by
sonorous empty spouting with which our highways resound, make of them a convenient instrument for
popularity. Our own will easily find the secret of fictitious enthusiasm for the people’s cause, and it will
give their words as much eloquence as the Christians find in their sincerity.
We must, as much as possible, keep up the proletariat, and subject it to those who have the
handling of the money. By this means we may cause the masses to revolt whenever we wish, we shall
drive them on to revolutions and rebellions ; and each of these catastrophes advances our dearest
interests, and brings us nearer to the realization of our only aim—that of reigning over all the earth,
according to the promise made, to our Father Abraham.

Their love of the people is neither very disinterested nor very genuine, as this
speech but too clearly shows. All their protestations of philanthropy and democracy
are nothing but cant and hypocrisy. They hate the poor ; they show that hatred by their
acts—they show it by oppressing the masses in every possible way for the benefit of
their own ilk.

(Dublin Review, October 1887, Art. I, The Jews in France, Jeffree,

pp. 42 - 43)

This is very unpleasant stuff. Imagine living in a modern European society

where this kind of material is being pumped out all the time, levelled against a
significant section of the resident population. I would love an open war on Islam in
Britain today, Islam as a religion, a war of words, but such a thing is unthinkable, yet
in the sample pasted above you see exactly what poison was pouring forth in Europe
for nye on a hundred years, until Hitler put a stop to it by bringing the matter to a
head. I say again, since we know this poison was functional and indeed, absolutely
essential for the well being of the Jews, because of the revelations of genuine science
that recognised that humans are a superorganism, so the Jews had to go through this
baptism of fire, Where did this wonderful, life giving evil come from ? We see it
espoused by Christians, but the Christians are set ablaze by these pretences of a
Jewish master plan for world domination. So who concocted these frauds in the first
place, and kept stoking the bonfire with further editions of them, and why ?
The obvious suspicion is that while the Christian fanatic is the incendiary, the
Jews is the ignition. And now that Christians have unleashed the massive potential of
linguistic force built up in the European populations of the recent past, it is the turn of
the Muslim biomass to go critical. Its identity fuse has been set off recently, so that
now the Islamic global terror is doing Zionist work all around the world. Serving its
master, as it was made to do, by wreaking havoc, pulverising the global biomass and
softening it up, preparing it for later consolidation, under the impress of the Islamic
Jewish slave implant, made for the job of global enslavement to Judaism.

III
 Forging myths

The first question to ask about the quote from Jeffree, as unbelievable as the
above statement is, is whether or not there is any truth in it. Although why would any
Jew want to come out with such statements in public, and having done so in a secret
meeting, why would they let this dangerous material leak into the wider world ?
As it turned out, when I ran a search for material on this subject I got this :—

A few years after this extravaganza there appeared, also in Germany, a

document which in due course was to become the model for the Protocols [of
Zion] themselves. The author of this prototype of the most famous of all anti-
semitic forgeries was one Hermann Goedsche, who had formerly been a minor
official in the Prussian postal service.
In the reaction following the revolutionary upheavals of 1848 this man
had made an unfortunate miscalculation. In order to incriminate the
democratic leader Benedic Waldeck, whose politics were proving inconvenient
to the King of Prussia, Goedsche produced letters which if they had been
genuine would have unmasked Waldeck as conspiring to overthrow the
constitution and assassinate the King. In the event it was quickly proved not
only that the letters were forgeries but that Goedsche knew them to be so. His
career in the postal service being at an end, Goedsche joined the staff of the
newspaper Neue preussische Zeitung, popularly known as the Preussische
Kreuzzeitung, which was much favoured by conservative landowners ; he also
began to write novels, the more sensational under the pseudonym of Sir John
Retcliffe.
One of these novels, Biarritz, contained a chapter called ‘In the Jewish
Cemetery in Prague’ : It is a piece of straight fiction of the most romantically
sensational kind, but it was nevertheless to become the basis for a very
influential anti-semitic forgery. The chapter describes a secret nocturnal
meeting which is supposed to have been held in the cemetery during the Feast
of Tabernacles. At eleven o’clock the gates of the cemetery creak softly and
the rustling of long coats is heard, as they touch against the stones and
shrubbery. A vague white figure passes like a shadow through the cemetery
until it reaches a certain tombstone ; here it kneels down, touches the
tombstone three times with its forehead and whispers a prayer. Another figure
approaches, it is that of an old man, bent and limping ; he coughs and sighs as
he moves. The figure takes its place next to its predecessor and it too kneels
down and whispers a prayer. A third figure appears — a tall, impressive figure,
clad in a white mantle ; as though unwillingly, he too kneels down at the
tombstone. Thirteen times this procedure is repeated. When the thirteenth and
last figure has taken its place a clock strikes midnight. From the grave there
comes a sharp, metallic sound. A blue flame appears and lights up the thirteen
kneeling figures. A hollow voice says, ‘I greet you, heads of the twelve tribes
of Israel.’ And the figures dutifully reply : ‘We greet you, son of the accursed.’
The assembled figures are in fact meant to represent the twelve tribes
of Israel. The additional member of the party represents ‘the unfortunates and
the exiles.’ Under the chairmanship of the representative of the house of
Aaron, these various personages report on their activities during the century
which has elapsed since the last meeting. The Levite announces that after
centuries of oppression and striving, Israel is rising again, thanks to the gold
which has fallen into her hands. The Jews can now look forward to a future,
not far off, when the whole earth will belong to them. The representative of
Reuben reports that through the stock exchanges the Jews have managed to
place all the princes and governments of Europe in their debt and are thereby
able to control them. Simeon outlines a scheme for breaking up the great
estates and getting all land into Jewish hands, so that the workers on the land
will become workers for the Jews. Judah shows how independent artisans are
being reduced by Jewish machinations to the status of factory-workers, who
can then be controlled and directed for political purposes. The Aaronic Levite
is concerned with undermining the Christian Church, by fostering free
thought, scepticism, and anti-clericalism. Issachar thinks that the military
class, being the defender of the throne and the exponent of patriotism, has to
be discredited in the eyes of the masses. Zebulon maintains that, though the
Jewish people is by nature intensely conservative, Jews must now appear to
side with forces of progress ; for unrest and revolutions can be so directed that
they bring no real benefits to the poor but merely increase the power of the
Jews. Dan, ‘a Jew of the lower order,’ has more modest ambitions ; he is
concerned that Jews should monopolise the trade in liquor, butter, wool, and
bread. Naphtali demands that government positions should be thrown open to
Jews, particularly those which carry great influence, such as justice and
education. Benjamin makes a similar demand with respect to the liberal
professions. Asher considers that marriage with Christian women can only
serve the purpose of the Jews, and that a Jew desiring the pleasures of
fornication or adultery should always seek them with Christian and not with
Jewish women. Manasseh concludes the series of speeches with an
impassioned plea for capturing and controlling the press ; in this way Jews
will be able to decide what the masses shall believe, what they shall desire,
what they shall reject.
After the assembled representatives have all had their say the presiding
Levite gives his message of encouragement. What has been said will be as a
sword with which Israel will strike down its enemies. If these prescriptions are
faithfully followed, future generations of Jews will suffer no more oppression
but, on the contrary, will enjoy happiness, wealth, and power. When the next
meeting is held, a hundred years hence, the grand-children of those now
present will be able to announce at that graveside that they have indeed
become princes of the world and that all other nations are their slaves.
The Levite concludes with the command : ‘Let us renew our oath, sons
of the golden calf, and go out to all the lands of the earth.’ Thereupon a blue
flame appears above the tomb, while each of the thirteen throws a stone upon
the tomb ; and in the midst of the flame there appears a monstrous golden calf.
So the meeting ends ; but what none of the participants knows is that these
clandestine proceedings have been observed throughout by two men, a
German scholar and a baptised Jew, who now swear to spend all their strength
in fighting this devilish Jewish plot.
The relevant volume of Biarritz was published in 1868, and the date is
significant. In Germany the partial emancipation of the Jews during the years
of Napoleon’s sway had been followed by a violent anti-semitic reaction. With
the slow growth of a middle class which was at least partly liberal, Jews again
enjoyed greater freedom and acceptance, until this tiny fraction of the
population — 1.2 per cent, to be precise — was granted approximately the
same civil rights as were enjoyed by the remaining 98.8 per cent. This came
about in the North German states in 1869, and was extended to the whole of
the new German Reich in 1871. Nevertheless, in a country which never
accepted with any real conviction the ideals of liberalism and democracy, anti-
Semitism remained a powerful factor. Moreover, precisely because German
national unity was achieved extremely late, Germans became quite abnormally
emphatic in their nationalism ; and this too fostered anti-Semitism. It is
therefore not surprising that the first comprehensive formulation of the modern
myth of the Jewish conspiracy should have appeared in Germany at the very
moment when the Jews were about to be granted full emancipation.
But this was only the beginning of the story — for soon this frankly
fictional episode began to turn into a forged document. It was Russian anti-
Semites who first thought of treating the story as an authentic record ; in 1872
the relevant chapter was published in St Petersburg as a pamphlet, with the
sinister comment that, although the story was a piece of fiction, it had a basis
in fact. In 1876 a similar pamphlet appeared in Moscow, with the title ‘In The
Jewish Cemetery in Czech Prague (the Jews sovereigns of the world.)’ In 1880
a second edition of this pamphlet was published ; and similar pamphlets
appeared in Odessa and Prague. Some years later the story appeared in France,
in Le Contemporaine for July 1881. Now it was no longer presented as a piece
of fiction. All the various speeches made by the fictional Jews at Prague were
consolidated into a single speech, which was supposed to have been made by a
chief rabbi to a secret meeting of Jews. The authenticity of this speech was
vouched for — in fact it was supposed to be extracted from a forthcoming
work by an English diplomat, Annals of the Political and Historical Events of
the Last Ten Years.
Goedsche, as we know, had written his novel under the nom de plume
of Sir John Retcliffe ; so it was only appropriate that the English diplomat
should be called the same — or rather, carelessly, Sir John Readclif. This
gentleman was to have a most adventurous career. When Francois Bournand
printed the ‘speech’ in Les Juifs et nos contemporains (1896) he prefaced it
with a startling revelation : ‘We find the programme of Jewry, the real
programme of the Jews expressed by the Chief Rabbi John Readclif. It is a
speech made in 1880.’
Mercifully Sir John quickly recovered himself. Later editions of the
‘speech’ were often accompanied by touching tributes to that heroic anti-
Semite, Sir John Readclif. The tributes were by no means unmerited, for when
in 1933 the ‘speech’ appeared for the first time in Sweden, it was prefaced by
a melancholy statement : Sir John Readclif had paid with his life for exposing
the great Jewish conspiracy. It was a sad end for a man who, if he had been a
German novelist, had also been an English diplomat and historian, and who if
he had been a heroic anti-Semite had also been a chief rabbi.
This, then, is the origin of what came to be known as The Rabbi’s
Speech. But the ludicrousness of its origin did not prevent this ‘speech’ from
having a most successful career. In 1887 Theodor Fritsch published it in his
‘catechism’ for anti-semitic agitators ; in the same year, and again in 1891, it
appeared in the famous anti-semitic anthology La Russie Juive. In 1893 it was
printed in an Austrian newspaper, the Deutsch-soziale Blatter. In 1896, as
already indicated, it figured in Bournand’s book Les Juifs et nos
contemporains. In 1901 a paraphrase of the speech in Czech was printed in
Prague, under the title Speech of a Rabbi about the Goyim. The pamphlet was
confiscated by the authorities ; but this measure was circumvented by a Czech
deputy, Brzenovski, who in a question in the Reichstag in Vienna quoted the
 entire pamphlet verbatim ; whereupon it was promptly printed in two
newspapers, Michel wach auf and the Wiener deutsche Zeitung, and so re-
entered circulation.

(Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy, August 1996, From the Epimethean
website by Kevin, downloaded May 2009.)

The first thing this reminds me of is the story of how Mormonism was
founded. About 200 hundred years ago Joseph Smith is supposed to of found some
stones marked with hieroglyphs, and so on. The historical account of Mormonism’s
foundation traces the tale Smith told, back to a clergyman who wrote a story about the
twelve tribes of Israel moving to America, and so on and so forth—you can imagine
the rest, blur, blur, blur, vomit. Smith is supposed to of got his hands on the
manuscript of the vicar’s story by some circuitous means, that involved a nefarious
act or two, and the rest is history : brand new Mormon churches are now cropping up
in England as this stupendously vile, ignorant, deeply offensive Jewish slave religion,
seeps all around the world. And all on the basis of some errant nonsense that began
life as a novel, and blossomed into a full blown mythology of world shattering
proportions.
If Mormonism, a Jewish slave identity tailor made for modern conditions, is
anything to go by, then why shouldn’t an anti-Jewish, Jewish slave identity, in the
guise of anti-Semitism, not also be forged upon the same anvil of literature ? This
technique of forging linguistically generated social structures to a purpose, seems to
be a regular sort of trick. The truth is that the Bible, New and Old bits alike, and the
Koran, not to mention a host of other religious books of the same nature, are really all
the same kind of mad fiction, concocted for sake of forging a hub of action and power,
within the body of the Jewish superorganism. This represents the positive
exploitation of the principle resident in the six degrees of separation, discussed
elsewhere, that identifies hubs of continuity within information based systems.
Religion exploits this manifestation of human nature intuitively, just as humans have
always exploited hidden dimensions of reality intuitively, such as the process of
evolution, the manipulation of which allowed people to produce domesticated life
forms thousands of years ago.
This is precisely the kind of outcome we would expect, given that linguistic
force creates social structure. So that it is natural that a hub of linguistic force should
induce within itself a linguistic programme, causing it to generate an extension of
itself through an automatic application of the energy of linguistic force, as and when
required by social conditions displaying disorder. Living individuals are the material
objects within which linguistic force is concentrated, they experience this force as
their ‘minds’, or ‘consciousness’, but it is nothing of the sort, it a superorganic flux of
living energy. This linguistic force forms the basis of a priesthood, which comes into
being simply by associating an identity with the hub of linguistic force and generating
routines for extending social structure about the core linguistic hub.

IV

How linguistic force manufactures social structure

 What these two examples of mythical manufacture, taking place upon an anvil
of literature reveal, is the process whereby linguistic force is able to direct the
manufacture of social structure. Firstly we see that linguistic force acts upon its target
only when the substance is in a suitable condition. Only when a portion of human
biomass resides within a suitably plastic condition, which is to say, when it is lying
comparatively disorganised, or unorganised in terms of the application of linguistic
force, can linguistic force then impose a form or cultural shape upon that biomass.
All human biomass is disposed to respond to linguistic force by virtue of its human,
genetically evolved corporate nature. This means that the constituents of a human
biomass will spontaneously generate social structure, or actively follow a linguistic
identity programme that dictates the pattern of social structure to follow. However,
once a biomass has a linguistically generated structure, which we call a ‘culture’, that
culture is automatically practiced routinely, and indefinitely, since that is what the
word ‘culture’ means in this social context. In this way the impress of linguistic force
is constantly reinforced and no alternate expression of linguistic force can take over
such an active biomass. Clearly, for linguistic slave identity packages to do their
work, chaos of some kind, and of some degree, is a vital prerequisite
The critical point to realise here, is that we have a material that is inherently
disposed to act in a given fashion, but, because of dynamic factors of the social
environment, this substance is caused to lie in a temporarily dormant state, where its
latent potential for organisation awaits a suitable stimuli. A linguistic identity
programme, or a portion thereof, is that suitable stimuli, which, if provided by a
segment of biomass external to the dormant biomass, will take effect in the absence of
other more proximate influences. Left long enough these unorganised segments of
human biomass would organise themselves spontaneously, because of the genetically
evolved imperatives of human nature. When we identify a class of people such as the
Jews, as being a specialised caste organ, relative to biomass organisation, we mean
that it is the job of the Jews, within the context of superorganic physiology, to provide
suitable identity programmes, and portions thereof, for any bodies of unorganised
biomass lying within their range of influence.
Needless to say, in order for such a master identity to evolve, a linguistic
identity programme must emerge in the shape of a culture that creates an
exceptionally strongly bonded segment of biomass, that performs this duty for the
superorganism, by acting in its own perceived interest, as written into its master
identity programme. Hence the purpose of the Jews is to get everyone to exist for the
purpose of fulfilling the Jewish ambition to rule the world in the name of one God, or,
as we would have it, to bring into existence one global superorganism. And it is a
testament to the power of linguistic force in humans, that this goal has now become a
reality, even though it awaits centuries more of refinement, before a perfect state of
unity under one universally accepted slave identity comes to pass. And of course,
when it does, no one will know they are a slave, anymore than we do today. I saw
prince Charles speaking yesterday, 25/07/2009, following the death of the last man to
serve in the First World War, he was saying that we will never forget the sacrifice of
his generation, for the sake of our freedom ! Tosser ! He doesn’t have a clue what he
is talking about, he is just a mindless drone. But fortunately, no one else does either,
except me of course, and may be you too, if there is a smidgen of still plastic grey
matter hidden away in your skull, that can maybe get the message contained within
these pages : this monstrous war was fought to destroy our freedom, and to make us
slaves once again. We were set at one another’s throats to do the work of our masters.
The same thing is done amongst ants, where certain species spray pheromones which
cause the poor sad victims to see their friends as foe, and so they set to and destroy
each other while their enemies look on and admire their handiwork, while awaiting
their prize. Our masters did this to us when they made our grandfathers sit in the mud
and blast each other to smithereens, and naturally, the end result is bound to be what
we call ‘freedom’, because that is how the deception works. If people can believe in
God, or Jesus, they can believe anything, or be made to believeanything, we should
say. And once started, the deception must go on, and on, and on. Do not be fooled by
the sentimental crap these damned lying priests spit out at us, in their obscene
grandiose impositions.
We see the effect of linguistic force revealed in the production of all religions,
but especially those written in the modern era, where the manufacturing process is
more prone to our investigations. As we find regarding Mormonism, a Jewish slave
identity that was needed for the freshly occupied American continent. The dynamic
of linguistic force is seen in all political creeds also, such as communism and
socialism, that were needed to fabricate a working class from the peasant order that
had been dishevelled by the industrialising process which transformed the
superorganism’s exoskeleton. And all specialised mythological routines obviously
derive from linguistic force too, such as the one we see nicely described by Kevin
above, which was needed to deal with the special problem created by modern science,
revealing that humans were a superorganism and that God did not exist. Anti-
Semitism was a special production of linguistic force, offering a programme that
responded to the decay of the Christian slave identity, which left the biomass of
Europe in a dangerously disorganised condition, that had to be recovered, and which
had a suitably dispossessed biomass, awaiting the right stimulus of linguistic force.
When we talk about these political features of our social life, and we associate
them with particular elements of the social fabric, such as the Jews, we are getting
wrapped up in the political speak that makes our work impossible. We had to speak
this way in order to communicate, we have to use the language as we find it. But we
must now disentangle ourselves from the ‘sticky elements’ of meaning imbued into
our language, which are designed to trap us in this way, to prevent us from thinking
outside the politicised consciousness devised to enslave us. We assert nothing
personal or political, we say the human social form and process is an organic
phenomenon, a living animal, a superorganism. The fact is that Jews exist, world war
happened, Nazis arose and vanished, holocaust came, and so on. All these things
happened, they happened for a very precise reason, and the reason is very easy to
determine if we treat history as the life story of a living animal, composed of units of
superorganic physiology animated via a linguistic force that generates an energy
accumulating physiological hierarchy, on the basis of multiple expressions of one
uniform identity. And this is the story we tell here, we are not describing European
history, nor Jewish history, nor any kind of history, we are making all these histories
come under the umbrella of superorganic physiology. We are therefore not overly
concerned with precisely where such and such linguistic programming emerged, such
as the story used by Joseph Smith to fabricate the uniquely American Jewish slave
identity. Such detail is largely irrelevant, what matters is that the story
wasmanufactured into a new identity package, and that identity package is a Christian
creed, and therefore a Jewish slave identity. And this same principle of detachment
from the political mindset applies throughout this work, even if we appear to lose
sight of it from time to time.
An interesting corollary of our discussion is the implicit fact that disorganised
segments of biomass are always in a plastic state, prone to the stimulating influence of
a linguistic force, that will cause spontaneous organisation, when applied in the form
of a linguistic programme, suitably crafted for the purpose, bearing in mind the
conditions applicable in each set of circumstances. Which leads to the question of
skilled manipulation, where, instead of simply waiting for a dispossessed portion of
biomass to come along, a linguistically organised segment of biomass cultivates
plastic biomass production, followed by re-implantation to a purpose. In my life time,
being a hippy of the seventies, I have long since realised that Hippydom, arising from
the cultural revolution of the 60’s, was just such a device, a trick to make young
people of the time lose their cultural attachment, thus disorienting the post world war
generation and allowing the alien Islamic slave identity to walk right in and supplant
the old decadent Christian slave identity programme. This kind of fragmentation-
cum-reconstitution process is an ongoing feature of our Jewish world, that goes on
relentlessly all the time, in a host of disguises. The anarchic hippy values that I still
live by, constitue a culture of severance from the main stream of a huge society like
ours. These aberrant life philosophies appear to emerge in societies throughout the
ages, but they have no staying power as a basis of superorganic formation, but they do
facilitate flexibility within a superorganic framework that needs to be continuously
agitated in order to allow a master caste, that formed by Judaism, to operate within the
biomass. Too much rigidity gives rise to the uniformity we associated with the
ancient Chinese civilisation, and Jewish civilisation is the exact opposite of this. As a
specialised organ of linguistic force, the Jews, a product of linguistic force
themselves, ensure that the reorganising effort is sufficiently centred upon themselves
to keep them in a position of dominance in the world’s biomass, and the story
recounted by Kevin is an amazingly fine representation of just how the Jews must
perform this task, whether the actual account is ficticious or not.
The fact is that the fictional story told by Goedschecould not represent a more
perfect piece of Jewish misinformation if it were devised for that purpose, except for
the fact that ultimately it has to be revealed as fiction in order to serve as
misinformation—oh, but then it was, wasn’t it. And not just any piece of fiction, but
the original piece, like an original fluke variation in a Darwinian evolutionary process,
destined to give rise to a whole new species of life, because of this fluke’s irresistible
advantages in the game of life in which this particular object found itself situated.
The reason this fiction had this special quality, allowing it to rise above all attempts to
promote the truth about the Jews, that were presumably ongoing, is because the things
that Goedscheso crudely has the Jews doing, are very much what ordinary day to day
observation tells us Jews do, spiced up with the venom of malice, guile and hatred. It
is a fact of life that the Jews have always been obliged to take on the specialist role of
an elite master class, portrayed as an ostracised inferior alien. It is amusing to see
how anti-Semitic one sounds just by trying to talk about this subject in the most
straightforward and matter of fact manner. This effect of creating an atmosphere in
which a subject becomes so sensitive it cannot even be mentioned at all, is exactly the
purpose of misinformation of this anti-Semitic kind.
If then, the Jews were what all experience, all history and true science shows
them to be, a scarce element in a social biomass, obliged to obtain a living in ways
that today we would class as service industry jobs, as opposed to being the mainstay
of a social fabric with its roots in land, labour and the wage earning that goes with
these roles in society, and this led them to become shifters and movers in things of
importance, but behind the scenes, then the inevitable resentment that would
accumulate as the proceeds of such exclusive activities accumulated, and would
require a defence strategy at some point. And the only possible defence strategy, if
Judaism is to persist as a scarce element of the superorganic biomass, without military
prowess, as Bagehot observed, is to bluff it out. Which is what anti-Semitism does.
And history reveals that it does this time and time again, exactly as we would expect
of a biological process.
 Armed with particulars from Kevin I searched for the novel Biarritzbut it is
only available to buy in German. I did find another book however, which gives us
much more information on this subject, the forward begins thus :—

This is the history of a Lie—of a cruel and terrible Lie invented for
the purpose of defaming the entire Jewish people. Given out as fiction, by a
German anti-Semitic writer, involved in the Waldeck forgery case, who
concealed his identity under the pen-name of an Englishman, it was gradually
changed and elaborated, and finally groomed as fact. Agents of the Russian
secret police department and of the unscrupulous “Black Hundreds” then
utilized this fiction as the framework for the “protocols” through which they
sought to crush the Jews and prop up the tottering Russian dynasty.

(The History of a Lie, Herman Bernstein, 1921, p. 3.)

All these naughty people did not do a very good job did they ! In fact,
whoops-a-daisy, silly me, they might of said at the end of the last world war, now look
what we have done, we tried to destroy the master race and instead poured fuel on the
fire of their empowerment.
Bernstein gives a full translation of the offending chapter of Biarritz as it
appeared in the form of a Russian pamphlet in 1872, which is nice to be able to read
in full.
Yesterday, 9/06/2009, the British National Party were in the news after trying
to hold a press conference in front of the Houses of Parliament, following their
victory in the European elections the day before, which gave them two Euro MPs.
They made the news because fascistsbroke up their meeting and pelted the leader,
Nick Griffin, with an egg. The media called these fascists ‘anti-fascists’, but then
they call the Jewish Nazis ‘anti-Semites’. These idiotic errors occur because the
media take certain kindsof self attributions at face value, instead of seeking to
understand the true nature of social structures. The media is of course an important
structural dimension of the priesthood and its job is to support and extend the power
of the priesthood, it is not there to analyse reality and deliver its findings to the
masses. The leader of the anti-fascist fascists appeared on Channel Four News and
Newsnight, ranting on, like a good old Nazis, about the vile nature of the BNP and
how these people had no right to exist and must be exterminated. What I liked most
about this fanatic’s remarks however, was a final whimper as Newsnight ended the
slot with him in it, in which he said that politicians must stop attacking Muslims in
Britain.
And there we have it ! Captured on film. No matter what, all these vicious,
thoroughly evil people, who are prepared to take to the political stage, do and say,
they are always fighting for Judaism, and the rights of religion, including Griffin of
the BNP, which is a virulently Christian organisation.

Technical considerations
 After a bout of writing material like this, driven by the logic of pure reason,
interpreting known features of history according to the obvious fact that humans are
superorganisms, we may turn to a normal history and compare styles, and products ; I
have just lifted a copy of Worlds of Labour : Further Studies in the History of Labour,
by E. J. Hobsbawm, 1984, from my shelves. Traditional history makes our account
seem pure fancy, but this is because academic history ispure fancy. The historian
makes their account make sense by consistently treating the individual as an end in
themselves, even though the historian is, just like ourselves, treating of the macro
level of human action. We are both making the exact same observations, and utilising
precisely the same facts, as we both see everything. But we are each occupying a
wholly different focal point of observation. As free thinking scientists we observe
from the stance of superorganic being, while the theocracy’s paid lackeys, building
upon the initial schooling process that we have all been exposed to, are trained by
universities to observe from the focal point of individuality vested in the person. For
the historian-priest therefore, political movements express an attempt to deal with
specific problems experienced by individuals in their daily lives. Thus the loss of
control over their own labouring effort, experienced by the working man, is addressed
by socialism, whose political dogma reflects those problems, and prompts
organisation as a specific means of regaining control of the force of individual labour.
As such the very substance of our work, the force of identity, that is the real cause of
all political creeds origination, simply does not exist for the professional historian,
just as the superorganism does not exist for these intellectual degenerates, the priest
academics that rule our world by concocting the knowledge we are spoon fed, in order
to preserve our slave identities intact.
The proof of our veracity, contrasting with the professional academic’s
miscreant status, is the death of socialism, and the final conquest of capitalism over
every minute facet of our daily lives, reducing us all to the status of isolated atomic
fragments vibrating helplessly within a flux of commercial activity, from which the
supercharged core element feeds at our expense. Last week it was reported that the
Chief Executive of Porsche was to leave his post, and receive a pay off of forty five
million pounds, an eye watering sum of money. I mentioned this to a bloke in the
alehouse last night, 25/07/2009, and he told me that this man had pulled a fast one on
the stock exchange and made the company a fortune, and he wished the man good
luck, on the principle that he would do the same if he could. But he could not, nor can
the rest of us. Anyway you slice it, this kind of craft neatly demonstrates the principle
we have in mind when we talk about the inner core of superorganic physiology
feeding off the surrounding biomass. And obviously, like a celestial furnace, so with a
superorganic furnace, the bigger the mass the greater the supply of energy to draw on,
which is why our masters relentlessly seek to expand society, and their control of over
it.

VI

Never enough

Stretching this analogy we can say that as with a stellar furnace, so in a human
superorganism, as the mass increases and energy intensifies, so the linguistic force
reaches new levels of criticality, causing new forms of superorganic fabric to
condense out of the social flux, in the guise of exotic social structure. If you do not
agree that cars, computers, televisions and aeroplanes are exotic, compared to the
subsistence social fabric of pre-civilised peoples, then you should. Such conceptions
of new levels of superorganic physiology allow us to think intuitively about the most
fascinating aspect of our existence as humans. Namely the extraordinary way we
have been transformed from wild human tribes, to civilised, linguistically empowered
forms, which have suddenly gone critical, leaping through a series of material
transformations, from the initial industrialisation, to the linguistically fuelled
transformation guided by science, bringing a technological revolution on every
conceivable front of exoskeletal form. It is truly miraculous how nature has managed
to perform these stunts, even sending men to the moon ! And throughout, the greatest
miracle of all, is that nature has kept us consistently brain dead, from beginning to
end, keeping us as slavishly committed to religion, as if we were not one days remove
from the first inception of microbial life, in some bubbling backwater of billions of
years ago.
And hence the reason why, to coin a phrase, the world is never enoughfor our
slave drivers. There is never enough control—give them ID cards, place cameras
everywhere, tap their phones and internet use ; never enough profit—no examples
needed ! but, did you hear about the plan to tax the intake of breath ?—Nah, only
kidding—for now ; never enough, never enough, never enough !!! The system is
insatiable because it is not human, not political, but organic, being rooted in the
human force of language, which is an expression of the life force of information.

VII

Political creeds as manifestations of identity

The death of socialism : Just look at the travesty of socialism that is New
Labour. And Tony Blair, the demon of socialism, who messianically created this right
wing version of left wing politics. The reason the lone person always loses and the
core element always wins, has to do with the true nature of society as a physiological
entity, whose structure is delineated through a series of complex, interwoven strands
of identity. Socialism being just one particular example of such an identity strand,
serving, in this case, to bind a loose enclave of biomass temporarily, while full
integration could be reinstituted over time, exactly as it has been. Socialism was
never a real political movement, anymore than Hippydom was. The fact is that there
is no such thing as ‘political movements’, of any kind, just as there is no such thing as
an ‘artificial’ aspect of existence. Political ideologies are expressions of linguistic
force, which are always manifested in the guise of identities. Interestingly enough
Hobsbawm’s third chapter Religion and the rise of Socialism, provides a discussion of
atheism as a corollary of socialism, “A substantial atheist minority is an almost certain
sign of a strong left-wing tradition” (p. 37) And with this thought in mind we may
reflect on a principle of religious identity programmes that has already been
mentioned here and there, whereby we say that the Christian priest always seeks in
infiltrate any corpus of social power, of whatever kind, such that we even have a
major Christian atheist movement today, called Humanism. In this particular case,
where Hobsbawm delineates the atheist nature of socialism, which I have always
taken for granted myself, we find that Christians established their own Christian
socialist movement, and of course it was from this fifth columnist element that the
supreme enemy of socialism, Tony Blair, arose.
 VIII

Unbridled corruption

New Labour was a development so effective at harnessing this new pool of

social energy within the biomass, that the modern socialist party became a right wing
Christian movement, so right wing in fact, that it was able to replace the Tory party as
the theocracy’s party of choice for political power. Hence Labour replaced the
Conservatives, and the theocracy has ruled on the basis of this deception for the last
dozen years, playing it out to the bitter end, so that now the official party of power,
having had a breather from public animosity, and having been refreshed by contrast
with the socialist deception’s inevitable corruption in service of theocracy, are now
ready to resume their rightful place in charge. The greatest act of corruption
performed during the socialist tenure as a front for absolute theocracy, was the illegal
war in Iraq.
This war was as typical an expression of pure, undiluted fascism, as anyone
could ever imagine. The fact that it was approved by the whole body of our
democratically elected parliament does nothing to refute this, rather it shows the true
nature of what is called ‘democracy’. Hitler would of been rolling over in his grave
with delight at the sight of that one. We can just imagine him saying “Come on
Tony ! nice one my boy, that outdoes anything my dear heroin Maggie could even of
dreamt of ! who I am looking forward to seeing very soon, as I have kept a nice place
for her, right by the fire—not long now Maggie dear.” Sometimes even an out and
out atheist like myself wishes there was a hell. I am sure, whatever neat tricks
degenerates like Pascal cooked up to suggest the atheist should always believe in hell,
because it was a no lose bet that way round, God would rather have me in his
kingdom than most of those who profess allegiance ; disbelief could not be a
determining factor, because if It is that picky the twat will be sat on It’s tod up there
forever. The last Iraq war was a criminal act which was of course simply carried out
in service of Israel, to advance Israeli interests within the immediate zone of Israeli
imperial concern. A criminal act, of the usual kind then, performed when it was,
simply because of the window of opportunity opened up by 9/11. And of course since
Muslims are slaves of Judaism, and the more extremely Islamic therefore, the more
extremely devoted to Jewish interests you must be, as was the case with Adolf Hitler,
the greatest ever savour of the Jews, as we have been demonstrating here. So Bin
Laden and the Al Qaeda sect, perpetrating the Twin Towers attack and prosecuting the
ensuing global war of terror, counterpoised into a global war on terror, all serve only
one purpose : the advancement of Jewish control on planet earth. The purpose for
which we all exist.
Of course the British people, being lovers of fair play and freedom, were upset
by this naughty behaviour on the part of their very own Hitleresque hero, for, ooh, at
least six months, and some remember the war as an act of treachery even now, so that
is nice isn’t it. Part of the problem is, because people think that individuals are ends
in themselves, they do not preserve the memory of such major social events in
association with the ongoing establishment that these events really belong to, instead,
prompted by historians, they attach such crimes to an evil doer, and dispose of the
memory along with the deviant. This allows inherently vile institutions like the
Christian church to possess immortal potential, irrespective of what evil it inflicts
upon its enslaved biomass. Which gives us one more reason why the imposition of an
individualistic mindset is crucial to the control of the biomass by a slave maker social
organ, and why organicism, which is the science that lays bare all these physiological
structures, cannot be tolerated within an absolute theocracy such as we live in.
The other part of the problem causing tolerance of endemic corruption in our
land, moral and financial,is that the British people are ‘bread heads’, they respect
money above all else. As can be seen from the fact that the man who gave me the
information on the director of Porsche, approved of the sharp trading that netted this
expert on capitalist exploitation an obscene bonus. My informant is a labourer for the
council, you cannot get a more working class position in life than that, why would he
want to support flagrant capitalism ? But they do, his attitude is typical of most
working class people. They extrapolate from the basic principle that they want
money, and as much of it as they can get, which is a perfectly reasonable point of
view that I agree with, but then I, like all such people, have nothing worth bothering
about, and never will have. This extraordinary attitude is seen most of all in the
British peoples acceptance of being relentlessly farmed by government and capitalist
organisations alike,without reservation. Something typified in the working man’s
acceptance of how sport is managed, especially football, where the punter has to pay a
fortune to follow their team, all to pour money into the hands of rich investors and
spoilt players. None of which phases the working person one bit, indeed they seem to
love being taken advantage of in this way. But this bizarre attitude has to do with the
grasping after money that goes with being British, an inevitable consequence of our
society running on cash, as we do not produce from the earth, so that money in our
worldis inevitably everything. This is especially so today, life is expensive nowadays,
in the past we could get away with ekeing out a living by dodging the system here and
there. Now the state is wired into everything, and it pumps as hard as it can,
extracting every last drop of juice from its corporate mass, so that it can throw money
away on war, thieving bankers, itself, of course, and sporting trivia. Corporate
capitalism intensifies the power of the state to reach into the most intimate breathing
spaces of our individual lives a hundred fold, making any escape from its clutches
impossible. Now when It wants to pass a law forbidding smoking in public houses,
for example, It can, because all the fabric of our social world is owned by a handful of
soulless corporations that obey the law as mindlessly as a rock falling of a cliff
followsthe force gravity. What a mess !

IX

Default Jews

We exist to serve Israel. We are all Jews by default. This is why Britain and
America are two such leading nations of the earth, they were made by Judaism, to
serve Judaism. Ancient Rome existed to serve Israel too ; have we discussed that ?
Maybe not, some other time, I do not want to burden you with too much
mindboggling revelation all at once, I don’t want you going daft on me.
The political turnabouts that we have been discussing with regard to the
Labour party simply could not occur if political movements were really what they are
said to be. It is because all political movements are always pure identity programmes,
and nothing else, that they can be infiltrated by alien identity packages, in the form of
a core organ of identity, and simply captured from within, in the manner just outlined
respecting the Christian fascist transformation of socialism into New Labour, carried
out by consuming the established socialist Labour machinery from within, by
crawling into the socialist skin and supplanting just enough of the old school to allow
it to retain the disguise, while capturing control for a wholly opposite purpose to that
which socialism stood for. All social structure is of a biomechanical nature, and like
any machine, once built, anyone can occupy the driving seat. If you baulk at my
description of our New Labour autocracy as ‘fascist’, then I would just say that all
religion is fascism by definition, a principle at the basis of our argument in this work,
which concerns the corruption of all knowledge of reality by religion, to enable
religion’s existence in a scientific age. Fascism to me simply means : the imposition
of ideas by force, or artifice. This definition captures the essence of the word, while
discarding the ‘sticky bit’ of meaning, meant to make us bias against some
expressions of fascism—Hitler’s ; while still favouring other expressions of fascism—
Blair’s. And as my argument makes plain, I consider New Labour to be a right wing
religious party, plain and simple. How it could ever be conceived as anything else,
given that we are living in a secular democracy, which must curtail overt religious
extravagance, is totally beyond my comprehension.
And finally, while we are on the subject, we may note that the same process of
taking possession from within, is being organised in Britain today, in the guise of
Islam. As our politicians, and the whole establishment, exerts every sinew of its being
to ensure the destruction of English culture, and its replacement by the Islamic slave
culture of Judaism.

Mind cleansing

This will do for our purposes as regards the functional nature of anti-
Semitism. I am sure that no reasonable person from any walk of life would seek to
deny that anti-Semitism is the single most important device of the Jewish cultural
framework. However a book arrived this morning that I would like to quote from
regarding the sterilising effect of the First World War, which was absolutely critical to
the successful cleansing of science within our society, and thus essential to the
preservation of the Jewish master identity. As the topic of this war crops up
frequently, but has no special place in this work, we may as well dump the passage
here, where it can be seen in relation to the function of creating mayhem for the
purpose of keeping order in the name of a core superorganic identity, which ties in
nicely with the subject of the Protocols of Zion that has been given a little thought
above.

It is necessary, but perhaps unusual, thus to begin a description of the

events of the years 1914 to 1922 in terms of human physical misery and of
material destruction. It is true that pain and suffering are such common
incidents of human life that they have always formed the excuse for religious
beliefs and the premises for philosophical systems. But during the nineteenth
century what is called modern or western civilization undoubtedly altered the
nature or volume of human suffering. It reduced or localized in time or space
certain forms of mass misery. Civilized people had at the beginning of the
twentieth century almost come to believe that it was neither necessary nor
probable that they should in great masses slaughter one another or die of
plague and pestilence or starve to death. A certain amount of disease, a certain
amount of poverty, a certain amount of mass misery in some classes of the
population, were regarded as inevitable concomitants of civilization and a
healthy national life, but normally public opinion demanded and ensured that
misery and violent death should be confined within certain limits. From 1914
to 1918 these limits were completely abolished, and, since in Europe, which
was the centre of the combatants’ operations, the population was far greater
than at any previous stage in the world’s history, the sum of concentrated
human misery was during those years probably greater than human beings had
ever experienced before.
History seems to show that mass misery, if it exceeds a certain duration
in time or intensity of suffering, has an effect upon men’s minds. If life be
sufficiently intolerable, an individual will begin to think of methods of
escaping from his sufferings or of altering the conditions which cause them.
What applies to individuals also applies to men in masses. When whole
communities which have been living in apparent security and prosperity
suddenly find themselves threatened by death and famine and every kind of
communal discomfort and misery, they begin to think of the communal causes
of their suffering. But, whether in individuals or in communities, nothing is so
unusual or so dangerous as thought. Thought leads to action and action to
change, and once things begin to change with thought as the impulse, a
movement is started the end of which can neither be controlled nor foreseen.
The thought of men, when under the impulse of mass misery it seeks to find
and destroy the communal causes of this misery, issues in social and political
action. The years 1914 to 1922 furnish a good example of this law of
communal psychology. Death and pain on a gigantic scale, starvation and
disease, the monotonous discomfort and weariness of millions of combatants,
bombs dropping at night upon great cities and the gradual disappearance of
sugar, butter, and jam, all these things after two or three or four years
quickened men’s thoughts and issued in great political and social changes. In
the Europe of 1922 little remains of the Europe of 1914. In Russia, Germany,
and Austria-Hungary three great autocratic dynasties were overthrown by
revolution. The Romanovs had been powerful in Europe for 300 years, the
Hohenzollerns for 270 years, and the Hapsburgs for 600 years. In 1922 the last
Romanov was dead, the last Hapsburg interned in Madeira, and the last
Hohenzollern an exile in Holland. In Russia, where the mass misery had been
more intense than anywhere else in Europe, a deliberate attempt had been
made to destroy completely the old political and social fabric and to weave a
new one in its place. The powerful German Empire had become a republic ; it
had lost large areas of its territory to France and Poland, it had been disarmed,
and was virtually bankrupt. The Empire of Austria-Hungary had been broken
up into a number of small republics. Many new republican states had been
created in central Europe.
It is unnecessary to continue this catalogue of political and social
changes. I have mentioned the few facts above in order to recall to the reader’s
mind the extent of the psychological upheaval which accompanied the
physical suffering. For the subject of this book will be mainly political and
social psychology. It is customary and not unreasonable to refer to the events
of 1914 to 1918 as a great catastrophe, a world catastrophe, a landmark in
history, the end of an old and the beginning of a new era. The Great War was
undoubtedly a great catastrophe ; it destroyed much of the past ; it brought into
existence many things which seem to open paths into the future.
 (After the Deluge : A Study of Communal Psychology, Woolf, pp. 22 – 24)

I think this gives a favourable impression of the nature of the Great War as a
cusp in the collective consciousness of our society. Wherein the kind of mind
possessed by each individual before the war, was vaporised, and replaced by an
entirely new mind, or rather a renewed mind, in that it was a throw back to the mind
of a prescientific age. This is exactly what we describe as the real benefit of this war
to our society, conceived of as a superorganism, with a religious identity at its core. A
society that had to contend with a threat of a normal kind, the threat of true
knowledge, which always decays knowledge of identity, but which, during the
nineteenth century, posed a threat to Judaism, which had been brought to a head by
the ceaseless subversion of true knowledge, that eventually allowed world wide war
to be waged without apparent reason, until the cleansing of true knowledge was
complete, for now. The scab still had to be sealed with new skin, in the form of a
taboo that had to cap the good work of cleansing, accomplished by the hell on earth
that Woolf speaks of here, from his first hand memories.

While we are here, I just thought I would mention that Woolf introduces his
book thus : “The work is an attempt to study communal psychology, by which I mean
the psychology of man as a social animal.” (p. v) Which is a fine sentiment, but there
is no evidence of any real organicist thinking in his account. It includes a good deal
on the emergence of the idea of the individual, with some suggestive arguments about
how the promotion of the idea of equality vested in the idea of the individual, could
actually work against the objective of making individuals free. I have not had time to
look much beyond the contents pages, but I see no evidence that he understands that
the roots of this problem rest upon the biological foundations of human nature, despite
this opening remark about the ‘social animal’. It rather makes you wonder just what
people think it is supposed to mean when we apply the word ‘animal’ to humans,
obviously not what I take it to mean, that is for sure.
We cannot leave Woolf without mentioning the title of his book : After the
Deluge. Obviously the war was meant to be portrayed as the modern analogue of
Noah’s flood, wiping the earth clean, forcing a new start about the preserved core of a
society that had gone to pot. Which says it all, wouldn’t you say ? The more we
think about modern history the more Biblical it becomes, as the predictive capacity of
Jewish mythology is revealed in all its glory. But the prediction is not a coincidence,
it results from a directive programme, that evidently reveals the practical lessons
which caused the Jewish master identity to take the cultural, that is to say, the
linguistic form, that it has.
A final comment on Woolf ; the next chapter is about Leslie Stephen’s
organicist science, and Virginia Woolf, a famous author, was Stephen’s daughter.
Stephen’s ideas resonated a great deal with the organicism of his age, as we shall see
later on, and we perhaps see a trickle of scientific influence coming to Woolf from his
father-in-law, but there is certainly no real sense of the true meaning of the science of
society in this volume.
 Chapter 11

The First Law of Sociology

All things must be, as they are.

This is the first special law of sociology. A law that scientists are obliged to
make the basis of a true science of sociology, because of the special classification that
this science has as the ultimate science of human life. In Sociology science is bound
to be concerned first and foremost with the control and containment of the linguistic
force that creates all social structure, including any would be science of sociology. It
is in sociology where the total failure of science to deal with religion comes home to
roost, by poisoning all efforts to treat humans as a natural phenomenon. Therefore
science must first understand what the nature of sociology is, and how the material of
this science must be handled if it is to worked upon scientifically. This special law of
sociology is made special then, because while being of language, it exists to contain
language for the sake of science.
This law is a product of linguistic force, that is intended to contain linguistic
force. No force can contain language other than linguistic force itself, it is for this
reason that the control of knowledge becomes the basis of social power. The
application of this law creates the basis upon which to build a social structure
according to the dictates of science, and thereby prevents linguistic force from
flowing naturally, along the usual channels of social formation, like water flowing
down a hillside. Instead this law confines linguistic force to a fixed path, preventing
the linguistic force of nature from following its natural inclination toward building
social structure in the form of political religious fabric, that is of its nature anathema
to science.
A scientific law that states that all that is has to be, is self evidently anathema
to religion, for it claims for science the power that religion allocates to the divine, by
making nature self contained, requiring no additional authority outside nature as we
experience it through science. We see this fact appearing in open discussion in
Fleeming Jenkin’s 1867 discussion of Darwin’s theory of natural selection, considered
below, where Jenkin feels obliged to discuss the question of natural laws in relation to
the power of God, and the implication that natural laws constrain God’s power. A
scientific confutation of religious ideology is exactly what is required, we are in a war
with religion, the first priority for all scientists is the total eradication of religion from
the face of the earth, and this law is the foundation stone upon which we can build this
war against the depravity of knowledge. The significance of men like Jenkin bending
over backwards to accommodate science to religion, cannot be overstated, nothing
demonstrates more fully that the urgent need, at the time when science was at its
height, was to find some means of destroying science completely, and twentieth
century history tells us how this most terrible effort has been triumphant.

Inevitable history
 All that has happened over the course of the last century had to happen,
understanding this is the primary reason for espousing a special law of sociology. The
rise of the Nazis, the holocaust, world wide war ; these events, according to our newly
formulated sociological law, had to occur in the same way a geologist would say the
astounding formation of fuel in the form of coal, gas and petroleum products, is an
inevitable consequence of a planet with an abundant biosphere, which inevitably turns
the planet into a biochemical laboratory. To say otherwise of these social events, is to
fall into line with the doctrine of special dispensation, as evinced by the Biblical
accounts of reality, and its derivatives. If society were decimated, if, following the
rise of the Nazis, we were looking back upon a lost world, a kind of Atlantis, sunk
beneath the waves due to the rise of the communist and fascist movements across
Europe, and all that went with them by way of chaos and calamity, then that would be
another matter. Such a discontinuity would suggest that the rise of such social
phenomena was of the nature of a dislocation, and not part of an ongoing process. We
would still have to account for such an outcome, in line with our primary sociological
law of causation, which tells us that all that happens has to happen. But we would
then be obliged to see the rise of Nazis etc., as a form of collapse, rather than as the
continuation of a functional process, namely the smoothly unfolding growth, of the
Jewish superorganism.
Laws of science imply the power of prediction. We see this idea confirmed in
the novel attempt of Willis to unseat Darwin’s theory of natural selection with a
genuinely scientific theory of evolution, under the title of Age and Area, considered
below, where a claim is made for the scientific validity of his theory on the basis of its
power of prediction. While it seems reasonable to accept this condition of a true
scientific law or theory, without question, we should perhaps give some thought to
this matter. The whole history of modern science involves the perversion of science
to suit religious ends, this begins with one of the great fathers of science, Descartes,
who ludicrously applied a golden rule of science, by saying “I know nothing, now let
me see what I might know.”, and then, instead of trulybeginning with a blank slate, he
decided he “thought, and therefore he existed”. And so from this meaningless
assertion, he went on to espouse an insane model of existence in which all that the
Bible said, was safe. Had he trulyof followed the principle of demolishing all prior
knowledge, before proceeding to construct knowledge on the basis of what could be
definitely known, as he claimed to do, then he would of been the greatest scientist
ever to of lived, and the ultimate atheist. Neither of which was he. No wonder this
man, like Darwin, has been raised upon a pedestal of scientific acclaim. A more vile
and contemptible representative of science than Descartes we would be hard pressed
to find, although the closer proximity of Darwin makes him my favourite hate figure
of science.
If we think about the basic rules of science as set out by the scientific
establishment, to do with testability and the repetition of experiments, they seem
curiously well suited to the protection of religion from science. It is on this basis that
the loudly proclaimed insanity, that science and religion can coexist, persists today.
As it is from this separation of science from reasoning, that allows the idea that
science and religion are said to cover two separaterealms of reality, that have nothing
to do with one another, to be propagated. What lunatic would ever say such a thing ?
You may as well say there is a God, or there is life after death, no scientist would
affirm such ugly nonsense.
Yet it is problematic for us to challenge the basis of science. Who are we but
lone workers seeking true knowledge, the very kind of people that science exists to
control and suppress, and in order to achieve this end science has the whole power of
all the states upon earth to back up its malicious efforts. We had best just mention the
difficulty, and move on.
What follows then is ourunderstanding of a scientific method, applicable to all
facets of existence, including the none experimental aspects of reality that require
observation and reflection to develop their proofs and laws. To say with justification,
that past history was a predictable series of events, means defining our terms, and we
have been doing just that throughout the creation of this work. Crucially, society is a
unified biological entity, bound by the force of identity, currently expressed in
Judaism. Hence Judaism is the superorganism, and Judaism is merely a specific
expression of religion, which must, at all cost, survive.

There is a scientific principle to do with interference, whereby scientists must

take care not to disturb natural conditions when conducting experiments. A familiar
strategy bearing witness to this rule is the use of placebos to prevent psychosomatic
effects interfering with the active effects of medicines or therapies. When presuming
to assert a law of society that says social conditions are as nature obliges them to be,
we are flying in the face of vested interest, that says people make society as they
wantit to be. Revealing this law poses a challenge which begs people to prove it is
not true by showing that out of sheer bloody-mindedness they can, if they wish, make
social events go otherwise than they would if left to their own devices.
In a manner of speaking, when we talk about government protecting criminals
from natural retribution, and then providing that retribution itself under the label of
‘justice’, we find this convoluted awareness of social dynamics is indeed a feature of
human structure and social development. But even such inbuilt game strategies
become part of what is inevitable, so that our idea that we cannot sidestep human
nature, and its consequences, can be made to apply no matter what attempts are made
to disprove it, by wilful actions that seem to contradict this law of sociology.

II

Love of knowledge

Now I am going to tell you a little story. As a tale of bibliophilic bliss, it may
seem dull to many, but it should not take too much imagination to realise that the
natural bent of a naturally formed philosopher, such as myself, ought to include a
propensity for book loving, and if you are reading what is written here with any
interest at all, then you ought to derive some value from a precise tale of how some of
the avenues of contemplation taken here, came to be. This is especially true of such a
work as this, which claims to be produced from nowhere, as a sheer act of will, within
a world that exists to ensure that such acts of free expression can never happen.
Once upon a time . . . . lets say about a dozen years ago—precision is
impossible—I went a visiting my local book fair in Buxton. This was years before I
discovered that I was a philosopher, before I discovered the key to explaining all
things regarding human existence —that human nature is corporate, the insight that
eventually led me to discover who I was : a natural born philosopher. It was the last
day of the big three day summer fair, held annually, and I had arrived late, so I do not
recall finding much by the time I was about to leave, having made my way round the
hall full of stalls laden with books. Then, on one of the last stands, I spotted an old
leather bound volume, opening the front board revealed the asking price of £7.50 and
a pencil note said “may be seventeenth century”, which I was certain it was, a date
within an introductory passage gave the game away. So I bought it for £6.50, thinking
the young punk manning the stall looked ill equipped to know an interesting book
when he saw one, and would of been better suited to selling vegetables in an open
market, still, I recall even now that he looked miffed at being obliged to take my mean
offer, so perhaps he was not as artless as he appeared.
The book was a bibliophile’s piece, a poverty stricken bibliophile’s piece, if
you please, but I could not believe that it was sat openly on a stall so late in the day,
for no money, after all if this was not the place to find bibliophiles, wherever was ?
Too snotty I guess. Bibliophilia is a funny business, in the age of modern mediums of
information and prolific book production, books are not the progenitors of fascination
that they once were. We are told by one author of this mania that “Some collect
books for their bindings, some for their rarity, a minority for their contents” (Books
Condemned to be Burnt, Farrer, 1904, p. 26), and in another book of the same ilk, The
Book Hunterby John Burton (my copy is 1885), the eccentric nature of the bibliophile,
in their many varieties, is described in some delightful detail, at a time when the type
was perhaps at its zenith. Meanwhile, the boards to my find are original, but the spine
was repaired with a rough strip of white vellum, indicating the repair was made
long long ago. There was no title page, which is a big no-no for a collector, and for
me this explains why the book had remained unsold, plus, though otherwise complete
and solidly bound, it is in poor condition. But it is still the oldest book I ever bought,
and I like it just as a lump of antiquarian bookliness.
Anyhow, my obsession aside, there is a moral to this story. I have from time
to time thought of trying to replace the missing title page with an image taken from a
library copy of the book. In 2000 I scanned images of the first few pages and sent
them to the British Library, who kindly obliged me with an identification and some
biographical details of the author. They said something about being able to order
scans of pages, but it cost money, and I decided not to bother. Just the other month
however, I got it into my head to try a search for this book on the main book dealing
site that I use, and to my surprise and delight a copy turned up in California. The title
they give is Davidis Emmetros, Sive Metaphrasis Libri Psalmorum Graecis Versibus
Contexta, whatever that means. Yes it is Latin, the body of the work, which is some
kind of musical arrangement of the psalms, being presented bilingually, in Greek and
Latin ; no bloody use whatever for reading, but hell’s teeth, what do you want for
£6.50 ! The American dealers, you may care to know, are asking £403 for their copy,
it has the all important title page and the image of Charles II, but it is rebound, and
has therefore lost its original boards, which I always like to see with an old book, no
matter what state the boards are in.
And then there is the date : 1666. Is that good or what ! All the sixes, a
wonderfully demonic flavour to this year wouldn’t you say, No ? Well you probably
would if you had been a Londoner at the time this volume sprang fresh from the press,
just in time to be bought by a native of that city who, having just survived a bad
plague year, was now able to warm themselves by the coals from the Great Fire of
London, while reciting psalms from the Cambridge master’s latest literary
contribution ; how nice.
So, thinks me, howz about seeing if these dealers would be kind enough to
send me an image of the missing title page for my copy ; cheeky, not much chance,
but what the hell, an email can’t hurt. And this move paid off, boy did it pay off !
No, came the reply, as expected. But !, better yet, along with the rejection came some
well informed advice. “Sorry, but we cannot supply the image. However, if you
check with your local libraries all you need is access to the EEBO (Early English
Books On-line).”, so read the email I received in reply. Really ? say no more, off to
the library I went. And, just as my patience was wearing out, a phone call last
weekend told me the job was done. The service is only available to libraries, but
EEBO allow libraries to take a trial of their service. So this week I took my old book
with me and got logged onto the site, whereupon, before you know it, hey-presto,
there was my book, long lost title page and all. Marvellous. Job done then, after all
these years I had replaced the missing title page, and discovered that there was a
missing image of the king to whom a fulsome dedication is given, only, sadly, after all
this, the scan of the page carrying the king’s image is so poor that while the image
itself is fine, the script beneath it is largely illegible. Unlike the million books project
which has good quality digital scans, this service seems to be exploiting a somewhat
dated resource, as I noticed that one book I have downloaded was microfilmed in
1979. This would explain the poorer quality, that I am not use to finding from books
taken from online.
But here is the thing, the moral of the story unfolds. Having taken the book I
wanted, I now found myself sat at the library terminal with most of my free hour to
spare, thinking, what now ? And what now was, bang in some search parameters and
see what we shall see. All of a sudden I was in bibliophile heaven, I typed ‘atheist’ in
the title box and a good number of hits presented themselves, so I began downloading
the catch. This was fantastic, I had suddenly found myself in possession of rare books
that just one moment previously I had no idea even existed. Musing on this sudden
bounty of knowledge, I likened myself to a big old grizzly bear fresh out of a long
hard hibernation, that woke up so dazed it accidently knocked over the biggest pot of
honey imaginable, that had been left by the door of its hideaway. My philosopher’s
pot of honey is a tear in the space-time continuum through which information is set to
pour, into which gushing stream I intend to stick my sticky tongue, to drink from, till
all that is there is drunk.

III

Arks of the future

This small but delightful boon to my life’s work was made possible by the
happenstance of my purchasing a seemingly useless book, a dozen years ago ; For
how else would I of come upon this valuable resource now ? The story of this book,
for me, evokes the principle of an ark : an object containing a future promise. It
provides a small example of how the future is locked up in the present, and how we
can never really know, as we go about our business of living, opening boxes willy-
nilly, precisely what surprises we are unleashing upon our future selves. A profound
moral to derive from so slight an occurrence, but therein lies a greater tale, which,
when played out on the scale of the real human being, on the scale of the
superorganism, where continuity and longevity command a far greater prospect than
that held by any person, then the consequences of actions in the present, of unleashing
potential now, with a view to the future, becomes enormous. And so we discover a
scientific clue to the biological nature of the ark of the covenant, pivotal to Jewish
history, pivotal therefore, to human history. Revealing that there is a physical process
at work in the development of such mythical devices, that probably had, or even yet
has a material manifestation, means that we can now hope to account for specific
mythical or cultural artifacts by the scientific analysis of superorganic physiology, and
its process of development at the behest of linguistic force.
It follows from this reasoning that an ‘ark’, as defined above, is a repository of
information, remembering that we define life by association with information, where
information constitutes a flexible pattern that delivers living structure, and in doing so
provides the template directing the flow of energy that creates the biomass, in all its
complexity. Thus we could liken the basic genetic formula to an ark, once the four
bases of genetic information had evolved, they formed an ‘ark’ containing all the
future potential of life, that has since unfolded as a consequence. And of course,
according to our first law of sociology : all that is, has to be. Not to confuse this law
with petty political squabbles amongst humans, concerning such matters as legal
rights, this is a law we require to enable us to recognise the reality of superorganic
development. It is applicable to macro scale life, and as we see its implication must
also connect with all life, for once the basic elements of organic evolution had taken
shape the future history of life was set on rails, and the same can be said of the Jewish
ark of the covenant, to a similar extent.
It is not that other random possibilities could not intercede in the processes set
in train by the formation of these ‘ark objects’, containing latent potential of the
future, but that unless such significant random intercession occurred, then the plans
were written and the first tracks laid. In the social context we would say such an
object, an ‘ark’ containing future promise, is a repository of linguistic information, but
the organic connection can be made with this social fabric by recognising that living
forms are ‘arks’ holding a promise of future potential within their genetic packageof
information. Thus the ark of the covenant is akin to a genetic packet, deployed in the
social constitution. By seeking to develop this description, we are attempting to find
ways of visualising and expressing, the difficult scientific concept of human society
as a true organic entity, a product of nature, not in any sense whatever produced by
human reason, other than in the sense in which the person is seen as the agent of a
natural process. And we may note that the concept of life forms as arks of living
potential destined to unfold, totally inverts the logic of Darwinian evolution based on
chance and competition. Our model throws humanity into the matrix of nature, while
Darwin’s makes nature of minimal relevance to our individual lives. This curtailment
of organic influence is essential to the ongoing power of the priesthood, which relies
upon the illusion of human intercession in human affairs. It allows scientists to say
that humans evolved as animals, certainly, but then they took off under their own
steam, no longer as animals, but as uniquely empowered humans.
Already this week I have printed off two sixteenth century books, these are
books you cannot buy. Out of interest I put ‘atheism’ in the search box of the book
site I favour and set the time frame to no later than 1750. There was a score of hits, of
which only one was interesting, and I must say if I could get my hands on a ton and a
half of dosh I’d have it. The next money I get, if the book is still going, I will offer
the dealer £100. (Two months later and the book has gone, shit !) But that was it, you
never see these seventeenth century items that are freely available on EEBO.

IV

Petrified science
 Thanks to my request for access to EEBO I can now read seventeenth century
books bemoaning the rise of atheism. This is extremely important in terms of filling
out the broad argument we are concerned with here, wherein we wish to assert that the
reason religion has survived the coming of the scientific age, is that the theocracy has
taken its time to absorb the consequences of scientific enlightenment, such that
science has undergone a linguistic version of the process of petrifaction, whereby each
molecular particle of its informative substance, as its knowledge has emerged, has
been penetrated and replaced by an alternative molecule of knowledge drawn from the
logic of religious bigotry and ignorance. This is how we got Darwinism.
Hence the irrepressible interest of religious people in all aspects of knowledge,
knowledge that is none of their business, What business is it of a Creationist to pass
comment upon biological evolution ? You may as well ask a bank robber’s opinion of
the credit crunch, whose only concern is what effect it may have on the prospect of
carrying out rewarding thefts. Whereas when we ask about such events, we want to
know whythey happened. A religious person has a motive for being interested in
science, a scientist has none . . . . and there in lies the conundrum that makes science
impossible in a world where religion exists, since the fact is that the
professionalscientist has the same motivation as the religious person : the gratification
of personal need. Thus it falls to the aberrant philosopher to seek out true science.
The moral of my story then, is simple, if we have an ambition, even though it
be one we do not even know we have, but which is there, latent in our makeup, then
the dedication to our ideas, that are the expression of that ambition, will bear fruit of
its own accord, quite without our least expectation, taking us by surprise and
delighting us in the process. This old book was an ‘ark’ in respect of my attributes as
a philosopher, as it held unknown benefits in that respect, which I could not
anticipate, but which were in tune with the nature of my interests. There is a certain
harmony here, that derives from consistency of action over time ; that almost sounds
like a mathematical formula : uniform action multiplied by time, equals consistency.
This kind of mundane experience evokes thoughts about destiny and good fortune,
which leads to one of the most contemptible popular forms of interest, namely fortune
telling and such like. But the truth is that predestined outcomes are products of the
roots of our life, which is why having an obsession or an ambition which guides
behaviour along a certain track, can lead to unexpected outcomes that seem fateful.
Therein lies a potential explanation for ideas of fate, but the truth is, scientifically
speaking, which is all the speaking of interest to atheists, there is no mystery to these
mysteries, as we know, thanks to our first law of sociology which tells us that : all
that is, had to be. This law is not fatalist, because it is not political, it projects
political events onto a historical level, where they are prone to scientific investigation
as biological phenomena, related to the principle that humans are mammalian
superorganisms, and as such this law concerns grand scale phenomena that are beyond
our perception, without the aid of science.
By the nineteenth century, the situation we see revealed in this body of
seventeenth century religious works attacking atheism, had become critical for
religion. In the intervening period the world had been transformed from a parochial
milieu into something more akin to an alien invasion, in terms of the extraordinary
expansion of knowledge of the most devastatingly exact kind, a scientist amongst
theologians possessed the character of an alien from another planet. The scientific
age had arrived, and its impact was awesome. Religion was dead, its continuation did
not stand a cat in hell’s chance, and the evidence of continuing pressure upon religion
during the nineteenth century is demonstrated in much that we can read from that
time. Yet, even so, prosecutions for promoting atheism were still occurring well into
the nineteenth century, so despite the major transformation of society into a
scientifically empowered body, religion held a tight grip. And this was especially so
in those institutions concerned with the control of knowledge, the universities.
Religion was doomed, which means that Judaism was dead, and the
superorganism which had been empowered by science as it extended its reach right
across the globe, was condemned to death by the very force that was empowering its
growth. This was a contradiction, it made no biological sense, and indeed, we see that
the clash between science and religion indicating that religion must die, gave a false
indication. A hidden force was at work that would yet recover the situation for
religion. That force is the linguistic force that we now know creates all social
structure.
And so it was that on the basis of science new modes of political organisation
arose, communism, as a direct consequence of the effect of science on the
industrialisation of society, and fascism as a more indirect development related to the
dynamics of identity formation. These two major expressions of linguistic force were
political manifestations of religious, that is Jewish identity, and they led to chaos,
mayhem, and all out warfare. Before we know it, the age of science is over, religion
is born again, all the problems that had threatened the world for centuries, vanished.
Today, Sunday, 03 May 2009, The Big Questionprogramme on BBC 1 asked if society
would be better if people followed a faith ? There was no question about whether the
vile ignorance of religion was true, there was no need for such equivocation. The
theocracy has survived the coming of science, obliterated all true knowledge, and
thereby made questions of truth irrelevant. All that matters now, in our insect
communities, is obedience, slavery, functional ignorance ; hell on earth has returned
after a momentary glimpse of the terrifying light of reason.
And so we come back to our discussion of laws of science implying predictive
acuity. Our account of critical events from recent history, stands as a prediction of
future events, since our analysis of the past is based on set principles which equally
well apply to the future. Ibry, writing in the 1970’s, declares the continuance of
Judaism into the future untenable, due to the rise of modern knowledge. Today, as we
have just noticed courtesy of BBC sponsored state propaganda, religion is as solid as
a rock. If people try they may resurrect the freedom that priests complained of three
centuries ago, but if they succeed then we will get to test our law. We will see that
Judaism cannot die, nuclear war world wide, whatever it takes, Judaism will live, our
law tells us this. To any Jew the total destruction of the world is an infinitely happier
prospect than any thought of Judaism’s demise, and the thing to bear in mind when we
say this, is that we are all Jews, as long as religion exists this fact cannot be avoided.
The idiots prattling away on the television this morning, jabbering about the value of
religion, have no idea what religion is. Religion no doubt inculcates a functional state
of servile obedience, but this is akin to calling for humans to maximise their inherent
nature, that gives them the power to become the equivalent of mammalian ants, and
nothing more.
Perhaps this degrading effect of religion was not too problematic in past times,
when the overbearing nature of society was less awesome, then the bonding effect
was functional without being heinous, as it is today. But the impression of the future
hell we all face, if religion continues to be the mode of social organization, is
glimpsed through the eye of Islam, where see the fruit of this monstrous Jewish slave
identity, which is mindlessness beyond belief. Islam is a nightmare, epitomised by the
suicide bomber, the perfect symbol of religious devotion if ever there was one. But
this nightmare is what our masters have in mind for all of us, and we need to realise
that in order to prevent this horror of Islam from continuing its insidious path of a
slow death by infiltration, it is Christianity we must destroy, and its parent, the queen
of obscenity, Judaism.
We do not care what the religious think, these people are delinquents who
have no right to live in a modern world, we must ignore them and fight for their
eradication. But the history of our masters, the Jews, which tells how the world we
live in was made, shows that for them centuries, and millennia even, are just passages
of time without meaning, in terms of fulfilling their ambition. So that what I have
discovered in my own small way, courtesy of a nice find at a book fair, has been
transposed into a cultural phenomenon in the shape of Jewish existence. The history
of the Jewish people represents the development of a culture driven by linguistic
force, hence they are “the people of the Bible”, as Ibry said. Our discussion above
shows how linguistic force organises itself about a core identity upon which all social
structure is focused. This is why the clash of religion and science culminated in the
holocaust, which sealed the fate of science while guaranteeing the fate of Judaism, as
it has been prophesied by Jews for generations.
Jewish history is therefore all our histories now, we are now all Jews and
whether we are of the clan Jew or not, the question as to whether the Jews should
continue to exist is for all of us to decide now. In order to do this we need to know
what this question means, and we need to know that to be a Jew means to be a slave ;
to wish for the eradication of Judaism is to desire freedom for all humanity.

Perfect knowledge

We have the key to ultimate knowledge, the knowledge that human nature is
corporate. We know what this key means, and therefore we know precisely how to
use this key when examining real aspects of human existence. It follows that we
know what Jews are ; we know what religion is ; and we know what humans are.
Humans are a species of superorganic mammals, wherein individual
physiology has evolved to create an individual that exists to form a superorganism,
and as such the personconstitutes a ‘sentient brick’ formed to make social
architecture. As a ‘living brick’ the individual has a sense of dutythat tells it that it
must form social structures, hence the reason moralists speak so often about the
human sense of duty with regard to social responsibility. Needless to say the moralist
is forcing a judgemental interpretation upon this natural aspect of human nature, this
bias ignores the fact that amoral behaviour is invariably the best expression of the
human sense of ‘duty’ to form social structure. This is why slavery, to give one major
example, so often figures in advanced human societies, and, more to the point, why
such ‘evil’ is the instrument utilised by the leaders of those societies, and justified by
the social philosophy created by the elite.
Christian moralists utilise a refined judgemental logic simply because the
basic mechanism of Judaism is itself more biologically refined, since Christianity
involves the implantation of a Jewish slave identity that the implantee has no idea has
been executed, believing their slave identity to be their own true identity. Hence the
primary value of this mode of enslavement naturally involves promoting docility in its
victims, as an expression of their total acquiescence to the act of subjugation from
within. But as we all know, there is nothing more evil than Christianity, the wonder is
that such a monstrous system can still get away with portraying itself as the ideology
of love made real. Above we expressed revulsion at the two-faced deception of Ibry
the Jew, as compared to the more bearable direct offensiveness of Goldberg the Jew,
and these remarks on the beguiling nature of Christianity indicate that in its
moralising aspect, this Jewish religious formula presents the same kind of
sophisticated deception expressed by Ibry, that of pretending to be a friend when it is
in fact a foe, but in Christianity we see this deception carried out on a monstrous
scale. Within the context of superorganic physiology religion is the leading
expression, or, medium of corporate identity. And in this regard Judaism is the actual
form through which this medium of corporate identity is currently expressed.
With this highly sophisticated and perfectly accurate scientific model at our
disposal, we are able to say that the personal, that is the political excuses for
Judaism’s existence, given by these two conjoined, if contrasting authors, who both
equally support the continuation of Judaism, are facets of Judaism’s existence, and in
no sense do they constitute a detached, that is a scientific discussion aboutthat
existence. As would be scientists we need to discuss these author’s arguments, but we
would no more take what they say as valid than we would use any other facet of life
as self revealing. The practice whereby what humans have to say about being
humans, is conflated with what is known about being human, gives rise to an all
pervasive method whereby the priests seek to manipulate and control knowledge.
This gives rise to a method that is the cornerstone of modern sociology, and no doubt
of all other aspects of the human sciences too, it is in fact the basis of many
manifestations of authority concerned with knowledge, which we often see misused in
our world in the form of the state manufactured expert, a most contemptible figure if
ever there was one. It is easy to assert that if we want to know what people think
about things then we ought to ask them what they think, and by extension, the idea
that the best way to discover what it means to be a certain kind of person is to askthe
people concerned. I have seen this method promoted in sociology courses run by the
Open University, it would be difficult to think of anything more absurd and more
contrary to scientific method. The application of this method in sociology is of itself
a denial of the existence of social science, it is the perfect method for our theocracy to
use, and that is why it is used by all academic institutions.
In looking to these Jewish authors we are indeed asking Jews to tell us what
Jews are, up to a point, but the fact is that we set out a few days ago to examine the
question how it was that any Jew who espoused atheism could reconcile this position
with their Jewishness, and this question is quite different to seeking a Jew who will
tell us what a Jew is. In this work we say humans are a superorganism and Judaism is
the identity of the superorganism, which makes the Jews the master race, to put it
bluntly. When Goldberg says the Jews are the chosen people of God he too is saying
that the Jews are the master race, this equivalence of meaning is just as real as it is
when a person says three plus three, and we take it they are saying the number six,
although they do not actuallysay ‘six’. Yet no Jew would concede the validity of our
scientific interpretation of what a Jew is, and this is where Ibry comes in. Ibry is in
effect seeking to retain the Jewish master identity, while denying the basis of that
identity, which is belief in God. Goldberg is aware of the implications of the
prevarication inherent in Ibry’s denial of the Jew’s divine status, making Jewish
identity unsustainable, but he would say that God is the master and the Jews are his
servants, which is a fine example of how language is supposed to be used to control
people. Language does not exist to inform people of what reality is, What earthly use
would that be ? That is why religious priests evolved into secular politicians, so that
language could lie to us more effectively as the nature of society became more
complex and individuals became more sophisticated in their ideas about society, and
now priests have transmogrified into professors too.
 Our scientific point would be, that ultimately all these political variations on a
theme are by the way, humans are a superorganism and the superorganism always has
to have an identity. The need for religion, and for Judaism in particular, has to do
with this fact of evolved, biological human nature. While I find the remark amazing,
it is fascinating to see Ibry assert that the lead he takes in respect to Jewish identity is
applicable to both Christian and Moslem populations. Why preserve religion at all ?
And what amazes me about all these so called Humanists, is how come they never
concern themselves with science, with the ultimate question of what humans are, and
why religion exists at all ?
Ibry’s book looks worth reading, so we will have to get back to this section of
our work in the near future.

Chapter 12

The Religionless Religion of a Covert Theocracy,

Otherwise Called a Democracy

Secularization is the wonderful mechanism by which religion becomes nonreligion.

Marxism is secularized Christianity ; so is democracy ; so is utopianism ; so are human rights.
Everything connected with valuing must come from religion. One need not investigate
anything else, because Christianity is the necessary and sufficient condition of our history.
This makes it impossible to take Hobbes or Locke seriously as causes of that history, because
we know that superficial reason cannot found values and that these thinkers were
unconsciously transmitting the values of the Protestant ethic. Reason transmits, routinizes,
normalizes ; it does not create. Therefore Weber gives short shrift to the rational side of our
tradition. Philosophy’s claims are ignored ; religious claims are revered. Dogmatic atheism
culminates in the paradoxical conclusion that religion is the only thing that counts.

(The Closing of the American Mind, Allan Bloom, 1986, p. 211)

I struggle to find an item on Jews and atheism, only to find that when I do I
am presented with the ludicrous idea of religionless Judaism, in an work called
Exodus to Humanism : Jewish Identity Without Religionby David Ibry, 1999. Then,
less than a week later, a book arrives from America with a chapter entitled
Religionless Christianity : Maturity, Transcendence, and Freedom.
I want to take notice of this reference to the idea of religionless Christianity.
When I tried to communicate with humanists online a few years ago, I found my
atheism horrified them. It was immediately apparent that I was communicating with
devoutly religious people, who adored God, but did not accept that there was any such
thing as God, so that Humanism was evidently Christianity without the godhead.
Therefore this perversity ought to of struck anybody else who came into contact with
the same form of modern atheism, and assuming they were delighted to find that
atheism could be turned into an extension of their faith, as faithlessness, it follows that
we ought to see miscreants extolling the virtues of religionless religion. And we do.
As soon as we discover the true nature of the world we live in, so that we
discover that religion has erased science, then we know we can never find the least
particle of science in the public domain. All we can do from that point on is to try and
catch the reflection of science in the mirror of deception manufactured by the
priesthood, polished so as to ensure that only sterile science, fashioned for the purpose
of preserving religion, can exist.
Of course, taking our prompt from Bloom, dogmatic atheism may well
produce the paradoxical conclusion that religion is the only thing that counts. But, as
ever, we atheist scientists do not want to know what is—anyone, given a little
thought, can state the obvious—we want to know why things are as they are. Simply
denying God inevitably tell us nothing, because belief in God is the most significant
feature of human existence, like it or not. Scientific atheism, or positive atheism, on
the other hand, tells us everything. By making atheism the foundation of science, the
resulting naturalistic science is then able to explain that religion is everything because
religion is the product of linguistic force arising out of the evolution of human
physiology. Which results in sentient bricks, bonded by language into a mammalian
superorganism that linguistic force reveals to us through linguistic symbolism, as it
programmes us to create in reality, the beast which that symbolism calls ‘God’.

Academic priests

If we spread our examination across the board, embracing all public figures
concerned with any kind of knowledge, they all turn out to be specialised members of
the original class of ‘witchdoctor’, they are all conartists. So, for example, yesterday,
29/04/2009, I noticed a flier on TV for an up coming documentary on BBC 2, called
The Incredible Human Journey. The catch phrase question is “How could a handful
of African families become a world full of people ?”. The presenter is a young
women who is already established as one of our trusted conartists (teachers) by way of
her appearance as an anthropologist in a long running series called Coast, and she also
appears on the famous Channel Four show Time Team, she is Dr. Alice Roberts. She
cannot be responsible for the content of the programme, and she cannot give a fig
what she says as presenter, although needless to say the presentation, when it arrived,
was given as if the views were her own, just as any priest does was giving a sermon.
She is famous, celebrated, stinking rich (no one can be a television personality without
being what I call rich), and in every way incredibly privileged, as are all academics
compared to the ordinary individual, who goes about the routine of their boring scum
life anonymously, from cradle to grave. That sounds like sour grapes, or jealousy, it is
not, it is annoyance at the rewards that flow automatically toward corruption, and the
tragedy that sincerity or honesty are for socialmorons, misfits like me. (Since writing
this the expenses fiasco wreaking havoc on our parliament has kicked off, providing further
evidence that honour goes hand in hand with corruption in our sick, depraved society.)
Without corruption in the upper echelons of the social structure there would be no
way to effect the control of society via a core priesthood. Religion would then be
useless, and this is precisely why massive inequality is vital to all societies. Privilege
then is all that such a person as Roberts can possibly care about. Privilege is all any
teacher cares about, if this were not so then there would not be an infinite supply of
people willing to prostitute their intelligence in order to receive the benefit of serving
the master.
The phenomenon of mindless obedience is not confined to the intellectual
class, it is the defining characteristic of those who enter any enforcement service. But
it is in the intellectual fields where the quality of mindless obedience to authority is
galling. What we mean by calling everyone a ‘priest’, is : people who deliver the
messagefor coin. This description does contain an inherent value judgement, we
dohate and despise all priests, of all kinds, as free thinkers have always done since
time immemorial. But our value judgement must not cloud our comprehension. The
fact that corrupt individuals rule our world, posing as moral leaders, while caring
nothing for anything except living—a fact of their animal nature—is a fact of life. As
true anthropologists, we want to know the human world as it is, so we have to know
the true nature of our teachers.

II

Theocracy as democracy

The reward for reading the errant nonsense of professional academics is

immense, it feeds the imagination, which, if fixed upon the correct scientific idea of
human nature as corporate, can then project useful conceptions of the world as we
know it. Having had a few days to stew in my brain, when I went to bed last night, as
so often happens, as the brain relaxes, it suddenly occurred to me that this whole
business of religionless science matched another general concept I have been applying
for sometime now, the idea of the covert theocracy. I have made it a standard mantra
of my work, to declare openly and frequently, that today we live in an absolute
theocracy, a world in which there is no free access to knowledge, and hence neither
freedom of thought nor freedom of expression. I have made sense of this absurd
notion by indicating that absolute theocracies come in two shades of evil, overt and
covert. Ours made the transition to a covert condition when science came along,
forcing an alternative strategy to be adopted for a while, before making the return to
the normal overt phase.
I have found myself attempting to make sense of the open, free society we live
in, called a democracy, in terms that reflect the artful deception of an eternal
priesthood. But all along there is something a little awkward about this way of
talking, the social transformation has not be pinned down to a natural looking organic
process. Last night I realised that all this business of freedom, rank individuality and
democracy, could be understood as a manifestation of religionless religion, writ large.
This was a perfect representation of what the emergence of a covert theocracy
involved. With the help of explicitly religionless religious work by men like Ibry,
who presented a case for Jewish religionlessness, and Bonhoeffer, both of whom who
sort to deal directly with the interface between religion as identity which must
survive, and society as physical organisation to which religious identity relates, we
find the most apposite representation of our notion of a covert theocracy. This leads
us to the conclusion that a democracy is a an absolute theocracy based upon the
principles of religionless religion.
This is good, because while reading Ibry I recognised that the man’s ideas
were, logically speaking, insane, so their rationality depended upon their being
parasitic upon a core body of true believers in Judaism. Ibry’s pretence of
accommodation to the new world of science was nothing more than an expression of
religion extruding layers of linguistic skin to thicken its epidermis, which is what
makes religion become opaque, hidden behind a secular front, and hence covert. An
absolute theocracy pupates from an overt form into a chrysalis like covert form,
preserving itself for later blossoming into a full blown overt theocracy once again.
Priests had performed this trick spontaneously, and relentlessly, over the course of
generations, during which Britain transformed itself from a monarchy into a
parliamentary democracy, and the process of developing stratagems to preserve the
theocratic nature of society in an age of science, which would otherwise make
religious belief absurd, continues today.

III

Going covert

We are agreed that society as we know it cannot exist without religion, to this
end I have found something while picking my way through the last seventeenth
century item on atheism that I printed off the other day, after taking it from Early
English Books Online. In The Mystery of Atheism the author discusses the
functionality of religion, in language that resonates with our scientific analysis of
human society :—

Another Device [of atheists], which is to resolve the Notion and Belief
of a God into common Compact : An account whereof is briefly this.
That Mankind, for the better preservation of Human Society, by
common Consent formed this Notion of a God, which they generally agreed
together to embrace ; and finding the benefit and good influence of it upon the
public welfare, have by common Compact preserved and kept it up ever since
: A notable Account indeed ! which shows that some Men will believe any
thing, rather than what they should.
However this account farther grants the Usefulness of Religion to the
welfare of Human Society, which is indeed so necessary to it, that ’tis
impossible it should long subsist or continue without it ; for Religion is the
Bond or Cement that holds all the parts of it together, and gives all the force
and efficacy to the Laws by which ’tis upheld : All the Obligations of
Conscience, which alone can keep Men to their duty, result from the Belief of
a God, without which, no ties of Oaths, Promises, or Engagements, could hold
Men either to Honesty or Obedience : So that the usefulness and necessity of
this Notion to the welfare of Mankind, should methinks incline all Men to
entertain it, to wish it true, and to give all the strength that may be to the
Arguments brought to confirm it ; for he that endeavours to evade this Truth,
is an Enemy not only to himself, but to the Happiness and Tranquillity of
Human Society, and does what in him lies to destroy the Peace and Welfare of
Mankind.
But when and where was this general Meeting of Mankind, in which
they formed this Notion of a Deity, and entered into this solemn Compact to
Believe and propagate it ? Who summoned or called them together from all
 the remote parts of the World ? Or did they happen luckily to come and meet
together by Chance ? Sure, some History or other of the World would have
Recorded this grand Assembly of Mankind for this purpose, which, if it ever
were, was one of the most memorable things that hath been ever acted in it.
But since no account hath been ever given of such a Meeting, we may
conclude it to be a mere figment, to be met with no where but in an Atheistical
brain.

(Mystery of Atheism, 1699, pp. 65 – 66)

In this passage we see the raw sentiments of the power that rules our world, as
they were openly expressed when our society was still in a stage overt theocracy, yet
teetering on the brink of covert transition, due to the sentiments of people that this
work attacks, backed by the emergence of real knowledge of reality. Since that time
the theocracy has been insidiously converting itself into a covert theocracy, where the
core sentiment expressed above, that society simply is not possible without religion,
has been the driving force behind all political activity, of every kind, over the course
of the last three centuries, including jingoism, capitalism and intellectualism, since all
social activities are political, in that nothing is done without a bias motive.
In terms of our main theme, which is the subversion of science by religion, we
could, accepting the reality of the above protest against atheism, say that Darwinism
is simply a grand white lie, in that it does no real harm, no one needs to know that we
are mammalian superorganisms, rather than thinking we are liberated apes. Yet this
simple ruse allows religion to persist, without which Judaism could not continue to
further its headlong domination of all earth, allowing all humanity to share in the
benefits of slavedom to the greatest power on earth, the power of a global human
superorganism. White lies though, are never quite what they seem. When confined to
a complement, where truth would offend, OK, but when wholesale misrepresentation
is defended by the ruse of a white lie, the argument can never stand. Still, this is the
sense we get of Darwinism, and all science, for the truth is that most people,
especially the intellectuals who are responsible for the nonsense that fills our world,
must know that we live in a society where knowledge is outlawed in the name of
religion, otherwise people are tragically stupid, and this simply is not the case.
The anonymous author quoted above, who just signs himself A. B., asserts that
religion is the bonding agent of society, but he makes the sense of belief in God
critical to this binding power, for reasons of obedience to law and such like duties. As
scientists we assert precisely the same fact, but we make it due to the further fact that
humans are a superorganism. From whence it follows that the bonding of the
superorganism relies upon the generation of a common identity, which can only be
achieved, on the social scale we know, via the power of linguistic force, expressed in
a religious identity programme. It is for this reason that belief in God has been
shown, by the rise of Humanism, which is religious godlessness, to be completely
irrelevant to social cohesion, while adherence to faithhas been found to be critical.
Such that to this day, despite the massive transformation of society over the last three
centuries, a sense of which seeps through the phraseology of the above extract even
though its script has been modernised in part, we still live in a world as fanatically
religious as it was when A. B. wrote his tirade against atheism.
The functional need for faith as identity, is exactly the message coming from
this early piece of atheistical commentary, provided by an enemy of atheism,
naturally ; if you’d been the atheist speaking for atheism at this time your books
would of been burnt, and most likely you would of gone the same way. But to see the
scientific message hidden here we need the key to all knowledge pertaining to
humans, which means we must know that human nature is corporate, i.e. body
forming. In point of fact the above author, had he been honest, would of reported that
no one who was criminally minded—which covers just about everyone—actually told
the truth under oath, anymore than they do today, unless the truth happens to suit
them. And that the religious system was one of cultural artifice, not one of real
belief, exactly as it is today, as our delightful politicians happen to be giving us an
ephemeral demonstration of right now, in the shape of a political Mayfly Dance, over
in moment, seen in a political time frame, but here for one second of political time,
thanks to the Freedom of Information Act tearing the mask of beneficence away from
the degenerate face of the priesthood. Perhaps it is the Phantom of the Operawe
should bring to mind, not the bugs rising from their waters to mate, so many similes
come to mind when the elite fall, as the dam between us and them is breached
momentarily. Yesterday, 24/05/2009, I saw David Cameron, the Tory leader,
delivering a masterly piece of political rhetoric on the Andrew Marr Sunday morning
political slot on BBC 1. He was so convincing, the man was damn near irresistible,
but I soon recovered my composure and went outside to hang the washing ; if only it
were so easy to deal with those drips we call ‘politicians’ ! He said all the right
things, about how the real problem was that we were all fed up of the lame
government, that acted like a master dealing with its recalcitrant slaves, or words
evoking the same sense of helplessness and abuse. But remember the Mayfly, we
evoke it for a reason in these rare times. This vision of Cameron looking all
sympathetic and amenable to our feelings, is the Mayfly Dance of the politician,
driven from their murky depths, to which they will sink as soon as possible. The man
is not trying to serve us—even if he thinks he is —he is trying to recover his position
of absolute power, from whence he can control us, which is the job of all civil
authorities, to control the masses it owns and farms, this has always been the job of
government.

IV

Twisted times

Last night, 28/05/2009, on Newsnight, BBC 2, they had two newspaper men
facing each other, one from the Sun and one from the Times. The Sun man was
superb, he said more or less what I have just said. He had always known all
politicians were crooks and if the public were evoking a witch-hunt then so be it
because these poor sods were normally in the dark, and now for the first time in his
lifetime we knew these lying degenerates, who make the laws we are forced to live
by, were nothing but thieving scum. He said what they did was criminal, which it is.
But then the little pipsqueak from the Times piped up, what a nasty little freak, he said
you may not agree with the law, but if it was not illegal it was not criminal, and all
politicians were not bad, and we must be nice to them. Criminal degenerates like the
Times man make me want to burn the whole stinking lot of them, but then I always
liked Guy Fawkes, as an enemy of state authority. I use to love bonfire night, I
always felt we were celebrating Fawkes’ audacity, in his attempt to blow up
parliament, I still have to remind myself that we celebrate the failure of this Catholic
plot, burning the guy should give the real idea away, but my instinct blinds me to this,
I see only the link between bonfires and parliament, and think of authority burning in
the guise of a man.
To avoid misunderstanding I would like it to be known that I would not be
seen dead reading a rag like the Sun. The serious format of the Times would suit me
far more, but I was never one for reading newspapers, despite my old man being a
newspaper journalist, and an organ of the aristocratic right, would not of suited me
anymore than an organ of plebeian culture. My idea of a newspaper is a medium of
information, not opinion. In that sense we might say that newspapers neatly
encapsulate the nature of our social structure, bias, lying, deceitful, abusive and
altogether worthless, in respect to that which they pretend is their reason for
existence. What is their function ? Well, they are the media, one of the three pillars
of the establishment—the government, judiciary and the media—newspapers regulate
and deliver the linguistic force in all its might, or did, before other modes of
communication came to the fore. The Times and the Sun, for all appearances to the
contrary, are elements of a unified harmonic, exactly as Judaism and Nazis were, or
Al Qaeda and Judaism are. The Times expresses the linguistic force resonating with
the cellular mass composing the elite ; the Sun emits the linguistic force resonating
within the masses. Both are elements of superorganic physiology that must exist
together, as surely as the stomach and the bowls in the body of the person, both are
part of the one system, serving one and the same master. This is why they are brought
together on Newsnight, to give the opposing views. The one asserting the right of the
elite to farm society, the other asserting the right of the cattleto be treated like
humans. In both cases the message is so orchestrated that, as with Darwinism and
religion, only the dominant religious message informs the argument. These voices are
not in competition, the contrary appearance is part of the religious mantra of
individuality, that has to reinforce the sense of an individual’s place in the
superorganic physiology in order to maintain the physiological hierarchy. The Times
asserts that society is democratic and people have the right to disagree with the law,
while The Sun asserts that society is democratic and the law makers are criminals.
But the key is that both accept the principle that society is democratic, just as religious
and scientific establishments both accept that society is democratic and free. Whereas
in reality nothing could be further from the truth, in both cases the elite run all
institutions, the people in charge of the Sun are not atheists or anarchists ! They are
bigger bigots than the people who farm society, and their leaning toward rightwing
invective is no error. The appeal to the lowest motives of personal interest is a trick
that keeps the working class in their place, making them their own guardians of self-
degradation. So that workers police themselves by hating those who do not work—as
those who do work must—for a pittance, for endless hours, in horrid jobs, or who
otherwise cheat the system that they must obey or face destitution or prison.
Accepting the system as ‘good’ is the only way to preserve dignity, since to fight the
system means you lose, and then life gets horrific. This is why we maintain things
like a fascist Christian party, the British National Party, if they did not serve the
purposes of the state the BNP would not exist.
This is why neither newspaper are of any use to me, both are equally offensive
to my sensibilities, I like to be informed, not preached at or strung along like a puppet.
If a society grants the right to anyoneto have a free voice, then it is a licence for liars
and criminals to rule the world, for it means anyone can say anything, no matter how
false, whereas the one person who talks the truth, well, inevitably, they become the
one voice no one has any interest in hearing. The truth teller can speak, but without
any interest in hearing them, there is no financial or social support, so the voice is as
silent as a scream unleashed in a vacuum. We call it silencing through the deprivation
of the oxygen of publicity when applied to undesirable political parties, but the
principle of deprivation is used throughout the domain of public knowledge.
Elsewhere we discuss Jenkin’s early, fatal criticism of Darwin, we review Willis’s
work that also proves Darwinism to be worthless science, our whole book is about
how organicism, the only real science of society, was first strangled to death and then
smothered out of existence. My own attempts to find points of contact with the
outside world show how tight the oppression against true knowledge is. And this is
the key to a democracy, it allows truth to be drowned out by power, which is why the
absolute theocracy of the days of the Mystery of Atheism was transposed into the
modern form of covert absolute theocracy that we call a democracy, where majorities
preserve theocratic absolutism. A democracy is not a means whereby truth should
come to the fore, it is a means whereby a free-for-all guarantees truth cannot prevail.
I do not like these facts, and I speak of them angrily, but the fact is that all of this
oppression, corruption and abuse, is vital to a well ordered superorganic physiology,
wherein individuals exist for one reason only, which is to the serve the existence of
the superorganism. That a structure evolves in which a small elite get to abuse the
masses, is the only possible way in which a superorganism can develop. That this
abuse should be ameliorated into paternalism is an inevitable refinement of the
process of natural abuse. The elite stand in for the figure of the superorganism,
where, in reality, millionaires, celebrities, aristocrats, homicidal dictators and the like,
have no more choice about how they live than anyone else does. Privileged people
have to endurehuge wealth and power, just as we must endure degradation, stupidity
and poverty. Meanwhile the superorganism lives on, and thrives on our misery and
ignorance.

Crime

Government is a necessary evil, a product of our corporate nature, that obliges

us to build social structure. By and large the machinery of governance is our daily
enemy, that exists to exert continual control, ensuring that we are honest, that we are
obeying the laws designed to force us to behave as our masters want us to behave.
Authority does not exist to provide occasional protection, helping us enjoy our
freedom. Fortunately for superorganic well being, there are especially valuable
individuals with deeply psychopathic tendencies, who, left to their own devices,
wreak havoc on society. Accordingly laws protect psychopaths from the general
population, making it a criminal offence to defend oneself from a psychopath.
Having given vicious criminals free licence to do as they please, in terms of initiating
attacks upon defenceless individuals, the law then steps in to say such behaviour is
wrong, and the state will provide special privileges to its treasured psychopaths by
placing them in communities where they can enjoy leisure time without responsibility,
before being unleashed on the public once again, to further aid the government in its
work of oppressing the populace at large, by preserving a cohort of psychopaths
within the general population to ensure that we all feel the need of protection from our
masters.
We have said elsewhere that it is irrelevant what people know, as long as they
follow the programme. Whether or not people know that religion is true is irrelevant,
as long as religion rules our world. Whether we obey religious imperatives because
we belief, or because we recognise the need for religion as asserted by in the quote
above, is irrelevant, as long as we follow the dictates of religious fascism. Likewise,
whether or not our little inversion of the dynamics of criminal life, which makes
criminality the basis of everything good in society, is true or not, is irrelevant.
Criminality, like religion, emerges spontaneously from the social dynamics of human
corporate nature. The fact is that because real criminals exist, a monumental structure
of control is built upon this fact, and due to the populace at large being deprived of the
right of self defence by the law, a void is created where the natural expression of
personal authority should lie. A void which can then be harvested by the state, which
has acted on behalf of criminals by threatening ordinary people with retribution if
they acted in their own defence. In other words the state acquires authority by acting
as a super-criminal, taking power to itself in the same way as an individual criminal
does, by brute force. So that state authority is based on what the state calls crime, but
which the state then converts into law via an elaborate process of linguistic
fabrication. In elaborating this transformation of the state from individual motives of
criminality, we evoke the longevity and corporate nature of the superorganism, as
anyone can see from what we have said. Thus individual behaviour is transformed
into corporate behaviour and in the process that which is most evil is made most good.
But we can see how such a process can readily begin to overcook, so that the state
quickly becomes most evil, but now at the level of superorganic being. This over
folding dynamic of ever increasing complexity suggests how societies based on law,
have the potential to realise ever greater levels of complexity, to the degree that huge
states come into being, states that invariably have all the hallmarks of psychopathic
criminals about them. But which nonetheless usually manage to sustain a biomass in
a harmony with itself, for the most part.
Again, whether this legal strategy, whereby individuals are disenfranchised of
their natural right of self defence, is inevitable or not, because allowing anyone to
defend themselves would reduce society to chaos, perhaps, is irrelevant, because in
the end, the truth is that ninety nine percent of the law is used against the law abiding
majority, to force us to accept the will of those who own and run society. Law, for
example, is not about preventing burglary, but rather it is about allowing development.
If all laws against stealing cars were repealed, the impact on society would be nil, we
would not notice any difference worth mentioning, as compared to the great swathes
of destruction that have wreaked havoc across society during the last half century, as
corporations have freely farmed society, devastating social infrastructure and
rebuilding it to suit their needs as social farmers. This is what law is all about,
facilitating the exploitation of society. The minor facet of criminal law, is the
catalytic particle added to the mix to make the broad reaction work unopposed.
Criminality, as defined by law, is a very minor feature of social reality, in terms of the
daily impact experienced by individuals, but it acts as a precious catalyst of order. It
is not the suppression of behaviour that impacts on our life by helping us, it is the
facilitation of behaviour that impacts on our lives by making us subject to a process of
development that is relentless and searing. This hints at why the criminal persona is
such a cult hero figure in our society, so that all our movies are about heroes
committing crime, and heroes committing crimes in the name of stopping the
criminal. Supported by other programmes about the accommodation provided for
criminals during their down time, and fly on the wall shows about the heroes who
enforce the laws that oppress us all. Crime, to put it bluntly, is functional. But again,
all this follows on inevitably from the realisation that humans are a superorganic
species of mammal, wherein the individual is a sentient brick evolved to create social
structure. Criminality is part of the natural response to this social nature, that builds
social structure due the dependency of individuals upon one another, which means
criminal activity is a functional option of social life, which fact sets in train an
infinitely expanding sequence of complex action and reaction, leading to a world like
ours.

VI

Cut and reap

We have to build social structure, that is fine, but we need to build well, and
that is the trick. The main lesson of good building is not to do with the construction,
that is comparatively easy, it is good maintenance that is so very hard to keep up.
Because while we build only once, maintenance goes on interminably, and decay must
set in, some time. Remember, science proves that there is no such thing as an
individual, the individual exists to form the superorganism. But we are sentient, the
superorganism we belong to is not. And that is our golden gift, that the priesthood
seeks to deprive us of by telling us we are individuals in our own right, thus
disengaging us from the true power in life, and making us impotent by the device of
divide and conquer.
Meanwhile the priests build their own faction by teaching that there is a God,
which is in reality a substitute label for the superorganism, that they have made sure
we can never know directly in our own name. Thus deprived of a true connection to
the superorganism, and feeling impotent, many will seek to satisfy the instinctive need
for the comfort of being part of a collective power, that the priests will only make
available through religion. Above we indicated the dynamic that makes us want to be
oppressed by abusive laws, initiated by passing laws that prevent us from defending
ourselves, leaving us dependant upon the same authority that castrates us, for our
defence. Hence we are made grateful for the defence offered, that we, over time,
forget how to provide for ourselves. The same mechanism is used with regard to
identity, whereby all means of establishing and sustaining a corporate identity, such as
racial identity, for example, are outlawed. Leaving us with the raw ends of our need
for a corporate identity flailing about unconnected. In this condition, the theocracy
holds out its hand, and says “Come to the Lord, we will give you comfort.” We have
to have an identity, so we take the hand offered to us. So whether it is in the name of
our physical or our spiritual wellbeing, the same basic strategy of ‘cut and reap’,
applies. And again, we cannot reiterate too often, as conspiratorial as our description
sounds, we mean this description to be understood in the impersonal sense of a
physiological process, that forces us to form social structure, because of the basic
form of our evolved individual physiology. But, with the additional understanding,
that these elaborate strategies that castrate personal power, and force us to seek state
support, are structural elaborations that constitute superorganic physiology. This
latter condition is very difficult to take on board, because we feel so much as if we, as
a society, make these things happen. But we do not, not in the least bit. To think
otherwise it to be the victim of a delusion of the most gross and extravagant kind.

VII

Selfhood : our worst nightmare

 It is this fundamental ‘cut and reap’ management technique that leads to the all
important mechanism of controlled devastation, whereby the biomass is turned to
mush, while nodules of theocratic order are preserved intact, within the human soup.
The ultimate expression of the cut and reap mechanism, is the infliction of war
upon society, shattering the fabric, inducing a massive wave of sympathy for the core
authority, which is the one stable element that, come hell or high water, we can be
absolutely certain remains eternal, as a good identity always must. This was the
mechanism that sealed the destruction of science so perfectly, allowing the mindless
nonsense that now rules our world, on the basis of utter rubbish and isolation, to exist.
Today we have stunning technical science, but no scientist ever thinks to make an
attack on religion a preliminary foundation of their argument, yet as long as religion
exists, science can be nothing more than a ghost of its true self. I have just this
morning taken possession of a delightful book, Six Legs Better : A Cultural History of
Myrmecology, Charlotte Sleigh, 2007.
This is a delight because it is so focused upon the topic of interest to me. But
its focus is a narrow beam that loses not one photon of comprehension upon the real
significance of the subject it seeks to illuminate. Such a piece of work exudes the
beauty of modern science, contained in a vacuum of sterile thought, constructed
especially for it by the theocracy. A good hint of this work’s place in the pantheon of
sterile science comes from the blurb on the dust jacket, which tells us that “At the end
of the nineteenth century, ants seemed to be admirable models for human life . . . . By
the 1930’s, however, ants came to symbolize one of modernity’s deepest fears : the
loss of selfhood.” Indeed ! This blind, unwitting observation of a momentous
cataclysm in human history, describes the cusp that our world had just shifted across,
moving from a free society where science existed for real, a world in which religion
was doomed, into a dark world in which science was dead. A new world that released
religion from a metamorphic casement, allowing false science to flood the world
again, as it had before the enlightenment.
At last autocratic theocracy was free once again, as individuals fell into the
abyss of blind enslavement from within, the very thing realised that Sleigh says was
humanity’s ultimate fear. A fear quenched therefore, when its reality became manifest
in a collective rejection of that which revealedthe reality we were supposed to fear !!
Make sense of that if you can. In this new world of blindness ingrained from within,
a clever women like Sleigh succumbs, hook line and sinker, to the loss of selfhood,
revealed in her total sublimation to that which stole selfhood away. So that she now
adds her quota of self expressionto an ocean of beautifully refined linguistic drivel, all
making sense from within its little bubble of irrationality that says the individual is an
end in themselves, while from without, as anyone who can get there can see, what lies
within looks like pure unmitigated insanity. Universities make the shift from science
to pseudo science possible, but the act of sealing the past, requires all out warfare. As
far as I know this is the only functional reason for the two world wars. Without these
wars science could not of been eradicated, and religion could not of been saved, so
these wars were well worth all their pain, and they worked perfectly, as we can see
from works like that of Sleigh’s.
Did you make sense of that ? No, well here goes then, I have done it for you.
In other words our natural state is that of an ant society, in which there is no
selfhood. A state we endure because of religion, a natural state we evolved to live in,
just as ants do, in their own way. Modern science was so incisive, as ever, that it
rapidly blew this religious cover, revealing that ants were our true cousins in nature,
along with bees, termites and any other superorganic forms, of which there are in fact
many types. This is why people were entranced by these creatures by the turn of the
nineteenth century. Sleigh only pays attention to the superficial interest in the
relationship shared between human nature and some insects, I have not glimpsed any
references to Organicism. She could argue that this is outside the remit of her interest,
which concerns myrmecology, but I would say that the myrmecology is the incidental
facet of her subject, because she makes the main topic of interest, which is the cultural
facet, subservient, whereas this is the real story that matters. It is in the cultural facet
that we find organicist sociology, which is the real science that theocracy eradicated in
the pivotal shift that her blurb alludes to, without in any way appearing to explain this
transformation within the text.
So now the world was faced with reality, and we hated it, apparently. So we
found a way, not to escape the reality, but to escape the revelation that had revealed it
to us ! How weird is that ? So now we can continue as we always have, in blind
stupidity, realised in the persistence of religion, made safe by Darwin’s severance of
humanity from nature, and the ensuing sterilisation of all science by his creation of
the absurd notion of evolution as a competitive process based on forms, rather than a
creative process based on force, expressed by the transmission of energy through the
medium of matter. But we did not chooseto return to our most feared condition,
obviously. This outcome was imposed upon us by the priesthood, that is what the
priesthood does, that is its job. The priesthood derives it motive energy and direction
from the linguistic force expressed in the colour of religious identity, to which priests
are linguistically affiliated via an identity programme written to their brain. The
institution of war is one of the tools operated by the priesthood to manage the
biomass, war allows the decaying fabric of superorganic physiology to be fractured,
partially eliminated, and then replaced. Meanwhile the nub of the problem due to the
revelations of real science had been rewritten into a religiously informed programme,
within the academic framework of the exoskeleton managed by the priests, essentially
by basing science on the idea of the individual as an end in themselves.
So we did not choose to return to mindless obedience bereft of selfhood,
anymore than we choose to pay parking charges or choose to be dependant upon the
state to protect us from criminals. The priesthood, with its special affiliation to the
religious identity programme, and the place that gives them in the power structure of
superorganic physiology, forced us to return to this state of abject debasement.

I have just spent half an hour or so examining the index and dipping into some
of the more sociologically focused elements of Sleigh’s work, and it is superb to see
the topics being discussed, albeit fleetingly, that have been of so much interest to me
over recent years. She has a passage from a letter written to an entomologist called
Wheeler, which is absolutely exquisite, I have never seen anything like it, ever. The
passage appears on pages 91-2, and in it David Fairchild talks about the force binding
ants as something he feels impinging upon him whenever he is in human company,
and he says “I think it is for you dear Morton to point out how this same SOCIAL
FORCEacts in societies of insects.” Sleigh then proceeds to describe how Wheeler
implicitly recognised that humans were indeed subject to the same identical force that
created insect societies, by expressly denying that this force applied to scientists !
I mean this material, to me, is to die for. Superb. I knew when I found this
book on the net a couple of weeks ago it had to be the first ever professionally written
work on my subject, and it does not disappoint, it is incredible.
The very idea that scientists are excluded from the bonds of linguistic force is
so facile, ignorant and downright stupid, that we could have no better evidence of the
contrary fact. And this blindness when it comes to the self is the great tragedy for
science. I am amazed to find material like this showing that people were so familiar
with the real meaning of the idea of the social organism, because after years spent
scouring the planet for such material, I have found nothing, nothing at all. It is most
peculiar, you would think that someone, somewhere, would, like me, get the picture.
But no. So why not ? What makes me so astoundingly unique ?
Obviously this question has nagged at me for a long time, and my answer has
always been the same. My great passion is atheism, that is it. I developed a life long
passion for atheism as a small child, and this passion has guided every waking
moment of my life. I have wanted one thing, one thing only, all my life : to know
why we believe in God, to know what religion is. And that is it.
And you can see this objective imbued into my work. I have made it a point
of departure, I have developed it into a science of its own, Atheist Science. I have
said the very words ‘science’ and ‘atheism’ are absolutely synonymous, and possess
the same meaning, just as we could say the words ‘wheel’ and ‘circle’ are
synonymous, not precisely so, but sufficiently so for the argument to be made
seriously.
And this is it, this is what makes the difference between me and any other
human being that has ever lived. By making atheism my be all and end all, I have set
up the one condition that will bear fruit in the shape of an answer that is the essence of
pure reason, and can carry no bias beyond the desire to know the answer itself.
Perhaps this is fruit is the essence of answers to the impossible‘negative question’.
When we prove a negative we touch pure reason. Priests have long said proving
negatives was impossible, so there is every reason to think this process is bound to
fruitful, and indeed it is. We prove God does not exist when we prove that humans
are a superorganic species of mammal. By definition we can only prove negatives by
showing what assumed positives are in reality, and this is exactly what science does.
The point is then, that by sticking with my sole objective, I finally found my
answer. And when I found my answer, and asked how come no one else had ever
thought of it, I eventually discovered that not just someone had thought of it, but
everyonehad thought of it. The whole world use to know my answer. The answer to
my childhood question is : humans are a species of superorganic mammal. This is
why we believe in God, and this superorganic nature is made manifest in our
‘religious nature’. And there it is, simple.
But when I turn to those who knew this freely, in the first days of science, I
find no one gets it. The best ever was Benjamin Kidd, and he did not get it at all.
And now we find a description of men exchanging this idea as a living part of their
life, and yet the main character in the story, is utterly oblivious of the meaning of the
idea. And so this is what my work has really been all about, how this knowledge was
lost, how religion survived the coming of the scientific age, as I have chosen to render
this subject for the purposes of this work.

VIII

Culture as corporate mind

And so it is that the priesthood have the job sown up, and we are powerless to
defend ourselves against these miscreants, as surely as the ant victim of Slave Maker
ants are powerless too, once they have been carried off as pupae to the Slave Maker’s
nest. Once the slaves of God have been formed into a mindless foundation for an
organ of power to rest upon, the priests have the real power of the superorganism in
their grasp. It is from this foundation of identity that the malicious machinery of the
state is constructed in a civilised form, made in the image of God, and maintained by
the priests.
As long as the slave identity implant has taken, then the victim feels no
disjunction between themselves and the superorganism this identity makes them part
of. The main job of government is to ensure that this link is maintained and defended,
this explains why government remains welded to religion, no matter what. Even in
atheist nations like Russia and China, where the theocracy takes the bizarre form of a
religionless religion for its basis, communism being the model adopted in these two
cases. But if the identity implant does not take then the victim is alienated from the
living superorganism they are part. Then you get someone like me, an atheist whose
sole objective in life is to seek the total eradication of society as we know it.
The significance of our self consciousness plays a considerable part in
nineteenth century arguments regarding the idea of the social organism, and it is a
tricky problem to address. No matter how we cut it, we know that as people we are
very astute creatures, with a staggering ability to think. By contrast, the social object
that is to be conceived of as a living organism, is simply inert. No one can be blamed
for coming up against this contrast with a sense of disgust at the suggestion that we
people, are the cellular units of the social being. The question is how to resolve the
conflict in a manner that makes intuitive sense. And we must be aware that most
objectors in print will have an axe to grind, so we need only concern ourselves with
the degree of legitimate objection, as opposed to artful objection. The perennial
contrast I make is that of the idea of the spinning earth, which we know for a fact is
stationary, our everyday experience proves this. Yet, with the benefit of modern
science, we have no problem accommodating the conflicting facts of knowledge, and
the reality of experience. So we need a similar strategy regarding the status of our
intellectual prowess, regarding our consciousness, and the existence of the living
superorganism which science forces us to accept is real, no matter what our
consciousness may tell us to the contrary. Thus we can say we are sentient, but the
superorganism we belong to is not, and then make sense of this by explaining that the
superorganism carries the linguistic force that creates all social structure, including
the programme that gives us our consciousness, a programme that we call ‘culture’.
In this way we take aspects of reality with which we are perfectly familiar, namely
culture, along with its associated products and motive forces, and make culture the
‘collective consciousness’ existing within the superorganism, to which we are related
as cellular units, by virtue of our dependence upon this culture for our personal sense
of being.
No one has any problem accepting that knowledge exists in a cultural
repository, from which generations withdraw their cultural inheritance, whilst making
their own contribution along the way. This culture exists, it is very much the
substance of our sentient being, yet we know that this ‘essence of humanity’ does not
itself think, is not itself a state of consciousness as we conceive consciousness to exist
in ourselves, even though culture is the substance of our consciousness. And such
ideas about culture are very well established, so they should not be hard to understand
intuitively if authority were to back these ideas. One of the early post scientific
moves made by academics trying to adjust to the destruction of science in the shape of
organicism, was to create a science of culture. I refer you to the work of Leslie
White, who produced a number of books, one being called The Science of Culture,
1949. Of course what people like White were trying to do, was to extract the essential
ingredients of science, that could not be accommodated by science without destroying
religion, in order to give them a politicalform, which accommodated these essential
elements of science to religion, while pretending the resulting analysis was science.
This perverse strategy is very much what sociology does today, being a political
activity, not a science.
In other words, despite the preceding argument, we must say that there is no
such thing as ‘culture’, just as there is no such thing as ‘God’. These two words
simply designate priestly concoctions that were devised to misrepresent real aspects
of the human being that we are all part of, as if these features of superorganic being
were possessions of the individual person. We do not really have consciousness in the
sense of extended knowledge, our consciousness is limited to immediate experience,
as it is with all animals. All our extended knowledge is dependant upon the complex
pool of collective consciousness that we call culture. This must be obvious to any
half sane person, even our language is a cultural phenomenon, it is vastly more
accurate to say that language possesses us, than to say we possess language. Yet,
because of the way our animal brains are constructed, we feel an immense sense of
self being, derived initially from our sensual connection with our immediate
surroundings, and as a consequence of this real sense of self being, supported by
immediate sensory perception, we spontaneously project a feeling of self
consciousness onto the extended knowledge that has nothing to do with self at all,
because it is imbued into us from the cultural pool of superorganic consciousness.
So this ‘self-consciousness’ regarding cultural values and the like, is derived
from the accumulated experience of past cellular units of superorganic being. Culture
is a mental landscape, just as surely as the road network is a cultural landscape. We
walk the physical roadways set out by our forebears, and we may forge a few new
extensions in our own time, and likewise with the mental terrain. There is nothing
personal about these features of human existence, and this is why false knowledge can
be so refined as to allow a person like Sleigh to devote her life to its study, without
ever having the slightest notion that she is no more in touch with reality than if she
had dropped a tab of acid and spent the night on a psychedelic trip to fairyland.
However the delusion arises, it takes a real effort of will to appreciate that our
language does not belong to us, but that we belong to it, and even more will power to
realise that our most precious thoughts are not ours at all. They are implanted, and we
are enslaved to them, and hence to those who are guardians of the implant. It is
precisely these dynamics of linguistic force, manifest in consciousness, that enable a
priesthood of immense power and longevity to come into existence, because the
priesthood becomes the embodiment of the past experience of cellular units, the living
link between culture, or superorganic consciousness, that creates the individual self
consciousness that we all think we possess. This linguistic force generates structure
along with the culture that is preserved by the priesthood, so that, for example, a
church comes into being, and layer upon layer of religious structure accumulates, so
the Jews become Christians, become Muslims, and so on ad infinitum.

IX

Core immortality

The absolute theocracy’s shift toward a religionless religion of democracy,

which preserves the legal niceties that A. B. says are of vital importance, while
shedding the connection with belief in God, demonstrates the actual solution that the
priesthood engineered, while working unwittingly at the behest of human corporate
nature, to solve the problem of burgeoning atheism indicated by this seventeenth
century author.
This author indicates a vital quality of the priesthood in achieving this
democratising effect, namely, there had to be a core body of believers at the heart of
social power and authority, that were committed to the preservation of religion in its
traditional form. The existence of this core body today, remains just as vital for the
continuation of society as we know it. This is condition of Christian and Islamic
society, and overt theocracies have returned to power in Islamic slave territories of
Judaism, wherever such overt theocracies had been forced into sublimation. And this
has a special application to Judaism as a master identity, which, in relation to these
Jewish slave bodies, means Judaism proper serves as an immortal inner core of
superorganic identity independent of the two slave identities of Christianity and Islam.
Judaism’s insinuation into our slave portions of their world, associated with
the Jews’ occult control of vital factors in the organisation of its slave societies,
invigorated by the Jew’s relentless desire to exist, has made this factor the critical
element in enabling the global superorganism to continue ripening since the
difficulties of the seventeenth century, associated with the rise of science and its
synonym, atheism, while still preserving its absolutely, and exclusively Jewish
identity. While we can imagine the slave identities of Christianity and Islam losing
their intensity, as we saw in the nineteenth century, because they are based on highly
esoteric mythologies that require reinforcement by application of cut and reap
mechanism, Judaism is highly resistant to this kind of decay. This is because of the
peculiar position of Jews as the dependants of their slave territories, such that Jews
are always fully conscious of their need of a guardian angel, which exist in the form
of a powerful state affiliated to Jewish interests. It is a curious and convoluted
arrangement that it is rather difficult to engage with properly because of the extensive
work done by anti-Semites to ensure this aspect of the science of human nature was
well and truly taboo. But we have already alluded to the comparative position in
slave maker ants which have evolved to be incapable of feeding themselves, so it is
with Jews, although they are the slave making master race, their evolution of this
powerful caste status within the hierarchy of mammalian superorganic physiology has
come at the price of absolute dependence upon their slaves.
This reminds us of the vital connection between the three macro physiological
structures composing the superorganic hierarchy, expressed in the Jewish identity
pattern. History reveals a great deal of interaction revolving around the three
religious modes of Judaism over the course of the last few centuries, as indeed it does
going further back. This often militant, but also friendly cooperative dynamic, is all
about enabling the mechanism of controlled chaos to keep social structure in a
sufficient state of flux to allow the stable religious cores to remain constant
throughout periods of superorganic growth and transformation, while secular order is
arranged in such a way that a more stable continuity between the slave-biomass and
the priestly-core can be achieved longer term.

Six degrees of separation

Religion as the bonding agent of society, even if it is possible for the bulk of
social structure to develop a more relaxed impression of functional order, detached
from immediate religious dictates. But we have also shown that the preservation of
religion requires a kernel of ruling elites devoted to the preservation of religion. And
now I want to talk about the six degrees of separation that I became aware of last
night from a television programme. In the BBC 2 programme I watched last night
one contributor, Vidal I believe, explained the significance of hubs within networks.
He explained this in relation to sexually transmitted disease and computer viruses.
Why was it that a computer virus like the Love Bug (I think) should persist for so long
when it had been identified early on and defences had been distributed accordingly ?
The answer was ‘hubs’. Likewise with sexually transmitted diseases. Most people
have a small number of sexual partners over the course of a lifetime, but some have
hundreds, and they said that a black American basketball player of the past, claimed to
of had many thousands !
The point is that any given class of objects constitutes a network, a cell, a
society, an organism, a computer, a communications system, and all such networks
contain hubs. Hubs are foci of connectivity, relative to certain categories of objects
associated with the main object constituting the network. So within the human
population those people who have prolific sex lives will act as reservoirs of disease,
forever releasing fresh springs of disease into the more inactive reaches of the
network. The same applies to computing systems ; whereas most set ups will have a
few interactions, all will be connected to major players, like Amazon, Google
presumably, and such like. And these major players are the hubs of the world wide
web, so they will act as reservoirs of viruses, meaning that no matter how far
individuals adopt anti-viral software, some of the viruses will remain hidden away
ever ready to re-infect, given the opportunity.
All of which, so perfectly emulates the thoughts I have had for so long now
about the nature of human society, when seen as a superorganism carrying the Jewish
religious identity, that I am overwhelmed with delight at finding so useful a model of
how our society continues to be an absolute theocracy after so many centuries of
virulent atheism and logarithmically exploding scientific knowledge about the real
nature of existence. Pockets of religious integrity, which constitute the authority
structure of society, are the hubs of our absolute theocracy. Over the course of my life
time it is easy to see how these hubs have served their purpose of resisting religious
decay, and then promulgating religious revival. As we move back in time we can see
how this process has repeated itself time and time again. My general attempts to
describe the historical process have basically described this process as it is shown to
work, but such an all pervading mathematical theory of universal evolution nicely
tops off the argument, and provides the systematic scientific model that my
amateurish, philosophical efforts lack.
And then of course, we have the alarming assertion that the whole point of the
First World War was to destroy the fabric of the primary Jewish slave nations, that is
Western civilization, while preserving the inner religious core. So that the disturbing
rise of science and its associated disruptions could be cleansed, and a new Jewish
slave status reconstituted. And from this horrendous image of religion at work, we
develop the basic model of warfare as a religious tool, or a tool of identity
enforcement, used constantly to fragment the biomass in the bulk, while preserving
the core authority vested in the Jewish religious identity programme. Talk about how
religion survived the coming of the scientific age, which is an unbelievable thing by
any standards, and here we get to the nitty-gritty of just how this terrible affliction
achieves its sole objective of survival at any cost.
This further vindicates our searing assertions that the whole point of the Nazis,
the world wars and the holocaust, was to defend Judaism from decay, by returning the
biomass to its Jewish slave identity, while capping off any possibility of further
discussing genuine scientific ideas about the nature of human nature. This is so
because the theory of social networks interspersed with hubs that preserve packets of
core information in the shape of social organs of identity, means that these political
repercussions of religious identity are inevitable periodical consequences of society
being organised into a physiological hierarchy by means of religious identity fluxes,
that are of their very nature going to wax and wane, and shift according to ambient
social conditions. This idea of hubs within networks allows us to visualise that most
difficult idea at the heart of our argument, the idea of unity within complexity, where,
despite the infinite variety of identities, we assert that there is in reality only one true
identity, Judaism. The reason the idea of a network animated by hubs answers this
need for a model of how religion creates the human superorganism that we are all part
of, is that it helps us recognise that the hubs are structural facets of superorganic
physiology. So that whether the machinery of social existence is ordinarily occupied
by Christians, occasionally occupied by Nazis, never occupied by Jews, or whatever,
these core, or hub structures, have an obvious role in the stabilisation of social identity
and the cohesion arising therefrom, it is what these hubs exist for. Under these
circumstances the fleeting shift toward an aberrant occupier like the Nazis, indicates
nothing in terms of a break in the continuity of Jewish command over the
superorganic structure. Just as the long dominion of a sub-Judaic identity like that of
Islam or Christianity, in no way indicates an alternative power base to that of the
Jews, which these identity alternatives pretend to represent. This is so simply because
they are not true alternatives, because there is, at all times, only one network, and that
network is the Jewish identity, wherein these alternative identities, ephemeral or
permanent, it makes no difference, constitute nothing more than structural hubs of the
one uniform Jewish identity. The fact is that an organism can only ever have one
identity ; I know of no story that better portrays this idea than the Highlandermovies,
which uses the slogan : There can only be one ! So we invoke it here to make the
connection between our work, and the social life we live.
What gives a hub its power ? Language.
Viruses are particles of linguistic information, whether they give me the cold
sore I am feeling now, or whether they are the plague infecting NHS computers right
now. Each hub within a system, any system, only exists as a hub because the
networks within which hubs exist are created by means of a communication medium
—a language. Any system of communication, of any sort, is, within the confines of
its own context or environment, a language. Acting mathematically, we can transpose
the terms of our logical argument, so that we isolate the item ‘language’ by moving it,
so to speak, to the left of our statement, and then say that “Given language, there must
be a network, interspersed with hubs.” It follows from this statement that once human
physiology had evolved the organs of language, humans were bound to form social
networks, that is superorganic structure, containing linguistic foci – hubs. As we keep
repeating, linguistic force creates superorganic physiology, or, social structure, of all
kinds, there are no exceptions to this, humans as individuals create nothing. Sorry.
Language is simply the mode in which information, which is the defining
attribute of life, manifests itself within a system. It follows from this fact that
information will always seek to extend its reach by building structures to access the
potential energy of any life system, and thus the social dimension will be an inevitable
area of potential evolution for life forms, because life forms are integral individuals
with attributes of interaction that can be intensified until the individuals become units
of a greater whole. Which is why mammals evolved a linguistic form : humans. Thus
we close the loop, leaving no loose end, such as we find with religion, where we
invariably ask who created the creator. Energy is the constant, while information is
the connection between energy and form. We could of course ask what energy is,
where energy comes from ? That is like asking where God or the universe comes
from ; and if you can get your head around that one you are a better person than me.
My usual solution is to assume that we are making assumptions based on flawed
linguistic logic, that causes us to frame questions which, if we knew enough, we
would know simply do not apply beyond the realms of our linguistically programmed
consciousness. It cannot make sense to ask where the universe came from, where
existence came from, because there is probably no such thing as a universe, just as
there is no such thing as ‘God’. So that the ‘universe’ is just a word for ‘something’,
but as yet we do not know what that something is ; unlike the word ‘God’ of course,
which we now know means the human superorganism, of which we are all a
constituent part.

XI

Priests

In this work we use the label ‘priest’ in a highly generic sense,

inevitably,because we say that in reality we are living in a covert absolute theocracy.
A priest is a deliverer of the message in a theocracy, so that in a covert theocracythe
term must apply wherever there is public knowledge being disseminated under the
remit of expert authority. In terms of the six degrees theory, as we apply it to
religion,a priest is a hub within a network. But as we apply the word priest here there
and everywhere it loses definition, and we can perhaps recover a little of what is lost
by the pervasive use of this label, by indicating how a social hierarchy is constructed
by using priests as keystones within superorganic architecture.
Firstly we have a loose confederation of individuals whose union is one of
happenstance, being brought together by the coincidences of life. From this lose
confederation an order spontaneously emerges,as individuals bond according to the
imperatives of their sentient brick nature. The superorganism reverberates with a
linguistic programme imparting unity to itself by organising individuals, and by
connecting with this programme and becoming proficient in its exposition, an
individual can become ahub of their immediate network. In this way we find certain
individuals become the centre of a social network, and where religious life is vibrant
young people come forth as exponents of religious ideology. I am describing this
effect from my own recent attempts to connect with young people in the pub which I
frequent, where my expressions of atheism soon brought forth a defender of the faith.
This defender came in disguise, his sole object was to tackle me, and to defend.
Several years passed before I put him on the spot, and then his true colours began to
flicker slightly, he became overtly unpleasant, and disappeared.
Priests are only interested in self empowerment, and their devotees are
likewise inclined, except at a less avaricious scale of egotism. This is why truth never
wins out, because one way or another everyone only wants knowledge as a means to
an end. Professional scientists are not one bit different to a religious advocate either,
simply because education today trains human pupae to value priestly reward and
disdain truth as a virtue in itself. At university this preparation is welcomed, scientists
are trained to be high-class technicians incapable of having thoughts outside the
strictly defined parameters of the religious box that all humanity is forced into by the
overarching power of the absolute theocracy.
 With this grassroots principle in mind we can easily see how such an
apparently casual defender of the faith has all the attributes of a priest dormant within
himself. All he requires is support, and he will become a full-blown priest. A social
structure providing a livelihood to such an individual will make him a priest in a true
sense, and from this basic premise we can see how an institution such as a parliament
then becomes a hub of hubs, which makes the whole nation into an organ of the larger
hub of Christian union, or military union, or economic union, or whatever. All
institutions, including universities, are the same, hubs of hubs built up sentient brick
by sentient brick, all bricks being carefully cast in the schooling foundry beforehand.
From these basic principles we discover a very simple plan as to how, from the simple
unit of a sentient brick, to the first unit of superorganic architecture, the ‘priest’ of all
walks of life, we scale up to the vast edifice of a global superorganism.

XII

Science and sociology

If a true science of sociology existed then the analytic methods used to

examine a variety of networks by the advocates of the theory of six degrees, would
provide a universal key to understanding complexity, that sociologists would be keen
to apply to human political and religious systems. I would like to run through last
night’s haul of documents, taken from the net after watching the TV programme, to
see if there is anything in particular from a collection of work by one Barabási that
can indicate how these ideas could be used to elucidate the function of religion within
the superorganism.
Under the heading Computational Social Science we have the following
opening remarks :—

We live life in the network. We check our e-mails regularly, make

mobile phone calls from almost any location . . . . Each of these transactions
leaves digital traces that can be compiled into comprehensive pictures of both
individual and group behaviour, with the potential to transform our
understanding of our lives, organizations, and societies.

(Science, Vol. 323, 6th Feb, 2009, p. 721. From, www.sciencemag.org)

The document quoted from here would not read in my text converter so I can
only be bothered giving a snippet, the digital quality was too low. You have to laugh
when you read the last sentence, as if anyone gives a toss about
understandingourselves or our societies, other than in so far as it allows society to be
farmed more effectively for the sake of the elite. When I think of understanding I
think of science, natural knowledge, these degenerates, who have the gall to call
themselves scientists, think only of cash flow, or some equivalent value. And indeed,
that is what they go on to say, that academics are not interested in the possibilities of
their work, but big corporations most definitely are.
This demonstrates how these boffins completely misconceive the nature of
social science, thinking of it as something that may benefit people, even though they
recognise the collective facet of the social dynamic, which ought to invoke an abstract
dimension where benefit is of no account at the inquiring stage of investigation.
Social science cannot be anymore about benefiting people than astronomy or nuclear
physics. Science is about understanding nature, period. To say otherwise is to
become confused over what is under discussion. Spin-offs there may be, but any
academic science that sets out with a view to be of service, as its raison d’etre, is
simply not a science in any true sense of the word. How can it be of benefit to
discover that the Jews are the master race and all humanity is their slave ? Or that the
Nazis were one of the most wonderful things ever to occur, in terms of preserving the
Judaism upon which our slave existence depends ?
These scientific facts and heinous, monstrous ideas, revealing them can do
nothing but serious harm, in the short term, their only immediately positive attribute is
their pure scientific truth ! Clearly if we want to have knowledge of this kind we
must have scientists who care nothing about benefiting people. The most suitable
description for the kind of scientific endeavour we get in our Jewish theocracy is
‘technical’ science, which is a mundane occupation that seeks to exploit scientific
method according to bias motives, that make science as ‘a way of knowing reality’
impossible. The two things, ‘technical science’ and ‘science’ are entirely different, as
different, in fact, as, say, map making, and map reading. Science is like map making,
because once the cartographer has done their work the utilisation can proceed. The
map maker does not go on a journey, they go to make maps, then all that follow, by
way of the maps, theygo on journies, guided by the map maker, but motivated by the
course of their lives and the conditions they live under. What the priest wants is to
make maps that tell us all that we can know, and nothing that the priest disapproves
of. To this end the priesthood established universities, that do sterling work to
suppress knowledge today ; so good in fact that we have no idea that they are even
doing that which they exist to do. Last night, 03/06/2009, BBC 2 celebrated the
twentieth anniversary of the massacre of Tiananmen Square in China, it was
fascinating. Journalists were in the square and saying that all reports of the event
were banned, the People’s Party had ordered the Chinese people to forget the event !
Hilarious, these Chinks are becoming like us Westerners, they just haven’t yet learnt
the Jewish art of manipulating knowledge sufficiently. Naturally our media forgot to
mention that the whole tragedy was entirely fomented by Western, which always
means Jewish, miscreants, egging on the poor gullible students, and thereby, as ever,
seeking ways to insinuate or impose their slave culture on a slave culture not then
entirely under Jewish control, despite many decades of communism, which at last is
turning into pure unadulterated capitalism, which is the purest expression of Jewish
power, because capitalism is the perfection of the superorganic physiology that Jewish
identity defines. The Chinese will soon be one of us, and then they, like us, will know
no different.
Without recognising the above distinction between technical and true science,
we are left with no sense of science as a source of knowledge in its own right.
Science itself is then swallowed up in the practice of technical enterprise, so that it
becomes possible to maintain the idea that there is science, and then there are other
ways of knowing things about reality. Which there are not ! There can only ever be
one way of knowing reality. Today we have science and religion, but only science is
true to reality, while religion is part of reality. So this practice of calling technical
work ‘science’ is fatal to science as pure knowledge, so no one could . . . . . wait a
minute . . . . maybe the priests who rule our world would like it if science was
nonexistent as an independent source of ultimate knowledge. Well who would of
thought that ? That must be why this confusion is the norm, goodness we have
discovered those naughty priests screwing with us again.
 “We can also learn what a “macro” social network of society looks like, and
how it evolves over time. (p. 722). I like the sound of that, but when we look at what
these people have in mind when they speak of ‘social networks’, we see that they are
talking about the new phenomenon of internet communities, or other networks for
which hard data can be collected, through phone records and such like. Whereas, as
genuine social scientists, interested in the human superorganism, we recognise that
this phenomenon of social networks is inherent in the idea of the superorganism, and
as such all that these electronic network traces are doing is revealing lines of linguistic
force that have existed within the hominid family for millions of years. These lines of
force were fixed in the symbolic forms of cultural representation, occurring as a
product of the evolution of linguistic physiology, long before the technological age
arrived. So that when we come to the evolution of writing, we already have hard
traces of social networks. It is just that these ancient traces are far less dynamic, and
as such less capable of making their true nature known to the dull perceptions of
professional academics, who are trained to think within the limits of an infinitesimally
narrow set of mental blinkers. Even the positively effervescent dynamism of the
electronic traces of linguistic force has totally failed to capture the attention of the
world’s intellectual population, in the sense of making them realise that they are
suddenly enabled to see the synapses of the superorganism within which they live.
These idiots still think they are animals in their own right and these effects are by-
products of their pursuing their meaningfullives. This side swipe at academics
reminds me of the dry wit of Douglas Adams in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy,
where he keeps on talking about how the evolved ape species of planet Earth think
digital watches are a smart invention. How these people manage to tie their own
shoelaces is the wonder of it ! Maybe I should write fiction, narrh! ; I wouldn’t know
where to begin ; reading it would be a good start, but then I would have to begin by
answering the question, Why bother reading fiction, so called fact is fiction enough
for me ?
The amassing of printed words is the pre-technological equivalent of
electronic traces, enabling technicians to think of providing uncontroversial analyses
of social dynamics that tell us nothing as scientists, but allowing our masters and
owners to farm us more efficiently. Meanwhile a similarly conceived analysis of the
profusion of the printed word, based on the abstract idea of networks and hubs,
thinking in terms of processes, is what we would look to for a sociological analysis of
human society. And this would tell us a great deal, and much of it would be
concerned with the dissemination of religion and the suppression of free thought by
the subterfuge of misinformation.

I would just like to close this chapter by indicating my awareness of a volume

that evokes similar ideas to those produced by workers on the six degrees paradigm.
Metaman : The Merging of Humans and Machines into a Global Superorganism,
Gregory Stock, 1993, has a gorgeous title, but the usual disjunction between humans
and nature, created when Darwin separated humans from nature, informs this man’s
thinking. So that he is not describing the continuum of human nature, but what he
likes to think of as a new age, suddenly appearing, as if by magic, from nowhere.
 PART 3

HISTORICAL
 Chapter 13

Higher Organicism

Spirit
‘I was an infant when my mother went
Tosee an atheist burned. She took
me there :
The dark-robed priests were met
around the pile ;
The multitude was gazing silently ;
And as the culprit passed with
dauntless mien,
Tempered disdain in his unaltering
eye,
Mixed with a quite smile, shone calmly
forth :
The thirsty fire crept round his manly
limbs ;
His resolute eyes were scorched to
blindness soon ;
His death-pang rent my heart ! the
insensate mob
Uttered a cry of triumph, and I wept.
“ Weep not child ! ” cried my mother,
“ for that man
Has said, There is no God.” ’

(From Queen Mab, VII, in The Complete Poetical Works of Percy

Bysshe Shelley, Thomas Hutchinson, 1912, p. 778. Poem first pub. 1813.)

Leslie Stephen, in The Science of Ethics,1882, offers us the highest

expression of organicist science. His approach is far superior to the only other
significant organicist philosopher, Herbert Spencer, as we can see from the following
part of Stephen’s work, in which we are presented with a well considered application
of Darwinism to human society. Darwinism we now know is not science, its
intentioncan only ever of been to support religion, by subverting science. The
essential point in Darwin’s account of life, is the focus of the mechanism of change
upon the individual, and here we see Stephen trying to overcome this difficulty arising
from the fraudulent nature of Darwinian science. Darwinism is not incorrect science
because it is wholly false, it is incorrect in the same way that a lie is false because it
omits the truth. Hence the truth that Stephen is trying to provide, that Darwin
purposefully omitted, due to his innate bias toward the establishment, is that which
relates to the difficulty of dealing with the nature of the human individual, and this
intention appears clearly in the following selection from Stephen’s work.
What follows is a large slab of material, unbroken, taken from The Science
of Ethics. This is as good an example of reasoning based on the common
understanding that humans are a superorganism, as we can hope to find. This
understanding of the collective nature of human nature existed in a well developed
form for only one or two generations, during the latter part of the nineteenth century,
the golden age of scientific freedom, tragically nipped in the bud by the relentless
forces of religious oppression, but here we capture the kernel of its excellence :—

51. I have spoken of instinct, habit, and so forth, as being essential or non-
essential to the organism, and have added that between these two relations there may
be an indefinite number of gradations. What, then, is precisely meant by “essential” in
this connection ? At a given moment any instinct may be essential in this sense, that
the agent could not exist without it. A man’s life may depend upon his possessing
abnormal speed, strength, and eyesight. The life of the organism depends at every
instant upon his relation to the surrounding world, and by varying them we may vary
the requirements indefinitely. In speaking, therefore, of any organism generally, we
tacitly assume the existence of the appropriate medium. A capacity is only essential if
it is essential under these normal conditions. A power of breathing air is essential to
certain classes of animals. They cannot live in any other medium, and they cannot live
in air if they are incapacitated for this function. The bare existence of the animal
implies the existence of certain conditions and of certain corresponding powers, and
those faculties are properly essential without which it could not live anywhere, not
those without which it could not live in some particular set of cases. Admitting this,
there occurs another difficulty. The process by which the correlation of pernicious and
painful states is worked out is one which, by its very nature, must take a considerable
number of generations. Races survive in virtue of the completeness of this correlation.
But the quality which makes a race survive may not always be a source of advantage
to every individual, nor even, if we look closer, to the average individual. Since the
race has no existence apart from the individual, qualities essential to the existence of
each unit are of course essential to the existence of the whole. If one animal cannot
live without lungs, a million cannot. But the converse proposition does not hold. In
fact, there is a large and important group of instincts in regard to which it is
manifestly untrue. The sexual and parental instincts are essential to the race, for
without them the race would cease in a single generation. It is equally certain that they
are not essential to the individual. An animal deprived of them may not only live and
thrive, but will avoid many dangers to which it is exposed by possessing them. The
“unnatural” mother has the great advantage that she will not give her life for her
young. And it is at least conceivable, though it may not happen actually, that some
creatures thus devoid of passions upon which the continuance of the race absolutely
depends may be not only happier under certain special conditions, but may, on the
average, enjoy more happiness than their neighbours. In such cases, the parents
virtually sacrifice themselves for the good of the race. They may be unconscious of
the sacrifice, and we cannot call them unselfish. They are rather in a state of mind in
which, as devoid of all prevision of consequences, the question of selfishness and
unselfishness has not yet presented itself. They act in a way not calculated to bring in
the greatest amount of happiness, but they act in obedience to an instinct not guided
by any calculation as to the fall of the balance.
52. Here then is a case, and one of the very highest importance, for it
concerns the germ of all social life, in which we see that the correlation between the
beneficial and the pernicious must be interpreted in a sense different from that which
we might at first sight take for granted. An instinct, that is, grows and decays not on
account of its effects on the individual, but on account of its effects upon the race. The
animal which on the whole is better adapted for continuing its species will have an
advantage in the struggle, even though it may not be so well adapted for pursuing its
own happiness. Here, then, it becomes desirable to attempt to bring into greater
distinctness the true meaning of the contrast between the individual and the race, in
order that we may endeavour to determine in what sense there can or cannot be a
conflict between the individual who is the product of the race, and the race which is
itself formed of individuals, and in what way the principle already laid down must be
explained or modified when we take this distinction into account.

CHAPTER III.

S O C I A L M O T I V E S.

I. The Individual and the Race.

1. THE last chapter has brought us to a distinction of vital importance. We

have had to distinguish between the effects of the interests of societies and the
interests of individuals. An action or an instinct may, it seems, be of essential
importance to the whole, and of little or none to the individual, and this distinction
will obviously affect our reasoning at many points. If we assert that the survival of an
instinct is determined by its utility, we must further decide how the utility is to be
measured, whether we are to consider the utility to the individual or the utility to
society, and in what sense any distinction is possible. Other difficulties may reveal
themselves as we proceed. We will, therefore, begin by attempting to define as clearly
as we can the true meaning of the distinction in question. We may thus be able to
understand the nature of the social bond so far as is necessary for our purpose, and to
consider what language will be best adapted to express the relations involved.
2. It is of course obvious that the individual and the race are not two separate
things capable of coming into collision. The individual, as I have said, is the product
of the race ; and the race the sum of the individuals. And the fact that the immediate
interests of an individual may be incompatible with those of the race does not
necessarily affect our statement. The existence of such incompatibility is of course
only too familiar a fact. The prosperity of a Napoleon may involve the degradation of
his country. But when I speak of “the individual” as being better or worse adapted to
his circumstances, I am not speaking of any particular person, but of the average
person. A Napoleon may conceivably thrive by possessing qualities which are
injurious to his fellows. But it would be something very like a contradiction to
suppose that the average man might be improved by conferring upon each qualities
prejudicial to the rest. If the average person is more intelligent and richer, the whole
of which he forms a part possesses a greater sum of intelligence and wealth. If the
qualities of any society may be regarded and in some sense it seems that they must be
regarded as the sum of the qualities of its constituent units, it follows that whatever
strengthens or weakens the average unit must also weaken or strengthen the whole.
This, indeed, would be accurately true if we were justified in considering each unit as
so far independent that what is true of each might be applied to all by direct
multiplication. The difficulty begins to show itself when we regard society, not as a
mechanical aggregate, but as an organic whole. In that case, we cannot regard the
efficiency of the whole as a simple sum of separate efficiencies. The qualities of each
unit may then be dependent for their nature and for their efficiency upon their
relations to the organism. Thus, for example, if we take an army, its efficiency will
depend partly upon the strength of the soldier, and partly upon his discipline. Double
the marching power of each soldier, and you will double, the length of marches
possible for the army. But an increase in the spirit of discipline produces an effect
upon the army which cannot be determined by simple multiplication ; for not only
may the efficiency of the army be enormously increased by a slight increase in the
spirit, but such an increase may operate very differently under different states of the
army. It might diminish its efficiency in warfare which required separate action, as it
might enormously increase it where the first necessity was unity, and therefore blind
obedience. A quality useful to the whole when acting together might be prejudicial to
the individual member when acting independently. Hence, it would seem, we have in
this case a datum which could not be determined without some knowledge of the total
organism, as well as of its separate parts. The distinction, therefore, between the race
and the individual, though not a distinction as of two separate things, may be of great
importance as corresponding to a distinction in the mode in which the efficiency is
affected by different qualities. For some purposes a body may be regarded as an
aggregate, whilst for others it can only be understood as an organic whole. And this
has evidently an important bearing upon our reasoning.
3. Let us see how this difference must be expressed upon the theory already
laid down. I have spoken of qualities, instincts, organs, and so forth, as being either
essential or non-essential to an organism. It is plain that it would be idle to ask what
any organism would be without any of its essential qualities. We should in that case be
referring to a mere nonentity. When we say man, we mean, amongst other things, a
living being with a stomach, and environed by eatable matter. To say that a man
would be better or worse if he had no stomach, is to put together words which have no
real meaning whatever, or, in any case, to speak of some creature so radically different
from a man for most purposes, that it would lead to mere confusion to apply the same
name to it. You might describe a statue as a man without organs, but this is simply to
play with words, unless we confine our reasoning to properties dependent exclusively
upon external forms. By “man,” we mean a being belonging to a given class, and
varying within the limits determined by the essential properties of the class ; and
amongst these essential properties we must, of course, reckon dependence upon a
race. Man means a being born of woman, and perhaps a being ultimately descended
from a monkey. It would, therefore, be sheer nonsense to speak of a man as if he
either might or might not be in some respects independent of society. He may be in
the position of a Robinson Crusoe, and living in a desert island ; but even so he must
have been begotten, born, kept alive through infancy, and have inherited whatever
qualities are implied in those processes. A man not dependent upon a race is as
meaningless a phrase as an apple that does not grow upon a tree. The words have no
sense in a purely arbitrary sense. And further, it is equally clear that the best type of
man must mean the best type of man developed under those conditions. The best kind
of bread means the best food that can be made out of grain ; and though a lump of
granite might have some qualities which in a different relation are better than those of
bread, it would be a mere juggle if we said that the bread least likely to spoil was
“bread” made of granite.
4. It follows that the distinction drawn between the social and the self-
regarding qualities, or, again, between qualities as useful to the race and useful to the
individual, cannot possibly be ultimate distinctions. Every man is both an individual
and a social product, and every instinct both social and self-regarding. To say that a
man is an organism is to say that each of his organs is so dependent upon all the
others that it cannot be removed without altering the whole organic balance ; or, as I
have said, that a leg is not, or is not solely, a crutch. If we speak, then, of one instinct
as referring to the society and another as referring to the individual, we must always
remember that each of necessity implies the other. In speaking of them apart, we are
using the artifice of the mathematician who considers one set of symbols to be
variable and another as constant, not as meaning that the quantities which they
represent are really fixed or in reality independent, but simply as enabling him to
calculate more easily by disentangling separate sets of consequences. The social
qualities are developed on the invariable condition that the self-regarding qualities
exist, and vice versâ, and the “best” qualities mean the best consistent with this
condition. We may, as I have already said, consider any organ by itself, and, for
example, say that one man has perfect lungs ; but the perfection is relative to their
forming part of an organism which has also a stomach, whilst the best form of
stomach means also the best for a man with lungs. And precisely the same reasoning
applies also to the mental or emotional faculties. Whatever distinctions may
afterwards be drawn between them, we must never ignore their necessary connection
or mutual implication. As the man is an individual, the process by which he is
developed is a single process ; and in speaking of any one instinct, property, organ, or
faculty, there is always a tacit or express reference to the whole organisation.
5. How, then, does the distinction arise ? The answer may be suggested by
the illustration just used. The dependence of an apple upon a tree is absolute. It admits
in this sense of no degrees. I cannot say, therefore, that an apple owes certain qualities
to the fact of its growing upon a tree, for it owes all its qualities to that fact. The non-
tree-grown apple is a nonentity. But it is equally plain that, in another sense, the
dependence admits of many degrees, for the possibility of distinguishing between the
two classes implies that for some purposes they are separable. And this must mean
that the apple has certain qualities which are independent of its relation to the tree, not
in the sense that they would exist if that relation were abolished, but in the sense that
they may vary whilst that relation remains approximately constant. In some respects I
may treat of the apple as though it were an independent unity, because it may change
without a corresponding change in the tree ; in other respects, I can only understand
the changes in the apple by taking into account its dependence upon the tree. And
hence, as these properties and the proportion between them may vary in different
kinds of apples, I may say that some apples are more dependent upon the tree than
others ; not as denying that in every case the dependence is absolute, but simply as
asserting that in some cases the qualities which are only intelligible through that
dependence, or which vary directly with its variation, are more prominent than others.
The comparison is not drawn between an apple growing on a tree and others not
growing upon trees, but between the apple in which these properties immediately
dependent upon that relation are more prominent, and others in which they are less
prominent. And this general statement will hold equally true in regard to the essential
properties of any organism whatever.
6. Let us see, then, how this applies to the general problem of the relation
between the individual and the race. There are, or there may be, organisms in which
the distinction so far disappears that we need not take it into account. Every living
thing must be capable of propagating its kind, and must so far have a property useful
to the race. But we may suppose the existence of organisms in which the relation
between individuals is limited to this reproduction. The insect may lay eggs which
come to life in the next season ; the successive generations may inosculate without
overlapping ; whilst during life each insect may exist in complete independence of its
fellows. If we further suppose that the production of eggs be essential to the insect life
which, whether an actual case or not, is a conceivable case we should have a case in
which the interests of the race and the individual would be identical. The successive
individuals would be so many links in a chain, and each would potentially contain the
whole series of descendants. Whatever hurt the individual would necessarily so far
hurt the race. Now, it is to be observed that even in such a case the dependence of the
individual upon the race is absolute. Without reproductive powers the race would not
exist. And, further, since an insect with superior powers of reproduction would so far
be more efficient, the type must be elaborated with reference to this condition ; an
increased power of locomotion might be a disadvantage on the whole if it involved a
diminished power of reproduction. But we may be justified in supposing that a
variation in the locomotive faculties may take place, whilst the reproductive power
remains approximately constant. This is expressed by saying that the insect would be
better so far as it could fly better. We do not for the moment attend to the collateral
results ; and so far the efficiency due to better flying is measurable by the results to
the individual insect. Supposing the occurrence of a new form with greater powers of
flight, it would so far be a superior insect as those powers adapted each insect better
for obtaining food, avoiding its enemies, and so forth.
7. To advance a step, we may take the famous case of bees, which has
afforded so many parallels to poets and philosophers. In such a case the sexual
relations, though they cannot be more essential—for essential does not strictly admit
of degrees—are more prominent. The queen-bee, the drones, and the workers are each
dependent upon the others for their continued existence. The individual insect is not
intelligible by himself. The race can only be continued by the co-operation of
different individuals with corresponding differences of organisation. The best insect
must now mean the best relatively to the society of which it forms a part. That form of
bee will flourish which forms the most efficient hives. The hive, in other words, will
be the unit which must be taken into account in considering the general problem of
survival. It would be therefore as idle to ask which would be the best form of bee
considered apart from the hive, as it would be in the previous case to ask which would
be the best form of insect considered apart from its power of reproduction ; for in
either case we are abstracting from an essential property. Here, again, as in the former
case, we have certain faculties which may be supposed to vary whilst the social
qualities remain fixed. The bees which fly better are so far better, assuming the power
of flight to be gained without a compensating loss of the qualities which fit the bee for
society. The difference is that we now have to consider an organism which has more
functions dependent immediately upon the whole of which it forms a part, and
intelligible only through that whole. The hive, we may say, is at once an aggregate
and an organic whole, and we may consider it in either character for purposes of
analysis, though we must not overlook the tacit implication that each set of qualities is
valuable only by reference to its compatibility with the others.
8. At this point, however, occurs a consideration which is of vital
importance to the argument. The individual bee, I have said, is intelligible only
through its relation to the hive. Its properties, the individual as well as the social, are
developed, either indirectly or directly, by reference to the constitution of the hive.
Now, in every case, every quality of the organism is intelligible only through the
environment. The environment of the queen-bee consists partly of the drones and
working bees, and partly of the air, flowers, and so forth. It is dependent upon the one
just as it is dependent upon the other. What, then, is the reason for distinguishing ?
The answer is, that the distinction may or may not be of vital importance, according
as we are considering one or other problem. Given the organisation of bees, the
behaviour of the queen-bee, for example, will depend partly upon the flowers and
partly upon the drones and working bees amongst which it is placed. So long as the
organisation remains fixed, we may count both the remainder of the society and the
surrounding objects as parts of the “environment” between which it is unnecessary to
make any distinction. And for many purposes this assumption is accurate. But if we
consider the organisation as variable, as we must do if we are considering the problem
as to the merits of a particular kind of bee, the distinction at once becomes important.
For in that case an organic variation in the queen-bee necessarily supposes a
correlative variation in the organisation of all other members of the hive. We cannot,
for example, suppose the queen-bee to acquire better wings, without supposing a
correlative change to take place in the wings of all its descendants. We may, on the
other hand, suppose, and in some cases we must suppose, the flowers to remain
unaltered, and to be part of the fixed conditions to which the swarm adapts itself. And
hence the distinction is needless, or is vitally important, according as we are dealing
with changes which do or do not imply a fixed organisation. At any given moment the
organisation is fixed ; if we speak of periods during which evolution introduces
sensible changes, it is not fixed. But there is yet a further case. If it were admissible to
suppose that the hive was capable of acquiring new properties whilst the organisation
of its members remained fixed, we should be forced to introduce a reference to this
varying condition also. To determine the conduct of the bee, we must know not
merely its organisation and its environment, but the state of the hive. We might, again,
deal with problems into which this fresh datum entered either as a constant or a
variable, and we should in each case have to decide before we could lay down a
satisfactory formula of bee life, which new theory did or did not involve a reference to
this variability of this element. Now, as we shall see directly, this is a consideration of
essential importance in theories of human society.

II. Society and Man.

9. This follows from a consideration of some very familiar truths. We have

sufficiently shown that we cannot make a comparison between man in a social state
and the nonentity man independent of society, the real comparison being between man
at an early and man at a comparatively late stage of social development. So it would
be idle to discuss the effect of light upon the eye by comparing an eye which is
sensitive with an eye which is not sensitive to light, for such an insensitive eye would
not be an eye at all ; but we may determine very profitably how the eye which is
highly sensitive differs from the eye which is but slightly sensitive ; and, in the
parallel case, we have to compare men at remote stages of social development in
order to determine the effect of this element in their constitution. Now two
assumptions may be made ; we may in the first place take for granted that between the
savage and the civilised society there is a vast difference, including, amongst other
things, the presence of a recognised and formulated moral law. It is, indeed, a question
for the philosophical observer how far rudimentary systems of morality may be
recognised even amongst the rudest savages ; and we may assume that, as will
hereafter be stated, germs of moral sentiment, the feelings and instincts which in a
more highly developed state give rise to the moral law, are to be found not only
amongst savages, but in some sense even at a far lower stage of development than the
human. I assume simply that the explicit recognition of certain general rules of
conduct, the observance or breach of which is attended with moral approval or
disapproval, is comparatively a recent phenomenon. The relations of man to woman,
of parents to children, of the individual to the primitive social unit, whatever it may
be, exist at the lowest point of the scale, and no doubt corresponding modes of
conduct were regarded with some kind of sentiment as far back as we need go in the
history of the race. But a distinct recognition of general regulative principles is only
possible when the reflective and reasoning powers have become developed and some
sort of theory of human life has gained acceptance. And, in the next place, we may
take for granted that this difference does not imply a corresponding difference in
organisation. There is no reason to suppose that the innate faculties of a modern
European differ essentially, or that they differ very greatly, from those of the savages
who roamed the woods in prehistoric days. There is clearly no reason to suppose that
the brain of a modern English baby is intrinsically more developed than that of an
ancient Athenian baby. Yet there is a vast difference in many ways between the
morality of the adult Englishman and that of the adult Athenian, and still more
between the morality of the Englishman and that of the Scandinavian pirate or the
wielder of flint implements. It is presumable, therefore, that the moral development is
not to be explained solely as corresponding to any organic change in the individual.
10. Hence, for a historical solution of the problem of the moral instincts, it
would be necessary to compare man and society as it now exists with that which
existed previously to the evolution of a distinct moral system, and to show how the
social change had been brought about without a corresponding change in the
individual organisation. In other words, we may for this purpose consider man—that
is, the individual as born with certain capacities and characteristics—as approximately
a constant, and then show how the society which is constituted of similar raw material
comes to differ so materially in the properties of the manufactured article. To trace the
process fully would be to give a complete history of morality, which is both beyond
my powers and irrelevant to my immediate purpose. It will be sufficient if I consider
briefly how such a process is conceivable, and what is implied in its realisation.
11. Social development takes place without a corresponding change of
individual organisation. A modern gunboat could crush the fleets which fought at
Salamis, and a modern child could solve problems which bewildered Archimedes ;
and in whatever way we may explain this change, we certainly cannot interpret it as
implying that the average child of to-day is born with faculties radically superior to
those of Archimedes or of Themistocles. The change obviously depends upon the
ancient and familiar truth that man can accumulate mental and material wealth ; that
he can learn by experience, and hand over his experience to others. It may be that
germs of this capacity are to be found in the lower animals, but we shall make no
sensible error if we regard it, as it has always been regarded, as the exclusive
prerogative of humanity. An unreasoning animal can only adapt itself to new
circumstances, except within a very narrow range, by acquiring a new organisation,
or, in other words, by becoming a different animal. Its habits and instincts may
therefore remain fixed through countless generations. But man, by accumulating
experiences, can virtually alter both his faculties and his surroundings without altering
his organisation. When this accumulation extends beyond the individual, it implies a
social development, and explains the enormous changes wrought within historical
times, and which define the difference between the savage and the civilised man. Let
us consider for a moment some of the conclusions which may be inferred from this
cardinal fact.
12. Imagine an exhaustive statement of the differences between modern
England and the England of thirty centuries back—of the England inhabited by
twenty millions of civilised beings and the England which was the hunting-ground of
a few tribes of wandering savages. We should have to begin by noticing vast material
changes—rivers embanked, marshes drained, forests felled, roads constructed, houses
built, fields tilled, wolves supplanted by sheep—and making a calculation of the
industrial capital and the artistic treasures accumulated. All this, we should have to
observe, implies the possession not only of different materials, but of a new set of
tools. The modern, though not inheriting greater faculties at his birth, can compel
material force to co-operate with him. He has gunpowder, steam-engines, and
printing-presses where a wheeled carriage or an iron nail would have astonished his
predecessor as a miracle of art, and would have been unattainable by an equal
expenditure of intellectual energy. This, again, implies the inheritance, not only of
materials and of tools, but of skill. To the savage a telegraph or a book would be so
much iron wire and rags. The modern has at his disposal vast accumulations of
knowledge. He knows the properties of substances, the form and character of his
dwelling-place, the history of his race ; innumerable products of previous intellectual
energy in the shape of discovered laws of nature, mathematical formulæ,
philosophical, religious, and political speculation, are at his service. The knowledge
existing in different times has become incomparably too vast for any single brain.
Much of it, we may even say, exists in no brain, and yet is potentially there. It is
externalised in countless books and papers laid up in accessible places. We inherit not
merely the tangible products of labour but the methods of labour. Our ancestors
transmit to us both results and the means of obtaining fresh results ; they transmit
their mechanical skill and their logic, although they do not transmit any modification
of structure. The infant always starts at the same point of intelligence, but the path has
been cleared for him, so that he can reach an enormously more distant goal. A child is
not born a clockmaker now any more then he was three thousand years ago, but not
the less does he inherit the power of making clocks.
13. The most striking illustration of this process is to be found in language.
Language is clearly a product of the social organism in this sense, that its
development does not imply any essential change of the organs, but a social
development. It was not bestowed upon men from without, nor is it a necessary
product of our organisation, or worked out by each man for himself. It has been
gradually elaborated from some simple germ by the race under the pressure of social
needs ; and each child accepts it as a ready-made instrument from his nurse and
transmits it to his successors, impressing upon it at rare intervals some relatively
trifling improvement. If we notice how much a child learns in simply learning to
speak, we shall see how much it owes to the society in which it is placed. To learn to
speak is to learn a number of signs with which to fix in the memory a number of
things or aspects of things which would else be forgotten, and to enable ourselves to
recall them easily to the memory of others, and to have them recalled by others. It is,
again, to have both outward objects and the emotions which they excite arranged in
groups, so as to facilitate the reproduction of old impressions and to render accurate
and speedy the complex processes involved in every act of reflection. Language is so
essential an instrument of learning, that it is very difficult for the mature mind to
conceive of any but the simplest process of thought taking place without it. Thus in
learning a language we learn a logic ; for the structure of language is determined by
the elementary methods of reasoning, which in its turn determines the methods of
those who speak it. As every instrument supposes certain methods of using it, the
mechanism of language implies the acquisition of corresponding mental habits. Thus,
again, language implies the unconscious absorption of a philosophy, as is abundantly
clear to any one who will trace the use of such words as matter, form, substance,
spirit, and so forth, and observe how all speculation has started from the attempt to
analyse what was already implicitly given by words embodying previous results of
thought. We are metaphysicians in the cradle, and distinguish object and subject by
methods instilled into us by our nurses. We start with an implicit psychology, as the
names of the various emotions imply a rough classification of the primary elements of
character. The same is true to some extent of every branch of inquiry. The child learns
the Ptolemaic system of astronomy as soon as he can talk about the moon and the
stars. A philosopher who wishes to introduce a new conception has to invent a new
terminology, which is yet always a modification of the old symbols, and in the very
act imposes fetters on his own mind, and provides moulds in which thought is to run
hereafter. Often, it need hardly be said, he introduces some insidious sophistry from
which it is very difficult to escape. Philosophy is in great measure a series of attempts
to escape from the erroneous conceptions thus tacitly introduced in the very earliest
forms of speech. And, finally, it may be observed that language naturally affects our
feelings as well as our conceptions. Words not merely denote an object, but associate
it with certain emotions. We catch the subtle contagion of prejudice from the language
which it has impregnated. We hate a race because its name has been used as a term of
abuse. Papist amongst Protestants, heretic amongst Catholics, Jew amongst
Christians, are words which have been used to propagate bitter hatred combined with
an almost complete ignorance of the hated object. Briefly, to teach a child to speak is
to educate it, to prepare it for association with others, to lay it open to all manner of
influences, to start it with a mass of knowledge already elaborately organised, to teach
it methods of thinking and imagining, to insinuate into its mind philosophical and
religious principles, and to inoculate it with innumerable associations which must be
important elements in the development of its character.
14. The child, then, starts with an organisation for thinking and speaking as
the bird leaves the egg with the organs of flying or swimming. Whether and in what
sense this organisation is the product of a previous elaboration is not at this point a
relevant question. In each case, at any rate, the infant starts with certain faculties. But
the essential difference is clear. The eagle learns to fly, the duck to swim, the child to
walk as eagles, ducks, and children have flown, swum, and walked since the species
appeared ; from the organisation we can safely infer the function ; but in the case of
language this is no longer true. The child as it grows up inherits not only the faculties,
but the modifications and elaborations of its faculties which have been developed by
the society in which it lives. Its organs of speech, its intellectual powers, might be
equal to those of Homer or Plato ; but if Homer or Plato had been born amongst the
Hottentots, they could no more have composed the “Iliad” or the “Dialogues” than
Beethoven could have composed his music, however fine his ear or delicate his
organisation, in the days when the only musical instrument was the tom-tom. The
instrument, whether it has or has not a material embodiment, is equally essential in
both cases. The analogy of vocal music would serve as well as that of instrumental.
The art of singing has to be created by the labours of successive generations of
musically endowed generations, whether the instrument be the human throat or the
fiddle. Hence, the activity of the individual is essentially conditioned, not merely by
his individual organisation, but by the social medium. His predecessors have created a
new world. The physical basis may be the same, but the man develops under a set of
influences which profoundly affect his intellect, his emotions, and his activities. The
material world is not more altered by cultivating fields and manufacturing tools than
the world of thought by the development of language and all that system of logically
organised methods of reasoning which determine the lines of discharge of intellectual
energy.
15. Human conduct, then, depends essentially upon the social factor ; we
must study the properties of the social as well as of the individual organism in order to
understand it ; and in this is already implied a further condition of vital importance.
The individual, that is, is dependent at every moment upon his contemporaries as well
as upon his ancestors. When I have learnt a language, I have an instrument which will
serve me in solitude. I can sit down in my study and speculate or imagine as I please.
My thoughts, it is true, are modified at every instant by the instrument elaborated by
others, but the instrument remains, when once acquired, a constant factor. But this, of
course, is an infinitesimal part of the ordinary use of language. As it has been
developed by the need of communication, it also serves at every moment as a means
of communication, and it is as governing my relation to my fellows that it exercises
the most palpable and continuous influence ; and this is equally true of all the other
social faculties. Almost every action of my life is dependent more or less directly
upon the co-operation of others, and the more so as I become more civilised. I cannot
think without assuming the knowledge attained by others. I see that my fire is low ; I
feel that I am too cold ; I infer that I should put on coals. Even in so simple a case I
use inherited results of the experience of others, and especially of the great discovery
of fire and its properties. But I am also dependent upon the continued co-operation of
others. I could not arrange the details of a day’s work without taking into account the
conduct and the continuous action, for example, of those processes which determine
my supply of coal. I cannot think to any purpose without taking for granted the
veracity and intelligence of innumerable fellow-men, and fitting my own results into
the vast mass of results attained by others. Each individual, in whatever department he
labours, assumes that others are labouring in tacit or express co-operation. If millions
can live in a region which formerly supported a few thousands, it is because each of
the millions has millions of co-operators. If I can devote myself to write an ethical
treatise, it is because thousands of people all over the world are working to provide
me with food and clothes, and a variety of intellectual and material products. If
another man lives by putting one brick on another, it is because he can trust the
discharge of other essential functions to the numerous classes who are contributing
more or less directly to his support, protection, and instruction. Briefly—for it is
useless to dwell upon this familiar topic—the growth of society implies that division
of functions which has been more or less recognised by every one who has considered
the question since the dawn of speculation. This vast social organisation is the work of
a vast series of generations unconsciously fashioning the order which they transmit to
their descendants. It is only necessary to take note of the familiar fact, because some
of the consequences which it implies have been neglected or insufficiently
emphasised. Briefly, society exists as it exists in virtue of this organisation, which is
as real as the organisation of any material instrument, though it depends upon habits
and instincts instead of arrangements of tangible and visible objects.
16. It is, again, obvious that as every man is born and brought up as a
member of this vast organisation, his character is throughout moulded and determined
by its peculiarities. It is the medium in which he lives, as much as the air which he
breathes or the water which he drinks. And this implies not merely, from the facts
already noted, that his intellectual furniture, his whole system of beliefs, prejudices,
and so forth, are in a great degree acquired by direct transference, and that
consciously or unconsciously he imbibes the current beliefs and logical methods of
his fellows, but also that he is educated from infancy by the necessity of conforming
his activities to those of the surrounding mass. If his feelings or beliefs bring him into
conflict with his neighbours, he is constantly battered and hammered into comparative
uniformity. To deviate from the beaten track is to expose oneself to incessant
collisions. If it is the custom to keep to the right in a street, I can only go to the left at
the risk of being trodden under foot. And though some results of this process are
lamented by many reasoners, it is clear that in some degree it is a necessary condition
of all progress. It is as necessary to conform to certain rules as to accept certain
beliefs. If I insisted upon trying for myself the effect of every kind of food, I should
not survive my first crucial experiment upon arsenic. If I deviate from ordinary rules,
I so far deprive myself of the advantages of co-operation, because my neighbours are
unable to foresee my conduct or to act in harmony with me. If I insist upon dining
only in the middle of the day, I am so far debarred from society ; if I object to the
ordinary forms of worship, I cannot have the stimulus of common prayer. If to gain
the advantages I accept the rules, my character is modified accordingly. Be the result
bad or good, all organisation implies uniformities of conduct, and therefore
continuous discipline. We are born, not into a chaotic crowd, but into an organised
army, and we must learn to keep step and rank and to obey orders. But to appreciate
more clearly the nature of the discipline, we must consider some broad facts as to the
constitution of the army.
17. Sociology treats of the social organism, and those considerations already
set down may serve to show what is meant by this statement, and how far the word is
used in the same sense when we speak of the individual and the social organism. It is
enough to say here, that it implies at least that some important rules are equally
applicable in both cases. It is as true that man is dependent upon his fellows as that a
limb is dependent upon the body. It would be as absurd to ask what would be the
properties of a man who was not a product of the race, as to ask what would be the
properties of a leg not belonging to an animal ; or to ask what would be the best type
of man without considering his place in society, as to ask what would be the best kind
of leg without asking whether it belonged to a hare or a tortoise. And in the next
place, it is true that the properties of a society cannot be deduced from the
independent properties of its members in the same sense as it is true that the
properties of any living body cannot be deduced from the mechanical and chemical
properties of the elements of which it is composed. Destroy the life in either case, and
the remaining properties of the dead materials do not enable us to assign their
properties when forming an associated whole. We cannot infer the properties of a
society by supposing it to be an aggregate of beings independent of society, because
such beings are mere nonentities. The residue, when you had abstracted from it all
social qualities, would in any case be merely the material elements, the hydrogen,
carbon, and so forth, to which the body may be reduced ; and from these you could
infer neither the individual nor the society. But further, any given society has
properties of its own which cannot be deduced from those properties of the individual
which are common to men in all social states, for those properties may, as we have
seen, remain constant when the social organisation varies. The inference from the part
to the whole would be as impossible as the inference to the properties of any given
animal from the tissues which it possesses in common with other animals. The
properties depend upon the way in which they are combined, and we therefore require
other data to determine the results of the combination. It is, therefore, necessary to
speak of society as an organism or an organic growth which has in some sense a life
of its own. And this, it is to be repeated, implies no mystical or non-natural sense.
Society is not an organism with a single centre of consciousness. It is not something
which has any existence apart from the existence of the individual members. But the
name marks the essential fact, that although at any time the properties of the
constituted whole are the product of the constituting units, those units have gained
their properties in virtue of belonging to this whole. The society as a whole acquires
new characteristics at different stages of growth which are only explicable through its
history ; and therefore, though we may properly speak of any particular social
phenomena as resulting solely from the character of the individual agents, we must
also tacitly assume that their character is to be dependent upon their relations to a
society at the given stage of growth. We may no doubt try to explain this fact by
assuming that latent properties have existed in the individual at earlier stages, as we
may suppose that the material elements of a body have latent properties which only
reveal themselves through the vital union. But since we can only know them as they
are manifested, we can only give an intelligible account of the society by regarding
them as properties of the social organism. The phrase “latent property” is only
intelligible as marking the fact that a man (or a baby), if transplanted from one society
to another, would acquire the corresponding characteristics, which is, indeed, assumed
in our statement. So that, whatever the ultimate facts, we must be prepared to find
qualities developed through the social union which are not immediately deducible
from the properties of the individual without reference to that union. The necessity of
this assumption and of the corresponding terminology will appear as we proceed.

III. Social Organisation.

18. An organism implies organs. The society, like the individual, has its
organs of self-defence and nutrition, its apparatus corresponding to the brain, the
stomach, and so forth, though it would be absurd to press the analogy too far. There is
this much resemblance, at any rate, that the society develops associations each of
which has its separate function, and implies the development of corresponding
associations with other functions. Political, ecclesiastical, and industrial organs
become more distinct and more interdependent as society advances. These organs,
indeed, are neither mutually exclusive nor generally conterminous in respect of the
individuals who compose them. Every man may be, and generally is, a member of
several organs. He may belong to a church, a state, a commercial company, and so
forth. Sometimes membership of one may be incompatible with membership of
another, especially of the same kind ; but the various associations overlap in complex
ways, and do not imply, so to speak, a fissure down to the foundations. Industrial
associations may be formed of the subjects of different states. The map of Europe
would differ according as we marked the ecclesiastical or the political divisions.
Englishmen belong to many churches, and the Catholic Church includes subjects of
many states. And, of course, each organ, though it may be regarded as a unit for some
purposes, is for others a highly complex structure ; as, for example, the state includes
military, judicial, and administrative organs, each of which is again an organised
structure.
19. Now, although this division into organs or associations does not
correspond to a division of society into separate groups, but to a division of the
various activities of a single group, it is equally true that each organ may be regarded
as having in some sense a life of its own. It persists as a body persists in spite of, or
rather in virtue of, a continuous change in the constituent particles. The associations
graduate by indefinite degrees from the most ephemeral and accidental up to the most
permanent and essential. Man, according to the old formula, is naturally a social
animal. Whenever two men meet there is the germ of a possible alliance or
antagonism. The most trivial bond may serve. Two travellers who happen to meet in
crossing a ferry have already a certain community of interest. They are liable to
common dangers and have a certain sympathy. If they are passed by another boat,
they will regard the other travellers as rivals, and be prepared to take a pride in the
success of the embryo society, even in defiance of the reflection that their own merits
have no influence upon its success. Johnson’s hatred of the “dockers,” when, for the
moment, he adopted the local prejudices of Plymouth, is a humorous illustration of a
general principle. The germs of association are everywhere present, and every
temporary cohesion supplies the necessary medium for their rapid development. There
are, indeed, two cases which correspond to very different kinds of association. We
may regard the human organisation with no more interest than we should feel for a
material instrument. We may regard a servant, as we regard the bell which summons
him, as a food-bringing machine. A master may regard his slaves with the same
feeling as he regards his horses or his ploughs. They are simply means to an end, and
the association would vanish if the end were no longer desirable. In the opposite case,
we sometimes reverse the process, and come to entertain for material instruments
some of the affection which is normally the product of sympathy ; but the feeling
springs up naturally, and acquires importance when we have to do with our fellows. In
such cases the corporate feeling ceases to have any accurate proportion to our desire
for the ostensible end of the association. The man loves the school in which he has
been brought up with very little reference to its merit as an educational institution. We
come to love a corporate body as though it were a real person. We speak of a church
or a state as “she,” and when we are told that a corporation has no soul, the remark
strikes us as if it were the revelation of a new and unsuspected truth. The ostensible
end of an association is often the least part of its value for us. We really love it
because it supplies us with a means of cultivating certain emotions and of enjoying
the society of our fellows ; and it would be an entirely inadequate account of the
whole statement if we regarded it as simply the means of attaining that pleasure which
has given the pretext for its formation.
20. The corporate sentiment thus developed is more complex and less
capable of analysis in those associations of which we have become members without
any conscious volition. When we have been brought up from our infancy as members
of a state or church, or have been made members of some society before the age of
reflection, our emotions and activities become so thoroughly identified with those of
the body, that we are incapable of assigning any specific end as supplying the
dominant motive. The sentiment, for example, of patriotism is one which defies
analysis. The state, we may say, discharges a certain social function. According to
some theorists, it is useful simply as a means of protecting its members against
violence. Even upon this supposition the corresponding sentiment would be complex,
inasmuch as a desire for protection implies a desire for gratifying any of the instincts
which might expose us to danger. But the bare desire for protection would be a very
inadequate explanation of the emotion roused by the thought of a man’s native
country, which possesses a complexity of a far higher order, and seems to be an
instinct in which every part of his nature is more or less directly concerned. It may
possibly be true that if the need of protection could be removed the instinct would
decay, but in any case it has an independent vitality, the conditions and nature of
which could only be unravelled by elaborate psychological and historical
investigation. At the opposite end of the scale are generally the industrial associations,
which generate very little corporate sentiment. The actual co-operation which exists
between different parts of the industrial mechanism calls out very little distinctive
sentiment towards the whole association. The end always remains distinct. A bank, for
example, is a highly important part of the machinery by which one set of people are
enabled to co-operate in the industrial occupations of another set. But although the
utility of the bank is the cause of its persistence, the banker and his customers on both
sides are not induced to carry on their operations by any conscious desire for their
neighbours advantage, but simply by a desire for their own comfort. Each man
confines his view of consequences to himself. His intention is simply to keep or
acquire wealth. By doing so he facilitates the operations of his neighbours for the
same purpose ; but he does not, or need not, think of that result at all, any more than
the farmer in clearing the ground considers the interests of the cattle which he is about
to raise. Their interests coincide with his own up to a certain point, at any rate ; but he
is not prompted by any sympathy with their feelings.
21. But this difference does not necessarily or generally affect the power of
such persistence of the organ. An elaborate industrial organisation is necessary to the
life of a civilised nation, and each member of the nation is interested in maintaining
it ; and thus it is maintained, although it may be that no man feels any more
enthusiasm about a bank or a railway company, considered as a factitious person, than
he does about a steam-engine or a printing machine. Though merely machines, they
are necessary machines. In any case, too, another conclusion is equally manifest.
Every association, that is, to whatever type it belongs, necessarily implies the
existence of certain more general instincts dependent upon the whole social
development. If any social organ were or could be conditioned by a separate instinct ;
if it supplied the means by which alone one specific faculty of our nature could find
its gratification, then a study of that instinct or faculty would be the study of the
corresponding organ. Or rather, the study of one or the other would be stated as inner
and outer, as being objective and subjective theories of the same phenomena. But it is
plain that this does not correspond to the facts. The church, for example, depends
upon the religious instinct. It will nourish or decay with the rise and fall of all that is
implied in that name. But the religious instinct is the name of a highly complex set of
sentiments which have other manifestations than that of the ecclesiastical
organisation, and depend upon much wider conditions than those to which it is subject
in that capacity. The religion of a country depends, amongst other things, upon the
growth of speculation, upon the philosophical and scientific conceptions which have
established themselves, and which react in countless ways upon the beliefs which we
call religious, and the practices to which those beliefs give rise. So, again, the state
depends upon the loyalty of its members ; but the sentiment which we call loyalty is
again involved in innumerable ways with all the other modes of social development. It
is closely bound up with religious beliefs, as the decay of a religion may involve a
decay of the political order which shares its sanctity. Every political change has an
ecclesiastical reaction ; whilst in the other direction, again, the development or decay
of political institutions is closely connected with the changes in the industrial
organisation. The existence of complex industrial mechanism implies necessarily the
existence of a mutual confidence. It could not exist unless men were ready to trust
their fortunes to their neighbours, and to rely in various ways upon their co-operation.
This implies the existence of a political order in which peace will be preserved and
contracts enforced. And further, there is a close connection between the industrial
state and the political and religious condition of a country, as the state of prosperity or
misery of the mass of the population has a direct and vitally important bearing upon
their relations to their rulers and teachers. Briefly, therefore, we may say that the
existence of any specific organ implies the existence of an organism provided with
other organs discharging correlative functions ; and therefore it implies the existence,
not only of a certain instinct to which it owes its own vitality, but the existence of
more general instincts to which it is related as a special manifestation to a general
sentiment.
22. Let us recapitulate these conclusions for a moment, with a view to their
bearing on our problem. We have seen that the various properties characteristic of a
given social state may be regarded as corresponding to three successive degrees of
generality. For, in the first place, we have those properties which belong to a society
in so far as it consists of men, that is, of men organised as men are now organised, or,
since we have assumed that this may be regarded as a constant element, of the
properties which belong to all societies since a period antecedent to the growth of an
explicit moral system. In the second place, we may consider the properties of a
society at any given stage—and of course I shall speak generally of the civilised man
of the present day—in so far as they depend upon these primary instincts, when
modified and converted into a virtually new set of instincts by social development and
inheritance. These instincts must be common to all societies at that stage, and to the
members of such societies whatever their special relations to the society. And, thirdly,
we have yet another set of properties which belong to the society as organised, and
which are still modifications of the more general instincts, but which correspond to
the particular organs into which the society is distributed. Thus, to take a particular
example, we may consider a man in so far as he is born with certain sensibilities
which render him capable of sympathy with his neighbours. These sensibilities, by the
hypothesis, may be found in the rude as well as in the more civilised state ; but in the
higher state they will give rise to what may be called a new set of faculties and
instincts in virtue of the process already described : the savage chief is transformed
into the civilised statesman. But, in the next place, the instincts so developed will
qualify him for being a member of various forms of association, political,
ecclesiastical, and so forth ; and, as acted upon by the special circumstances in which
he is placed, will again determine his fitness for one of these functions rather than
another, and further for some particular type of ecclesiastical, political, or industrial
organisation. And in each case, it must be observed, the more special form of instinct
must be regarded as conditioned by the more general ; not as if they were separate
forces, one of which must be conceived as controlling the other, but simply as
implying that the particular is an embodiment of the general under certain specific
circumstances, and that the general rule must therefore be stated independently of the
particular case, as including, not as controlling it ; and further, that the conditions
upon which, in fact, the existence of the general instinct depends must always be more
general than those which are given in the particular manifestation.
23. The grounds for this distinction have perhaps been sufficiently
indicated ; the reason for insisting upon them may appear more clearly by introducing
another consideration. It is impossible, as has been sufficiently said, to determine the
properties of any given society directly from the innate properties of the individual
members. We must regard its properties, and thus the special characteristics of its
various organs, as determined by those properties which are developed through the
social union. But, again, we cannot determine these organs directly from the social
properties of the individual ; for, in fact, it is plain that the organs are differently
constituted according to the special environment. In other words, the existence of a
particular political order implies necessarily the existence of a certain stage of social
development ; but the inference cannot be inverted. Each social stage is compatible
with many forms of political organisation according to the circumstances in which it
is placed. Under one set of circumstances there is a greater, and under others a less
degree of centralisation ; in one country the democratic, and in another the
aristocratic, element may be more prominent, and this without any important
difference in the intimate or underlying social constitution. The various forms of
political organisation possible at a given stage are related as varieties to a species,
which may differ slightly, though by altering the circumstances each might be
transformed into the other. The deeper and more permanent characteristics are
manifested under certain relations in the political, under others in the industrial
organs, and so forth ; and, again, they may be compatible with varying conformations
in each particular manifestation.

(Science of Ethics, Stephen, pp. 90 – 120)

I have just read the whole of the above after a few months gap since I quoted
it, and it is stunningly brilliant ! Quite incredible, and damn near perfect. The main
oversight is his failure to reduce his highly abstract description of human society to an
even more perfect abstraction, by realising that language is a programme that directs
the activity of the individual as a social unit. He comes so close to this logical
proposition, without grasping the point that language arises from physiology, even
though, when comparing the flight of birds to the act of speech, he uses an analogy I
favour today. He seems about to fall down here as he makes language different from
flight in birds, because there is an accumulative process of language acquisition. But
he handles this well, as I say, only failing to take the last step by not realising that this
accumulating acquisition is a developing programme of superorganic being, that
constitutes the body of information of which the social organism is composed, and
into which the individual is inducted, precisely as he describes. I wondered what the
title Higher Organicism was about when I read it earlier today, having completely
forgotten what I had written at the beginning of the year, but now I see exactly what I
had in mind.

Taboo : the maximum intensity of linguistic force

The end of chapter two, which is the beginning of the above quote, discusses
the nature of essential instincts, and points out that what is essential for the ‘race’ may
not be essential for the individual. This fact has a huge logical potential in terms of
showing that there is no such thing as an individual existing in their own right, as an
end in themselves. We should substitute the word ‘species’ for ‘race’ in this context ;
the word ‘superorganism’ would be an equally suitable substitute for the outdated
term ‘race’, as used by Stephen.
Stephen’s choice of sexual reproduction to illustrate his argument lends itself
to thoughts about homosexuality, a topic that we can avail ourselves of as a clear
proof that humans are, and must be, a superorganism. Stephen does not touch
homosexuality, if thoughts of this kind crossed his mind he would not of been able to
express them in print, because the strictures imposed upon society by the absolute
theocracy that rules us, would not allow this kind of talk at that time. I have never
come across any discussion of homosexuality, of any kind, in anything written in the
nineteenth century. This is how a taboo should work, deep from within the darkest
depths of the psyche. Yet by its very nature a taboo emanates from without : the force
of taboo is external, the effect of taboo is internal. This dynamic of taboo is further
conclusive proof of the elemental nature of the individual, existing solely as a unit of
superorganic being, obeying rules fanatically, mindlessly.
Taboo itself is a physiological expression of linguistic force acting at its most
intensely, whereby social structure is strictly defined. It is of no importance what is
taboo, only that somethingshould be taboo, because taboo is vital to the state’s
imposition of structural order upon the physiology of the superorganism. We noted
this same principle of ‘quantity over quality’ above when quoting from Bagehot, who
said that unity is what matters, not the quality of unity. In this sense taboo is the kind
of unifying force that we may suggest is of the lowest quality, but it still rules our
world with an iron fist today, the Nazi imposed taboo against discussing the Jewish
master identity being the supreme example of this. Taboos then, being simply
structural manifestations of linguistic force, rotate wildly all the time, as long as we
view these things over a superorganic time scale. Hence in Stephen’s day
homosexuality could not be discussed, while today, as a society, we love homosexuals
more than anything on earth. In Stephen’s day racism was a sacred mantra that it was
mandatory for everyone to believe in, now, if you want to be ostracised in public, why
not try being openly racist. And of course Judaism, as the linguistic identity core of
the global superorganism, uses the taboofying mechanism of anti-Semitism as the
most searing weapon of social control known to nature.
 II

Manufacture and use of identity accumulators

Taboos are always manufactured by the social core. Only the core has the
power to make a social taboo. The core in our case means a theocracy, which is
always fabricating taboos by passing laws to suppress behaviour originating in its own
enclaves of social power, resulting in a process that sets people up, then puts them
down—as in making them racists, then attacking them for being racist—all to serve
the objective of long term control over a biomass of vast extent. This process is
functional, it occurs as elite individuals struggle to coalesce power about themselves,
by attracting a cohort of the biomass. This power seeking forces bias to shift one way,
then over time corrections pull it back the other way. Our dualistic left-right political
arrangement formalises this dynamic in a simple manner, but major shifts obviously
occur, since history records them in relation to war, revolution and social
transformation.
An extremely important detail to bare in mind when we are thinking of this
subject of biomass control by a priesthood, is that control by any such major law
making authority comes in two kinds, passive and active. It is just as effective to take
no actionto a purpose —as when allowing hundreds of thousands of ‘illegal’
immigrants to pour into Britain every year unopposed by the law—as it is to pass laws
against any given behaviour—such as making ‘racist’ remarks objecting to Muslims
pouring into the country. Get it, see how the two modes, passive and active, work in
harmony toward a core objective. Of course you do. Living in our present time of
great change in the composition of our identity hierarchy, where the social identity
accumulator has been run down by two world wars, by using up its potential to fuel
warfare, the priesthood is now busy pumping it up again. Resetting the identity
accumulator involves the use of various mechanisms revolving around taboo, such
that we could say our modern legal system is really nothing more than an incredibly
elaborate expression of the taboo framework of primitive societies, from which the
word ‘taboo’ originates. Hence we live under a regime of carefully selected
oppressive law, focused on the indigenous identity pool, and carefully crafted
international law empowering the alien identity pool, as seen regarding the farcical
laws relating to refugees. Refugee status is a crass con if ever I saw one, as if any
nation can take on a responsibility for the world ! But it is a con I have never seen
anyone comment upon in these terms, describing it as a device to reconstitute the
European slave biomass of Judaism, even from the far right, where you would think
this fact will of been noticed. But of course the far right is always fanatically
Christian, so they prefer to base their fascism on race not creed. But then the far right
section of the Christian priesthood is also so ‘oppressed’ that we do not get to see
much of what they have to say. An oppression that is all part of the theocracy’s act.
What we are describing here, in a rather poor and inadequate way I know, is the
making of an identity accumulator by letting identity enclaves flow freely here, while
leaning on them elsewhere, and how the resulting identity differentials created in a
biomass, result in an energy potential of identity, which is then set to use via an outlet
of political action.
Why give sanctuary only to those who reach the portal of our nation ? It is an
open invitation to all and sundry to come here, and the way the authorities are
hamstrung if anyone makes it over the line is so farcical, it beggars belief. This
reminds us of the old idea of sanctuary on sacred ground, an obvious device to give
sacred value to an otherwise mundane object. If we really care about those suffering
on mass in far off lands, why do we not send ocean liners to Zimbabwe, Sudan, Iran,
the Black Sea, North Korea, and cargo planes to Tibet, and ship as many countless
hundreds of millions of people back to England as want to escape the horrendous
abuse that these, and many other peoples endure, due to low grade state structures,
typical of third world conditions ? The answer is that sanctuary, viewed politically, is
just another cynical game played by the priesthood as part of its manipulation of the
biomass that forms its seat of power. Sanctuary serves to sanctify the priesthood
itself, and as just indicated, it also presents a special device whereby population can
be manipulated to a purpose, in a way that runs against the natural grain of a biomass,
which always wants to preserve its identity integrity if it can.
This idea of sanctuary is not just about reconstituting the Jewish slave biomass
of Europe after all out war, it is also about defining the up and coming slave territories
of the third world, where misery exists because of the ingress of our superorganic
being, which broke down the old social order and is yet to create fully functional
replacements. The third world is a product of the first world, and chaos in the third
world serves the interests of the first world because chaos is always the key to later
reconstitution along desired lines. Everything is always about corporate control, there
is no such thing as care of the individual at the level of state organisation,
notwithstanding that appearances are always designed to invert this truth. In other
words the third world is already a Jewish slave territory, and this is what refugee
status is all about, it is the sinew connecting these low grade superorganic tissues to
the newly connected master, bringing them into the fold of superorganic being
through a sinew of linguistic force, which is the law of refugee status. A law which
can do no real good, a law which is farcical, but which serves its real purpose by just
being there.

III

Identity watersheds

The energy potential of identity is part of the spectrum of life force that, at its
most extreme, results in the evolution of new species, whereby identity differentials
reach a genetic watershed, crossing which means there is no coming back, so that a
new species is produced. Our discussion above, portrays this dynamic of the
evolutionary process in action, contained within the genetic frame of the human
species, where linguistically based evolution occurs because of the special status of
the human mammal as a superorganism. In a superorganism the force of life driving
the evolutionary process is inverted, so that it acts upon internal, social structure,
which is contained by physiology over folding upon itself to produce
structuralcomplexity, as opposed to species diversity, leading to different forms of
individuals within one species genome, such as Jews and gentiles, black and whites,
Kings and peasants, owners and workers, and so on. This complex internal structure,
composed of units that are alive in their own right, although not living in their own
rightas an end in themselves, constitutes an environmental domain in its own right, a
social environment that exists as the physiology of a superorganism. Possessing a
complex inner structure defined by a series of physiological identity watersheds, as
opposed to environmental species watersheds.
This structural potential for social evolution, realised by turning individuals
into elements of a greater whole, is the reason we speak of any major life engine, such
as that of mammalian physiology, as having a latent potential to exploit all major
environments, land, sea, air and social, where the social environment is brought into
being by the coming into being of life itself. Our approach is derived from our
scientific model of evolution based on force and energy, as contrasted with Darwin’s
religiously inspired political model of evolution, based on competition between
individuals. In both cases a hierarchy exists, but whereas in Darwin’s model the
dynamics of hierarchy are played out between individuals, one on one, whereby a
hierarchy accumulates from the resulting competition across a population, selecting
only the finest ! in our sanemodel, these dynamics of hierarchy relate to the evolution
of life itself. So that life is seen to shape humans, instead of the other way around,
where Darwin makes life appear in conformity to the religious image we have of
ourselves. It is the creation of a new environment for life to adapt to, by the coming
of life itself, that results in the peculiar religious ideology of self made humans, that
informs all scientific ideas of human nature today. Humans as superorganisms, are a
product of life adapting to life, to produce a special kind of animal composed of lower
order animals, individuals that is, from which it follows that this power of adaptation
to the self underlies the process of human action and personifies the nature of human
existence. But this self adaptation is strictly biological, psychological factors having
no bearing whatsoever on the form a society takes, except in so far as psychological
factors as seen as a special case of the biological mechanism. As ever humans never
see reality, but they do sense reality and express what they sense symbolically. Hence
they sense the superorganism and call it ‘God’, and likewise they sense the dynamic
of evolution acting introvertedly to produce social evolution, and this they call ‘free
will’, in modern religious jargon, resulting in the power of self making.

IV

Latent identity potential of Islam

The effect of the last world war, in terms of releasing a millennia’s worth of
the accumulated linguistic force of identity resident in Europe, has given us lots of
opportunity to observe how identity accumulators are dissipated and reconstituted by
the physiology of a linguistically generated superorganism, such as we are part of.
Making populations act like great muscles of superorganic being, tearing open the
social life of humanity, and putting it back together again in a new shape, with each
new configuration more empowering to the core than the one before. As a lone
individual struggling to make sense of the world, I see things from my personal
perspective, but empowered by a true scientific key to understanding all things
pertaining to human existence, I can, if I try, just about catch a glimpse of what my
narrow focus of attention is telling me about the wider dimension of all human
existence. Hence I hate to see Muslims become established in my freedom loving
land, and it makes me sick to see how the deviants that run our society cynically use
laws pretending to be about helping aliens, to attack the people they actually
represent, supposedly. My focus above, on the way the criminals who run our society
by making our laws, build an identity accumulator by suppressing us with those laws,
while empowering aliens, expresses my parochial perspective. Why not, I am the one
being dispossessed of a comfortable position to make others powerful ? To tell the
truth however, this is what it means to live in a global society : juggling the interests
of the world’s populations, by a master class. What else could it mean ?
Putting aside my perfectly legitimate personal bias, we want an unbiased
scientific understanding of these social dynamics. The bias worked into the global
population by our owners, runs the way it does because Europeans have been the most
privileged part of the world population since the impulse toward a global existence
began. So that if an identity accumulator is to be reconstructed after the dissipation of
the identity potential of the European biomass, relative to the global biomass, then the
flow of energy must be from the globe towards Europe. Recharging the identity
accumulator can only be managed by replacing the discharged identity pool with a
vigorous, impoverished ocean of identity, crying out to use their latent energy of
identity to build the next peak of identity potential.
Muslims yearn for global power, it is in their programming and their
comparatively low status in the world order. Their time has come, their masters, who
created Muslims in their own image, are now ready for them. Our owners are now
focusing their nurturing efforts upon these ripe human cattle. As they farmed us in the
past to create the millennial accumulation of linguistic force that was released last
century, to initiate the full blown establishment of a Jewish global society, created
through the linguistic programmes of Jewish slave identity, now, with the
establishment of Israel, they are ready to release the latent potential of the third tier of
Judaism.
This is all perfectly natural, this is what our sentient brick physiology evolved
to make possible, the formation of identity accumulators, storing energy within a
social structure, that constitutes the physiology of a mammalian superorganism, that is
the sum of identity accumulation. Only we are not supposed to know this. Closer to
home, with the establishment of the European state, we now find the identity
accumulator of British identity being methodically dismantled, because it is no longer
needed by the theocracy. Carefully does it, like the decommissioning of a nuclear
reactor, the priests do not want to fracture the vessel containing their pool of social
power, they just want to empty out its spent contents and refill it with a fresh batch of
identity acid. So now the core power base of the social structure is being farmed out
to the regions, central power is broken up, and slowly but surely the old British
identity of global empire is allowed to fade away to nothing. The political process
bringing about this effect is relentless, I have lived through it. All the while the
smooth tongued priest preaches the mantra of empowerment, based on the mythology
of the individual as an end in themselves, as they steal away our real power based on
our traditional British identity. Guileless and dumb, we lap up their words and thank
our masters for the ongoing comfort of their relentless abuse, that nature made us to
enjoy. And we do. So the physiology of superorganic being, based on the energy
differentials of social identity, can be seen at work in our time, like, perhaps, none
other before.
 V

Powerlessness

As individuals we are not stupid, what we are is powerless. The Welsh voted
against their own parliament, so the priests made them vote again, and rigged the
system to ensure that they would get the desired result. Democracy is treated with
such open contempt by our politicians today that ‘voting until we get it right’ has
become a standard method of control, where the nature of a plebiscite inevitably
defines a single block that cannot be controlled by the usual divide and conquer tactic,
which ensures that only two possible shades of one fascistic colour can ever obtain
power in England, under our dualistic voting order.
The new focal point of our master core, based on the continent, uses this
‘recall method’ of voting freely. The Irish are being forced to vote again on a treaty
they scuppered recently, and this time they willvote as they are expected to,
guaranteed. Saddam Hussein would of died to have such autocratic power, he had to
use crude brutality to get such results, effective, but less convincing. The Scottish
also know that it is not in their interest as a people to have their own parliament,
hence we find them reluctant to let their own little clan of autocrats make Scotland
independent. But in the end the priests will win, Scotland will become independent.
The theocracy wants to divide the old power base as it builds a new one based on the
supercharged Islamic slave identity, so the Scots, the Welsh and the English have all
been unscrewedtogether. First we were made to kill each other to form one great
kingdom—building the identity accumulator —now, centuries on, being in a more
docile condition, we are forced to give up our resident power by political craft. All
because the identity accumulator created by centuries of warfare, has been recently
dissipated in world wide warfare, thereby setting a new parameter for identity
accumulation in the future.
The destruction of powerful enclaves of social identity, as in the British
confederation in the United Kingdom, is essential to allow power to accumulate
naturally at different boundaries of identity. The establishment of the European state
and the break up of the United Kingdom go hand in hand. So we are not talking about
something malicious here, the politicians will know roughly what they are doing, and
why. But they would never let this fact slip in public, and the interrogators of public
life, the journalists, are part of the priesthood, so they play the game written into the
linguistic programme that forces us all to understand these matters in terms of
personalities, rather than the reality revealed by a true science of human nature. And
so it goes on. We are but bricks in a wall, which the masons place as they as please.
It is not for nothing that architecture has played so significant a role in the occult
mystery that is Christianity, the Jewish slave identity implant.
I recently happened upon a book that my local library was selling off, The
Great Deception : A Secret History of the European Union, by Booker and North,
2003. This would appear to be a revelation of the kind that is implied in our
reasoning, revealing the hidden dynamics behind the shift of centralised power to
continental Europe. I have not looked at this book, but I am sure it is not going to
discuss the organicist science of human nature, and the consequent fact that Christians
are the slaves of the Jews ! Since we know there is an immense anti-European
movement, mainly right wing, this is likely to be history suited to their American
centred agenda. Internal tensions revealed by such works are all part of the one
uniform push toward ever increasing uniformity under Judaism, as we indicate when
we assume that the true nature of the driving force behind all such ‘secret processes of
unification’ throughout history, will be completely and utterly unspoken by this
revelationof so called ‘secrets’. Its just another portion of misinformation, to feed one
identity enclave of the biomass, created by their very own priestly hub of
Conservative identity. So a book like this is only useful incidentally, in that it must
examine the same facts as we would wish to examine as unbiased scientists, seeking
to understand the growth cycle of the living Jewish superorganism to which we all
belong.
Something to notice as we unravel our dynamic account of modern history is
that these identity based processes give rise to social events which, as cellular
participants in the same, we can be made to perceive as event focused particulate
happenings, rather than broad, sweeping organic processes. And thus history is made
the religious medium of our understanding, so that the collective is reduced to the
same status as ourselves, to that of a giant individual where no continuity pervades,
but rather point by point occurrences arise, and pass. But according to our naturalistic
reasoning, based on the undeniable fact that humans are animals that evolved on this
planet, the imperative of superorganic physiology drives the outcomes that we see
recorded in history, relentlessly, remorselessly, and, as long as the same identity
patterns pertain, inevitably. It is this very fact of predictability with certainty, that
made the evolution of the Jewish master identity of superorganic being possible to
weave from the strands of linguistic force, that create all human superorganisms.

VI

Black and white

These ideas as to why and how modern societies develop as history recounts,
can be applied in any similar time, and any place, as for example the creation of the
United States on the basis of an exaggerated identity accumulator, that consisted of a
tailor made lower order, necessary to the new condition of these Jewish slave
territories, initially implanted with seeds taken from the long established European
slave territories. The use of negroes from Africa makes perfect sense according to the
method whereby the theocracy manages the construction of identity accumulators,
built to deliver power to the core identity.
American blacks offer the most gorgeous example of identity accumulation
fabrication, bolstered by taboo. The reason being that here we have racism at its most
extreme, bound up with religion in the shape of a Jewish slave identity programme.
So we have both types of slavery cheek by jowl, physical slavery and slavedom
induced subconsciously, by means of identity implantation, attaching its victims
wholly unwittingly to a master identity. From the combination of physical and
identity slavery, black slaves have since emerged into fully paid up members of the
Christian slave fraternity of Judaism. And in America, adding in other factors like
whacky home grown slave identities of Judaism, namely Mormonism, the result is
astounding, as we see that Americans are positively fanatical about the realisation of
the master race’s ultimate victory over mankind, in the shape of an overtly Jewish
theocracy ruling the world, from the sacred heartland of Israel. The power of blacks
in America today is linked to their slave origins of the past, in other words in terms of
social dynamics, blacks are just as much slaves today as they ever were. Only in
accordance with the principle of identity accumulator mechanics, the original
enslavement of Africans created the energy identity accumulator of black racial
identity, producing an identity potential of social power, originally based on racial
identity, that is now being released through its very own sluice gate of Jewish
slavedom, in the guise of the Christian slave identity to which blacks are strongly
attached, and to which their very own black, slave master priests, are so devoted.
The release of blacks from overt servitude under the law, has always been
portrayed as facilitated by their early devotion to the Christian religion, as personified
in the rise of gospel singing, which is enough to make anyone set their slaves free, if
ever anything was ! I’d rather pick the crops myself than listen to that racket in the
fields. Blacks, when expressing a distinct cultural formula of their own, certainly
seem cut out for slavedom like no other variety of human sentient brick currently
alive. This might have to do with their closer proximity to our roots, since humans
came out of Africa. Here in England we occasionally see the evangelical churches
based in London on television, and it is like being thrown back in time 100,000 years,
with the jungle being brought into the heart of modern civilisation. Shiver me
timbers ! History makes it deeply offensive to imply that black people are
evolutionarily more primitive than white people, and I would not wish to suggest this
in any crude fashion. But given the idea that forming a tightly bound superorganism
is the core principle of human biological nature, it is not so much a matter of being
more primitive, but rather a case of being less sophisticated in the expression of this
primary attribute of modern human nature. So that by contrast, we might argue that
the evolution of a white variety of the species is more than likely to have something to
do with the evolution of a distinct master class, which has culminated in the Jewish
slave making caste. An evolutionary development which, by definition, needs to
evoke a psychopathic impulse toward parasitizing society, which has now matured
into what we call ‘individuality’, as personified in the system of capitalism that rules
our world today with a psychopathic impulse that is enough to make a Demon itself
weep for joy. Did you see Newsnight on BBC 2 last night, 28/07/2009 ? It was ace !
Thanks to global warming Greenland has been stripped of ice, so the global
corporations that specialise in planet stripping are buzzing around the barren
landscape like flies to a fresh piece of steaming turd. You gotta love it, pure,
mindless, psychopathic greed, what humanity thrives upon. So that in summation we
would not be contrasting primitive with advanced, so much as emotional with
functional. Functional attachment to a core identity isstructurally more advanced than
emotional attachment, but it is certainly not flattering of white individuals to be
labelled more efficiently psychopathic. And finally on this point, where we may
suppose that English blacks retain something of their African roots because they have
often come here in recent times, the American religious tradition is still highly
distinctive in the extravagantly insane evangelical fashion, which is so disturbing and
revolting to white sensibilities. All in all then, I suspect a trace of genetic influence
making blacks so revolting slavish, as compared to whites, even though they are now
as free as the rest of us. But then, religious whites make me so sick to my stomach,
maybe the difference is one of six and two threes ; shoot the lot of them I say.
Now America has a black president in the White House. As fine an example
of an American president as we have seen of late, which is saying nothing at all, but
still, to first appearances Obama seems a solid man ; a bit gormless, as he proved by
leaping to the defence of his mate arrested by a white cop for breaking into his own
house. Idiots. But needless to say we do not cotton to personality worship, we only
concern ourselves with the machinery fronted by the face men. All politicians are the
scum of the earth, by definition, talking about a good politician is like talking about a
wonderful bout of cancer ! Cancer comes in many different shades of nastiness, like
politicians, so that while some are more welcome than others, none of them are
welcomeat all. No sooner has this man tried to do something that any half civilised
society would be proud of, by making medical provision available to all, and his
support drops off the deep end. That is the America we all know, and hate, which is
why America generally produces politicians so foul as to make us Brits feel well
served by contrast. The social cancer in America is just generally more nasty than in
Britain. The religious influence animates all America, but it is not least evident in the
black stratum of social physiology, so that for our purposes, when we look at the
heroes of black emancipation in America, and see they were all reverend this or
reverend that, we see that by this means the accumulated potential of slave status has
just found another sluice gate to run through, that empowers the Jewish master of us
all. And Obama, as he had to do to be a candidate, swore open allegiance to his
Jewish masters, time and time again.

VII

Reconstituting the social fabric

The process of social reconstitution is not a conscious process performed by

individuals, it is a process of superorganic physiology, enacted by individuals serving
as agents of superorganic being. Racism did not come from the people, it came from
the elite, where racism was a necessary preliminary for the ethnic cleansing of Europe
by multiculturalism, which required that racism be made taboo, before Muslims could
be forced upon the endemic population. Hitler was just as much a functional,
constructive part of our social order as any other politician, and the nastiness and war
that makes him seem other than one of us, is the exact means by which taboo
mechanisms act to ensure that his variety of dark-priest serves the superorganism we
are all part of. We have introduced the terminology of the construction industry here
and there, prompted by the catch phrase ‘sentient brick’, used to describe the nature of
the human individual within the superorganic exoskeleton. Because the suggestion
that Hitler was a fully functional part of our social life is yet another deeply offensive
proposition arising inevitably from a true science of humanity—as was the above
insinuation that a degree of evolutionary advancement might be discerned between
blacks and whites—we might use our general analogy to aid in this provocative
characterisation of our old friend Adolf. The point being then, that in the construction
industry demolition must be considered just as much a valid, functional and beneficial
part of the construction process as the act of building itself, for the one cannot take
place without the other, when a prior structure occupies a site. And likewise, if we
were ever to advance toward the actual foundation of a state of Israel, just how do you
think this was ever going to happen ? Hmmm ? All sorts of compromises were
dreamt up under the impress of the Zionist movement. The British slave territories of
Judaism were naturally rock solid behind the idea of a homeland for the Jews, and
some suggested we make a space for them in Africa, as the British Empire could spare
a plot in the jungle. That went down like a lead balloon. And the fact is that there
was only ever going to be one way to get what the Jews meant to have, and the way it
was got, was the only way it was ever going to happen. The distribution of people
about the world is the equivalent of an occupied building plot, where new
construction is frequently desired by the powers that be. This means demolition must
take place before the social fabric can be reconstituted. Hitler was charged with
driving the bulldozers that levelled the world, and made way for the building of Israel.
Without Hitler the Jews could of kissed Israel goodbye, for sure. Or, since Hitler was
far from being the sum total of the Jewish effort that led to the establishment of the
Israel, if not Hitler, then something else dramatic would of been needed. Anyway, I
just wanted to point out that Hitler was as solid and as good a thing as anything that
human history has ever known, viewed from a strictly scientific perspective, that
recognises that humans are a species of mammalian superorganism, and the living
global superorganism bears the Jewish identity.
There can be no fight for good and right, without the periodic rise of evil and
wrong, so it is the job of the stable good, who rule most of the time, to foster aberrant
evil from time to time. There is a structural system that allows this to happen, it is not
a function of divine providence versus demonic subversion. That system derives from
the identity hierarchy that builds latent potential of identity into structures of
superorganic physiology, and releases the resulting social energy along a pattern of
variegated social tracks, cutting a social landscape to further organise superorganic
physiology accordingly. This process is delightfully illustrated by twentieth century
history, involving as it did, so much action around population perimeters defining
enclaves of one identity or another. Given that the Jews are the be all and end all of
our reason for existing, we might assume that all the ruckus across the whole planet
was simply intended to push the outcome that led to the establishment of Israel. And
all ensuing trouble since then has been to allow the new identity implant sown into the
exoskeletal structure to settle in, rather as a new heart must be given time to relax into
the body into which it is has been set.
It is the function of a social elite to manage the development and operation of
these identity dynamics in such a way that the accumulation of identity potential
increases stability, while releasing tension. It should be self evident that no living
human, or group thereof, can possibly control such dynamics consciously. Indeed
consciousness would interfere with the ability to control such a system, by creating
confusion over precisely which identities belonged where, and when, it would be like
trying to play a game of chess or poker, so many combinations, so little control. This
is why religion exists, to control individuals via a linguistic identity programme that
has the end game written into it, making them fulfil the imperatives of human
corporate nature, built into our sentient brick physiology. So that, for example, all
Jews know that their one goal is to create the nation of Israel, end of story. Why ?
What it means. Who cares ? Just obey the command, it is who you are and obedience
will be rewarding. And from this master position, we all derive our purposes too, via
our slave attachment, created by the secondary and tertiary hierarchical strata of
Judaism, that is Christianity and Islam. Again, because Jewish culture achieved its
ultimate goal during the last century, the events making this remarkable achievement
occur, must demonstrate the process we are describing very well, and as can be seen
from our cursory discussion of the subject, they do indeed. For the political
machinations of the last hundred years or so, have all brought the threads of identity
together to make the ancient promise of Judaism happen. In that sense we are living
in the aftermath of a quite remarkable event, and period of human existence. It is an
event that we do not see or therefore appreciate, because being bang up against it, and
bound up in its physical, material, psychological and emotional consequences, we are
not allowed to know what has gone on. Indeed this work could be seen as the real
story of this remarkable event, in which case it is implicit that we are being run by a
linguistic programme, which is the Jewish identity programme of a superorganism,
which by definition cannot be seen by those it controls and directs. Perhaps in a
thousand years time people will be able to look back on this time and know it for what
it is. The time will pass, and when it has passed, it will seem like but a day, then
people will be able to say, “Well, would you look at that.”
 Tabooification involves a convoluted process of identity hierarchy
manipulation, but mammalian superorganisms are complex animals these days, so this
convoluted process is no surprise. All this, as weird as it seems, is perfectly obvious
if we step back from the froth of emotional deception, and look at the plain facts of
how the world was before any major identity shift, and how the world was after. Only
one item of existence benefited from the Nazis and the world wars, that was the
theocracy, it was weakening, now it is stronger than ever. If you believe that outcome
was an incidental benefit then you are one of them, a master or a slave, but one of
themjust the same. And this work is for neither, it is for the free thinker who would
know reality, for the anarchist, if you prefer that label. For surely anyone who
debunks these machinations of religious power is promoting anarchy, lets hope so
anyway. Anarchism : the ideological objection to being the puppet of a priesthood.

VIII

Anarchism

You may be wondering what is going on, we enter upon the historical section,
begin with a great junk of nineteenth century organicist work and before you know it
we are cruising off into the realms of superorganic physiology, spurred on by a
passing reference to the idea of ‘taboo’. And now we are supposed to drift off at yet
another tangent, inspired by yet another passing thought. What kind of job is this !
Yes, well, in the first place I do not plan my work, this work has been knocked
into book form from one long continuous stream of writing, by breaking it up as I
read it for purposes of checking my work. This checking process involves a good
deal of additional input, as inspired by what I read, and that is what has just happened
when I started on the idea of taboo. Since no one has ever read any of my work I
cannot really think in terms of rigorous structure, and while it is obvious this material
above should not come under Stephen, so, sue me !
The reason for opening up a passage dealing specifically with anarchism is
because I suddenly found myself giving my own definition of the word, following a
discursive definition based on the idea of the individual possessing authority in their
own right—which must be the essence of anarchy—based on the notion of free access
to knowledge. Then I noticed a book on anarchism sat on a shelf, and I decided to
interrogate it to see if there was any material relating to my definition of anarchy. I
found nothing in the contents and turned to the index, and looked for ‘atheism’, and to
my surprise there was no entry. Then I found one entry under ‘freedom of thought’,
which led to a chapter on William Godwin, who was the husband of Mary Shelley.
Godwin seems like an interesting character and we get some nice stuff here.

With his rejection of government and laws, Godwin condemns any

form of obedience to authority other than ‘the dictate of the understanding’.
The worst form of obedience for Godwin occurs however not when we obey
out of consideration of a penalty (as for instance when we are threatened by a
wild animal) but when we place too much confidence in the superior
knowledge of others (even in building a house). Bakunin recognized the latter
as the only legitimate form of authority, but Godwin sees it as most pernicious
 since it can easily make us dependent, weaken our understanding, and
encourage us to revere experts.
Godwin’s defence of freedom of thought and expression is one of the
most convincing in the English language. All political superintendence of
opinion is harmful, because it prevents intellectual progress, and unnecessary,
because truth and virtue are competent to fight their own battles. If I accept a
truth on the basis of authority it will appear lifeless, lose its meaning and
force, and be irresolutely embraced. If on the other hand a principle is open to
attack and is found superior to every objection, it becomes securely
established. While no authority is infallible, truth emerges stronger than ever
when it survives the clash of opposing opinions. Godwin adds however that
true toleration not only requires that there should be no laws restraining
opinion, but that we should treat each other with forbearance and liberality.

(Demanding the Impossible : A History of Anarchism, Marshall, 1992, p. 208)

I like the title. It is certainly interesting that atheism does not appear in such a
history, it is a substantial book of six hundred and sixty five pages, and it reaches back
through the course of the nineteenth century, yet nowhere does atheism per se stand
for freedom from oppression. This is surprising given the relentless war of religion
against all forms of freedom—except the freedom to be a slave of Judaism—which
reached a crescendo during the time Marshall is interested in, because freedom of
thought, culminating in science, was then posing an impossible challenge to priestly
authority.
As can be seen from what I have written, I am happy to call myself an
anarchist, but I have not applied this label to myself since I was a kid. Atheism is
however, of itself, as anarchistic as it is possible to be, and in the passage taken above
we see that Godwin, as described by Marshall, does a good job of setting out the
central problem we are dealing with here, as regards the problem of knowledge
derived from authority. Of course we are developing a scientific thesis, not just a
philosophical formula, so we seek to explain in naturalistic terms why such issues as
Godwin describes, are a perennial feature of human existence.
We should note that when Godwin says truth can take care of itself, he was
simply parroting the famous nineteenth century philosopher Mill, half a century
before Mill spoke. You would think the later person would be the parrot, but nothing
is ever what it should be in an absolute theocracy. If a person does not suit the
priesthood, that person does not exist, otherwise Godwin would be the famous
philosopher, and Mill would be redundant to history. As with Darwin, who would
also of been redundant to history if we lived in a free society where Chambers could
of published his Vestigesopenly, and then we would have a true science of humanity
today, and I would not of needed to spend my entire life struggling to make sense of
the lunacy surrounding me, because the world of knowledge would accord with the
world of reality. Our intellectual world is like a carefully tended garden, personalities
and ideas are selected, trimmed, nipped in the bud or nurtured to florescence, by the
loving care of a team of devoted miscreants who love only power, and hate truth like
nothing on earth. How else could we end up with a panorama of mindless bullshit
reaching from horizon to horizon, in all directions, cleansed of the least hint of
intelligent reason, when we know that in all generations there are naive, powerless
individuals who love knowledge and desire truth ? These lone workers are the weeds
of humanity, they keep cropping up, pestering the priests, who tirelessly tend their
labour of love for power, plucking and discarding every last blade of reason, leaving
the clean vista of obscene religious ignorance that we have described.
The work Godwin wrote was An Enquiry concerning Political Justice, 1793,
and a little aside that seems worth noting is that Godwin’s friend Percy Shelley, was
kicked out of Oxford in 1813 for writing a piece of prose called The Necessity of
Atheism, published in 1811. Godwin begins perfectly, by rejecting authority as a trap,
and thus promoting the ability to discern truth for oneself, and this is indeed the key to
true independence of thought. But desiring this ability to discern truth is easier than
obtaining it, and from this fact we find a terrible flaw in what follows. We see the
childish worthlessness of the reasoning of such people as Godwin when his argument
implies that we wantthe truth ! What I give you here is the truth, Like it do we ? The
idea that anyone, anywhere, ever, would do anything but hate what I teach, with a
vengeance, is inconceivable. Look at the things that I say, they are appalling to our
current sensibilities, I onlysay them because they are true. The thing I heave heard
most down the years is “If the world was as you say it is then I would kill myself.” To
which I always think, “So what’s stopping you ?” Everyone hates the truth. Except
me, but I am very strange in this respect, unique in fact, as far as I know. And the way
I have lived my life reflects this fact. Few people will of passed their days as I have
chosen to pass mine, and none would want to, except, as I say, me. The real problem
is that we just are not individuals, and this prevents people from simply seeking, or
accepting knowledge exactlyas it is. Knowledge exists for a purpose, it is a tool, or
else it is nothing. In my case, I am such an out and out loner, this Achilles’ flaw in the
human personality, just does not apply to me. I do not give a toss what anyone else
thinks—as regards knowledge—I think as I think, end of story. From this we see that
atheism equals pure anarchy.
It may be fair to say that my passion for truth is my own enclave of freedom,
others express their anarchythrough culturally acceptable modes of rebellion, music,
dress, whatever. There is a TV flier for a programme about a high wire walker on at
the moment, and the blurb with it says something about the need for us to express
rebellion. I’m hearing this and thinking, What ! It all just seems like a con, when
there is only one rebellion that means anything, that is the one that sets you free, and
that is my speciality. Knowing the truth, that is it, and that is all. Nothing else
matters, nothing else can matter, not to a person who thinksthey are an individual
anyway. I was deluded by the system into thinking just that, now I know this is
wrong, but I only discovered this by finding out why I was wrong, and that, curiously
enough, made me as much of an individual as I could be.
We saw above that Bloom said that dogmatic atheism led to the realisation that
religion was everything, and so it does, and we explain why. My personal journey
taught me long ago that my precious idea of myself as an individual, was ultimately
based on an illusion, so that once again we find pushing an idea to its nth degree,
seems to reveal its total absurdity, but in the process, validates the idea within the
bounds of reality. We can only be true individuals existing to the maximum extent of
our potential as individuals, if we are fully conscious of the fact that there is no such
thing as an individual existing as an end in their own right. By possessing this
knowledge, as I reveal it here, we make it impossible for priesthoods to be based on
occult knowledge of what humans are, and thus, while we do as we must—we act as
sentient bricks evolved to build superorganic physiology—but we do so while
knowing what we are doing. And it is the condition ‘knowing what we are doing’ that
maximises the potential for individuality in the person.
Well, that is the theory, but can it work ? Sadly not. Because the act of
building social structure involves creating a hierarchy of some sort, and in any
hierarchy lies differential power, and we just cannot escape the consequences of this
fact. Which means we do not assume that a society can be based on true knowledge,
we just hope true knowledge can be promulgated, treasured for what it is, and maybe
make some contribution to how we live. It remains a fact that there is no such thing
as an individual, and that is coming from the ultimate individualist. My ideas cannot
be made the basis of a political agenda, indeed the truth is I hate social order, I like
the accrued benefits of higher social life, but I hate the constraints : I hate law, I hate
police, I hate military, I hate work, I hate politics, I hated school, I hate government,
and oh, did I mention I hate religion ? Hate, hate, hate, is all I know concerning
society. I cannot extol a model of society, for my model would begin, and end, by
dismantling society. I love but one thing : knowledge that is true to reality. No
wonder I hate society ! And when the ideas I reveal in this work ruled the world, in
the nineteenth century, we had their greatest exponent, Herbert Spencer, throwing his
mind into reverse in horror at where his pursuit of truth took him. So that he wanted
to recover his individuality within the bonds of an absolute theocracy, or a state as he
spoke of it. And then organicism gave rise to fascism, based on the political
enactment of the logic that there is no such thing as the individual, there is only the
state. Both these reactions are perversions of this science. I have just attempted to
offer a passing harmonisation of the contradiction. Contradiction is a natural part of
science. We know the Earth is still, because we can stand still, but we know it is
spinning because science proves this is so. This contradiction can be accommodated
by understanding the hierarchical dynamics of cosmic objects, and likewise the reality
of our individuality, defined by our capacity for reason, existing within a
superorganism, within which we are but cellular units, can be accommodated by
understanding the hierarchical dynamics of superorganic physiology. In both cases
we have a material hierarchy which involves levels of energy and physical order,
wherein each distinct level of material unity possesses its own integral degree of
unity, which we can equate to a degree of free action within a stratum of energy. Our
individual form is an integral grade of physical being in its own right, and we have
some freedom of movement to prove this fact, but we cannot push this highly
circumscribed freedom beyond its natural limit without escaping the bounds of reality.
From what we have been saying it follows that individualism as an ideology, is
just another form of anarchy, another kind of impossible ideal. So what we want is
individuality based on atheism, where science, that is true knowledge of human
nature, informs the modes of collective life we life by. That is the best we can hope
for, modes of social order suited to true knowledge, which would deliver a way of life
that is as close as we can get to freedom, while still remaining bound by the
constraints of our natural being. Democracy pretends to deliver this ideal, but without
truth, democracy is like drinking your own urine, its just recycled waste, and the
world we live in shows that it is run on such poor spiritual material.
Today I spent half an hour reading about the theory of a new world order that
was put into action by the world powers after the last world war, it was a load rubbish,
just religious gush wrapped up in humanist gobbledegook. But it has to be said that
for me the world we live in is an abomination, and the civilised world as a format is
not much to my liking. I would say the primary goal of a civilised world is for all
people to live like Lords, as far as possible, and for none to do any work at all, as far
as possible. Such a statement requires filling out. Hard physical labour is nice, as
long as you are young, you get the benefit, and you are not forced into it. Meanwhile,
living like a Lord does not mean being better off than anyone else, it just means
having all you need. The world we inhabit courtesy of our masters, is designed to
create a social pyramid. People are trained to want as much as they can get, enabling
maximum extraction of effort, while being prevented from getting anything very
much, as compared to what really rich people can get. So it is a question of general
philosophy, I would want a world with no hierarchy at all, which is anarchism in the
flesh of course. I would want a world of perfect equality, realised by ensuring that no
one can be rich, but that all can have what is reasonable. No one would have heart
transplants, or cancer treatment, everyone would die in a dignified way befitting a free
life, like the Eskimos use to, by letting their useless old women walk off into the
snow. All this fuss over letting people go on suicide holidays to Switzerland, have
you ever been to Switzerland ? Well then, why else would you want to go there if not
to top yourself ? We preserve life for its own sake, interestingly the plan for a better
world that I was reading did consider quality versus quantity. I was reading UNESCO
Its Purpose and Its Philosophy by Julian Huxley, 1946, I thought this was where I saw
it stated that scientists must be made to prove race had no biological function, but if it
was I could not locate the passage.
Anyway, I am not concerned with expounding a political manifesto. I know I
am not inclined to social order of any kind. I like to break the rules and live free,
according to my own idea of what is right, and such an attitude cannot form the kernel
of a political creed, nor even a philosophical one, though it could be expounded as a
philosophy of life. My object remains however, that which it has been from the
outset, which is to liberate science from religion, by revealing how religion survived
the coming of the scientific age. And that is all of it, and the end of it. And if we
achieve that much, there will be anarchy enough for all, believe me !

IX

Racial identity

We think that our taboos, values, morals and so on, concern an expression of
goodness or developed reason. We would argue that we now know that black people
are just as much human as white people, whereas this scientific fact was not proven in
Victorian times, so that an advance in knowledge allows us to be more sophisticated
and more humane. But this self sycophancy is just an expression of the priest’s art of
manipulating our pathetic slave brain. The crucial mistake, in terms of understanding
reality scientifically, that we make when we reason in moralistic terms, is to take
words at their face value. Our state induced hatred for racism, assumes that racism is
a product of human frailty, that we must therefore correct. That is the political
mantra, the expression of linguistic force emanating from the fact of racial difference,
at the present day. Obviously this anti-racist political mantra is a direct inversion of
the equally false racism expressed by the Nazis. Either way racial identity provides a
means of enforcing strict oppression by a fascist state, firstly acting in the guise of
‘bad guy’—overt fascism—then acting like the ‘nice guy’—covert fascism—the latter
being based on deception and the manipulation of true scientific knowledge. Covert
theocracy, covert fascism, these are different aspects of one and the same thing. In
both cases, the state is the state, and the state only has one purpose, which is to
manipulate the people it owns as efficiently as possible, in accordance with the central
dynamic derived from the superorganism’s core religious identity, which is Judaism.
What this political mantra fails to take account of in scientific terms, is the fact
that humans do not make races, anymore than humans make sexual variations or
religions. These three major items of social conflict and taboo, are created purely by
the action of nature, and humans must respond to their existence, just as they must
respond to any other natural feature of their lives, such as pain, hunger and death. The
states formulation of anti-racist dogma is not passive. The priests know that race is as
natural as any feature of human existence can be, accordingly the priests working
within the academic arm of the state edifice, were, at the end of the Second World
War, ordered to prove that race has no biological function, therefore making racism
meaningless too. Which academics were naturally happy to do because they are paid
handsomely for their lies and machinations, disguised as opinions and expertise.
Race evolved to give the human animal its identity, therefore racial identity
can be the most precious attribute that any individual person has. However, modern
slave religions have transcended this biological function of racial identity, so that
religious identity replaces racial identity as the ultimate expression of corporate being,
leading to the creation of complex superorganisms whose physiological structure is
organised by means of religious identity programmes. Meanwhile racial identity
remains as an underlying structure of corporate being. The state, as an element of
physiological machinery existing to serve Judaism, acting in response to its earlier
mode of control through overt racism, has no choice but to force science to provethat
race has no biological meaning, as it enters a post destructive mode, since the
alternative recognition of race as a biological attribute central to human existence,
leads inevitably to the most perfect proof that religion is a purely biological attribute
of the superorganism too. Race is therefore a very interesting topic, but not one we
need to get into at length, just now. The subject of taboo takes us far enough along
this path for present purposes.

Natural humans

At last ! The Science of Ethics is a vastly more important book than Origin of
Species, the argument in this book really does make humans part of nature, and as
such forms the true basis of a modern science of sociology. No wonder it is so utterly
lost to us today. This could be a scientific bible, negating the need for theBible, which
still provides the ‘essence of reason’ upon which all modern science is based. Of
course this naturalistic science could not form the basis of our contemporary political
system, anymore than a heliocentric astronomy of the solar system could of existed
alongside the ancient political order, based as it was upon the worship of divine
beings that were projected onto the various celestial objects said to rotate about the
planet earth. This true organicist science of sociology, having revealed itself, served
only to inform the priests as to how best to suppress it by utilising the force of
language, as described by Stephen above, to inculcate a collective mind into which all
would be inducted, and from which none could differ, without intolerable
inconvenience to their wellbeing. But it took world wars and horror on a massive
scale to make this happen, yet, having now understood the process occurring over the
last century or so, we can see how there was no other way of realising the required
outcome. Once knowledge has developed to the point of perfection demonstrated in
the above passage from Stephen, what else can be done to return people to a state of
ignorance, other than the direct, wholesale cleansing of the social fabric ?
The above selection is a large piece of Stephen’s work, much of its relevance
will be obvious, and it would take a significant effort to analyse the whole of it. I will
make the general observation that Stephen, in common with contemporary thinkers
who accepted the principle that society is an organism, as Stephen expressly says he
does in the above, nonetheless failed to develop a genuinely naturalistic conception of
this idea. We see where Stephen fixes the disjunction between humans and nature
when he argues that the difference arises between the nature of humans of yore, and
those of civilised times. Stephen makes sense of this transition in terms of the unique
quality of linguistic communication, that allows acquired characteristics to be
transmitted. A crucial error Stephen makes is to argue that people developed the
potential of language as the increasing demands of communication made themselves
felt. Nothing could be less scientific and more political than this idea. Speaking of
language he says :—

As it has been developed by the need of communication, it also serves at every

moment as a means of communication, and it is as governing my relation to my
fellows that it exercises the most palpable and continuous influence.

This veers toward making Stephen a friend of religion, and an enemy of science,
although his failure here is marginal, it smacks of suggesting humans make language,
but looks more unwitting than similar comments in any other work that I have seen,
because he seems to be trying to be naturalistic.
Stephen’s major failure is that he does not provide himself with a core idea,
namely the idea of the social organism, to which he could defer in all parts of his
argument. From this idea he could infer and name human biological nature, as I do
when I say human nature is ‘corporate’. In the above I highlight his use of the phrase
‘corporate sentiment’, which is so close in its use to the invocation of human nature as
‘corporate’ that reading this is an exquisite delight. No one, prior to ourselves, has
ever grasped the idea that humans are part of nature, and no different from any other
natural phenomenon in this respect. Stephen wants to do this, but he fails completely.
Only when we name the Jews as masters can we be said to of succeeded in
accomplishing the goal of a scientific sociology, for this takes science to the brink of
existence, when Jews are no more, then we are free, then, and only then, can science
exist. Obviously, by Jews we mean to encapsulate all religion, all priestcraft, which in
our world is personified in the Jews as the core organ of superorganic being. And we
mean scienceto stand for truth, naked knowledge, and equality for all, in terms of
access to knowledge and therefore knowledge of identity. Leaving no place for a
social hierarchy based on ignorance derived from the centralised control of
knowledge, that is used to fabricate superorganic physiology according to the dictates
of feral human nature, that demands a social hierarchy based on the accumulator of
linguistic force, built from an array of social identities.
Modern scientists would say that we have transcended nature’s determination
of our being, as when we achieve fight, this is an achievement weaccomplish, it is not
an achievement of nature. This means humans are not animals, not products of
nature. And this is pure insanity. We fly, as bats fly, because nature made both of us
to fly. There is no other way in which we could achieve this act. The fact that an
intermediate physiological stage exists between the bat’s achievement of flight and
ours, is utterly irrelevant to the overall status of this achievement as a naturally
induced effect. Modern scientific reasoning is as absurd as ancient scientific
reasoning which said that because humans stand still, this means that the earth is
stationary. The trick that priests acting in the guise of scientists are using, is that of
making the dynamics of one level of organic being cross the boundary to another level
of organic being. Thus modern science denies that humans are animals, and as such, a
part of nature, by invoking a level of existence beyond nature, occupied solely by
humans. Bullshit !!
 XI

Ultimate principle

One thing that caught my attention while transcribing the above text was on
page one hundred and eleven, where we find the most important sociological
statement that can ever be made : society cannot be inferred from the attributes of
individuals. This is a principle that has been eradicated today, a fact that demonstrates
more than any other that science is dead, and that we live in an absolute theocracy.
On page one hundred and eleven we find a series of statements seeking to
express an infuriatingly tricky fact. Stephen comes at this slippery customer from a
variety of angles, but it is only because we are of the same mind, that we can confirm
that what he is saying is true. If we were his enemy we could all too easily missthe
point. He says society is an organism, that is clear and unequivocal, but his
vindication of the fact is the problem. Even the principle we have extracted and
italicised above, leaves room for evasion. The problem is that we are making a
negative observation the basis of a positive assertion, by saying society is the implicit
entity of primacy, because it cannotbe inferred from its parts. This must be the wrong
way to go. We must say why things areas they are. We need to be able to show that
society canindeed be inferred from the parts. And we have just been saying that
Stephen’s major failure is due to the fact that he just does not see what it means for us
to assume that humans are a superorganism, in terms how it places individuals in the
real world, as nothing more than mere animals.

XII

Centrality of human biological nature

Hence we come back to our own mode of expression, where we begin by

affirming that there is such a thing as human nature, which is the essence of the
human animal. And then we define the individual in terms of that nature, by saying
that individual physiology evolved so as to result in a ‘sentient brick’, whose
sentience consists of a sense of duty to build social architecture. Therefore we
caninfer society from an examination of the living individual, by virtue of two
primary features of individual physiology. Firstly the physiology of speech, which
provides the binding force of corporate being, in which we include the grossly
overgrown brain ; and secondly, the power of dextrous fabrication, which delivers the
exoskeletal fabric induced by the organising effect of the binding force upon the
action of individuals, where we associate dexterity with the hands, and upright
posture. Once we have our eye in on the subject of individual physiology as the proof
of a social constitution, we may then consider finer points such as nakedness and
sweatiness, logarithmic reproductive rates unconstrained by seasonal fertility, racial
physiology of corporate identity, and a related proclivity to acquire linguistic
corporate identities, otherwise known as a religious instinct.
On page one hundred and twelve we find Stephen does pay heed to the
physiology of corporate being vested in the individual—almost—when he speaks of
the “latent properties [that] have existed in the individual at earlier stages”. This is
close to affirming that there is such a thing as human nature, and it reaches out to the
idea of human physiology being evolved to make the formation of society inevitable,
but he does not say this. It seems clear from his expression that he has in mind earlier
cultural stages of pre-civilised society, made evident when he describes latent
potential as revealed in the existence of pastattributes. Whereas the latent potential of
individual physiology is just as much everything today, as it was when it first
appeared some 120,000 years ago. There is no question of latent potential being a
subject of past tense. We are still just as much sentient bricks today as we were at the
beginning, which is why we still coalesce about inanely stupid identity programmes,
as delivered in the shape of religious mythologies.

XIII

Escape velocity of religion

Stephen’s imagination therefore fails to reach back to the true biological

foundations of human nature, that are bound up with our genetically evolved
individual physiology. In his day the world of primitive cultures would of formed an
overwhelming panorama of consciousness, while the comparatively new revelations
about our physiological past, arising from Darwinian ideas that made humans a kind
of ape, were as yet far from being so well developed into a public state of
consciousness, able to fill a person’s mind, as they wrestled with these marvellously
intriguing questions of human nature. So we can accept the sincerity of Stephen’s
effort to think of humans as animals, to the maximum extent of his imaginative
capacity, and take his failure to be a product of limitations due to the age in which he
lived. We are far from always being so charitable to those whose ideas we may
examine in this period, and the fact that even genuine attempts to understand reality
fell far short of their mark, helps us understand the total failure of modern science to
reach the escape velocity of religion, at its first attempt to do so.
An escape velocity is reached when a vehicle develops enough thrust within
itself to propel it away from the body to which it is attached. Failure to reach escape
velocity of the inert body, results in the escapee being pulled back into the mass of the
body from which it originated. Science clearly developed a capacity to escape the
constraints of religious dogma, and as surely as it did so, it also failed to achieve a
separate state of existence. The situation as it is portrayed today, indicates that
science rotates in an orbit about the religious mass of society, from which it emerged.
Tragically however, as our work proves, this simply is not so. Science crashed and
burnt, science is no more. We find no modern exponents of Stephen’s original
insights, all we find is a broken umbilical cord of reason, and the evidence of
subterfuge that cut the power from a pristine scientific vessel, returning it to the
religious mud pool, that first gave science its life.

XIV

Annan’s biography
 Now we need to see what Annan has to say in his biography of Stephen,
because Chapter 10, The Moral Society, has a subheading, The Science of Ethics as
Sociology, which must be important to us. The problem is that as soon as we turn to a
post Second World War evaluation of these organicist theorists, organicism never
figures in their assessment, because the very idea of organicism has been so
thoroughly cleansed from academia that it simply does not occur to any modern
academic to give any thought to this major idea of the time they are interested in, even
when it is central to their subject. Of course we are being kind to academics when we
say this, it is more likely that they know perfectly well what they are doing, and they
know that organicism is taboo, and as such they know their job is to ensure
organicism does not appear in their historicalworks. If drawn to the relevant topics
they are more likely to think of these same issues under its alternative heading of
Social Darwinism, which has been specially formulated by the priesthood to reinforce
pseudo scientific Darwinism, while suppressing any awareness of Darwinism’s
scientific rival, Organicism.
So it is that we find Stephen cast in the shape of a Social Darwinist (p. 290),
just as Benjamin Kidd was, and just as I would be if anyone paid me any attention.
The one thing we never see in professional works, is the proper recognition given to
these people, we never see the word ‘organicist’ used. This is because Darwinism is
the scientific front, and organicism is the real science that this front is meant to hide.
To call organicists by their proper name, based on their true scientific theories, would
be like our theocracy calling the terrorists it wages war against, soldiers. People who
fight us are always ‘criminals’, only ourpaid killers are ‘soldiers’. That is why our
priests devise such linguistic labels, so that we can tell people apart who are in reality
the same, on the basis of purely irrelevant, bias, identity based evaluations. This
transformation of scientists into miscreant philosophers, by portraying them as Social
Darwinists, is a similar kind of linguistic trickery. An academic like Annan would not
of known that this imposition is what informed his work, in the blunt sense we
describe here, but if Annan read the passage from Stephen presented above, he would
find a perfect explanation as to how individuals fall into line with pervading cultural
modes of thought, by absorbing the fruits of linguistic development, which nicely
accounts for the subversion of knowledge that our work here is all about recounting,
of which Annan himself offers us as fine an example as we could ever desire.
Annan asserts that Stephen and others tried to argue that society had an
essential nature, that existed in all times and places, something that was rejected then,
and now, he tells us, and we can certainly sense this idea in Stephen’s work as
represented above. We identify one specific passage, on page one hundred and
twelve, where the idea of latent potential verges on proclaiming the existence of a
biological human nature, but sadly falls short of this obvious mark. Of course it is a
matter of irrefutable commonsense that Stephen was right to adopt this position, and
that anyone who might oppose this conception of human society is simply an enemy
of reason, or else an unreasoning automaton regurgitating the intellectual porridge
passed to them by their fellow automatons, a characteristic habit of those who share a
nest, that all inhabit as one gigantic organism, linked by a common, uniform social
mind, a habit of mind common to insect, common to mammal.

For many years now sociologists have been discarding the two main
notions which Comte and writers of Stephen’s generation popularized —
namely that society is the same everywhere and at every time and that there
can be a general theory of society or a single law or explanation governing
human behaviour.
 (Leslie Stephen, Annan, p. 290)

It goes without saying, that from the moment we apply science to humans,
then what Annan denies here, is the only possiblecorrect approach. The beauty of
Annan’s observation is that he states bluntly that modern sociologists, of the post
scientific generation, which has seen the massive resurgence of religion and the total
failure of science to apply itself to humans as natural entities, have been working
tirelessly to overcome the first great strides of those who tried to apply science to
society. Whereby, in the course of doing so, these great free spirits trashed religion
and exposed the existing fabric of society to immanent decay. This tallies perfectly
with our argument concerning the war between religion and science, even though it
sets out to refute our central argument, that humans are a natural feature of the
universe.
There is a brief discussion of Stephen as a scientist. Annan says “his book was
innocent of any empirical reasoning.” (p. 291), a fact which occurred to me as I read
the above selection the first time. Anthropological and sociological investigations
conducted in both primitive and civilised societies were available, but Stephen shows
no sign of reading them, we are told. This is true, but what use are all the scientific
investigations in the world if the basis of the science developed from such
observations is flawed at its very core ? Today the method of obtaining detailed
information from the relevant setting is practiced, just as it was regarding the art of
astronomy conducted by Ptolemy in Ancient Egypt, where it lead to so sophisticated a
product that Ptolemy is today, regarded as the greatest of scientists in his field, in the
ancient world. But Ptolemy made the earth the centre of the universe, a ludicrous
proposition that could only of had one purpose : to preserve religion by subverting
science, and so his science was at best sterile science, which is not science at all, but
religion. The same argument applies to modern science with respect to the alternate
positions adopted regarding the nature of humans, as in individuals versus
superorganisms. As with the astronomy of ancient times, so with the anthropology of
today. Focal points of reason are mutually exclusive, there can only be one correct
point of observation. The human animal cannot be both a person, as in an individual,
and at the same time be a superorganism ; anymore than the earth can travel around
the sun, and at the same time be the centre of the universe.
Professional academics would undoubtedly reject my work in the same terms
as Annan rejects Stephen’s, since I too am not a scientist, and my work is not based on
a detailed analysis of the kind that professional priests insist all science must be based
upon in order to be valid. My work isscience however, because it is based on the
primary scientific fact of human nature, which recognises that societies are always
developed according to the same principle, in all times and places, exactly as the
world has moved all its resources to deny, to the great glee of delinquent intellectuals
like Annan. But Annan was a professional academic, so what can we expect of such a
sycophant of power and authority. The rear fly leaf begins “Lord Annan has recently
retired as Vice-Chancellor of the University of London.” We need say no more,
corrupt from the very core out, from the first moment he took breath, to the last ; and
it shows ; upper-class twit.

XV
 An atheist cause

In the preface to this biography, page xiii, we find a weird and disturbing
comment. Annan says he wants to see what ideas Stephen contributed to the world
that are still echoing about society in his own day, and that this may alarm some
people who will wonder about how far his biography is going to vindicate old ideas
that have become defunct and been rejected ; that seems to be the thrust of it. Then he
says :—

Does it [his history of Stephen] claim that there can be such a phenomenon as
disinterested theoretical writing and deny that any disquisition upon theology or
politics or literature must be part of a design to gain power ?

What ! You have got to be kidding me. I cannot believe that anyone could
hold such a crass thought in their head, and thenactually give it voice, let alone
indicate that such a thought is a mandatory obligation in all the upper echelons of
society. In the first place, this is the same as saying that religion ispolitics, pure and
simple, and that the sole purpose of religion is to obtain and control political power.
Otherwise how can a disquisition upon religion be an attempt to steal power away
from its usual repository ? Of course I agree that religion is politics, and it does exist
to create a ruling priesthood that possess total and exclusive political power, hence we
live in an absolute theocracy. But I do not expect intellectuals to admit as much, and
to do so in such a way that they approve of this fact and demand that academics take
notice of it when deciding how to concoct their histories. Bizarre. This is the kind of
thing that was boldly declared by dictators centuries ago, when we lived an overt
absolute theocracy.
To answer this question however, we can ask, Does this mean that mywriting
is an attempt to gain power ? This is certainly what I am being accused of by
religious freaks when they say that my absolutism in matters of science applied to
humans, is an attempt to force people to think as I think. But, while the imposition of
uniformity upon the validation of ideas is certainly a consequence of my argument,
this effect arises from the fact that political power is rooted in linguistic physiology,
which evolved to form a human superorganism, so that social power is always based
upon falsehood, that any science is bound to unmask. Science must dispossess those
who are the mediums of the natural force of language. (See below, Is a rose a dangerous
animal ?)

Redistributing power

During our discussions we have alluded to the fact that central organisations
tend to dispossess individuals of their natural quota of political authority, as when the
law makes it a criminal offence for a victim to attack an attacker, where a corporate
authority reserves the right of response for the law, under a system called ‘justice’,
which effectively steals authority away from individuals and pools it in a vessel called
the state, or the theocracy, as we would say. This act of theft on the part of modern
social authorities, which is so advanced that we do not even see it these days, is the
reason why such an insane argument as that made out by Annan above, can be voiced
by a member of the aristocracy, who do not feel the effrontery of such reasoning
because they are the privileged guardians of the system, born to an attitude of absolute
right vested in themselves. What the man forgets, is that the original act of theft, the
original sin, was depriving the individual of their personal authority, and hence an
action intended to recover what has been stolen cannot, of itself, be called an attempt
on power, as Annan asserts here. A work such as mine may be called an attempt to
recover the individual portion of power for all individuals, a redistribution of power if
you like, but that is a wholly different thing to an attempt on power ; unless of course
you happen to be a Lord on high, in which case ‘redistribution’ in any form, is a dirty
word.
Just because my writings threaten the political power mongers with
dispossession, does not mean that I am seeking power for myself. Although it does
mean that my writing threatens a redistribution of power to all people, equally, by
removing the possibility of secret knowledge, that is fabricated as the basis of identity
—occultism in other words—which then acts as the basis of superorganic hubs,
extracting power from the social networks they interlink, ultimately to the core, the
absolute theocracy of Jewish identity. From whence chaos of many kinds can be
promulgated in order to cause continual mayhem of all sorts, while preserving order
about the hubs, fixed by a knot of linguistic force, specially woven for the purpose of
preserving social power within a social flux consisting of less stable manifestations of
linguistic force, that cannot be sustained in their own right, because they have not got
an enduring exoskeletal, or institutional structure, in which to repose, and no
sufficient identity basis to give them power in their own right, or name.

The cause

The argument justifying our cry for freedom from the fascism of men like
Annan, invokes our individuality as an end in ourselves, which we know is a false
premise to base the idea of human life upon. As such this claim to freedom centred on
the person is restricted to the question of freedom of thought, for it cannot be denied
that civil organisation is built into our being, and to deny the course of social
evolution which has invested social power in a central authority, as a matter of
principle, is untenable. But with regard to knowledge, we can formulate a viable
absolute right, as individuals, to unbridled freedom. It is with respect to knowledge
that Annan’s remarks have their real meaning, as he makes all discussion of religion
an act of rebellion against social authority. Hence we are prompted, for the first time,
to conceive of a sense in which individuals might claim rights as individuals, which
could form the basis of a future state of existence ; in a world without religion, of
course. The power of religion is negated by the existence of free knowledge, that is
the whole point of all that we are saying here as regards the whole reason for an
interminable war against science, mounted by the establishment, whose power is
derived from a hierarchy of religious identities that acts as a physiological
accumulator of superorganic energy, the potential for which is created by the
evolution of our individual ‘sentient brick’ physiology. A hierarchy that channels
individual authority away from the person, into a reservoir of identity that is Judaism.
There can be no compromise on this issue, compromise is what we have now, where
we act as ifwe have freedom, via the pretence of a profound science, that yet cannot
unravel the inscrutable problem of human nature ; meaning our right to freedom of
knowledge has long been compromised in every possible way. The most recent act of
theft directed at retaining our slave status under Judaism, has been recounted in this
work on the war of religion against science, revealing how religion has survived the
coming of the scientific age.
Aristocrats like Annan, or a fascists like Blair, Thatcher or Hitler—the list
goes on indefinitely when written in full—evoke the fact that we are not individuals in
our own right, that we are elements of a superorganism, who must do the bidding of
Judaism, as the master identity. Our atheist science vindicates the logic of this sad
affair, but in respect to knowledge we find a niche for individuality, in respect to
knowledge. The fact is that Judaism does not have to be our identity, that is why
Judaism isour identity, because our corporate identity can be stolen, and once upon a
time, we were not Jews. Therefore, if there is any prospect for the future of a free
world, based on the atheistic English conception of the individual as an end in
themselves, this is why that goal must lie in the realms of knowledge, that has to do
with knowing the true nature of our corporate identity, of knowing that humans are a
superorganism made by nature. Here, if anywhere, is a nook for that great sense of
individuality that we prize so much in England.

XVI

Apologising for Darwin

Annan has a discussion of Darwin within which we are told how embroiled in
the religious indoctrination of the age Stephen was. On page two hundred and six we
are told that Stephen was a positivist, a follower of Comte in other words, and in 1859
he “took priest’s orders”. What an unpleasant thought. But “three years later he
found himself unable to officiate in Chapel.” The impasse was due to Darwin, but
indirectly, we are told, because of the negative reaction of the religious fanatics of the
day. The discussion on the next page is interesting as regards Darwin, we are given a
snippet from Darwin’s pen in which he says “I had no intention to write atheistically.”
Annan says Darwin was naive, having forgotten what happened to Chambers ; he
wrote an earlier strident book on evolution, published anonymously in 1844, that we
have already mentioned early on in this work. We then get a list of religious figures
who rounded on poor Darwin. All of which makes a nonsense of our assertion that
Darwin was a fraud, whose work was selected by the priesthood as a sterile form of
science designed to destroy science proper, and so save religion.
This representation of Darwin is a problem I frequently have cause to make
comments upon. We are never given to declaring out and out conspiracies. Rather we
view individuals like Darwin, and Dawkins today, or Annan in his time, as units
within a biomass, acting in response to a programme that is part of the living flux of
superorganic physiology. We find Annan noting that Stephen believed “that literary
genres and fashions, even ideas themselves, are generated by forces at work in society
rather springing, like Pallas Athene, from the head of their progenitor.” (Preface, p.
xii), and “History was governed by ‘forces dimly perceived, not capable of
measurement’ ” (p. 206). This outlook is precisely what the idea of human corporate
nature means. Therefore we do not decide what a major event like the publication of
The Origin of Speciesin 1859 means in terms of the actual author, but rather, in terms
of the impact of this event, played out over time. Which must be interpreted in terms
of the threads of social connectivity, which reveal the lines of force that Stephen
alludes to. These lines of force are linguistic, and therefore Darwin’s idea is a line of
force emerging into a social flux consisting of lines of force, primarily manifested in
religious ideas. As Darwin himself confesses, he loves religion and in writing science
he had no desire to be an atheist ! Which says it all, since we make it plain that to
write science it is necessary from the outset to be an atheist. It is this religious
friendly starting point that made Darwin the gift to the theocracy that he has proved to
be. And where Annan says that Darwin forgot about Chambers, nothing could be
further from the truth, as shown by Adrian Desmond in his Politics of Evolution,
1989. Darwin was highly sensitive to the friction caused by attempts to write a
science of life’s nature, and so again, his intention not to be controversial could only
result in one thing, a sterile science which, once the kneejerk outbursts had settled
down, would change into adoration ; exactly as we know soon happened, once, we
may assume, everyone had got the nod, and understood the game.
For sure, as we become more and more certain of our position, we tend to drift
into a more solid conviction of the consciousness of the players in the imposition that
Darwinism has amounted to. But this is a flaw in our human personality, which we
must continually seek to correct, as we are doing even as we speak. There may well
of been people who were fully conscious of the need to restrain truth and preserve
religion, an instinctive sentiment we see redolent in the sentence quoted above,
concerning the worry that Annan might be going to write an unbiased history of a
highly dangerous Victorian freethinker, whose type of dangerous ideas had been put
to bed once, and did not need waking up. So the picture must be one of a complex
flux of ideas, penetrating consciousness and being revealed in public voices, but not
reaching the level of an all out conspiracy. Humans do not work that way. And yet,
the fact is, that right up to modern times, the Church has made no bones about seeking
to control knowledge. The Church remains a monstrous imposition upon society
today, deeply concerned with what passes for knowledge, and so, fact is, an ongoing
overt conspiracy is a real feature of our world, and always has been. (Again we may
consider the item below, Is a rose a dangerous animal ? Which responds to a broadcast by
the theocracy that took place only this morning. The war against freedom of thought goes on
relentlessly.)

XVII

Mining authority

The very foundation of academia is rooted in the process of taking possession

of reality. The idea is to control knowledge, and this is achieved by putting out
suitably concocted bullshit, such as Darwin’s Origin of Species. But as is perfectly
obvious in the case of this most nasty piece of work, an immense effort was put into
its fabrication, in order to achieve the astounding results that have been forthcoming.
Darwin’s monumental work was, in terms of literature masquerading as knowledge,
the equivalent of the Hoover Dam, it has backed up the headwaters of the world’s
knowledge for generations, and promises to have a long life ahead of it even now.
From this grand perversion of all that is finest in human existence, an immense
linguistic force has been channelled to one side, whence it is allowed to run through
the bigoted sluice of Judaic myth, powering the turbines of theocracy as it battles
along furiously, trapped, beaten and depraved. This is what science is all about —
power—science as we know it at any rate.
The same principle informing Darwin’s great travesty of science, applies
wherever real knowledge is to be had—the bloody thieving Christians get there first,
and what they do not simply destroy, they make their own. For any way you cut it,
these most horrible of miscreant religious freaks, despise knowledge more than
anything. Once taken possession of in the field, these perverters of knowledge, have
the academic establishment at their beck and call. Resting upon their newly mined
nodule of factual knowledge, they interpret every detail strictly according to Biblical
principles, making the individual the human animal, that exists as an end in
themselves. From this position there is no danger of any true statement ever being
made, how the idiot Edward Wilson could slip up and nearly produce a work
suggesting a genuinely scientific idea, in the guise of his Sociobiology, one struggles
to comprehend. Fortunately the edifice of ignorance is built like a citadel of hell
itself, and Wilson’s half thought was no sooner said, than it was on its way to being
dead.

Beware Christian succour

There is an argument to be considered here, one often used by Christian

apologists dealing with the war waged by religion against science, which says that
without Christianity, science would not even exist, and that Christianity is to be
thanked for the aid and encouragement it has given to science. It is almost implicit in
our argument that the urgency the Christian feels to pursue material that is pertinent to
science that threatens their beliefs, may well make the Christian a leader in the search
for material containing the seeds of real knowledge. My favourite example of such
dedication which bore fabulous results, is that of the Leakeys in East Africa, a
religious family, that made great breakthroughs in physical anthropology by
discovering precious hominid fossils. But they did not so much discover these fossils,
as possessed them, via the privilege accrued from their finds, which has meant they
got to write the books, and they are, or were in their day, the high priests of physical
anthropology. What a terrible thought, to think that people who believe in God should
be the experts in such sublime knowledge—painful thought. And this pattern of
behaviour is seen in many fields of science, a popular one is Egyptology, which the
Mormons seemed to take a deep interest in not so long ago, undoubtedly because of
their particular religious perversions, which has given them an obsession with past
lives. These seriously twisted people have developed a mythology of stealing long
dead people from the past, who, if not already possessed by a religion, they take them
for their own. Horror of horrors, the strange monstrosities that nature produces,
wonders never cease. I suppose Mormons might be thought of as the equivalent in
our own time, of the cannibals of pre-civilised times. We can see how the peculiar
effects of human nature, driving linguistic force toward the realisation of corporate
form, are expressed in these odd rituals, but the oddness is on the outer limits of
possibility.
Myself then, I find this science in the hands of religious freaks sickening, who
cares what these creeps find. We know the powers that be relish the chance to take
advantage of gifted individuals from the criminal fraternity, such as whiz kid
computer hackers, or gifted forgers, to aid them in their work by turning the criminal
loose on the criminal. But somehow this slimy technique is not what I have in mind
when I think of science and the search for the sublime knowledge of human nature
and existence. Sublime knowledge is what we want, not ‘slimy knowledge’, fished
from the gutter of human life.
I therefore see no reason to deny the argument Christian apologists proclaim,
we do indeed find that the ingenuity of thieves knows no bounds. There seems to be a
strange delight engendered in some minds, by the temptation of reward for efforts that
allow a system to be cheated. But as we say, anyway you slice it . . . . religious freaks
hate true knowledge, they only seek it to benefit themselves, even if that means
‘themselves’ as servants of ‘God’. So the result must be a loss in the end. No one can
deny that Darwin devoted his life to the pursuit of science, and his work was
impressive, but it was not, ever, aimed at seeking knowledge for knowledge sake. No
matter how extravagantly his advocates claim the exact opposite to be true. On the
contrary, it was always aimed at producing knowledge that would answer a need, by
serving a purpose. And that is not science.
I frequently have recourse to discussing this most important matter of how
universities function by building up a collection of material, from which they can
extract authority, as if it were a precious metal, prone to smelting. But on this
occasion I am prompted to mention the processing and manufacture of authority in
science, because I have taken the unusual step of examining the biography of a
leading organicist figure from the age of free science, and I have indicated how this
biography has wholly misrepresented the work of this great organicist thinker, in the
typical manner of a corrupt theocratic order, engaged in the usual practice for such
orders, of rewriting history. The point being, that this biography of Stephen is another
example of the academic process of taking control of knowledge, by taking
possession of the material upon which knowledge is based. As we see from this case,
this method even applies to historical figures, whereby human individuals are reduced
to the status of natural substances, to be mined and worked, like any other material in
nature. An incidental observation which we may happen to find edifying, even as we
seek to denounce it ! As they say, to the victor go the spoils. So the victor gets to
write the histories of the wars fought and won. It is no different when the war is
between science and religion. With science stone dead, the historians set about taking
possession of the corpses, on both sides, and writing up the campaigns in which they
fought, and fell, as seen from one side, only.

XVIII

Is a rose a dangerous animal ?

It is 02/08/2009 10:27:55, and a few minutes ago I put the TV on while

supping a mug of tea. The only thing to watch at this time on a Sunday is a revolting
religious propaganda show, The Big Questions, on BBC 1, but the title of their next
subject, Is atheism an intolerant belief ? coming on in a few minutes, I’ll not be
watching. The mouthy git who presents this show pronounced this title so that his
inflection made it say, Atheism is a religious belief like any other, but is it an
intolerant belief ? These stinking fascists make my blood boil, they can get away
with saying any foul thing they like, they rule the world. But I should calm myself.
In this work we address ourselves to atheists, we talk about theists, but we do not talk
totheists. And we must assume the same applies to the theocracy. Religious
propaganda is not meant to engage us, it is not meant to convert us, it speaks to the
converted, and its intention is simply to bolster their slave implant. To this end what
looks to us a like a crass piece of garbage, is actually a very fine piece of subtle
programming, because by asking if atheism is an intolerant belief, the priests assert
that atheism is a beliefwithout actually saying this up front. To say this up front begs
the question, but to assume it, means the question does not exist. This subliminal
technique is a most important device in the programming of mammalian sentient
bricks, that takes full advantage of sentient brick linguistic physiology, which evolved
to allow individuals to be built into social structure by just such an artful application
of linguistic force. This allows the priest to deliver an incredibly important and
powerful message in a subliminal manner, enabling the slave to consideratheism,
while rejecting it spontaneously, since slave identity implants are all about subliminal
messaging, so that the one thing a priest must avoid at all cost, is leaving room for the
slave to think for itself. This is why the sickly smarmy priest, made sure he injected
the full venom of twisted thinking into his delivery of the slave identity packet, when
he voiced the question, as a statement.
The idea that atheism is a religious belief is a popular line with the religious
fascist, and they never give up their popular refrains, hey, as long as you own the
media, saying any kind of shit pays, Who can oppose you ? As I rooted about the
online book dealing website yesterday, looking for works to do with atheism, I came
upon a book by a famous rationalist with the word Atheismin its title, from the 1930’s,
where the dealer indicated the contents, and said that in this book the idea that atheism
was a religious belief was put to bed, once and for all. Yeah, if only !
I have already had occasion to discuss this issue in this work, but being
provoked by this piece of pig ignorant drivel pouring fresh from our ‘public service’
broadcaster—there is a joke if ever there was one—dictator’s channel more like, we
might just do a recap. There are an infinite number of numbers that can be given as
the sum of 2 + 2, but only one number is the correct sum, that number is 4. Numbers
are but symbols, but we refer to the reality behind the symbols. It goes without saying
that in a world where identity is bound up with reality, through the medium of
religion, and where identity needs to have an infinite potential for elaboration in order
to allow nature to construct complex superorganic physiology, any promulgation of
identity will be ultimately acceptable, as long as it is not the truth itself. For the truth,
if presented as such, must negate all alternate pretenders to a resolution of the nature
of reality.
Therefore in our mathematical simile, we can be of the identity 2 + 2 in any
number of ways, I can be of the religious sum 348, you can be of the clan 210,
another religious identity could make 2 + 2 = 5. The one thing that cannot be
tolerated, because, compared to these erroneous answers, it would be intolerance
itself, is 4 ! And the same applies in the real world where religion tells us what reality
is, in the process of inducting us into a social reality based on the circumscription of
reality, whereby the myth captures the power of reality, by representing that power in
a symbolic guise. All of which linguistic physiology evolved to enable, in the course
of creating a mammalian sentient brick. So that the primary religious model, which
currently is Judaism, identifies itself with the real human superorganism by
representing it symbolically as ‘God’. This God centred religious identity myth, then
generates a mythological programme that matches religious imperatives to
physiological functions, one for one, as best as can be done intuitively, via the
medium of linguistic symbolism. This is how a religious identity works as a
biological programme of superorganic being.
Atheism rules out all religion, and as such it is intolerance itself, compared to
the infinity of lies and deception which people live by religiously. But first and
foremost, atheism is NOT a belief. So this shitfaced argument, coming from these too
revolting people for me to find words to express my hatred for them, who construct
the problem they then seek to dispose of, makes no more sense than asking, Is a rose a
dangerous animal ? Since a rose is not an animal at all, just as atheism is not a belief
at all. I think the professional academic has a piece of jargon for such ruses, the
‘straw man’ if I am not mistaken, which is the representation of a target, specially
concocted to allow a preconceived argument to destroy it. Priests make atheism a
belief so that they can treat it as flawed, and then evil because it is intolerant, in a
world where multiculturalism is the fascism we are all obliged to live by. What this
ignorance really does is show us the true nature of multiculturalism, as the latest
device in the armoury of the depraved defenders of absolute theocracy, that is the
essence of intolerance that has plagued humanity since time began. What more can
we expect from the BBC ? A more deceitful, degenerate, smooth talking bunch liars
never walked the earth, than serve in the corridors of this establishment institution.
Nuff said, to hell with them all.

Chapter 14

Denying Darwin: The First Fatal Attack

A VERYlarge number of species are to be found at more or less frequent intervals over
enormous areas of territory, often in regions separated by large stretches of water, or
sometimes of land. Never, since the days of the hypothesis of special creation, has it been
maintained that a species originally arose over the whole of the area upon which it now
occurs. This would be a difficult proposition to uphold, as it is usually found that when a
species occupies a large territory, it has different varieties in different parts. Various views,
however, have at times held sway as to the probable extent of the land surface upon which a
species began, Darwin, for example, had at one time the idea that it might arise under Natural
Selection from one or a few individuals varying in the desired direction, but Fleeming Jenkin
brought up a criticism of this position so incisive that he was forced to abandon it, and
postulate for a much more numerous original ancestry, of course occupying a much larger
amount of ground. It is perhaps from this latter position taken up by him that the current view
has arisen, according to which species that now occupy very small areas of country owe the
smallness of that area to the supposed fact that they are really in process of dying out, for they
could not have arisen by aid of the Darwinian mechanism of Natural Selection upon so small a
space.

(Age and Area, Willis, 1922, Page 10.)

This is an excellent piece of writing for our purposes, it tells us that Darwin
was forced to abandon his theory of natural selection, which was proven to be false, if
only for a moment, while he regrouped. Who, we may wonder, was this lost hero of
science, Fleeming Jenkin ?
I was led to Age and Area by Willis’s second book, The Course of Evolution :
By Differentiation or Divergent Mutation Rather than by Selection, 1940, which I
purchased a fortnight or so ago, which also mentions Jenkin. If we run a search for
Jenkin through a digital copy, we find his name brought up a number times in
association with this assertion that Jenkin blew Darwin’s theory out of the water.
Clearly we need to examine the relevant piece of work, which appeared in The North
British Review, June 1867, under the title Origin of Species. I printed my own hard
copy yesterday and read the first couple of pages, then skipped through the forty one
page essay.
Jenkin was an engineer, and this is reflected in his essay. He applies
mathematical methods in his reasoning and it looks like there is some prospect of his
ideas being serviceable to our scientific aim of debunking Darwin, in favour of our
rational theory of evolution that includes humans within its grasp. I noticed an early
remark in his work that is worth taking notice of. Jenkin says that :—

There are minor arguments in favour of the Darwinian hypothesis, but

the main course of the argument has, we hope, been fairly stated. It bases large
conclusions as to what has happened upon the observation of comparatively
small facts now to be seen. The cardinal facts are the production of varieties
by man, and the similarity of all existing animals. About the truth and extent of
those facts none but men possessing a special knowledge of physiology and
natural history have any right to an opinion ; but the superstructure based on
those facts enters the region of pure reason, and may be discussed apart from
all doubt as to the fundamental facts.

(Page 278)

This indicates that Darwinian theory is a speculative interpretation of life’s

primary nature as a natural phenomenon, suggesting the essentially unscientific nature
of Darwin’s theory, and hence its proneness to philosophical commentary and
investigation ; not to mention the continual process of subversion it is has long
undergone at the hands of the delinquent priests of overt religious power, such as the
Creationists. The essay was written just eight years after the publication of Origin of
Species, and here we are, one and half centuries after this famous date, still burdened
with a ludicrous theory that was exposed almost immediately as worthless. We find
that stalwart promoter of Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Darwin’s living bulldog we
might say—and he surely needs one, for he has nothing else going for him—is given
huge resources by the state, via a platform in the shape of a documentary, wherein he
never tires of saying how modern science has magnificently confirmed all that Darwin
said, in terms of the reality of the idea of natural selection, as the mechanism driving
the evolution of life forms. And we can only think to ourselves, “That is it you sad
priests, just keep on mouthing off regardless, you have the power, no one can oppose
you, we are all gagged.” Science has been an exercise in absolute authority from day
one, and it has produced a world as primitive and ignorant as ever any human world
has been, plagued as it is by militarism, terrorism, financial abuse, reckless
destruction of the biosphere, rotten from its foundations up. There have been good
things, but in comparison to the bad, these are like fireworks at an annual celebration,
fleeting and soon forgotten.
The fact is that Dawkins, like Darwin, never has a damned word to say about
humans, except some irrelevant drivel about how we look like monkeys, which tells
us absolutely nothing about why we livelike insects. Which failure is, of course, no
accident.
 I

Religion dominates post Darwinian science

Another point of immediate interest in Jenkin’s essay, is this :—

Some persons seem to have thought his theory dangerous to religion,

morality, and what not. Others have tried to laugh it out of court. We can share
neither the fears of the former nor the merriment of the latter ; and, on the
contrary, own to feeling the greatest admiration both for the ingenuity of the
doctrine and for the temper in which it was broached, although, from a
consideration of the following arguments, our opinion is adverse to its truth.

(Page 279)

We want to take notice of the reference to religion, which Jenkin indicates is

still a major consideration regarding the subject of life’s evolution. What makes this
statement more interesting comes later in the essay, where Jenkin embroils himself in
a discussion of the irrelevance of science to a belief in religion’s supremacy.

It may perhaps be thought irreverent to hold an opinion that the Creator

could not create animals of any shape and fashion whatever ; undoubtedly we
may conceive all rules and all laws as entirely self-imposed by him, as
possibly quite different or non-existent elsewhere ; but what we mean is this,
that just as with the existing chemical laws of the world, the number of
possible chemical combinations of a particular kind is limited, and not even
the Creator could make more without altering the laws he has himself
imposed, even so, if we imagine animals created or existing under some
definite law, the number of species, and of possible varieties of one species,
will be limited ; and these varieties and species being definite arrangements of
organic compounds, will as certainly be capable of arrangement in series as
inorganic chemical compounds are. These views no more imply a limit to the
power of God than the statement that the three angles of a triangle are
necessarily equal to two right angles.

(Page 308 – 9)

As we can see, scientific debate at this time is still at that extremely primitive
level of reasoning at which it had, prior to the rise of twentieth century science, been
stuck since time immemorial. A state to which we are now rapidly returning, thanks
to the disgusting obsequiousness of American society, which is a monstrous source of
religious puss, infecting our world today. Yet what a superb piece of theorising this is,
wherein we see notions of divine arbitrariness put to bed unequivocally, and the clear
assertion made, that life forms can only be material continuities of none living forms
of matter. And that, if there are laws dictating the development of these life forms,
which Darwin is effectively asserting there are, then they must be of the same kind in
living structure as they are in none living structure. We cannot ask for anymore than
this, and it shows how nice it is to have the rigorous mind of a technical scientist
delivering judgement on these subjects. Although it evidently did no good. The damn
priests just ignored the man and went on promoting the futile notions of Darwin
forever more, as they continue to do, along with their degenerate excuses for
knowledge in the more familiar form of religious dogma.
We noted above regarding atheism, that it was demonstrated long ago that
atheism is not a belief, yet the simple appeal of this argument is so ideally suited to
the corrupt purposes of the priests, that they just will not give it up. And the same is
true regarding Darwin. Having spent decades fabricating the ruse, and decades more
building up its sanctity, the priesthood sees no need to give it up just because it
teaches us nothing and was, from the outset, proven to be rubbish. Since the
theocracy is the only voice, since no contradiction is tolerated within, and no access
allowed from without, then why change ?

II

Jenkin’s essay

I read Jenkin’s essay, from beginning to end. And I cannot say that I was
impressed. I haven’t the faintest idea why Willis should keep on saying that in this
essay Jenkin destroyed Darwin. The essay is very interesting from a modern
scientists point of view, because it is an early denunciation of the fraudulent science
that has come to dominate our world today, thanks to our society being an absolute
theocracy in which all science is banished by stealth. Jenkin certainly concludes by
asserting that his objections made Darwin false, but Willis seemed to me to have a
particular point in mind, to do with the dispersal of species. Something that related to
his age and area argument, that I was hoping to discover in the essay for myself,
presenting the fatal flaw in Darwin’s theory, a flaw that had been revealed almost
immediately, but pushed aside by the force of theocratic influence over academia.
Irrespective of these disappointments, which were not really a surprise, the
essay was worth reading. On the positive side, the general thrust of Jenkin’s argument
was redolent with the idea that force must be involved in any understanding of the
evolution of life, in common with the evolution of any structure in the universe. We
can hardly ask for a better starting point than this. Jenkin’s criticism of Darwin’s
reasoning was based on the fact that it did not meet this requirement for a primary
force of life, although he does not actually say this. He says that Darwin selected a
number of facts and offered a set of notions to do with how humans had managed
domesticated life forms, and then made nature act in the same manner, without
offering any proof for his claims. The concluding passage is nice for its categorical
assertion that Darwinism was no different to the fancy philosophising of the ancients
on matters of natural phenomena, and that in the distant future this would be
recognised. We certainly hope this is so, but by then Darwin’s deception will of
served the purpose of protecting religion from science, that was always Darwin’s real
purpose, unwitting or otherwise, right from the outset, as we can see when he admits
that he never had any intention of writing atheistically, as noted in the previous
chapter.

III

Scientific advances

I worked my way through the essay and made my usual notes, and I would
like to write them out here and discuss them, because this is an important criticism of
Darwin, and it prompts some interesting thoughts as a consequence. However we do
have to begin with a statement regarding major voids in the scientific knowledge of
the period, that Jenkin used as one of his proofs that Darwin’s theory was erroneous.
Jenkin’s third major objection to Darwin came under the heading of Lapse of
Time, according to which there had been insufficient time for evolution by natural
selection to of taken effect. Jenkin referred to the work of Professor W. Thomson of
Glasgow (p. 298), for his argument that the planet was not old enough to meet the
requirements that Darwin had based on the inflated speculations of geologists.
Unfortunately Jenkin lacked knowledge of a kind he could never of suspected, even
though he says that some people might argue that some such as yet unimagined
factors might yet come to light, Jenkin said fine, but until they do we do not want
theories to be based on their anticipation. Radioactive elements heating up the earth,
and nuclear fusion powering the sun were ideas in waiting, that have a bearing on our
understanding geological timescales.

We hope this argument is now plain. However slow the rate of

variation might be, even though it were only one part in a thousand per twenty
or two thousand generations, yet if it were constant or erratic we might believe
that, in untold time, it would lead to untold distance ; but if in every case we
find that deviation from an average individual can be rapidly effected at first,
and that the rate of deviation steadily diminishes till it reaches an almost
imperceptible amount, then we are as much entitled to assume a limit to the
possible deviation as we are to the progress of a cannon-ball from a
knowledge of the law of diminution in its speed. This limit to the variation of
species seems to be established for all cases of man’s selection. What
argument does Darwin offer showing that the law of variation will be different
when the variation occurs slowly, not rapidly ? The law may be different, but
is there any experimental ground for believing that it is different ? Darwin
says (p. 153), ‘The struggle between natural selection, on the one hand, and
the tendency to reversion and variability on the other hand, will in the course
of time cease, and that the most abnormally developed organs may be made
constant, I can see no reason to doubt.’ But what reason have we to believe
this ? Darwin says the variability will disappear by the continued rejection of
the individuals tending to revert to a former condition ; but is there any
experimental ground for believing that the variability will disappear ; and,
secondly, if the variety can become fixed, that it will in time become ready to
 vary still more in the original direction, passing that limit which we think has
just been shown to exist in the case of man’s selection ? It is peculiarly
difficult to see how natural selection could reject individuals having a
tendency to produce offspring reverting to an original stock. The tendency to
produce offspring more like their superior parents than their inferior
grandfathers can surely be of no advantage to any individual in the struggle for
life. On the contrary, most individuals would be benefited by producing
imperfect offspring, competing with them at a disadvantage ; thus it would
appear that natural selection, if it select anything, must select the most perfect
individuals, having a tendency to produce the fewest and least perfect
competitors ; but it may be urged that though the tendency to produce good
offspring is injurious to the parents, the improved offspring would live and
receive by inheritance the fatal tendency of producing in their turn parricidal
descendants. Yet this is contending that in the struggle for life natural
selection can gradually endow a race with a quality injurious to every
individual which possesses it. It really seems certain that natural selection
cannot tend to obliterate the tendency to revert ; but the theory advanced
appears rather to be that, if owing to some other qualities a race is maintained
for a very long time different from the average or original race (near the
surface of our sphere), then it will in time spontaneously lose the tendency to
relapse, and acquire a tendency to vary outside the sphere. What is to produce
this change ? Time simply, apparently. The race is to be kept constant, to all
appearance, for a very long while, but some subtle change due to time is to
take place ; so that, of two individuals just alike in every feature, but one born
a few thousand years after the other, the first shall tend to produce relapsing
offspring, the second shall not. This seems rather like the idea that keeping a
bar of iron hot or cold for a very long time would leave it permanently hot or
cold at the end of the period when the heating or cooling agent was
withdrawn. This strikes us as absurd now, but Bacon believed it possibly true.
So many things may happen in a very long time, that time comes to be looked
on as an agent capable of doing great and unknown things. Natural selection,
as we contend, could hardly select an individual because it bred true. Man
does. He chooses for sires those horses which he sees not only run fast
themselves, but produce fine foals. He never gets rid of the tendency to revert.
Darwin says species of pigeons have bred true for centuries. Does he believe
that it would not be easier by selection to diminish the peculiarities of the
pouter pigeon than to increase them ? and what does this mean, but that the
tendency to revert exists ? It is possible that by man’s selection this tendency
may be diminished as any other quality may be somewhat increased or
diminished, but, like all other qualities, this seems rapidly to approach a limit
which there is no obvious reason to suppose ‘time’ will alter.

(Origin of Species, Jenkin, North British Review, June 1867, pp. 282 – 284)

The top and bottom of the above reasoning, and the reason for our reproducing
it here, is that this discussion essentially asks, What force is driving natural selection ?
It rather reminds me of my arguments concerning the arrow of knowledge, whereby I
assert that science is made to act as the barb allowing religion to progressively take
control of all knowledge, without ever losing its grip on the control of knowledge. In
this political case of human affairs, the creation of the scientific barb takes the form of
superorganic physiology, arising in the shape of social institutions such as a church
that preserves religious dogma, and a university structure that exists to serve church
interests, exactly as in our secular democracy, ‘democracy’ being the term that priests
use to label a covert absolute theocracy.
Inevitably when reading early criticism of a premature theory of evolution, or
a fraudulent one, that involves technical matters of this kind, we may imagine that
modern science, especially the science of genetics, may of accounted for technical
shortcomings in Darwin’s argument, and early criticisms thereof. And this is
precisely what a man like Dawkins seems to want us to believe. But the fact remains,
that humans are excised from nature by Darwinism, while religion lives on. And
these two facts stare us in the face, demanding that we ask how this can be, if science
has really resolved the mystery of exactly how life comes to exist as an extension of
none living matter. The fact is that we want a scientific model of evolution based on
force, not a political model based on human bias.
We can see from the above that in place of the idea of a force that drives
species to evolve, against any tendency to revert that is inherent in the genetic
process, Darwin substitutes the simple fact that we know life does evolve
progressively, and that species doderive from other species by a process of fixation.
So Darwin simply declares this is so, makes up some story as to how it happens, and
then says fixity is likely to occur given enough time ! Idiot !! Jenkin’s criticism
shows that all Darwin’s theory amounts to, in the end, is a fancy description of the
process, without any explanation as to why we see what we see. Darwin just tags his
bias political model of evolution onto an elaborate collection of factual observations
stolen from the world of reality, that he was empowered to steal by an establishment
seeking to fight off an untempered scientific investigation of life, that was coming
from all directions and bursting the seams of society.

IV

Missing the force

On page two hundred and eighty five we have this : “a race maintained by a
continual force.” It is a bit too much to go into what this phrase might mean in any
detail, but the use of such a phrase is so appealing that I felt it was nice to highlight it,
and to make general use of it by saying that its presence indicates how Jenkin was
looking for the idea of forces, as they relate to a naturalistic account of the
developmental life process, and he evidently found no evidence of such logic in
Darwin’s treatise.

Efficiency of Natural Selection.—Those individuals of any species

which are most adapted to the life they lead, live on an average longer than
those which are less adapted to the circumstances in which the species is
placed. The individuals which live the longest will have the most numerous
offspring, and as the offspring on the whole resemble their parents, the
descendants from any given generation will on the whole resemble the more
favoured rather than the less favoured individuals of the species. So much of
the theory of natural selection will hardly be denied ; but it will be worth while
to consider how far this process can tend to cause a variation in some one
direction. It is clear that it will frequently, and indeed generally, tend to
 prevent any deviation from the common type. The mere existence of a species
is a proof that it is tolerably well adapted to the life it must lead ; many of the
variations which may occur will be variations for the worse, and natural
selection will assuredly stamp these out. A white grouse in the heather, or a
white hare on a fallow, would be sooner detected by its enemies than one of
the usual plumage or colour. Even so, any favourable deviation must,
according to the very terms of the statement, give its fortunate possessor a
better chance of life ; but this conclusion differs widely from the supposed
consequence that a whole species may or will gradually acquire some one new
quality, or wholly change in one direction, and in the same manner.

(Jenkin, p. 286)

This section on the efficiency of natural selection gets at the critical aspect of
Darwin’s theory, where we see that Jenkin shows the focus to be upon the individual
conceived of as an end in themselves, serving as the pivotal point in the ongoing,
linear evolutionary process. But as Jenkin says, How does this fact of affinity
between parents and offspring, linked to the simple observation concerning
advantageous fluke variations, serve to justify a theory of new species arising from
old ?
Let’s keep reviewing Jenkin :—

If we could admit the principle of a gradual accumulation of improvements,

natural selection would gradually improve the breed of everything, making the
hare of the present generation run faster, hear better, digest better, than his
ancestors ; his enemies, the weasels, greyhounds, etc., would have improved
likewise, so that perhaps the hare would not be really better off ; but at any
rate the direction of the change would be from a war of pigmies to a war of
Titans. Opinions may differ as to the evidence of this gradual perfectibility of
all things, but it is beside the question to argue this point, as the origin of
species requires not the gradual improvement of animals retaining the same
habits and structure, but such modification of those habits and structure as will
actually lead to the appearance of new organs.

(page 287)

Jenkin’s argument increasingly exposes the absurdity of natural selection as

the means of evolving new species. His criticism is calling out for a force, giving
consistent direction to the transformations we know do take place, that account for the
evolution of new species. The environment acting as the equivalent of the human
selective breeder, as Darwin made it appear, cannot be that force, the force must be
the latent potential lying within the physical environment, and the physiology of the
species conjointly. On this basis a species is like a cosmological object, such as a
planet, having a dynamic value and potential relative to the system in which it exists.
When the system is disturbed it needs to readjust, and that disturbance can be induced
by a variety of factors, among which is the evolution of a new physiological mode, a
new engine of life, as we always insist when explaining that humans were an
inevitable product of the evolution of mammalian physiology, because this
development meant that at some point there had to arise a superorganic form of this
new life engine.

Jenkinising Darwin

If it is impossible that any sport or accidental variation in a single

individual, however favourable to life, should be preserved and transmitted by
natural selection, still less can slight and imperceptible variations, occurring in
single individuals, be garnered up and transmitted to continually increasing
numbers ; for if a very highly-favoured white cannot blanch a nation of
negroes, it will hardly be contended that a comparatively very dull mulatto has
a good chance of producing a tawny tribe ; the idea, which seems almost
absurd when presented in connexion with a practical case, rests on a fallacy of
exceedingly common occurrence in mechanics and physics generally. When a
man shows that a tendency to produce a given effect exists he often thinks he
has proved that the effect must follow. He does not take into account the
opposing tendencies, much less does he measure the various forces, with a
view to calculate the result. For instance, there is a tendency on the part of a
submarine cable to assume a catenary curve, and very high authorities once
said it would ; but, in fact, forces neglected by them utterly alter the curve
from the catenary. There is a tendency on the part of the same cables, as
usually made, to untwist entirely ; luckily there are opposing forces, and they
untwist very little. These cases will hardly seem obvious ; but what should we
say to a man who asserted that the centrifugal tendency of the earth must send
it off in a tangent ? One tendency is balanced or outbalanced by others ; the
advantage of structure possessed by an isolated specimen is enormously
outbalanced by the advantage of numbers possessed by the others.

(Jenkin, p. 291)

Here we get a real sense of the incisiveness of the argument that put Darwin
on the back foot, forcing him to alter a portion of his fifth edition of Origin of Species.
Willis tells us that Darwin acknowledged the value of Jenkin’s criticism and made an
amendment to his theory, and we learn by following the reference Willis provides to a
biography of Darwin, by Darwin’s son, that this amendment appeared in the fifth
edition of Origin of Species. Unfortunately Francis Darwin does not give us a
reference to the alterations his father made on account of Jenkin. The question is, if I
download a copy of the fifth edition, assuming there is one online, can I find the piece
we need to read in order to see how Jenkin influenced Darwin ?
We also have several direct references to the idea of forces in the above quote,
which is nice to see. I download a copy of the fifth edition of Origin, and I can see
how the portion on page one hundred and nine, to which Willis refers, vaguely relates
to the idea of distribution, in which Willis is so interested, but it does not say much,
and certainly not enough for me to make any connection with this passage and
Jenkin’s essay. A search for ‘Jenkin’ in the PDF copy produced no results, and I
cannot think of any word that will track down the relevant segment that Darwin
adjusted to suit Jenkin’s challenge. You would think that such an important event in
one of the most momentous pieces of work ever published, would of come to the
attention of academics, even at the time, to the extent that they would of wanted to
know precisely how Darwin responded, but as things stand I do not know what
happened, so we will move on, for now.

VI

Religious Darwinism

Another argument against the efficiency of natural selection is, that

animals possess many peculiarities the special advantage of which it is almost
impossible to conceive ; such, for instance, as the colour of plumage never
displayed ; and the argument may be extended by pointing how impossible it
is to conceive that the wonderful minutiæ of, say a peacock’s tail, with every
little frond of every feather differently barred, could have been elaborated by
the minute and careful inspection of rival gallants or admiring wives ; but
although arguments of this kind are probably correct, they admit of less
absolute demonstration than the points already put. A true believer can always
reply, ‘You do not know how closely Mrs. Peahen inspects her husband’s
toilet, or you cannot be absolutely certain that under some unknown
circumstances that insignificant feather was really unimportant ;’ or finally, he
may take refuge in the word correlation, and say, other parts were useful,
which by the law of correlation could not exist without these parts ; and
although he may have not one single reason to allege in favour of any of these
statements, he may safely defy us to prove the negative, that they are not true.
The very same difficulty arises when a disbeliever tries to point out the
difficulty of believing that some odd habit or complicated organ can have been
useful before fully developed. The believer who is at liberty to invent any
imaginary circumstances, will very generally be able to conceive some series
of transmutations answering his wants.

(Jenkin, p. 293)

This paragraph immediately precedes the one that Francis Darwin took from
his father’s notes, and used in his biography to illustrate how Darwin regarded such
Jenkin’s argument as ingenious. The above quote caught my eye because it places
Darwinism in the category of a religious belief or dogma, forced into existence by
mere dint of the power to promote it, then, having been made sacred, it was defended
by a cohort of priests and believers, using all the usual ploys of their kind, particularly
that of obliging all detractors to prove the theory not true : to prove the negative. And
we have seen how a modern priest of this mystery school, Dawkins, loves to use the
proving the negative device in his role as strident priest of atheism, to defend religion
from science, covertly.

VII
 Negative proof fallacy

We assert that proving negatives is very easy, but with my attention being
drawn to this philosophical, that is verbal conundrum, it now catches my eye
whenever I spot references to it. I noticed just such a reference the other day, in one
of the early works taken from Early English Books Online, indicating that the
impossibility of proving a negative was denominated a ‘proverbial impossibility’ in
times past. This is so remarkable because it is such an easy ‘impossibility’ to prove
fallacious. All it takes is a demonstration that language is a veil, being symbolic, and
that this veil can therefore be lifted by showing what a presumptuous symbol refers to
in reality. Had Jenkin of understood this principle of knowledge, he may of been able
to use it to good effect where he finds he is being obliged to take up just such a
challenge. We may note that the story of the King and his New Suit of Clothes, made
famous to us in the nineteenth century version by Hans Christian Andersen, dates
back to long before the early modern period, so, as with the ancient fables of Aesop,
people of the past had their ways of comprehending such subtleties as arise from the
symbolic nature of language. But certainly, the harsh rationalism of science was not
generally applied to these aspects of life, this dangerous wisdom was handed down in
a mythological and poetic guise, that required the participants to understand the
hidden meaning, allowing artfulness to exclude the uninitiated. Modern science is
perhaps not so far removed from such a tactic when we consider that Darwinism is a
disguise, being religious motive dressed in scientific method.
We must realise that there is more to this negative proofthan the simple
principle, it has major implications, and this fact lies dormant in the ancient value
given to the principle that a negative could never be proven. In an age where dogma
reigned supreme and virtually unchallenged, it was almost implicit in the
establishment set up, that words were as good as evidence. Try reading over some of
the works attacking atheism in the seventeenth century, where the authors see no need
whatsoever to do more than claim that a declaration, having been made by an
authority, is the closest thing to proof that it is possible to possess. Darwinism is
simply an elaborate example of this logic ; alright then ! a very elaborate example.
We have already seen that Jenkin saw it as necessary to affirm that religion
and science were not inherently in conflict, and that Darwinism was no threat to
religion. It is only when we take an opposite stance and assert that the primary
objective of science is to destroy religion, simply because religion is an edifice
occupying the ground upon which science must stand, if science is to stand at all, that
we can make the prosecution of science take on the principle of negative proof. So
that we examine the flaws in a would be scientific analysis of life, such as Origin of
Species, not as if it were sincere, but, because it fails to seek the destruction of
religion as a primary necessity of its success—quite the opposite in fact—we treat it
as if it were masquerading as something other than what it is pretending to be.
Something that had to be shown up for what it is, an imposter, subversive of science, a
religious treatise in disguise. Not a scientific work, needing to be examined as if its
efforts were genuine. Jenkin could not apply this vital test because he was at one with
Darwin, when Darwin said he had no desire to be atheistical. Jenkin hadn’t either,
making Jenkin as worthless, in the end, as Darwin. No wonder his fatalattack, proved
irrelevant. First we must demolish, then we build.
It seems we have unmasked an erstwhile hero, in that we have just placed
Jenkin in the camp defending religion from science. But we are too far into this
chapter to throw it away, so we will proceed as if nothing has happened.—Jenkin, like
all others before the writing of these first works of atheist science by yours truly,
simply had no means of dealing with the likes of Darwin. Without a resolution of the
negative proof defence, science can go nowhere. And this is made so obvious by a
familiarity with the proclamations and works of the contemporary atheist, Dawkins.
It is not surprising to find that science in the shape given it by Darwin employs the
negative proof defence, just as any dogmatic mantra based on authority does. This is
how religion works, and Darwinism is merely a technical piece of humanist religion,
humanist sciencewe might say, in contrast to atheist science Darwinism is a religious
work that has excised the godhead, but preserved the essence of religious dogma.
This is a device that we saw, courtesy of Ibry’s humanism, is a tactic that the religious
fanatic has taken to adopting as needs must, without batting an eyelid ; whatever it
takes is the priest’s motto.

VIII

Energy as the basis of evolution

We have experimentally proved one law,—that the total quantity of energy in

the universe is constant, meaning by energy something perfectly intelligible
and mensurable, equivalent in all cases to the product of a mass into the square
of a velocity, sometimes latent, that is to say, producing or undergoing no
change ; at other times in action, that is to say, in the act of producing or
undergoing change, not a change in amount, but a change of distribution. First,
the hand about to throw a ball, next, the ball in motion, lastly, the heated wall
struck by the ball, contain the greater part of the energy of the construction ;
but, from first to last, the sum of the energies contained by the hand, the ball,
and the wall, is constant. At first sight, this constancy, in virtue of which no
energy is ever lost, but simply transferred from mass to mass, might seem to
favour the notion of a possible eternity of change, in which the earlier and
later states of the universe would differ in no essential feature. It is to
Professor Sir W. Thomson of Glasgow that we owe the demonstration of the
fallacy of this conception, and the establishment of the contrary doctrine of a
continual dissipation of energy, by which the available power to produce
change in any finite quantity of matter diminishes at every change of the
distribution of energy. A simple illustration of the meaning of this doctrine is
afforded by an unequally heated bar of iron. Let one end be hot and the other
cold. The total quantity of heat (representing one form of energy) contained by
the bar is mensurable and finite, and the bar contains within itself the elements
of change,—the heated end may become cooler, and the cold end warmer. So
long as any two parts differ in temperature, change may occur ; but so soon as
all parts of the bar are at one temperature, the bar quoad heat can produce no
change in itself, and yet if we conceive radiation or conduction from the
surface to have been prevented, the bar will contain the same total energy as
before. In the first condition, it had the power of doing work, and if it had not
been a simple bar, but a more complex arrangement of materials of which the
two parts had been at different temperatures, this difference might have been
used to set wheels going, or to produce a thermo-electric current ; but
gradually the wheels would have been stopped by friction producing heat once
more, the thermo-electric current would have died out, producing heat in its
 turn, and the final quantity of heat in the system would have been the same as
before. Its distribution only, as in the simple case, would have been different.
At first, great differences in the distribution existed ; at last, the distribution
was absolutely uniform ; and in that condition, the system could suffer no
alteration until affected by some other body in a different condition, outside
itself every change in the distribution of energy depends on a difference
between bodies, and every change tends, on the whole, to diminish this
difference, and so render the total future possible change less in amount. Heat
is the great agent in this gradual decay. No sooner does energy take this form
than it is rapidly dissipated, i.e., distributed among a large number of bodies,
which assume a nearly equal temperature ; once energy has undergone this
transformation, it is practically lost. The equivalent of the energy is there ; but
it can produce no change until some fresh body, at a very different
temperature, is presented to it.

(Jenkin, pp. 297 – 299)

Francis Darwin notes how remarkable it was that it took an engineer, rather
than a naturalist, to make a telling criticism of natural selection, and in the above
passage we see just why this should be so : because the engineer has such a clear
grasp of the basic dynamics of material systems. For ourselves this seems an
admirable basis upon which to set out to discover the true theory of evolution, since
such a theory is, when all is said and done, concerned with the transmutation of matter
from one structural form to another, and in seeking to dethrone Darwin we have found
ourselves inevitably driven to enunciate a model based upon the universal principles
of energy distribution within systems. And it will be clear to any who might read this
work from beginning to end, that the idea of an energy differential provides the
logical basis behind complex identity patterns controlled by political structures,
existing within a uniform superorganic identity, such that the whole dynamic of
human history is driven through the active pursuit of identity differentials, contained,
and then released through carefully crafted sluice gates of Jewish identity.
If we extract “the system could suffer no alteration until affected by some
other body in a different condition” from the above argument, we may focus on this
idea in relation to our attempts to understand the evolution of strange species isolated
upon islands, such as a carnivorous caterpillar. We can think of resident island
species as expressions of differential temperatures existing in a state of equilibrium,
but where the individual differences are set artificially high by the isolation of the
territory from the wider domain of life, from which the advanced species occupying
the land were originally derived. Each new entrant into the system represents a new
‘hot spot’ from which energy of life erupts, as when an alien creature like a rat
advances upon defenceless residents and exterminates them. Or the new arrival may
be a ‘cold spot’, into which energy is poured, such as a herbivorous caterpillar, which
finds itself destined to eat meat, because an excess of insects exists without the
predatory forms that would of consumed them in the territories where they evolved
their original structure. The extraordinary flamboyance of island insects, leading to
their being called the birds of paradise of the insect world, would also reflect the urge
of life to use what it has to hand, in order to achieve the balanced diversity that an
ecosystem seems to require. We might wonder if the birds of paradise, the
extravagant peacock even, might be accounted for by such a force based theory of
evolution. That they are products of some process of isolation from the past, still
active in the present, to do with forest terrain localising species, so that elaborate
display is simply an effusion of life energy bursting forth in a confined ecosystem.
Whether these ruminations be right or wrong, the type of explanation for life on our
planet definitely alters substantially once we get away from the lamentable ideas
foisted upon us by the theocracy, through the work of their elected one, Charles
Darwin.
An island ecosystem is a special case, it is a sampling of a complete
ecosystem. It is as if a cruise ship were to become shipwrecked on an island and a
society were to arise from its passengers and crew, in which there were certain gaps
regarding the hierarchy from which the people came. There would be crew members,
service personal, leaders, and then a selection of people who could afford luxury. A
society based on this selection would be unbalanced, and where an ecosystem has a
similarly spiky distribution of species it could not readily provide alternatives in the
way humans could, given enough time. This is why an island ecosystem has to make
do with what it has, so that the delightful arrangements Darwin found in the
Galapagos take shape, species become adapted, but remain incongruous compared to
the global picture, and likewise for Hawaii.
These descriptions of the manner in which energy distribution occurs within a
system, provided by Jenkin in the context of natural selection, are superb, and it is
most significant that this criticism has been side stepped by an authorised scientific
community, determined to resist science, in the name of religion.

IX

How to demolish Darwin

Delightful :—

It is assumed that all existing substances or beings of which we have

any scientific knowledge exist under definite laws. Under any laws there will
be a limit to the possible number of combinations of a limited number of
elements. The limit will apply to size, strength, length of life, and every other
quality. Between any extremes the number of combinations called animals or
species can only be increased by filling in gaps which exist between
previously existing animals, or between these and the possible limits, and
therefore whatever the general laws of organization may be, they must
produce results similar to those we observe, and which lead to difficulty in
classification, and to the similarity between one species or variety and another.
Turning the argument, we might say that the observed facts simply prove that
organisms exist and were created under definite laws, and surely no one will
be disposed to deny this. Darwin assumes one law, namely, that every being is
descended from a common ancestor (which, by the way, implies that every
being shall be capable of producing a descendant like any other being), and he
seems to think this the only law which would account for the close similarity
of species, whereas any law may be expected to produce the same results. We
observe that animals eat, breathe, move, have senses, are born, and die, and
yet we are expected to feel surprise that combinations, which are all contrived
to perform the same functions, resemble one another. It is the apparent variety
that is astounding, not the similarity. Some will perhaps think it absurd to say
that the number of combinations are limited. They will state that no two men
 ever were or will be exactly alike, no two leaves in any past or future forest ; it
is not clear how they could find this out, or how they could prove it. But as
already explained, we quite admit that by allowing closer and closer similarity,
the number of combinations of a fixed number of elements may be
enormously increased. We may fairly doubt the identity of any two of the
higher animals, remembering the large number of elements of which they
consist, but perhaps two identical foraminiferæ have existed. As an idle
speculation suggested by the above views, we might consider whether it would
be possible that two parts of any two animals should be identical, without their
being wholly identical, looking on each animal as one possible combination,
in which no part could vary without altering all the others. It would be difficult
to ascertain this by experiment.
It is very curious to see how man’s contrivances, intended to fulfil
some common purpose, fall into series, presenting the difficulty complained of
by naturalists in classifying birds and beasts, or chemists in arranging
compounds. It is this difficulty which produces litigation under the Patent
Laws. Is or is not this machine comprised among those forming the subject of
the patent ? At first sight nothing can be more different than the drawing in the
patent and the machine produced in court, and yet counsel and witnesses shall
prove to the satisfaction of judge, jury, and one party to the suit, that the
essential part, the important organ, is the same in both cases. The case will
often hinge on the question, What is the important organ ? Just the question
which Darwin asks ; and quite as difficult to answer about a patented machine
as about an organic being.
This difficulty results from the action of man’s mind contriving
machines to produce a common result according to definite laws, the laws of
mechanics. An instance of this is afforded by the various forms of bridge.
Nothing would appear more distinct than the three forms of suspension-bridge,
girder, and arch ; the types of which are furnished by a suspended rope, a balk
of wood, and a stone arch ; yet if we substitute an iron-plate girder of
approved form for the wooden balk, and then a framed or lattice girder for the
plate-iron girder, we shall see that the girder occupies an intermediate place
between the two extremes, combining both the characteristics of the
suspension and arched rib,—the upper plates and a set of diagonal struts being
compressed like the stones of an arch, the lower plates and a set of diagonal
ties being extended like a suspended rope.

(Jenkin, pp. 309 – 10)

We simply cannot improve upon this model of life. Here Jenkin makes living
species the equivalent of molecular species, and in doing so he assumes a similar set
of dynamic constraints. We must concur with this view. The model might benefit
from knowledge of the genetic codification of life, which is akin to the atomic
codification expressed in the periodic table, but that is getting technical, and beyond
me. I also detect a flaw in the argument when he suggests evolution is completely
reversible. This cannot be so because the form of life on the planet today has emerged
from a series of planetary transformations that cannot be repeated, and I am not even
sure if the logic is true. I mean to say we could hardly expect an elephant, over time,
to evolve into a dandelion ! If elephants were placed on an Earth like planet, prior to
the emergence of any life, could a biosphere like that of Earth evolve from elephants
over the course of a few billion years ? No, because the animals would die from
starvation in a month ; some questions are best left alone !
Of course scientists have long been at pains to make some qualitative
distinctions between the various levels of material existence, allowing them to place
humans at the top of the hierarchy of complexity. From where they can be
denominated unique and allocated special attributes, such as freedom from any need
to obey the laws of the universe, allowing them to do things like flying in machines,
presumably, as the degenerates whom we call scientists would have it.
Language can be placed within a physiological continuum which denies these
priestly machinations, and allows society to be a purely natural outcome of biological
processes. But this does need a rigorous platform of mechanics, underpinning the
model of life that informs all later prognostications on the nature of human existence,
and Jenkin gives us such a ruthless model of evolution here, in his early
demonstration of how to demolish Darwin. But of course, as long as he refrained
from recognising that the whole point of Darwin was, not to promote science, but to
protect religion from science, by sterilising science, by removing the godhead from
religious dogma and producing a humanist science, nothing that Jenkin said was ever
going to get the job done. And we have seen that in reality Jenkins was at one with
Darwin, he was not a true critic.
Continuing with the bridge analogy :—

Here, as in the case of animals or vegetables, when the varieties are few,
classification is comparatively easy ; as they are multiplied it becomes difficult
; and when all the conceivable combinations are inserted it becomes
impossible. Nor must it be supposed that this is due to the suggestion of one
form by another in a way somewhat analogous to descent by animal
reproduction. There are only certain ways in which a stream can be bridged ;
the extreme cases are easily perceived, and ingenuity can then only fill in an
indefinite number of intermediate varieties. The possible varieties are not
created by man, they are found out, laid bare. Which are laid bare will
frequently depend on suggestion or association of ideas, so that groups of
closely analogous forms are discovered about the same time ; but we may a
priori assert that whatever is discovered will lie between the known extremes,
and will render the task of classification, if attempted, more and more difficult.

(Jenkin, pp. 311 – 312)

Our object in taking this final sample is to extend the implications of the
previous quote where Jenkin asserted there was a periodic table of life forms, so to
speak. The argument he applies to bridge design, there being only a limited number
of possible types, equates to the idea that there are a limited number of ways of
composing an ecosystem. Hence, when voids exist in the composition, due to special
circumstances, like isolation from the main zones of life, those voids have to be
plugged according to the dictates of the ‘periodic table of life’, whatever that would
be, if we knew it. So Hawaiian caterpillars could become carnivorous, but not
photosynthetic, because animals do not photosynthesise ; just as a bridge could not
run along the ground, because then it would not be bridge, but a road. For the same
reason an elephant could not evolve into a plant, because its course of evolution
involved the loss of a primary attribute of life, upon which the hierarchy of life is
based. For the same dynamic reason, when slave maker ants lose their slaves they
starve to death, because their evolution has elevated them along a hierarchical
trajectory that is not simply reversible as and when circumstances require ; just as
when Jews are threatened with the lose of their slave biomass, as when science
threatened religion, they too can live no more, we must suppose, rather provocatively,
but nonetheless truthfully, for all that. Given a set of circumstances, such as an
ecosystem, only so many possibilities exist within the parameters that those
circumstances contain, hence, when need calls, life answers as best it can, so meat
eating caterpillars fill the void, or Nazis bridge the gap.
This idea of a fixed set of parameters dictating the kind of life forms that may,
or must, if at all possible, exist, is of major importance to us when we claim that
humans are a superorganic form of mammal, because we argue that superorganic form
is a macro ecological domain in its own right, equivalent to terrestrial, aquatic and
aerial domains. Superorganichood is a domain of life, brought into being by the
existence of life itself. So that once a macro physiology had evolved in the shape of a
mammalian life engine, then a true superorganic form of mammal hadto evolve to fit
that life-niche. The superorganic mammal was latent in mammalian form, and its
discoverywas inevitable. In the above Jenkin helps us expand our argument
concerning this principle of evolution, based on life as a facet of nature, rather than
life viewed as an extension of human social dynamics, as Darwin had it.

Chapter 15

Denying Darwin : the Scientist Speaks

I have no desire at all to be dogmatic : but Dr. WILLIS’S conclusions do appear to me to

explain a great range of facts, to be natural and reasonable in themselves, and to present for
the first time a conception of evolution at once so simple and so definite that it can be
expressed—even if only roughly owing to the gaps in our knowledge—in quantitative terms,
and quantitative deductions drawn. Admitting all the difficulties of interpreting some results—
and as I have said, they are considerable—these may yield to further work, to the co-operation
of biologists with more competent mathematicians, or more likely still to the mathematically
trained biologist. I may be optimistic, but it seems to me that the future holds the possibility of
great developments.

(A Mathematical Theory of Evolution, Based on the Conclusions of

Dr. J. C. Willis, G. Udny Yule, 1924, p. 32.)

A new author came to my attention recently. Passing references to the

questionable veracity of the Darwinian theory crop up from time to time, but there are
few full blown attempts to discover an alternative theory of evolution made by
scientists, but in J. C. Willis we have one. His first book, Age and Area : A Study in
Geographical Distribution and Origin of Species, was published in 1922, and it is
impressive. The way he talks so dismissively about Darwin’s theory must delight the
soul of any true lover of real science.
I was about to offer a brief suggestion as to the form any structured scientific
work, expounding the argument that humans are a superorganic species of mammal,
might take. I have developed more scientifically oriented pieces of work previously,
but the fact is that the science of human nature is a walk in the park, the challenge for
science is the war with religion. Which explains the tack my work has taken of late,
in examining more closely the way science has been subverted and religion preserved.
This is the real issue for science. If religion would clear off, out of the way, then
technical experts could just get on with the work of interpreting life, just as they do all
other facets of existence. It is the work of the theocracy, managed through the agency
of the scientific establishment, that presents the real challenge to a would be scientist
today. Willis is a perfect demonstration of this fact, even though it must be said that
Willis gives no direct indication that he recognised that it was the corruption of
academia by religious bias imbued into the structure—religious bias being an inherent
characteristic of the social biomass, concentrated in the upper echelons of society—
that was the true nature of the problem he faced in his search for a genuine science of
evolution.

Presenting human evolution

If we were to attempt an orderly presentation of the idea of human nature

based on science, we would need to begin where Darwin began, by expounding a
theory of life’s evolution. To this end we have developed the principle of life as an
expression of natural forces, in common with all other phenomenon of existence.
Applying this principle of evolutionary force to human evolution, we would begin
with the anthropological account of human physical development. This account
would be defined by the idea of human nature as being ‘corporate’, so that, from the
outset, physiological evolution would head towards developing a perfect superorganic
mammalian form. Consequently, there would be no radical break in the story as we
arrived at current times and shifted our emphasis away from the predominantly
anthropological account, to that of the sociological domain. Continuity would be our
watchword, as it must forever be in science.
We might have distinct chapters on linguistic force ; social structure as
manifested in a series of buffers, discussed above, condensing out of expressions of
linguistic force ; the development of identity patterns in supermassive agglomerations
of human biomasses ; identity as the message of linguistic force ; followed by a study
of the unity of identity found in complex arrays of seemingly divergent identities,
resulting in uniform complex structures, bound together tightly by the tension of
conflicting interests. Warfare would attract a chapter ; as too the function of law ; the
nature of knowledge as a bonding agent and not as a means of empowering
individuals for their own sake, although false knowledge does act as the core of a
superorganic flux that individuals tap into, thereby empowering themselves, which
explains the motivation of clever people who subscribe to puerile religious ideas and
such like. It would undoubtedly be a challenge to pull all the threads together, and it
would be of immense advantage to science to have the support of the public
infrastructure, instead of being at war with it, as atheist science, that is the genuine
scientific way of knowing reality, is now.

II

Genuine v fake

The case of Willis offers an opportunity to look at an attempt to develop a real

science of evolution, and the kind of challenges and experiences such an attempt
presents to a person living within an absolute theocracy like ours, one that has already
established a science of evolution to serve its own purposes. Willis’ case offers the
whole gamut of aspects needed for such a study. The initial caveat overriding such a
study might be the question of who, if either, is actually right, Willis or Darwin ?
We know Darwinism is false because it tells us nothing about the place of
humans in nature. A valid fundamental theory of life would destroy religion outright,
because science and religion cannot coexist. The prevalence of religion in society is a
scientific test in its own right, where a theory of evolution is concerned. As atheist
scientists, that is people who put atheism at the heart of science by factoring the
ongoing war between science and religion into their calculations, thus recognising the
place of science in society as an essential factor in the development of science as a
way of knowing reality, we make this point expressly, as a necessary adjunct to our
scientific study of evolution. To say otherwise, to say that religion and science can
exist in the same social space at the same time, as Darwin did, and as his first
fatalcritic Jenkin, did likewise, is simply to put forth a message conforming to the
needs of religious authority. It is obvious that religion needs this message, this
accommodation, but what use is it to science ? At best this message can utterly
destroy science, at worst, it already has.
Willis’ second book, The Course of Evolution, 1940, is all about evolution, and
focuses heavily on Darwinism. This second book concludes with a final discussion
that we start with, by using a couple of passages to illustrate the points made above,
firstly concerning the possibility of discerning between Willis and Darwin. Here we
find a succinct statement showing how the issue can be resolved :—

The question as to which explanation is nearer to the truth, therefore,

may be settled by an answer to the question as to which was the direction in
which evolution moved. To obtain this answer, the author has devised some
thirty-four test cases, given in Chaps, X-XIII, and as all of them give good, and
a number give very strong, if not convincing, evidence in favour of the
direction required by divergent mutation, it becomes in a high degree probable
that this is the more correct explanation, and that natural selection had little or
nothing to do with the fact that evolution went on.

(p. 182)

How to tackle the problem of discerning the relative veracity of Darwin and
Willis on purely technical grounds, is therefore clear, though the issue remains one of
having the authority to do so. To this end we may take a further passage, showing the
practical difficulties that place us all at the mercy of the absolute theocracy, served by
the state funded academic establishment, which is self evidently utterly corrupt, as it
does nothing to cleans itself of religious influence, quite the reverse in fact. To our
incredulous dismay we are forced to accept that such things as ‘Catholic universities’,
for example, are as normal in our world as fish in the sea. How can science exist
under such circumstances ! The existence of such institutions is an affront to science.

Morphological tests are described in chap. XI. In the important case IX,
differences in generic rank are dealt with. Natural selection can make no
predictions, and simply regards all genera as generic stages in evolution, and
of rank as nearly the same as the systematist can compass. Differentiation,
however, says that the rank of a genus of a very small family will be
approximately equal, on the principle of divergent mutation, to that of the sub-
family of a large family. This proves to be the case, giving very strong
evidence indeed for evolution by divergent mutation, and showing that the
rank of a genus varies with its position, and the size of it and of its family. In
case X the fact, hitherto almost totally ignored, is considered, that the
characters of plants are generally shown in their perfect condition, and
especially so those of the higher groups. This could not happen under
selection, to which 95 per cent or less of perfection would be as good as 100
per cent. This is a simple, but destructive argument against gradual acquisition
of characters.

(p. 183)

These claims mean next to nothing to me, this is a specialist argument. Willis’
books are perfectly readable, for the most part, but when he gets into the realms of his
specialised knowledge we lay people are left at his mercy, and a such at the mercy of
the priesthood within the universities. This however indicates how the theocracy has
been able to build an academic infrastructure around the need for highly trained
professionals, paid by the state, to determine which arguments are valid, which
invalid. It is truly a wonderful thing that in Willis we actually have a superb example
of a professional academic, who tried to take on the establishment’s paid lackeys ; of
which he was one. But an exceptional one, whose renegade existence proved the rule
that says all academics are corrupt from the inside out, due to their training. His effort
was futile, but in our hands it takes its true place in a philosophical argument, focused
on the war between science and religion, that Willis’ professional status as a scientist
prevented him from so much as imagining. The scientific establishment had been so
constructed as to ensure that the output of its training programmes would have it
hammered into them, above all else, never to cross the divide between science and
religion. Notwithstanding that this divide was an osmotic barrier, that allowed
religion to flow freely through its gaping pores, while the regulations of which this
linguistic divide consisted, imposed upon scientists a strict duty, which meant they
could never cross the membrane in the opposite direction, and thereby use their
position as scientists to wage war on their arch enemy, religion. And hence the reason
why our atheist philosophy of science has been forced into existence. The bias
conceptual divide is a fine example of how linguistic force produces very definite and
important physiological structure, or social structure as we are programmed to think
of it. Which means that in the end, authority determines the veracity of any proof.
 For the purposes of this study of Willis we must put a decision on the matter of
veracity to one side, for the reasons regarding proof and authority just outlined above.
We can tackle this subject from the point of view of two competing ideas, neither of
which are proven ; one because we know it is false, and the other because we know it
is outcast from the only place that can sanction proof. Will it be possible to discern
patterns of bias in the way these two streams of knowledge, Darwinism and Willisism,
flow through the social milieu that contains such material in society ? Finding such
bias must be the object of the exercise. The Darwinian model is automatically taken
as possessing legitimacy, because it is supported by the establishment, therefore we
have had to begin by considering the basis upon which Willisism could be accepted as
a legitimate alternative to Darwinism, and the constraints on that possibility.

III

Proof as linguistic device

While we know Darwinism is a fraud, we do not know if Willis is right,

because in order to determine its validity, a theory has to be accepted by the
establishment, at least up to the point where it is put to the test. Darwinism has of
course not yet been put to the test, to this day Darwinism is supported solely by the
force of authority vested in the universities. This situation gives us a real life
demonstration of the nature of proof as a linguistic device, made to serve false
knowledge in the hands of an establishment, since, by establishing Darwin as an
authority on evolution, academia worked against true knowledge resident within an
unstructured sector of the social biomass, where men like Comte and Spencer were
promoting the idea of society as a social organism, which was clearly the only
possible route for science to follow. To make humans an advanced ape was just a
pathetic individual centred ruse, designed to drag people away from the obvious fact
that, if such similes are desired, human nature was more akin to a kind of insect.
From the relation of proof to social power through knowledge control, we can
understand why societies based on false knowledge, have developed elaborate
academic structures, as in universities, that serve as centres of Proof. Our conception
of the nature of ‘proof’ is derived from the answer we must give to the question as to
whether it is possible to prove that God does not exist. The answer is that it is easy to
prove that God does not exist, we do this by showing what God is, God being the
superorganism, the existence of which is demonstrated by proving that humans are a
superorganic mammal. There can be nothing in nature easier for a scientist to prove,
than that humans are a superorganic mammal. If it is possible to show that humans
are linguistically empowered then the proof is given, and the case closed. The only
possible way to account for human language is to recognise that humans are as much
superorganisms as any other animal in existence, such as bees, termites and ants.
Proof is of its nature linguistic, it is the symbolic representation of reality.
Science supposedly evades the linguistic flaw in the nature of proof by insisting that
proofs describe a material condition that can be repeatedly returned to and described
in identical terms, time and time again. But however commendable this idea might be
in theory, the fact remains that proof is always entirely linguistic in the end.
Interpretation becomes so complex that we are left struggling with the reality that
Golding warned against, as discussed above, when he said we must never take
anything on authority. Scientific method may appear to remove this flaw, but it does
not, because it lays us open to the next hurdle used in knowledge control, that of proof
suppressed by authority. By limiting proof to technical exercises fixed in the material
domain, science is prevented from extrapolating from physical proofs to consequent
realities. This means the structure of reality is exposed to science, while the essence
is barred from investigation. This logical device provides priests working within
universities with a means to impose the nonsense that science and religion deal with
two separate kinds of knowledge, or reality, neither of which are accessible to the
other. A more errant piece of foul mouthed trash was never spoken by any
degenerate, in the entire existence of the universe, yet we hear this refrain all the time.
The nature of proof then, being linguistic, means that proof takes the form of a
message—that is a block of information issuing a command—and, as with all
messages, whether they are true or false, they are defined as true in a functional sense,
merely by the act of reception, which constitutes an act of obedience to the message.
Thus, for functional purposes : a message is true if it is received, as opposed to being
rejected. We can best think of this relationship between proof, messages, truth and
obedience, in relation to religion and politics. In each of the following cases, “Jesus is
the son of God.”, “Negroes are subhuman animals.”, “Women are inferior to men.”,
we have statements that we know are entirely false, not to say downright insane. Yet
as messages received by the masses, promulgated by our priesthood, these ideas have
at various times been the bedrock of social dynamics directing the flow of social
energy along fixed lines of identity, suited to the objectives of the priesthood at the
time, proving that a message is functionally true, merely if it is received. We may
follow up these consideration by noting that when certain creatures infiltrate an ant
superorganism by cloaking themselves in ant identity recognition messages, these
aliens are accepted as ants, and left to go about their nefarious work in peace.
Regarding human knowledge, the area of information manipulation is internal to the
superorganism. Message manipulation is the means by which human superorganisms
build bodily structure, where information bias causes individuals to aggregate in
patterns serving the physiological order of superorganic being. This functional
outcome is achieved by means of false messaging, such as we find in religion or
modern science. Hence the superorganism emits a constant stream of linguistic
expression, composed entirely of false messages, that direct the energy of the biomass
to accumulate as determined by the organ of identity in which linguistic power is
centred, Judaism in other words, in our superorganism. We saw an example of
ongoing false messaging in the previous chapter, when we dealt with the question Is a
rose a dangerous animal ?
The primary false message stream is religious, and entirely false, being
concerned only with identity definition. But the secondary message stream is literal,
being concerned with facets of reality that are not determined directly by human
action, and as such the resulting knowledge of realitymust be controlled by a test that
filters functional information into the linguistic flux, while excluding damaging truth,
namely information that is not synchronised with the primary religious message of
identity. The superorganism achieves synchronicity in this matter of true knowledge
of reality versus the identity knowledge of superorganic form, by making truth a
matter of ‘proof’, determined by a specially devised formula designed to manage the
truth, proof being determined in special centres of linguistic control that we call
‘universities’. Within these message testing centres the organism validates false
knowledge, upon which its existence depends, while suppressing true knowledge
antithetical to its structural falsehoods. The result is a highly sophisticated compound
of information, based on reality, but ultimately no more real, and no less real, than the
puerile junk ‘knowledge’ we find in the Bible. Thus universities create linguistic
synchronicity across the full extent of superorganic physiology, and as such
universities form the institutional wings of the theocratic infrastructure.
The message controlling procedure we have just described taking place in our
universities, has a reverse dynamic to that described regarding parasites entering an
insect superorganism, because social institutions use false messaging to build social
integrity, as opposed to invading social space. But the messaging dynamic can flip
this way and that in terms of its application to structural definition, because messaging
per se is the foundation of superorganic physiology, that organises individual units of
superorganic being, allowing exploitation of the structural information network to
evolve. We know from the rise of the Jewish slave identity programme, that the same
‘from the outside in’ parasitic manipulation of social structure, through false
messaging, can equally well take place amongst humans. But, once established, as
with slave maker ants, this false messaging mechanism becomes the norm for the
given organism. This is why no one alive today would recognise our scientific
account of human existence as a description of their world, because they are perfectly
harmonised to their Jewish slave identities.
We saw when discussing the enslavement of America blacks to Judaism,
blacks at that time being people with no prior history of enslavement to Judaism,
unlike the Europeans, the physical enslavement of individuals can serve as an
intermediate stage regarding a primitively organised human biomass, disorienting
individual consciousness, and making way for the application of a slave identity
imprint to the brain. The imprinting facility of human physiology allows new
generations of human pupae to be inducted into the slave biomass, without any sense
of disjunction, so that resentment is transformed into devotion. Europeans underwent
the same induction process when the Romans took Judaism across the northern
reaches of the continent, destroying the indigenous leadership, severing the European
biomass from its directive organ of identity, leaving the biomass free to receive a new
identity implant, recently written specially for the purpose of allowing Judaism to take
possession of the freshly dislocated biomass. The shift from none Jew to Jew is
always conducted via a process of disruption, followed by stabilisation. The
induction process is repeated perennially, as needed, following the initial induction of
a biomass into the fold of Jewish slavedom. This is why warfare is endemic to
Christian society. Enslaved populations become decadent, due to the highly contrived
nature of their imposed corporate identity, so need invigoration, which sometimes
means a transfusion of fresh slave identity, or wholesale replacement. This is why the
mass movement of population is a feature of Christian societies too. The extended
period of dependence in superorganic mammals, called ‘childhood’, is an active pupal
stage that evolved to enable individual units of superorganic being to be inducted into
the superorganism, an essential evolutionary development as regards the evolution of
a true superorganic form.
Proof then, we must conclude, like any message, always requires acceptance,
and as such is all about authority, not truth. We prove something is true when we
accept it, not when it is shown to be true. If this were not so there would be no reason
whatsoever for anyone to pay any heed to Darwin, anymore than there would be any
reason for anyone to pay homage to the Bible. Acceptance is the defining quality of
proof, or the essence of proof. Superorganic physiology is an extension of the
linguistic physiology of individual human form, projected onto the level of social
organisation, which ‘sentient bricks’ are obliged to construct under the command of
their evolved form, created by their genes, that tells them to build a living body at the
level of social organisation. In this case social physiology gives us centres of proof
confirmation, called universities. So that finally, we must concede, that it is
impossible to prove that God does not exist, because authority must acceptthe proof.
Come hell or human extinction, authority will not do thatin this case, as it is for
precisely this purpose, in this exact case, that centres of knowledge validation exist in
a theocracy. Universities will instead build a knowledge structure, infuse lies into it,
and aid the devastation of its own society through warfare, if necessary, to ensure that
only its authorised message can prevail.

IV

Anti-Darwinian ranks

Before concentrating on Willis himself, we can consider alternative

evolutionary studies in general via his particular case. There are no obvious modern
accounts of competing theories of evolution, which is as we would expect, since the
prevailing attitude says there is only one theory of evolution, which is Darwin’s.
Authority deems Darwin correct and beyond radical improvement, so there can be no
alternatives. But before this absolute condition was imposed, following the cleansing
of science from society in the 1914-18 conflagration, there was a vast school of anti-
Darwinist thought directed by scientists of great renown. Examining the range of
these ideas reveals the roots of Willis’ own anti-Darwinist perspective. Echoes from
these foundations appear in Willis’ work, as when he says that Darwin did a great
service to science by establishing the much reviled idea of evolution once and for all,
an observation we discuss further on in this chapter, and we see its sentiment affirmed
in the first sentence of the passage reproduced immediately below, taken from a work
by Kellogg. Nothing could be further from the truth. Darwin did not establish the
long resisted idea of evolution on a scientific basis, for the sake of science. He
performed this trick in order to take possession of the idea, for the priesthood. Which
is why a genuine scientist like Willis, failing to find any real scientific value in
Darwin’s actual idea of evolution, then finds himself stumped when he tries to correct
Darwin’s ideas by replacing them with a genuine science of evolution. For these
reasons, while I do not think it relevant to explore scientific theories of evolution from
the latter days of the scientific era, prior to 1914-18, I will just offer a block of text
from one such review, for your delectation :—

Since those warring days of the ’6o’s the theory of descent has been
assailed no more, that is in any important or even interesting way. And the true
Darwinism, the selection doctrine, has also been subject to no conspicuous and
popularly recognised attack. The educated public accepted the results of the
first battle as final, and it quietly began to rearrange its thought and to some
degree its actual ways of living in accordance with these newly discovered
conditions of life. Nevertheless there has been from the day of the close of the
great first battle to the present moment a steady and cumulating stream of
scientific criticism of the Darwinian selection theories. In the last few years, it
has, as already mentioned in the preface and introductory chapter of this book,
reached such proportions, such strength and extent, as to begin to make itself
apparent outside of strictly biological and naturo-philosophical circles. Such
older biologists and natural philosophers as von Baer, von Kölliker, Virchow,
Nägeli, Wigand, and Hartmann, and such others writing in the nineties and in
the present century as von Sachs, Eimer, Delage, Haacke, Kassowitz, Cope,
Haberlandt, Henslow, Goette, Wolff, Driesch, Packard, Morgan, Jaeckel,
Steinmann, Korschinsky, and de Vries, are examples which show the distinctly
ponderable character of the anti-Darwinian ranks. Perhaps these names mean
little to the general reader ; let me translate them into the professors of
zoology, of botany, of palæontology, and of pathology, in the universities of
Berlin, Paris, Vienna, Strassburg, Tübingen, Amsterdam, Columbia University,
etc. Now without knowing the man personally, or even through his particular
work, the general reader can safely attribute to men of such position a certain
amount of scientific training, of proved capacity, and of special
acquaintanceship with the subject of their discussion. One does not come to be
a professor of biology in Berlin or Paris or Columbia solely by caprice of
ministers of education or boards of trustees ; one has proved one’s competency
for the place. To working biologists the names—I have given, of course, only
a selection, and one particularly made to show variety of interest (botany,
zoology, palæontology, pathology)—mean even more than the positions. They
are mostly associated with recognised scientific attainment and general
intellectual capacity.
Among the critics of the selection theories we must note two groups,
differing in the character of their criticism more in degree than in kind,
perhaps, but still importantly differing. One group denies in toto any
effectiveness or capacity for species-forming on the part of natural selection,
while the other group, a larger one, sees in natural selection an effective factor
in directing or controlling the general course of descent, holding it to adaptive
lines, but denies it outright any such Allmacht of species control as the more
eager selectionists, the so-called neo-Darwinians or Weismannians, credit it
with. This larger group of critics sees in natural selection an evolutionary
factor capable of initiating nothing, dependent wholly for any effectiveness on
some primary factor or factors controlling the origin and direction of variation,
but wholly capable of extinguishing all unadapted, unfit lines of development,
and, in this way, of exercising decisive final control over the general course of
descent, i. e., organic evolution. Another classification of critics may be made
on the basis of pure destructiveness on the one hand as opposed to
destructiveness combined with constructiveness on the other. That is, some
critics of selection, as Wolff, Pfeffer, Driesch, et al., are content with doing
their best to reveal the incapacity of Darwinism ; others, on the contrary, come
with certain more or less well-outlined substitutionary theories in their hands.
Eimer with his theory of orthogenesis, and Korschinsky and de Vries with
their theory of mutations, are examples of the latter class.
The general impression left on one after a considerable course of anti-
Darwinian reading ranging all the way from the extreme attitude and the
violence of Dennert, Fleischmann, Wolff, and Coe, to the tempered and
reserved criticism of Delage and de Vries, is that there is a very real and
effective amount of destructive criticism for Darwinians to meet ; and at the
same time a curious paucity of satisfactory or at all convincing substitutionary
theory offered by the anti-Darwinians to replace that which they are
attempting to dethrone. The situation illustrates admirably the varying worth
of a few facts. A few stubborn facts of the wrong complexion are fatal things
for a theory ; they are immensely effective offensive weapons. But these same
few facts make a pitiable showing when they are called on to support a theory
of their own. It was exactly the greatest part of Darwin’s greatness, it seems to
 me, that he launched his theory only after making the most remarkable
collection of facts yet gathered together in biological science by any one man.
Testing his theory by applying to it successively fact after fact, group after
group and category after category of facts, he convinced himself of the
theory’s consonance with all this vast array of observed biological actuality.
Compare the grounding of any of the now offered replacing theories with the
preparation and founding of Darwinism.
In 1864 von Kölliker, a great biologist, convinced of the incapacity of
natural selection to do the work assigned it by its founders and friends,
suggested a theory of the origin of species by considerable leaps ; in 1899,
Korschinsky, on the basis of some few personal observations and the
compiling of some others, definitely formulated a theory of species-forming
by sudden considerable variations, namely, mutations ; in 1901 and 1903
appeared the two volumes of de Vries’s “Die Mutationstheorie,” in which are
revealed the results of long years of careful personal observation, in truly
Darwinian manner, directed toward the testing and better grounding of this
mutationstheorie of species-origin. The results are : out of many plant species
studied, a few show at certain times in the course of numerous generations a
behaviour in accordance with the demands of a theory of species-forming by
sudden definitive modification ; that is, species-forming by mutations. The
mutations-theory thus launched is offered as a substitute for the natural
selection theory obviously weakening under the fire of modern scientific
criticism. But however effective de Vries’s facts are in proving the possibility
of the occurrence of other variations than those fortuitous ones occurring in
continuous series from mean to opposite extremes which Darwin recognised
as the basis of species-forming, and however effective they are in proving the
actual production of three or six or ten species by mutation, and however
effective in both these capacities they are as weapons of attack on the
dominance of the Darwinian theory of species-making, how really inadequate
are they to serve as the basis of a great all-answering theory explaining, in a
causo-mechanical way, the facts of descent, or even the primary facts of
general species-forming. And yet the first American book (from the pen of one
of America’s foremost biologists) to discuss the modern phase of unrest and
dissatisfaction in evolutionary matters, practically accepts the mutations-
theory as a substitute for the selection theory of species-forming. It cannot be,
it seems to me, that Professor Morgan is so satisfied with the mutations-theory,
that he clutches it up, hardly definitely formed and cooled, from the de
Vriesian moulds, but that he is, like many another present-day biologist, so
profoundly dissatisfied with the natural selection theory. For my part it seems
better to go back to the old and safe Ignoramus standpoint.

(Darwinism To-Day, Vernon Kellogg, 1907, pp. 25 – 29)

It is clear from this description of the state of science in the immediate period
following the publication of Origin of Species, and the ensuing developments up to
the beginning of the twentieth century, that all scientists involved in the matter, knew
perfectly well that Darwinism was not science, in any sense whatever, and, as Jenkin
pointed out, Darwin was nothing but a stooge philosopher, that time would, hopefully,
find out. It is also clear that Kellogg is doing his best to defend Darwin from these
scientists, but no surprises there. As ever, we are obliged to the enemies of atheism-
cum-science for the information suited to our cause, it is inconceivable that any anti-
Darwinian history could ever be written, unless it was written by a priest, a creationist
for example. No professional academic would be tolerated by their fellow
professionals if they tried to write what Kellogg has written, but from the view point
of the anti-Darwinists. The very idea is inconceivable in a society like ours. Priests
like Kellogg take possession of all relevant material, and then present it in a form
suited to theocratic needs. How else could religion survive the coming of a scientific
age ? Obviously it is impossible for a layman like myself to know what has and has
not been written, I have no idea what resources professional academics use to keep
themselves informed of such details, though they do seem to have a wonderful
knowledge of such things, when they want it. If an anti-Darwinian history exists,
written by an anti-Darwinist, I will believe it when I see it !

Willis

Age and Areaby Willis, is an incredible piece of work, it is a resounding

scientific attack upon Darwinism, surely the best ever. A point of technical detail is
that this book is by a real scientist, who worked in the most elite universities, not
something I am ordinarily in the habit of making a virtue of in itself, but I do always
acknowledge the awesome power of professional academics, in terms of their innate
ability and their professional capacity for delivering the most incredible knowledge.
Without the knowledge building structure created by the theocracy, we would not
have the material we need to destroy the theocracy by setting knowledge free from the
theocracy’s clutches. This is a transitional issue, we are not interested in denouncing
the social past, merely in developing the social future.
The crux of the matter regarding my condemnation of academia revolves
around the social pivot adopted by science, which is the individual, when it should be
the superorganism. The chosen pivot effects the form that knowledge takes, but it
does not in anyway influence the ability to apply technical expertise to the subject in
hand. It is because knowledge does not change reality, as we explain below in this
chapter, but changes our relationshipto reality, that false knowledge can be organised
on so elaborate a scale as it is by our universities. Therefore my recommendation of
Willis as a professional academic working within the most prestigious universities, is
intended to point out his qualifications as a professional scientist being second to
none. Because he was a professional scientist Willis automatically found himself
amongst a gang of confederates, and in this volume we have contributions from
several academics, which adds to the value of this work as a validation of an
alternative theory of evolution. One confederate, for example, was a professional
mathematician, a specialist in statistics called Yule, who produced a piece of work
entitled A Mathematical Theory of Evolution, Based on the Conclusions of Dr. J. C.
Willis, 1924. Willis concludes Age and Area by promising another book devoted to
evolution, a book I began to read the day after finishing Age and Area, something his
original audience would of had to wait eighteen years to do !

PREFACE
 Some thirty years ago, a pupil of the strictest school of natural selection,
and enthusiastic in my belief in its principles, I set out upon a course of
independent observation of nature. Ten years of such work convinced me that
a simpler explanation of phenomena was always to be found, and one that
seemed more in accordance with the facts ; and I endeavoured—with what
success this book will show—to free myself from the trammels of the natural
selection theory, and to work as if I had found myself in another planet where
scientific investigation was just beginning. Stationed in one of the best centres
in the tropics (where the phenomena of distribution are more impressive than
in Europe), badly handicapped in laboratory work by a serious accident, and
finding my chief pleasure in travelling about the world to see its vegetation—I
took up the study of distribution, in which I had always taken much interest.
Here, as elsewhere, it was soon evident that the current theories provided
an explanation that was not only unnecessarily complex, but one that did not
explain. As one of my critics words it, “for some reason the plant has
advantages which enable it to spread” ; and beyond that point we cannot go.
Gradually it became clear to me that plants spread very slowly, but at an
average rate determined by the various causes acting upon them, so that age
forms a measure of dispersal when one is dealing with allied and similar
forms.
Age as an explanation of spread is enormously simpler than natural
selection, and that it is probably valid is shown by the way in which it can be
used for prediction. An opponent remarks that “it is too simple to be true,” but
this very simplicity seems to me a strong reason in favour of its adoption, at
any rate as a preliminary hypothesis. Of two explanations take the simpler, is
an old rule, and as Hooker has said, “no speculation is idle or fruitless, that is
not opposed to truth or to probability, and which, while it coordinates a body
of well-established facts, does so without violence to nature, and with a due
regard to the possible results of future discoveries.” To find explanation of the
facts of distribution under the current theories has always seemed a very
hopeless task, and any hypothesis that offers a way out should at least receive
attention. No hypothesis can, after all, alter the facts, though it may show ways
in which to accumulate new ones.
In the second part of the book, I have pushed my hypothesis to what
seem to me its logical conclusions, conclusions which are sometimes
subversive of received opinions. To be compelled to re-examine the bases
upon which those opinions are founded will do science no injury, however.

(Age and Area, Willis, 1922, Preface v. – vi.)

There is much to commend this brief passage. Firstly, as a graduate Willis was
totally under the spell of Darwin, but he soon found better ideas to do with evolution,
and rather delightfully he says he felt as though he lived on a planet where science is
yet to begin, which is surely how we all feel in the year 2009, where religion is the
highest conception of truth known to humanity, and science is delegated to sweeping
the toilets of human intellectual capacity. The man is willing to recognise the
worthlessness of Darwinism as a scientific theory, and indicates this by using a most
delightful turn of phrase : “the trammels of the natural selection theory”. So that he
wants to try and project himself back to a time before Darwin trashed science by
publishing his Origin of Species. Superb, if only we could all reach back to those
golden days of freedom of thought, before the theocracy fashioned the shackles with
which to chain our minds by selecting Darwin for deification.
In the second paragraph of the above quote we find “an average rate
determined by the various causes”, which sounds like a key to the elaboration of a
theory of evolutionary force creating life forms, if not all forms in the universe. This
opening gambit into a new world of evolution does not exactly grab me by the short
and curlies, as I rather think the punch line to such a theory ought to do. As ever,
being forearmed with perfect knowledge, so that we know what we are looking for, is
our sole saving grace, allowing us to assess any idea and make it good, or know when
to bin it. What is good in this introductory statement is the idea of life augmenting at
a rate that is susceptible of measurement, such that a variety of interacting causes can
be related to one another numerically : which means all the factors relating to the
evolution of species can be made subject to one universal life force. For that is the
implication of such an idea. And that is just what we are looking for as a sign of a
sound theory of evolution, it is exactly what we never see in Darwin.

VI

Constant reality

I often have recourse to the observation that whatever is said, reality remains
the same. When people discovered the world was in motion this revelation did not
cause the declamations of what this wouldmean, to come true. Buildings and trees
were not spontaneously torn from their foundations and roots, just because humans
discovered the truth ! Yet people always talk as if this is precisely what must happen ;
“Oh but if we are mammalian insects, if individuals do not exist, then, then, then . . . .
we are but robots, our lives are worthless, we would be incapable of living !!!”
Knowing reality changes nothing, and it is nice to see this observation posted here by
Willis. Except, knowing what is real does change something, that is the trouble, it
changes the way we relate to reality ; and that is the story we are telling indirectly, all
the time, in this very work.
It is not nice, however, to see Willis follow up this factual observation with an
expression of juvenile naivety, which contradicts any hint of wisdom just portrayed.
In saying “subversive of received opinions”, he effectivelysays that even if his ideas
do subvert the false ideas so carefully and painstakingly put in place through decades
of machinations, and years of world wide warfare, this will do no harm to science !
To science ! What the hell has developing true scientific ideas got to do with science,
in this world ? If he were to supplant Darwin with a true scientific theory of
evolution, religion would be destroyed, that is the point, and that is the only point of
concern in this context. What world do these lunatics live in ? How can anyone fail
to see this, when they must be so well informed about the nature of our social life ?
The act of seeking true science is synonymous with seeking a new world.
Unless and until scientists get this fact into their thick heads, there will be no science
of any kind whatever. To be a scientist is to be an anarchist, a revolutionary, a rebel, a
nihilist, a traitor and an enemy of all humanity, this is so because the sole purpose of
our world is to deceive us, which means that we love science at our peril. Has it not
always been so ? It is not for nothing that all societies have reserved their most cruel
and depraved tortures for their free thinkers. In the meantime, weplod on. It is a sad
fact that, although I discovered a few remarks bearing overtones of cynicism in the
closing stages of his second work, (See page 170 where he says the idea of large mutations
was rejected because “that would probably remove any effect of natural selection in guiding
evolution.”) Willis simply never shows any sign of understanding that religion bleeds
into science because of the total corruption of academia by religious influences, and
this is why worthless science is honoured without limit, while true science is
disparaged without end.

VII

Age and Area

Age and Areais the title of Willis’ first book length presentation of his
alternative idea of evolution, and it is also the name he gives to this theory of
evolution, so that ‘age and area’ therefore stands juxtaposed against Darwin’s ‘natural
selection’. We can pick our way through some of this work, taking selections that suit
our purpose, although it is not our intention to explain the age and area theory, and
evaluate it, for reasons given above, regarding the incapacity of the present author to
perform such technical tasks.
We want to introduce the book, its idea, and the fact that there was such a well
thought out alternative to Darwin, based on just as much solid work as Darwin ever
produced, hanging on in the post cleansing period, after the First World War. Now
that the last of the generation raised in freedom has all gone, all hope of science in our
time is now dead, so we merely propose to sniff over the corpse, and to lament its
passing. The power of resurrection, we have no doubt, is beyond us, though one
day . . . . we live in hope, the terrible evil of the twentieth century, willbe undone, and
humanity will be free once again, as they were once, in this very England. It is for
this reason that we record this English history now, for as each generation passes, the
next, one more step removed, is one more notch beyond redemption from the all
seeing, all consuming priesthood. It is funny, just the other day, today being Tuesday,
04 August 2009, the nation lamented the passing of the last man to take part in the
Great Act of Cleansing, that erased scientific freedom from the world and ushered in
the current Dark Age of Knowledge. How sick life is when we know what reality is.
Everything is upside down. We wallow gloriously in fountains of abuse, and faun
over that which pisses this abuse all over us.

On page one Willis describes evolution in terms of force, it begins thus :—

THE existing distribution of a plant (or animal) upon the surface of the
globe, which is often a very complex phenomenon, is due to the interaction of
very many factors. Sometimes they are inherent to the plant itself, sometimes
they are incidental to its surroundings, sometimes they partake of both
qualities. At times they may be active, at others very active, and at some
periods, or in some places, they may be more or less quiescent. One pulls in
one direction, another in another. As a plant spreads from the place in which it
originally commenced, therefore, it comes under an ever-varying pull, causing
it to spread more or less rapidly, or at times not at all, according to the
different and ever-altering combinations of these factors — different climates,
different soils, different groups of plants that occupy the soil, presence or
 absence of such barriers as are offered by mountains, seas, changes of climate,
and many other things. To all this it is obvious that age must be added — the
older the species is, the more area will it have had time to cover.

The distribution of plants due to varying degrees of ‘pull’ mediated by a

variety of relevant factors, sounds like the interaction of cosmic objects due to the
force of gravity, which is very nice. Why couldn’t Darwin of given us some such
model instead of his pathetic notion of competition relying upon the best person ?

Page two begins a fascinating discussion of Darwinism :—

For sixty years we have been under the wonderful fascination of the
theory of evolution by means of infinitesimal variations, or minute changes of
character from individual to individual. At first, and for a long period, this
theory seemed to be capable of explaining almost everything, and to it we owe
what could perhaps have come in no other way, the establishment of the
doctrine of evolution, now universally adopted, but which until the latter part
of the last century, though 2000 years old, had met with no acceptance. To
quote Huxley “To any one who studies the signs of the times, the emergence
of the philosophy of Evolution, in the attitude of claimant to the throne of the
world of thought, from the limbo of hated and, as many hoped, forgotten
things, is the most portentous event of the nineteenth century.” “... the
publication... had the effect... of the flash of light, which to a man who has lost
himself in a dark night, suddenly reveals a road which, whether it takes him
straight home or not, certainly goes his way.”

Me thinks me doth smell a rat. Eh ? Do you not think so, in the light of the
argument presented in our work ?
We did touch on this topic before taking the passage from Kellogg earlier in
this chapter, evolution, we saw, had been reviled by the theocracy for two millennia,
then, suddenly, it is all the rage. Evolution does not finally force itself upon people
after a long drawn out struggle, conducted between acknowledged contestants,
leaving people devastated and depressed at finally having to capitulate before the
advance of reason. No, evolution explodes upon the scene, where, from the outset it
was made sacred and inviolable. As it remains to this day, despite the total failure of
science to destroy religion, which is the first inevitable consequence we would expect
to see coming from a true account of how life came to exist, so that instead, science as
we have it, represents a total failure to account for human existence in natural terms.
The explosion of evolution upon society occurred because of the ongoing resistance
that Huxley describes, which is plain to see from the history of Chambers’ Vestiges.
Evolution wasbottled up, and Darwin released the pressure by presenting a formula
that could be let loose on the world without doing any harm to religion. It was all a
matter of providing an idea that could be supported by the universities. The above
passage says it all. But there is more.

VIII
 Sacred science

Under the glamour of this theory, the tendency naturally was to lay the
greatest stress upon the vital factors in distribution, for these were the only
ones which could differ from individual to individual, or from species to
species. The means of dispersal open to plants, their reactions to the climate,
etc., and their adaptations to various ends, were therefore studied with
renewed and extraordinary vigour, whilst the mechanical factors, except
perhaps the purely negative influences of barriers, were left comparatively
neglected. For many years there was remarkable progress in our knowledge of
geographical distribution, but this has now all but ceased, except in regard to
the study of the purely local distribution of species in reference to the purely
local changes of the different factors of climate, water-supply, associations of
plants covering the ground, and the like, in which direction much work of
extreme value is being carried on. But in regard to the wider general
distribution of plants about the globe, we seem to have arrived at a period
when the limiting factor, to use Blackman’s words, has become the lack of a
satisfactory theoretical background, which will provide efficient working
hypotheses for the conduct of investigations that shall lead to real advances in
our knowledge of the fascinating subject of geographical distribution. I have
myself heard a leading authority upon this subject say that he thought that it
was almost beyond the range of human capacity.
In this emphasising of the effects of the vital factors, the action of mere
age, which must evidently be of some importance, has been more and more
lost to view. And yet in 1853 Lyell wrote

As a general rule, however, species common to many distant provinces, or

those now found to inhabit very distant parts of the globe, are to be regarded as the
most ancient. Numerically speaking, they may not perhaps be largely represented, but
their wide diffusion shows that they have had a long time to spread themselves, and
have been able to survive many important revolutions in physical geography.

(pp. 2 – 3)

Immediately we see how, having been raised to the level of sacred scientific
dogma, proving Darwinism then became the sole objective of science. A couple of
years ago I found myself in conversation with a cohort of A’level schoolies in a town
pub. One of them was off to university to study anthropology, he was keen to work
on the problem of the duckbilled platypus, because it was an early transitional
mammal and he wanted to throw light on how humans evolved by studying this
creature. I told him that I had studied anthropology in the seventies and I asked him
what this animal had to do with humans. I told him he was off the beaten track. He
was not remotely interested in what I had to say. A year later he saw me in the pub
and said he had just finished his first year, it was great : he was very cheery. To me
this interaction with a neophyte anthropologist was a further lesson in how science
today is nothing more a branch of religion, indicating how children are trained in
school to take up these subjects with a view to becoming professional people. Not for
the love of the subject, nor even the desire for knowledge, but to fulfil their part as a
sentient brick within the superorganic physiology, by expressing personal ambition
through obtaining high priestly status. This is exactly what we see in the flower of the
neophyte crop, as represented by Alice Roberts, for example, in her ongoing
documentary The Human Journey, that we discuss here and there in this work.
From the outset then, we see that Darwinism had been raised to the position of
sacred mantra, that people could be induced to study in college just by offering
careers based on the promulgation of this mythology. From whence a cohort of
priests became proficient in the myth, whereupon the ongoing process of corrupting
science was established, and has continued ever since. Darwin laid the foundations
for the corruption of science, and that is why he has been honoured by our world as
one of the greatest scientists ever to of lived. It is all puff and wind. The power of
absolute social authority vested in an exoskeletal, superorganic physiology, is
astounding. And it works, religion survives, and thrives, so why not keep up the
sham ? But, while we can recognise the validity of the subversion from a political
point of view, why is it that someone like Willis, so keen for the truth at any cost,
apparently, does not recognise the same social dynamics that we see here ? After all
the man was a professor, he knew a lot more about the politics of academic life than I
could even begin to imagine in a hundred years of trying. Strange, very strange.

IX

Precious apathy

And how telling that passing remark of fatalistic apathy in the face of
ignorance is, recalled by Willis as being expressed by the highest rank of modern
academic. But still Willis doesn’t get it. He takes such a remark as a feature of the
individual who made it, instead of sensing a hidden depth lying behind a statement
that says so simple a mystery as the origin and nature of life, is beyond the power of
human intellect. What more religious statement did Willis need to hear coming from
a scientist, to make him get the picture !
Let me take a moment to try and make you understand that life is the most
simple of mysteries to understand. Last night, 03/08/2009, I was pleased to catch one
of the Sky at Nightprogrammes, which I normally miss, or catch only in part. The
subject of interest was a moon of Jupiter called Callisto, which a robotic space craft is
investigating right now. The moon has a subterranean liquid layer of salty water, of
special interest because water is the basis of life on Earth. It is perfectly clear that the
emergence of life from inanimate materials is as routine as any other remarkable
feature of our universe. Such ventures take us close to this fact, and if we were not
bogged down in stupidity, with our hands tied behind our backs, you can be sure that
understanding the coming of life would present no exceptional challenge in the great
pantheon of science, within which all acquired knowledge always feels exceptional,
by virtue of the fact that it takes such great effort and ingenuity to obtain scientific
knowledge, so that once obtained, it is redolent of sublime perfection because it tells
us the most astounding things about existence, the greatest things we can ever know.
Willis failed to read the true meaning of this precious apathy amongst
members of the scientific community. I saw the love of ignorance for what it was
straightaway, when faced with young punk science graduates who boasted ecstatically
that no scientist could explain what life was ! And we have the further obvious clue
missed by Willis that we have given some general thought to already, but lets think
about it in terms of Willis’ failure to understand the real issue, the ongoing war
between religion and science. It is fascinating the way evolution had been hated for
so long, and then under a modern formulation it suddenly becomes favoured and
allowed to surface, thereby entering the public domain. Why ? It had not been
ameliorated, and it was worthless as a scientific theory, despite everything that
everyone says to the contrary. Including what Willis concedes regarding the
liberation of the idea itself, thus making way for the likes of himself, but, dur ! that is
the whole point, it didn’t open the way, it closed it. Here we are today, a century and
a half on, with staggering advances in ever branch of science, including physical
anthropology, and yet, Darwinism has got us nowhere in terms of understanding the
nature of life, and our place in it. The flash of light, as Huxley calls it, was in reality
intended to blind all who looked upon it, and a more perfect job of bleaching
knowledge from our brains, could not be imagined.
Darwinism forces scientists to focus on individuals to the exclusion of forces,
that is on vital factors rather than on life as related to the distribution of energy in the
biosphere. Willis makes this observation in his own way, denouncing the focus upon
‘vital’ as opposed to ‘mechanical’ factors in the evolution of plants. This narrow
focus cut evolution as a theory of life, off from all other aspects of life, by making
everything subservient to the mechanism of competition. No wonder Darwinism has
failed completely today, as a scientific theory, although as a religious model of life it
is tremendously successful. Bobbing about the net last week, today being Monday, 29
June 2009, I hit upon a wonderful looking website devoted to the science of
Darwinism, but it was replete with discussions about how Darwinism lent itself to
new interpretations of divine existence. Evidently it was not a scientific website at
all, it was a purely religious site, eulogising the science of life based on Darwin !

Age

Of course age in itself cannot effect anything ; what is really meant is

that the resultant effect of all the active factors, like dispersal methods, etc., is
so uniform, when one considers long periods of time and takes an average of
several allied species, that these species spread indefinitely at a fairly steady
average rate. This rate, as I have pointed out in most of my papers, will
probably not be the same for any two species, but for allied forms will not
usually differ very much, so that by taking groups of ten allies, and comparing
with other groups allied to the first, the rate of expansion of area will be a fair
measure of age.

(Page 6)

I am glad he cleared that matter up. In the passage taken from the preface we
were told that ‘age’ is simpler than ‘natural selection’ and can predict events. Age is
not a quality, it can only indicate the presence of underlying factors, rather like the
titration of a solution reveals a mixture of chemicals within a fluid. Age relative to a
mixture of species is like a colour spectrum. Colour is not a quality of light, but
rather colour indicates a quality of light, namely the variable wave lengths of
energyof which light is composed, that our brain structure can detect courtesy of the
eye. Age may be seen as a variable factor that can be perceived by our
superorganism’s mind, indicating to us that underlying energy patterns exist in an
ecosystem, revealing the presence of hidden evolutionary structure.
As individuals we cannot perceive deep knowledge directly, but the
superorganism can, because it is a summation of our collective selves, composed of
past generations of cellular units of superorganic being. Once the human animal has
accumulated deep information that is hidden from direct observation by individuals, it
can feed refined knowledge back to the blind individuals who, like the eye, act as
inert organs relaying information to an organ of assimilation, of which each individual
isbut one particulate atom. This is why whole populations of individuals are routinely
brought under the sway of mindless nothingness, which is the refined output fed to
them by the organism that possesses them. Individuals can only see what the
superorganism they are part of, wants them to see. Individuals, acting like a sensory
organ, gather information from the environment so that it can be accumulated within
the corporate being they evolved to bring into existence by means of social
coalescence, induced through the power of speech. Once the raw information has
been transmitted from the individual to the corporate social body, it exists as a refined
product, as knowledge, that serves the existence of the superorganism. From whence
it is relayed back to the ensuing generations of individuals, to sustain the social
physiology of the superorganism, the structural form of which is based on the
accumulation and refinement of the raw information initially acquired by the living
individuals. The relay of thisculture inducts generation after generation into the
organism. As time passes the cultural pattern evolves, so that age acts as an indicator
of the deposition of information within a living structure. In our Jewish
superorganism the presence of three major bands of one uniform identity, denotes a
mature superorganic animal. The superorganism uses individuals to store its mind, by
feeding them its accumulated knowledge, generation after generation. Individuals
meanwhile are wholly oblivious of this function that they serve within the body of the
human organism, which they call God, though they have not the faintest idea what the
word means, because it is just a symbol fed to them by the superorganism, in order to
keep the individuals acting as a coherent part of its body. To expect humans to know
what the word ‘God’ means would be as facile as expecting ants to know what the
pheromone means which tells them they are ‘home’. Through religion we become
insects.

XI

A science friendly alternative

On the following page we have some interesting remarks, the first notifies us
of the makings of an alternative theory of evolution, for he says :—

the hypothesis, which now stands upon a good basis of facts is pushed to some
of the conclusions to which it appears to me to lead, and which are so wide-
ranging that they cover much of the ground occupied by all the biological
sciences.

(Page 7)
 But it is the following that I especially like :—

The examples quoted about the actual dispersal of plants into new areas
are practically always cases in which there was virgin soil available for their
reception, and in actual life one very rarely sees such distribution. Most places
are occupied by societies of plants, into which a newcomer will find it very
difficult to enter, and it may have to wait a very long time until the changes
that are always going on allow it to get a foothold. Barriers to dispersal, even
though quite small, may produce very large effects, and as a rule dispersal
appears to be extremely slow.

(Ibid.)

So Willis is saying that dispersal into new areas requires a void, which is very
rare. According to our idea of newly evolved life engines having evolved by
ascending an energy gradient, that converts all available environments into latent
potential energy voids, into which new forms of the basic life engine can descend
freely, this observation by Willis is very suggestive. Plus, the idea of plant societies is
useful, it makes me think of a territorial flora having some of the qualities of a
superorganism, where it builds a complex hierarchical structure, gradually filling all
latent potential pockets of life energy. Ultimately, the evolution of superorganisms, or
societies, must be part of the organic continuum, and in order for this scientific
objective to be realised we must have some such basic theory of evolution as Willis
gives us here. This way of reasoning is so much more friendly to our scientific model
of human society than the facile ideas of Darwin, based upon competition between an
endless series of comparatively imperfect individuals.
On the following page we have this important commentary :—

Passing on to the consideration of Age and Area itself, in Chapter VI, it is

pointed out that when I began to investigate the flora of Ceylon, I soon noticed
the extraordinary differences in area occupied that were to be found in species
of the same genus, where there were no characters of difference that could, by
any stretch of imagination, be regarded as fitting or unfitting them for the
struggle for existence. Endemic or purely local species very rarely occupied
the whole island, and must evidently be adapted, if adapted at all, to local
conditions within its area. This led to a careful study of areas, and it was
found, for Ceylon, New Zealand, and elsewhere, that those species were the
most widely distributed in a country which had the widest distribution outside,
while the local or endemic species showed the smallest areas of distribution ;
in both cases working always with averages of ten allied species.
Dividing the species of a country into classes according to the amount of
area occupied, it was found that the endemics were most numerous in the
lowest class (smallest areas), the numbers decreasing steadily upwards, while
the widely distributed species were arranged in the exact reverse direction.
Such facts were much opposed to the supposition that endemics were
adaptations to local conditions, and equally so to the other supposition that
they were relics. The facts call for a mechanical explanation, and the most
reasonable seems to be that area occupied on the average increases with age,
 independently of the origin of the species. Endemic species are usually young
beginners.

(Page 8)

What this passage is saying in essence, is that natural selection is not the issue.
Locally evolved species are rare compared to more ancient species found across wider
ranges. Although Willis chooses to describe the critical issue as being ‘mechanical’,
as opposed to ‘vital’—by which he really means genetic, I think we can replace this
idea of ‘mechanical’ with the idea of ‘force’, which is what we would really like to
see, and which must, ultimately, lie behind all mechanical processes. The effort to
apply mathematical analysis to his findings indicates a search for natural laws, and
such laws are expressions of natural forces ; thus the laws of motion are products of
the force of gravity. It follows that any laws governing the distribution of life must
indicate an underlying force of life, which is the force of information that delivers
organic structure, and is found expressed in genetic and linguistic patterns of
organisation. The idea of an underlying life force comes out more acutely in his
second volume, which concludes with a list of thirty summary conclusion, number
two being :—

2. The process of evolution appears not to be a matter of natural

selection of chance variations of adaptational value. Rather it is working upon
some definite law that we do not yet comprehend. The law probably began its
operations with the commencement of life, and it is carrying this on according
to some definite plan.

(Course of Evolution, p. 191)

This is of course a matter of commonsense, any other notion of evolution

would be ludicrous. The later discussion in this second volume veers toward this
conclusion, and Willis states that his general ideas apply equally to humans :—

In the second place, natural selection would make the whole great
process of evolution, including man, the result of chance selection of
favourable variations, whereas the recent progress of the physical sciences
goes to show that in their case the whole evolution is proceeding upon a well-
marked “mathematical” programme. The theory that is beginning to be
indicated in the work that has been described above, goes to show that
evolution also, one of the greatest recent facts of the physical universe, has
proceeded upon a course underlying which there is some physical law,
probably electrical, which also can be expressed in mathematical terms. This
has already been shown to be the case with the law of age and area, which is
evidently only a corollary of the larger law thus indicated.

(pp. 177 – 78)

 So that applying these ideas to plants and humans, as he says elsewhere in the
same volume, can help advance science in both areas !
Boy oh boy, what is the matter with the man ? It really is hard to imagine
what could of been going through Willis’ mind when he wrote like this about his
subject. How does he get involved in these ideas without realising the impossible
difficulties the science he is proposing to pursue, would pose for religion, so that he
can then apply this insight to his estimation of the problems he faces as a scientist ?
He is not just talking about plants now, he is talking about humans, come on, think
about it !
I just do not know what to say at this moment, this stupidity is too
exasperating, I could say loads, but this whole work in which we are engaged is about
this subject, so, read on.

XII

Dark art

Mathematics is the ultimate dark art, to me at least. It works, but there is no

way of understanding it, and it cannot be taught, it is an amazingly frustrating
disability, and such a curious thing to be genetically determined. I would not of
thought about it this way at the time, but, to look back now, thinking about all those
hours, year after year, spent sitting through gruelling maths classes, without the least
grain of comprehension ever impinging upon my yearning brain. It is as if the damn
priests were trying to train without teaching, to make you able to do the job, but
without ever knowing why. Definitely not a tactic to work with me, ever. I use to
think that at the time “If only I knew why you want me to do that. Then I could
understand it.” Still, I would not of spoken to a teacher, voluntarily, to ask a question,
I despised them, they were the enemy. Wow, school was living death, I shudder to
think of it now.
Any road, while it is not possible to read numbers, if you just can’t, it is
perfectly easy to understand their implications when related to physical reality. As I
cannot read numbers, then, after reading the introduction, I just skipped through my
copy of Yule’s work on Willis. In doing so I hit upon the following piece, which
reminded me of the core principle we have found cropping up all the time in our work
on mammalian superorganic physiology, whereby the process of preserving a core
identity while continuously fragmenting the body of the superorganism, with a
functional ‘view’ to enabling the fabric to be continuously remade in such a way as to
allow growth, is evoked by this discussion of ecosystems being constantly subject to
cataclysmic cropping events, causing floral tapestries to be repeatedly thrown back to
elementary constituents.

Consider the effect on a distribution of the advent of a “cataclysm,”

e.g., of a glacial epoch, killing off a large number of species. Every genus will
be reduced in size ; a genus of 20 species may be reduced to a genus of 5
species, a genus of 10 species to a genus of 2, and so on. Some—possibly
many—genera will be killed off outright. In the limit, if the cataclysm be very
severe, most genera will be killed out entirely and no genera will be left with
more than a single species. On the passing of such a cataclysm of the utmost
 possible severity and the restoration of conditions favourable to life, evolution
will start again de novo, but from an initial number of N0 monotypic genera
instead of a single one. When, long ages after, the biological statistician
examines the frequency distribution for sizes of genus in the group evolved
from the survivors of the cataclysm, he will therefore find, as we have found, a
number of primordial genera N0 in excess of unity : and further he will have to
remember that the time T will be measured, not from the origin of the group,
but from the passing of the cataclysm.
In fact, of course, we must expect matters to be far more complex even
than this. The action of a “cataclysm” of less than limiting severity might be
represented, in highly simplified terms, somewhat as follows. For any species
the chance of survival is p, of destruction q (p + q = 1). The chance of 0, 1, 2,
. . . n species surviving out of a genus of n species will then be given by the
successive terms of (q + p)n. Given the pre-cataclysmic distribution and the
value of p, it will then be possible, though a lengthy piece of work, to calculate
the post-cataclysmic distribution. It is desirable to carry out such a test on
assumed data to see whether, if the pre-cataclysmic distribution be of the form
above derived, the post-cataclysmic distribution will or will not also be closely
fitted by the same formula, and, if it is closely fitted, what is the effect on the
constants. It is evident that the distribution will remain of the same general
form to the eye, with a maximum frequency for the monotypics, and I am
inclined to suspect that it may be fairly closely of the same mathematical form,
but have not yet carriedout the test. It would be further desirable to find the
form of the post-cataclysmic distribution after a subsequent period of
evolution.

(Yule, pp. 59 – 60)

We know this general physiological pattern is the basis of mammalian

superorganic evolution, as represented in the living Jewish superorganism today.
Whereby Judaism is preserved intact as identity after identity, after identity, has been
erased from the human biomass over the course of Jewish superorganic growth,
causing some such effect as that implied in Yule’sdescription above. And I like the
way he says that to our eye nothing will give the effect of such cataclysmsaway. We
see the same thing in a society consumed by Judaism, especially since a slave identity
has evolved for the purpose of obscuring this act. So that we look on our world as
normal, yet it is far from being anything like normal if we but knew it. This is why
we experience an endless series of catastrophes, which is the effect of the organism
extracting energy and channelling it to the core organ of Jewish identity. Certainly the
‘good’ things, like modern technological civilisation, are also a product of our
enslavement to Judaism, also being part of the improved extraction of energy from the
biomass, but then some of us would not even class these ‘benefits’ as good things.
We may wonder then, if we could apply Yule’s formula to human populations,
by studying the range of identities existing before cataclysmic cleansing events, and
after. Obviously cataclysms regarded as aspects of mammalian superorganic
physiology, invariably occur as wars, with the occasional environmental intercession,
such as that which erased the ancient Minoan civilisation from the map, following a
major volcanic eruption sending a tsunami to do the cleansing that is normally
enacted formally, by agents of Jewish identity formulation. The object would be to
evaluate the growth of human superorganisms in mathematical terms, so that we
could reduce history to maths, and perhaps predict the future growth of the Jewish
organism. Including the number of wars necessary to perfect the physiological order
based on the Jewish master identity, and the time scale needed before this goal will be
accomplished by nature. It may then be possible to determine if world wide nuclear
warfare could be of benefit in bringing about completion of the process, allowing us
to actively support the nuclear proliferation programme that is being pushed so hard at
present, under the pretence of disapproval. This would be weighed against the
predicted number of internecine wars and perennial terrorism, that are currently set to
plague humanity for many centuries to come, before completing their important work
of homogenising the global biomass, in the name of the Chosen.

Chapter 16

Denying Darwin : The Enigma

Willis may not be prone to the impress of revelation due to information

impinging upon his mind, but I am. Having finished Willis’ The Course of Evolution,
I picked up a book of essays by a famous Victorian scientist which had a few pieces
worth examining. William Carpenter was as great a scientific figure as we could wish
to find, but it turned out that he was as much a religious freak as we could ever wish
to avoid. This kind of figure is a genuine scientist’s worst nightmare, a leading
professional scientist of the highest rank, devoted to religious belief !
After my head hit the pillow last night and the marbles began to knock about
in a more free and easy manner, I suddenly found myself thinking “Wait a minute,
what if Willis was a Jesus freak ? This would explain why he never says a dickybird
about religion and stubbornly refuses to see any wider social dynamic involved in the
steadfast adherence of all to Darwin, despite his overwhelming scientific proof that
Darwin is worthless, while his own idea is perfect.”

Subtle suggestion

There was more to this suggestive revelation, unleashed by relaxing active

bodily control as I lay down to sleep, than a superficial combination of scientific
expertise and religious fanaticism. The first piece by Carpenter that interested me was
Darwinism in England, first published in 1881, it is a brief essay that appears in
Nature and Man : Essays Scientific and Philosophical, William Carpenter, 1888.
Here I found, to my surprise, a close approximation to Willis’ basic approach to
Darwinism, that also accorded with his own method of explaining evolution by
diffusion. Carpenter made Darwin the prophet of evolution, the man who made what
everyone was thinking amongst themselves, acceptable to say in public. At the same
time Carpenter flatly rejected natural selection, as having nothing whatever to do with
creating new species. Not only was there this perfect conformity with Willis’ views
on Darwin, but at the same time Carpenter talked about evolution in language
favourable to Willis, using the word ‘differentiation’, that Willis makes central to his
description of the evolutionary process. It was this conformity of Carpenter to Willis’
whole representation of the debate over evolution, brought into conjunction with the
exasperating failure of Willis to so much as think about the age old war between
religion and science as a factor in the issue, which I had been writing about yesterday,
that made those thoughts pop into my head, as it hit the bed.

II

Attack by becoming

Blimey ! I have been pouring time, money and effort into Willis for a couple
of months now, only for it to end in the discovery that we have one more deviant
working for the theocracy byappearing to be on the outside, feigning nonconformity.
After getting use to this idea of insiders taking up the role of outsiders, so that all
public voices are on-message, we should not be too put out ; after blowing Richard
Dawkins cover, not to mention Darwin’s ! what surprise can there be left in this kind
of revelation ?
Willis however was perfectly cloaked. He is a symbol of fake science
perfected, whereby a person can present themselves as a scientist defending religion,
without any suggestion whatsoever that they are in any sense, anything other than a
professional scientist. This is the product of religion attacking science by becoming
science, as through Darwinism. Attack by becoming is of course a privilege of
absolute power, especially relevant to the control of social fabric, we have referred to
this physiological process throughout this work. We have seen that Darwin was
above all else concerned to protect religion from science. The man is condemned by
his own words when he writes in a letter to Asa Gray : ‘With respect to the theological
view of the question, this is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no
intention to write atheistically.’ (Leslie Stephen, Annan, p. 207) What right had Darwin,
while pretending to offer a scientific theory of life, to dare to say that he had other
considerations on his mind than those of pure science ? And especially, what right
had he to do as he indicates he did, when he deliberately set out to avoid offending the
ruling elite of society, who had since time immemorial been dead set against
evolution, as we saw from Willis’ quote from Huxley above, when Huxley notes that
Darwin had burst the damn and let the light of science in upon the world. All these
various protestations and declarations are at serious odds with one another, only our
intentionallyatheistic account pulls all the threads together and makes sense of these
various efforts, as the actions of people attending a loom of linguistic force, better
known as the Jewish theocracy. Read Carpenter, who was of Darwin’s generation,
and we find a man absolutely committed to religion, though a brilliant scientist. But
as the years wear on, we find Darwinism has separated religion from science
altogether, by pushing science as far as science can go, unrestrained by any external
consideration of any kind, making humans a part of nature, evolved from apes !!
Shock horror. And to this day the same message, re-religionised by Dawkins, this
time in the guise of an atheist hating religion, is exactly what Dawkins says Darwin
accomplished, he made humans part of nature.

III

Exclusion by inclusion

But this is exactly what Darwin did not do. To make humans part of nature we
need to be able to account for every facet of human existence in terms of a natural
process and dynamic. By saying that evolution is due to natural selection, combined
with the idea that humans are a kind of advanced ape, we produce a garbage
representation of the idea that humans are part of nature, that kills the science of
anthropology stone dead, by killing it from the inside out.
Darwinism is in effect a grand lie. Just we ourselves concoct fake scenarios to
deflect people away from the truth, by filling the void where truth would go if we let
it, so it was that when Darwin made humans a part of nature by revealing that humans
were animals evolved from an anthropoid line, he did as we do when we lie. He filled
the void where truth should go, with something that could serve as an alternative to
that truth, which was otherwise threatening to blow the cover used by the criminal
degenerates that rule our world by subverting and controlling all that passes for public
knowledge. By including humans within nature at the level of their physiological
form, Darwin excluded humans as humans, from any possibility of being included
within in nature, for as long as the Darwinian imposition could endure.
Surely Darwin knew what he was doing. How could anyone devise so
perverted, so clever, so highly developed, yet as absurd a deception, and not know
precisely what they were doing ? And the same question applies right across the
board of our social elite, and continues to do so to this day. There must be a core
within all our institutions who know perfectly well what must never be known. There
is a famous story that use to be told, I have not heard it in a long time, about the wife
of a prelate who, upon being told of Darwin’s revelation that humans were related to
apes, said “Then lets hope the people do not get hear of it.” All this game playing is
what we did get to hear, but there was something we were not supposed to hear, and
that has never been heard yet, not until I put fingers to keyboard anyway. The story of
Wilson’s Sociobiology of 1975 is a telling lesson, akin to that of Chambers’ Vestigesof
1844, showing us something significant about the real nature of knowledge in our
slave world. When Wilson nearly let the cat out of the bag, academia as a whole
knew instantly that it had to pull the cord tight once again. Which suggests that
within the core of academia it is known, what must never be known, and that it is the
job of the intellectuals to ensure, it will always be so.

IV

Severing science from religion

 The real issue here is having the power to lie, the power to determine what
knowledge is. Hence, from the establishment’s point of view Darwinism is the
scientific answer everyone had been looking for, and, just as science must be,
Darwin’s answer comes free and unrestrained, shocking and deeply offensive to
religion, but real. So that now all scientists can get on with being scientists, without
fear or favour. It was the Darwinian lie, placing humans within in nature, in such a
way that placed humans beyond the reach of science, that severed science from
religion by setting a sterile science free. So that the generation of scientists coming
after Darwin no longer had to concern themselves with religion at all, as the likes of
Carpenter had to do, they just did science, as Darwin did, or appeared to do. Hence it
became a major principle of science, that science recognised it was now free, so that
science need not bother with religion anymore. As far as science was concerned
religion could please itself, just as science was now free to do under the guiding wing
of fake science, provided by Darwin. Except scientists do not acknowledge that
Darwin’s science was a total fraud. Yet with just a little thought, the fact is perfectly
obvious. We do not have to examine science as science in order to see that science is
a fraud, we only need examine the social impact of science to see that science cannot
be true, because if science were what it pretends to be, religion would be a thing of
the past. It is this Darwinian effect that we see in Willis, as a man who is doing battle
with scientific orthodoxy, which has nothing to do with religion, as his silence on
religion indicates, in sharp contrast with Carpenter’s scientific work. Scientific
orthodoxy was set adrift from religion, but in a form so constructed that it could not
come back and sink the theocracy that had set it afloat on a sea of nonsense.

Perfect liars

This degree of deception is very hard to spot. By the time we come to the
likes of Willis, we are submerged in an all pervading flux of linguistic messages.
Trying to think our way out of this mess is like a fish trying to behave as if it lived on
the land. We have very little chance of resisting the oppression of such a knowledge
manufacturing system. Willis is lost to it, we do not suggest that he knows where his
fault lies, he is part of the ocean of ignorance, incapable of seeing outside that which
he has spent his life swimming within. Unwittingly scientists, since Darwin’s day,
have devoted themselves to religion by supporting sterile science, even when
opposing Darwin directly, because the duped academic fails to see through the
illusion of science’s liberation from bonds of servitude to theocracy. For an absolute
authority the perfect liar is a liar that does not know they are lying, such deception
creates the level of unwittingness upon which human superorganic being depends, and
here we find Darwin is the source of such unwittingness in this scientific age.
Having now read Willis’ two books in full I am convinced that his ideas are
more amenable to our genuinely scientific conception of humans as mammalian
superorganisms, but in terms of making him a hero of the scientific cause we are
flummoxed by his failure to realise that religion is the real issue in the debate over
natural selection. In addition, I have obtained two short pieces on age and area, and
yesterday I got an essay on the subject from the net, which I read today. These
responses to Willis’ work help fill out the nature of the deception orchestrated by the
academic establishment, through the medium of its Darwinian groundwork, that was
obviously devised to decouple science from religion by producing a sterile science of
life, upon which to base a science of evolution, allowing science to present itself to
the world, from then on, as free. But any fool can see, science is not free.
VI

Contemporary critics of Willis

As noted above, it is impossible for a lone philosopher to determine the

veracity of any scientific idea, only the academic establishment, by definition, can
perform that task. But we can investigate and get a feel for things. Today I read a
short paper called The ‘Age and Area’ Hypothesis and the Problem of Endemism, by
Edmund Sinnott, 1917, which set out expressly to tackle Willis’ work. My conclusion
was that Sinnott simply sidestepped the argument, making his essay completely
worthless. Why would he do that ? He said Willis’ ideas promised to tackle very
important questions, and hence they must be worthy of close appraisal. But a constant
theme running through Willis’ Age and Areais that people just will not accept the
precondition he places on the way floras are handled, for the purpose of obtaining
valid statistical results leading to his conclusions, and this essay by Sinnott is a perfect
example of the problem. Sinnott blithely handles the subject of plant distribution
according to his own sweet fancy, and then ridicules Willis because the result shows
that Willis’ ideas are ridiculous ! What any critic of Willis must do, is to accept the
terms laid down by Willis, or show why his method is invalid. Which means the nub
of the question is whether Willis’ principle of selecting a minimum of ten species with
a common affinity relative to the conditions of distribution, is valid or not. And to be
honest, first and foremost, I would suggest this is a mathematical problem, rather than
being strictly botanical. In another brief paper by Gleason, mentioned below, we find
the author in apoplexies at the audacity of Willis’ terms and conditions, insisting as
they do that only groups of plantsmay serve as the basis for testing his hypothesis, and
in no circumstances must anyone ever refer to individual species as evidence of his
theory’s fallibility. It is evident, even to a mathematical dunce like myself, that in
both cases these professors of botany are plainly ducking the issue. We must realise
that the object of adhering to groups of plants sharing an appropriate affinity, is to
smooth out specific differences in order to allow any underlying factors common to
all, to show themselves. This sounds reasonable to me, but any competent
mathematician would understand this method and be able to adjudicate upon it. As it
happens Willis has a leading professional statistician working closely with him, as
mentioned above.
These short critical pieces are insider works, where all interested parties know
the score, but a couple of sideswipes at mutations theory make it plain that Sinnott’s
essay was all about the war between Darwinism and Differentiation, or Natural
Selection versus mutation, allowing outsiders like ourselves to sense the real meaning
of such exchanges between professional scientists. It is clear that these arguments
have nothing whatever to do with science. This verbal fracas is about territory, about
weaving social structures delineated by ribbons of linguistic expression, that channel
the linguistic force derived from human physiology. It is interesting to find an
entrenched war front of this kind appearing within science at this time, replacing that
which formerly existed between religion and science, but still as vitriolic, ignorant
and stupid. What on earth was going on ? It is as if the religious element of the war
between religion and science had suddenly become transformed into a strictly
scientific form. Enabling religion to continue waging war against science, as it must
always do as long as religion exists, but now from a vantage point within the citadel
of scientific knowledge itself, without anyone knowing that the old war rampaged on
as violently as ever. This is a most remarkable outcome, and today we undoubtedly
find that the battle ground between religion and science does indeed lie solely within
the confines of science, science never takes the war to religion. Dawkins is a recent
exception, but he does not use science to attack religion, as we do here, Dawkins just
rants and raves like a lunatic, and nothing could suit religion better, religion adores all
lunatics.
This method of inducing internecine social structure to stage fights amongst
itself, is a standard feature of complex superorganic physiology that we see operating
all the time in our world, where devotees of the one true identity adopt alternate
expressions of the same, such as Catholic v Protestant, or Labour v Tory, and then go
head to head, always knowing that since they are no more different than two opposing
football teams, both working to a set of rules, no ultimate harm can ever come to the
one true power they serve, from their warring ways.
One of the papers I obtained from America was called Age and Area from the
Viewpoint of Phytogeography, by H. A. Gleason, 1924. It was fascinating because it
was read at “the symposium on “The Age-and-Area Hypothesis” at the meeting of the
Systematic Section of the Botanical Society of America at Cincinnati, December 29,
1923.” Which tells us that a significant effort did go into examining Willis’ ideas.
However I can find nothing further on this meeting, from anywhere, and now I have
blown Willis’ cover my interest in his work has reduced somewhat.
The other thing that was interesting about Gleason’s paper was its sheer
vindictiveness. Gleason’s words are spat from the page, and aimed at Willis’ eyes.
There is no science here, there is just the hatred of partisan war, with Gleason the
Darwinist reviling the pig-ignorant slob that denies Darwin’s divinity. It is truly
amazing, but exactly what we would expect given what we have been discovering.

VII

Ecological implications of superorganic physiology

I found just one modern reference to age and area in a collection of essays
called Phylogeny and Conservation, by Purvis et al, 2005. The essay is Age and area
revisited : identifying global patterns and implications for conservation, Kate E.
Jones, et al.

Response to Willis’ (1922) age and area hypothesis was not positive as he
extended the argument to develop a theory of evolution by divergent mutation
(Willis 1940). The model, at its extreme, was developed into an explanation
where virtually all differences between species are non-adaptative, and it was
viewed as a ‘quaint anachronism’ (Brown 1995). Recent criticisms of this
model have been more empirical, showing that species’ geographic ranges
cannot simply be a function of age, because many old lineages are restricted in
range and many recent lineages have large geographic ranges (see Fiedler
1986). However, Willis’ original idea has not been extensively tested and
results from the small number of available studies are mixed.
 (p. 143)

This sums up the modern means by which this vastly more plausible theory of
evolution, as compared to Darwin’s, has been dismissed. Again, no mention of
religion. Can you imagine a contemporary scientist throwing in a line such as
“Obviously the war between religion and science compromises any . . . . . . .” No, me
neither. But look how refined, intelligent and all knowing this passage is, like butter
would not melt in the mouth of those who utter such glib, unrevealing words. We
listen to the words of these academics, our teachers, with the innocence of little
children sat on their mother’s lap, and these teachers have absorbed the puerile
garbage they spout, under the same mindless conditions. There is no fight in this
group’s voice, no doubt, no question, they know what happened when Willis was
alive, they have read the latest texts, and discussed the history in class, so there we go,
they know, or the bloody well think they do.
The above looks like a vaguely useful comment on our topic, since it is most
definitely on topic, but it is far more than that. Look at what our topic is for us
genuine scientists, atheist scientists, people who put atheism at the heart of science, as
all scientists living in an absolute theocracy like ours must do. For us Willis is a
fabulous example of true science thwarted, and we try to rake over the historical
record showing the significance of this solitary example of resistance to Darwin, the
high priest of evolution. We said from the beginning that we did not know that Willis
was right, we also said we knew Darwin was wrong. These modern, state sanctioned
scientists, know Willis was wrong, and they know Darwin was right, it is what they
are trained to think, as surely as any devotee of a suicide cult was ever trained to
believe their doom. This modern commentary shows us how vital it was, two
centuries ago, to discover some means of decoupling religion from science, while
leaving religion intact. Without such an act of severance we would find science as
rife with religious controversy today, as it was before Darwin’s knife cut the cord of
reason, killing science, and releasing religion.
Because religion destroyed science, the struggle goes on, but not in official
circles. As a result we have the best of both worlds. We remain mindless slaves of
Judaism, so that our blindness remains uncompromised by modern knowledge, whilst
our identity induced programme of action, is empowered by the technical expertise of
scientific method, that shows us how to do everything, while telling us nothing about
anything. This is the only way it could be. When I try to offer people my ideas on
our true nature, they are left dumbstruck. The truth is no use to anyone, all it does is
leave you knowing the truth. Worse still, the truth I tell erases all the personal
knowledge that we depend on for our existence in society, so while I give nothing of
value, I take everything there is to take.
Fair enough, but there is one thing more, the price of ignorance, since nothing
comes for free. My account explains everything, the good and the bad, and it shows
that the good and the bad are one and the same thing, in different phases of operation.
Such as life and death are one and the same process, viewed at opposite ends.
Therefore, as I keep saying, if we want religion, which makes our life worth so much,
we must recognise that hatred, war and ultimate evil, are the tools of the religious
trade. Linguistic mechanisms delineate alternate social structure to create organs of
opposition, making us feel as if we are engaged in an endless struggle for good
against evil. But it is not so, if you love Judaism then you must value Hitler and all
that Hitler stands for in our world, as a necessary adjunct of religion. The one cannot
exist without the other, anymore than life can exist without death. This is the lesson
people, we may get a world full of promise, but we do not get it for free.
Added to which, when we live by a lie, denying ourselves true self knowledge,
the impact reaches through everything we touch. The above quote is taken from the
work of people dedicating their lives to rescuing the world from the modern dilemma
of environmental devastation, caused by the mere existence of modern humans.
These academics call themselves conservationists, their subject is inevitably all about
the nature of humans, but you will never find one of their kind treating humans as an
animal. It is implicit in their creed that humans make themselves, and as such we
have the capacity to see a problem coming and to change our behaviour. But
according to our atheist science, humans are superorganisms, and this is why they
grow exponentially and mindlessly destroy their environments, turning their worlds
into deserts. The process can be understood, but any idea based on superorganic
physiology indicates that a specialist organ of development, Jews, have evolved to
drive the entire global biomass to feed energy into its vortex of identity, and will be a
significant factor in the nature of the human tendency to consume environments, and a
determining factor regarding the capacity to halt such devastation before producing a
global Easter Island effect. So religion is the crucial factor in any science of ecology,
it is religion that must be crushed if we care about our world, because it is religion
that makes us act like mindless insects, driven to multiply, driven to seek infinite
power, driven to destruction.
The greatest work of a conservation-cum-ecological kind ever written, it
seems to me, must be this one, because I reveal the reason humans consume their
world. The official type of conservation effort is a perfect example of severance
between the how and the why in science. The nature of humans, and of the Jews in
particular, should be the critical background to any work of ecology and conservation
science. Easter island gives us a pocket version of the global condition. The Easter
islanders destroyed their island by warring with each other, this impulse left no room
for reason. If we study Thor Heyerdahl’s account of his early visits to the Pacific
islands, Fatu-Hiva : Back to Nature, 1974, we find similar hints as to what happens
when we bottle up an animal like humans in a tightly confined space—they go to war.
This is why we see the strange behaviour of cannibalism too, I would suggest, but I
have not given any thought to this subject in recent times so I’ll not ramble on about it
now. The point is that humans were made to expand, and that is what they do, if
prevented from doing so, by physical confinement, things get weird.

VIII

Perfect linguistic cloaking

Because of the new strategy enabled by the fabrication and imposition of

Darwin’s sterile science of life, whereby deeply religious scientists no longer had to
go to war with religion, being able to engage in play fights with fellow scientists
instead, who could all be relied upon to play by the rules and treat one another as bona
fide scientists, our efforts are baffled by this new sophisticated form of priest, cloaked
in a scientific disguise that shows no remnant of the priest’s true affiliation to the
theocracy. This relates to the perfect liar that does not know they are lying, where
perfect lying derives from a social structure based on perfect linguistic cloaking,
spread across the whole panorama of intellectual life, that creates the perfect liars that
create the structure that creates the perfect liars, and so on ad infinitum. We have no
way of knowing what Willis’ views on religion were. His work is replete with
declamations of exasperation with his colleagues, and sure enough, if we turn to his
colleagues, these complaints are fully justified. We know that today Richard Dawkins
strides across the public forum ranting about religion in the most aggressive terms, so
intense as to make our eyes water with sheer pride at his condemnation of the evil that
is religion. But, despite all the amateur dramatics, when called upon to produce the
killer blow, both men show themselves to be the most precious friends religion could
ever hope to have, for in the end they do and say nothing at the exact moment when I,
for example, would destroy all possibility of response. These priests remain on-
message, either positively, in Dawkins’ case by saying we cannot prove God does not
exist, when it is obviously the easiest of things to do ; or by saying nothing, period, in
Willis’ case.

IX

Read behind the lines

We are left with an enigma, we can only ask what this curious behaviour
means. Why does this person do this ; say this ; say nothing ? There must be a
rational reason—we are not dealing with wastrel nobodies here—but what can their
reasons be ? In ordinary cases involving intelligent people defending religious or
mystical ideas, when I put them on the spot, they obey the first rule of priestcraft :
never talk to a non-initiate of the mystery in question. All I ever get then is
stonewalled, much to my intense anger, which I express with as much venom as I can
muster, short of killing the person. They always remain entirely calm, and totally
unperturbed by my rage ; in fact they generally adopt a remarkably serene composure,
treating me with utter disdain. I in the mean time, pay attention, study, ponder and
learn. What does this inexplicable behaviour mean ? Clearly we are forced to read
behind the lines.
Essentially, given that false knowledge is the basis of social power, and those
who subscribe to it are recognised as priests by our scientific analysis, the stance
adopted by people I know intimately enough to engage in angry struggles with, shows
that their obstinacy in the promotion of insane ideas of immense popular acclamation,
in certain quarters, presents working stratagems that are all about defending personal
social power, vested in a particular sense of self that fosters a privileged status, again
in certain quarters, that is, relating to ideas of status relative to the places these people
frequent. It is about being part of a community, which is certainly what religion, that
is corporate identity, is all about. Although the two examples that I have in mind, of
arguing to the point of loggerheads with people I know well, were more concerned
with their intimate status within local ‘communities’, perhaps business or foreign
communities, where status is very important in relation to income and such like,
where it can pay to show a willingness to believe in abstruse ideas, such as
predestination or witchcraft, and such like. Ideas that are not religious per se, but
which attract the same kind of derision from any atheist worthy of the name, because
they have exactly the same nature and functional purpose as ideas that we would all
call ‘religious’.
Such tussles as I describe above are fine examples of linguistic force in action
in our daily lives. The ideas that priests like Willis and Dawkins are defending are
associated with superorganic physiology, with which these people are associated
through their professional status as academics. On the face of it these people have no
idea of the games they are playing. But from numerous battles in which I have
pushed people to the wall, where they have no choice but to defend themselves by
refusing to speak to me anymore, I am left forever asking myself, What is going
through their mind right now ? Are they thinking “Of course I am talking shit, but I
am not going to let a smart arse twat like you know it.” And I just cannot help
thinking that this is exactly what they are thinking, which means they know perfectly
well what they are doing. No sane person could possibly believe in God ; no
Christian, Jew or Muslim with any degree of education could, for one second, actually
believe one single word of the religious dogma they would die for, and kill for. No
normal human adult is that stupid. On the other hand, they know perfectly well that
corporate identity is the key to existence, they instinctively know what religion is as a
functional device.

Something to authorise

We learn an important lesson from our study of Willis the rebelscientist. We

cannot say that he partook of the same religious propensities as Carpenter, but we can
say that he may as well of done so, whether he knew it or not. This irrelevance
regarding religious disposition in post-Darwinian life scientists, tells us that the
organization of science, based on its acceptance of Origin of Species as a valid
scientific masterpiece, transformed all scientists into recruits for the cause of
theocracy, by placing all scientists within the ranks of religion, fighting against
science, again, whether they knew it or not. The golden rule of war is very simple : if
you are not with us, you are against us. Darwinism rendered science blind. It took
the ability to see away from intellectuals, by giving them an image to look at which
was pure linguistic fiction. An image lighting up the inner surface of a conceptual
bubble at the dead centre of which sat academia, gaping in awe, at nothing more than
its own reflection. A reflection what is more that prevents academia from seeing the
reality lying beyond the bubble, while at the same time negating any desire to do so
by satisfying that need through a grandiose lie. But as our argument tells us, this is
exactly the function that linguistic physiology evolved to serve. It works in religion,
where linguistic creation positively constructs superorganic identity, so why should
linguistic force not work in science, where it negatively shields identity, working
toward the same positive end of securing corporate, superorganic being ? The sole
requirement is authority. With authority established, all that is need is something to
authorise, and Origin of Specieswas that something. But we can be completely
certain that this something did not just drop out of the sky, it was carefully crafted and
a long time coming, and when this book arrived it was set on a pedestal by authority,
where it has remained solidly in place ever since.
With the coming of Darwinism it is as if a new extension to the message of
slave attachment had been coined for the occasion. So that in future, like ant pupae
taken into a slave maker ant’s nest, which, as adults, attack their own kind in the
service of their alien masters, all students inducted into academia following the
cleansing enacted by the Great War, would henceforth find themselves likewise
reduced to the status of unwitting allies of God, the Jewish slave maker God. Willis’
failure then, was what we say it was, treachery. But on his part the failure was
unwitting, the treachery having been built into the social fabric through the action of
linguistic force, which was at the disposal of the theocracy through its control of
every element of the social fabric, which Willis, as a professional scientist, was a
crucial part of. This description befits the sentient brick identity of the human person,
who is inducted into a society, to form part of the social edifice, where the more
crucial and powerful the person is, the more brick-like they are. This is what makes
establishment figures so aggravating to a free thinker. Causing the most respected and
honoured people in society to appear as the most vile, ignorant and vicious. When all
they are in reality, is exceptionally efficient bricks.

XI

Antigens of identity

The rebelliousness Willis displayed is an essential feature of the deception

enacted when the theocracy acts in disguised mode, by taking on the appearance of its
own worst enemy. We see this mechanism most famously in anti-Semitism. The fact
is that setting up antagonists of leading centres of power, based on identity, is a
routine feature of our political landscape, where any elements of the master identity
have to have an arch enemy to galvanise social structure around the power base. This
is why we get racists, homophobics, Islamophobics, and so on ; a name can be cooked
up for any power base that must have a fanatical enemy to allow political antigens, in
the shape of laws and defensive infrastructure, to be constructed as a protection for
the fascist power derived from identity. Identity antigens are linguistic routines
defending the prime identity, just as antigens are produced by a somatic body to
recognise invading genetic formulas antagonistic to the bodies corporate machinery.
Thus, although Judaism is obviously the ultimate expression of fascism, all the
heat is taken out of this negative connotation of religious power by having an opposite
image, in which all the evil ofJudaism is invested. This evil opposite, once
formulated,can then be resurrected as and when circumstances require, and then
slaughtered, in a curious ritual of self sacrifice that looks nothing like how we are
describing it here, because we are inverting the image of linguistic force focused on
theocracy, that wraps our whole world in a conceptual bubble that we simply cannot
see around, or through. Hencethe defeat of the Nazis was an act releasing the puss of
Judaism that had accumulated, as we know it continues to do relentlessly, allowing
the real evil to continue reigning over us unabated. Who was it that has just been
acclaimed the greatest swindler of all time, for his forty billion dollar swindle lasting
decades, Bernie Madoff. An American financier, and Jew, who, in his seventies, has
just been given the Alice in Wonderland prison sentence of one hundred and fifty
years ; typical Yankee farce. And we can be sure this is just the tip of the iceberg, for
that is the biological function of Jews, to farm the human biomass. How else could
Israel of come into existence as the greatest power on earth in the twinkling of an eye,
on the back of destroying the Nazis and with the greatest superpower on earth, the
United States, as its bond slave ?
Or, how about this one, today is Friday, 07 August 2009, and a couple of days
ago we were treated to images of the Jews throwing people out of their homes in
Jerusalem, I think, on the basis of one hundred year old documents that indicated Jews
had been the legal owners. Only Jews could think of such monstrous, one might say
Biblical retribution, as acceptable in the modern world. This criminal behaviour was
condemned around the world, and the world, as usual, was ignored. When does a
master race ever hear the pleas of its slaves ?
There is no such thing as an individual, existing as an end in themselves. Our
account of Willis’ life work gives a good example of the meaning of this fact in
personal terms, where we see that the scientific establishment does not exist to serve
individuals. It exists to serve itself, where itselffinds its reason for being arising from
the corporate nature of humans, that means individual human physiology evolved to
cause individuals to act as sentient bricks, animated by a compulsion to build a living
superorganism, at the level of social organisation. Willis’ failure to see the real cause
of his problem, religion, further indicates the meaninglessness of the individual.

XII

Knowing sterile science when you see it

We have introduced Carpenter in this chapter, a contemporary of Darwin, a

leading scientist who was dedicated to promoting religion actively, whereas Darwin
was a leading scientist dedicated to supporting religion passively. While we are most
definitely not concerned with recounting the history of the war between religion and
knowledge, we have frequently made this war an undercurrent of our discussion as to
how religion has survived the coming of the scientific age. To this end I would like to
snatch a passage from Carpenter’s book referred to above. From a summary of the
contrasting nature of scientific versus religious interpretations of reality, whereby we
have ‘physical causation’ and ‘moral causation’, Carpenter proceeds thus :—

With these views of the relations between science and theology, I have
never myself been able to see why anything else than a complete harmony
should exist between them. True it is that there have been, from time to time,
men of science, who, from what I believe to be an equally limited and illogical
conception of the subject, have drawn the conclusion that there is “no room”
for a God in Nature ; the “properties of matter” being, in their view, all-
sufficient to account for the phenomena of the universe and for the powers and
actions of the human mind. But this seems to me only a natural reaction
against what all history teaches, as to the constancy with which, ever since
science emancipated itself from theology and set up for itself, it has been
hampered and impeded in its search for the truth as it is in Nature, by the
restraints which theologians have attempted to impose upon its inquiries. The
Romish Church, adopting the philosophy of Aristotle into its own theological
system, opposed as heretical every attempt to call in question the authority of
Aristotle, even as to matters of fact ; and while it could not repudiate the proof
afforded by the experiments of Galileo, that a weight of 10lb. does not (as
affirmed by Aristotle) fall ten times faster than a weight of 1 lb., it judicially
condemned him as an impious heretic, for daring to teach that the earth moves
round the sun. And Protestant divines in this country, equally taking their stand
upon infallible authority, but shifting its basis from the Church to the Bible,
have no less vehemently opposed any scientific inquiry which might throw a
 doubt upon the literal accuracy of the Book of Genesis. Thus it is within the
remembrance of many of us, how the conclusions of Geologists as to the long
succession of changes which had taken place in the crust of the earth, and in
the races of plants and animals which had peopled its surface, before the
advent of Man, were denounced as destructive of all religious faith ; how,
when obliged by the logic of facts to admit that the beginning of the world
must be antedated indefinitely, theologians took a fresh stand upon the modern
origin of Man, and did their utmost to discredit the evidence crowding in from
all quarters as to his remote antiquity and the low condition of our primeval
ancestors ; and how, when this evidence could no longer be gainsaid, they
tried to uphold the universality of the Noachian Deluge,—with the miserable
result of an ignominious surrender.
But I rejoice in the conviction that the true genius of Protestantism is
now coming to be generally recognized as consisting, not in its opposition to
the claims of the Church of Rome to infallible authority, but in its protest
against any infallible authority whatever ; in its readiness to submit the basis
of its religious system to the most searching criticism ; in its cordial welcome
to every truth of science or criticism which has been accepted by the general
voice of those most competent to decide upon its claims ; and in the freedom
with which it surrenders such parts of its dogmatic systems, as prove to be
inconsistent with those great fundamental verities of moral and physical
science, whose domination over the educated thought of mankind constitutes
the basis on which alone the religion of the future can securely rest. It is not, in
my view, by their reassertion, with any amount of positiveness, of doctrines
from which the educated thought of the age is drifting away, that the teachers
of religion will best combat what they designate as the “prevalent unbelief ; ”
but by showing themselves ready to profit by the lessons of the past, in regard
to the futility of all attempts either to check the progress of inquiry or to stifle
its results, and by placing themselves in hearty sympathy with the spirit of the
present. Of that spirit, the noblest manifestation is to be found in the life of
that great man whose departure from among us has drawn forth an expression
of reverential sorrow, the universality of which speaks more eloquently than
any words of the world-wide influence exerted by his thought. For in Darwin
—as has been well said by one who knew him best—the love of truth was
more than his animating motive, it was the passion of his intellectual nature.
And its ultimate prevalence—whether including the acceptance or involving
the rejection of his own system—was the firmest and most deeply rooted of
his convictions.

(Nature and Man, Carpenter, 1888, pp. 391 – 393)

What a disgusting, snivelling, sycophantic display of arrogance, here is the

religious foundation of modern science, writ large for all to see. I have highlighted in
red, the key phrase upon which the preservation of religion hangs today, and which
the priests, as we can see, knew perfectly well that their twisted, perverted kingdom of
hell on earth hung upon, at the time. Theocracy knew it needed a solution to the
problem of science, the question was one of knowing sterile science when they saw it.
Darwin gave them what they wanted, and they embraced him with open arms, once
they had checked the goods and had them confirmed by their priests within the
scientific establishment. We may speculate as to how far the establishment created
Darwinism, much of Darwin’s life history supports such an idea, but that is another
story, except it is obvious that Darwin was no aberrant outsider doing his own thing,
ever. Darwin was not a freethinker, of any kind.
Theocracy had to shift to the possession of scientific knowledge, that is what
this passage in red says had been achieved to the satisfaction of Carpenter. This is
why religious people are so keen on scientific knowledge, why they were the ones
blazing a trail to Africa in search of proof of human ancestry amongst animal kind,
since Darwin had given them a safe pit in which to deposit their finds, ensuring they
would never contribute anything to a scientific understanding of humanity, even
though the evidence of just such a transition was brought to light and on full display
to all the world. This work, the science of our academic institutions, is the work of
sick minds. Or it would be, if we did not have our genuine scientific explanation, that
tells how the perversion of knowledge is a linguistic routine extending the Jewish
slave identity programme under modern conditions, where Jewish identity is the
essence of the living global superorganism, so that all is as it had to be. Carpenter
praises Darwin, commending him to his fellow deviants as a safe bet for future
scientists to be of one voice in commendation thereof, and we saw how scientists, so
called, treated any detractor from Darwin, like Willis in his own time, and how
modern scientists, as appointed by the state machine, calmly dismiss Willis, now all
living memory of the meaning of the man, is gone.
Carpenter dismisses atheist science as a reaction against the fascism of
religious authority that has, throughout all eternity, up until a few weeks before he
was speaking, or a few months maybe, or at a push a couple of years, dropped this
stance and suddenly welcomed a free science with open arms, as seen in the case of
Darwin. So that scientists now made themselves contemptible by their stubborn
intolerance of religious science, which was as solid and true as any science could ever
hope to be !
This sick, degenerate line of reasoning, by one who clearly had not a moral
fibre in his being and would not recognise a moral sentiment if he started chocking on
one by inadvertently speaking the truth for once, ties in perfectly with our line of
reasoning, that says Origin of Speciesvalidated the long reviled idea of evolution on
the basis of a sterile scientific foundation, which was then welcomed by the theocracy,
who evidently knew perfectly well what they were getting, once they saw it. This
tactic provides the student of philosophy with a real life demonstration of the moral
mechanism contained in Aesop’s fable about the struggle between the wind and the
sun, to see who was the stronger. With the aid of our analysis, Carpenter indicates
that the theocracy opted to induce people to take a stance conforming to religious
needs, instead of just trying to blow them over. In the fable the wind blew a howling
gale at a man to force him to remove his coat, and the man hung on tighter than ever,
so the wind failed. Then the sun had its turn. It shone like blazes and the man simply
removed his coat of his own accord. The vicious struggle between religion and
science was increasing in intensity and reaching a pitch that could not be sustained or
cured by violence and intimidation, which is the usual method employed by the state
to crush freedom of thought. So Darwin turned on the charm, seduced the dupes, and
saved the day. For this he has become a national hero and taken his place in hallowed
ground reserved for the most righteous servants of absolute theocracy.
Carpenter’s pathetic way of dealing with logic in relation to proving God’s
existence is as vile as that of any contemporary Creationist of our own day, as can be
seen from a perusal of his proof given below, where he says that God must exist
because science traces all events to ultimate causes, working his way up to this killer
conclusion :—
 But holding it as equally certain, because the fact is capable of verification by
every one as often as he chooses to make the experiment, that, in the
performance of every volitional movement, that physical force is put in action,
directed, and controlled, by the individual personality or Ego, I deem it just as
absurd and illogical to affirm that there is no place for a God in Nature,
originating, directing, and controlling its forces by his will, as it would be to
assert that there is no place in Man’s body for his conscious Mind.

(Ibid., p. 364)

Of course, according to our scientific conception of human nature, that

reduces the individual to the status of a sentient brick, motivated by an unwitting duty
to build superorganic physiology, there isno such thing as a conscious mind within the
body of the individual ! The idea of the conscious mind is simply a linguistic device
that describes the programme that we call our mind, that unwittingly directs all our
actions toward doing the duty imposed upon us by our physiology of superbeing. And
we could wish for no better demonstration of this fact than that provided by Carpenter
himself, the poor, blind, fool.

Chapter 17

Lessons From Ancient Atheism

Atheism in Pagan Antiquity by A. B. Drachmann, 1922, is dedicated to

elucidating free thought in the ancient world, it is a lightweight study, easy to read,
and in it we find some nice discussion of comparative interest to our examination of
how the theocracy deals with atheism today. Evidence of an ancient war between
religion and science is there for all to see, except, as science did not exist in the
ancient world, anymore than atheism did, we are seeking the roots of modern forms.

Theoretical versus practical denial

In his account Drachmann indicates that there was a line drawn between
theoretical denial of the gods, and practical denial :—
 Atheism, in the theoretical as well as the practical sense of the word,
was, according to the ancient conception of law, always a crime ; but in
practice it was treated in different ways, which varied both according to the
period in question and according to the more or less dangerous nature of the
threat it offered to established religion.

(p. 6)

In the course of the fourth century B.C. several philosophers were

accused of denial of the gods or blasphemy ; but after the close of the century
we hear no more of such trials. To be sure, our knowledge of the succeeding
centuries, when Athens was but a provincial town, is far less copious than of
the days of its greatness ; nevertheless, it is beyond doubt that the practice in
regard to theoretical denial of the gods was changed.

(p. 7 – 8)

It is evident that Athens had arrived at the point of view that the theoretical
denial of the gods might be tolerated, whereas the law, of course, continued to
protect public worship.

(p. 8)

the philosophical denier of God was left in peace all through antiquity, in the
same way as the individual citizen was not interfered with, as a rule, when he,
for one reason or another, refrained from taking part in the worship of the
deities. On the other hand, as soon as practical refusal to believe in the gods,
apostasy from the established religion, assumed dangerous proportions,
ruthless severity was exercised against it.

(p. 12)

Theoretical denial was soon tolerated in the ancient world, as it was quickly
realised that speculative thought had no bearings on the theocratic order of social
power. Practical denial on the hand, was potentially fatal to social order, as it must
always be in a world where religion exists, and this was crushed without reservation.
Thus a line was drawn between degrees of atheism that we can discern in the modern
boundary drawn between religion and science, as delineated in this work on how
religion survived the coming of the scientific age.
Theoretical denial of God’s existence—atheism—is openly tolerated today,
but the consequences of such reasoning are ruthlessly debarred from science by virtue
of the decoupling of science and religion, executed by the introduction of a sterile
science of evolution provided by Origin of Speciesin 1859. The divinity of Jewish
mythology, in terms of practical purposes to do with the nature of reality, rested on the
creation myth of Genesis, so it was this portion of divine myth that could not be
replaced by science without destroying religion, so that the creation of life, its
‘evolution’, to use the scientific jargon, had to be separated from the inherently
practical nature of scientific investigation. As we see from Drachmann’s study of how
the ancients accommodated atheism, by splitting it into two categories, safe and
unsafe, there was a logical principle underlying the approach the priesthood could
take towards dealing with the threat posed to the creation myth in a scientific age.

II

Unspoken regulation

In the ancient world laws did not forbid atheism in a written code, the legal
system just punished atheism as a matter of course :—

This procedure has really no expressly formulated basis in law ; the Roman
penal code did not, as mentioned above, take cognizance of denial of the gods.
Nevertheless, the sentences on the Christians were considered by the Pagans
of the earlier time as a matter of course, the justice of which was not
contested, and the procedure of the government was in principle the same
under humane and conscientious rulers like Trajan and Marcus Aurelius as
under tyrants like Nero and Domitian. Here again it is evident how firmly
rooted in the mind of antiquity was the conviction that denial of the gods was
a capital offence.

(p. 11)

Modern science seems to of been engineered to the same functional standard,

whereby no overt proscription against science offering a practical demonstration
against God’s existence is established directly. There is something crass about
prohibiting denial of the gods by law that reduces what is supposed to be divine, to a
mundane status, so that such regulation had to take the form of an all pervading
sanction imbued into the social system. And more obviously, the means by which
scientists were prevented from making science a positive expression of the logic of
denying God’s existence, could not be sustained as the open prohibition it had been up
until Darwin’s publication of 1859. Accordingly, the manner in which Darwin
decoupled science from religion, by producing a fake model of scientific creation, to
hold up as the mirror image to the fake model that Jewish myth delivers on the same
subject, while at the same time making it a principle that from that point onwards
science was free to go its own way and need pay no attention to religion, had an effect
the same as it was in the ancient world, whereby an unspoken rule protected religion
from science. Scientists are not told they must not be atheists, they are simply
proscribed from making the logic of this position inform their approach to science,
being prevented therefore from studying humans in such a way as to prove God does
not exist, by discovering something real that corresponds to the idea of God in Jewish
mythology.

III
 Correspondence is the basis of atheist science

Drachmann defines atheism according to the official negative sense :—

In the sense in which the word is used here we are nowadays all of us atheists.
We do not believe that the gods whom the Greeks and the Romans worshipped
and believed in exist or have ever existed ; we hold them to be productions of
the human imagination to which nothing real corresponds.

(p. 2)

This definition reinforces the negative condition whereby the furthest atheism
can go is denial, so that if we find something to correspond with an ancient god it can
only be the god itself, otherwise there is nothing corresponding to the god. This is not
true, as the real object of divinity is always, in all times and places, the mammalian
superorganism to which we belong.
But he then goes on to offer a sense of positive atheism, which we develop
here, into a full blown atheist science, where we make a speciality of proving that
God does not exist, by discovering that which does correspond to God, or the gods, in
reality.

Though the definition of atheism set down here might seem to be clear
and unequivocal, and though I have tried to adhere strictly to it, cases have
unavoidably occurred that were difficult to classify. The most embarrassing
are those which involve a reinterpretation of the conception of the gods, i.e.
which, while acknowledging that there is some reality corresponding to the
conception, yet define this reality as essentially different from it. Moreover,
the acknowledgment of a certain group of gods (the celestial bodies, for
instance) combined with the rejection of others, may create difficulties in
defining the notion of atheism ; in practice, however, this doctrine generally
coincides with the former, by which the gods are explained away.

(pp. 2 – 3)

I am reaching for tiny morsels here, due to Drachmann’s convoluted

explanation of a less than simple complexity he discerns in the meaning of ‘atheism’.
I am not exactly clutching at straws, there is no doubt that Drachmann is talking about
aspects of reality existing, to which gods are related, after having said that atheism
means that there is nothing in reality that corresponds to a god or gods. But it seems
to me that he means correspondence in the most simplistic sense, indeed I do not quite
see why he feels any need whatever to make the point that planets exist in reality, but
they are not gods ! He seems to be saying, implicitly, that in ancient times people did
not know that planets were planets, but that they actually thought the planets were
gods looking down on them. I must admit I had never thought of that idea before
today, it seems very odd, I always assumed people knew planets were objects, it was
just that they associated these objects with divinity. Primitive peoples invariably
projected divinity onto objects, that did not mean they lost sight of the fact that the
‘divine’ was also material. So, when the point was made that these objects were
actually planets like Earth, the idea of them being gods was no longer tenable. Its all
rather odd, I can see how people did not know planets were planets, exactly, but then,
I cannot imagine that they thought they were actually divine beings, posted above the
Earth ! No, I just cannot imagine that, that is just too dumb for words.

a conflict arose as soon as the heavenly phenomena, such as lightning and

thunder, were ascribed to natural causes, or when the heavenly bodies were
made out to be natural objects ; for to the Greeks it was an established fact that
Zeus sent lightning and thunder, and that the sun and the moon were gods. A
refusal to believe in the latter was especially dangerous because they were
visible gods, and as to the person who did not believe in their divinity the
obvious conclusion would be that he believed still less in the invisible gods.

(p. 22)

This passage confirms Drachmann’s meaning. The celestial bodies were

thought of as gods, according to him, the sun and moon especially so. This is truly
astounding, it is more profoundly ignorant than any primitive beliefsystem ever
known. That an advanced civilisation could reason this way is suggestive as regards
the far greater debasement that our civilisation presents to us, which imagines that a
person, in the shape of the Jew Jesus, could actually be a man-god ! Now that is
ignorance gone infinite.
However I do not buy Drachmann’s line. When our theocracy was in covert
condition no one could of left a written trace that they thought Jesus was just a man,
and nowadays, when they can, everyone except the most fascistic Christian manic
accepts that this mythological figure was just a man. Drachmann’s work is informed
by the religious dogma that the individual is an end in themselves, making him
incapable of treating ideas as linguistic images serving a biological function. He
treats ideas as ends in themselves, as they must indeed be if individuals are ends in
themselves, which of course they are not.
Our far more forthright conception of correspondence between divinity and
reality revolves around a genuinely naturalistic conception of language, where the
issue of correspondence comes down to the fact that language is a symbolic system of
representation that always projects mental images onto features of external reality for
purposes of internal superorganic physiology. Thus our resolution of the difficulty
Drachmann deals with here by making the definition of atheism depend on degrees of
real knowledge, has nothing to do with knowledge as such, and everything to do with
the function of language as the expression of the life force creating superorganic form.
Atheism is not a matter of seeing more of reality and possessing more knowledge,
which changes our view of divinity, it is a matter of understanding human nature and
being able to decode the meaning of the linguistic formula that creates all human
worlds, past, present and future.
However, once the idea of correspondence to mythological figures has been
spelt out, it serves a purpose for us by providing a context where we can point out
how the Jewish monotheistic divinity is only an elaboration on the old pagan model of
divinity, where its central object can, as with the planets, be made to appear in a true
material form, the form of a mammalian superorganism, by means of a suitable
method of examination, that we provide under the name of ‘atheist science’. The
Jewish mythological model is vastly more sophisticated than the pagan model,
because it is withdrawn from the material world and woven from the pure essence of
reason that had given pagan gods their usefulness and significance in social life. This
is precisely why we see the development so characteristic of Judaism, whereby the
one supreme God becomes an immaterial idea, and religious paraphernalia then
became abstracted from the material worship of idols and objects, and instead became
a text based, pure linguistic model, of far greater subtlety and power.

IV

Judaism as atheism

It is self evident that Judaism was atheism in the context of the ancient world,
because Judaism set itself apart and denied the validity of the established gods, but
again, it is useful to find the point made for us in an authoritative way.

The tolerance which the Roman government showed towards all foreign
creeds and the result of which in imperial times was, practically speaking,
freedom of religion over the whole Empire, could not be extended to the Jews
and the Christians ; for it was in the last resort based on reciprocity, on the fact
that worship of the Egyptian or Persian gods did not exclude worship of the
Roman ones. Every convert, on the other hand, won over to Judaism or
Christianity was eo ipso an apostate from the Roman religion, an atheos
according to the ancient conception. Hence, as soon as such religions began to
spread, they constituted a serious danger to the established religion, and the
Roman government intervened. Judaism and Christianity were not treated
quite alike ; in this connexion details are of no interest, but certain principal
features must be dwelt on as significant of the attitude of antiquity towards
denial of the gods.

(pp. 9 – 10)

Crucially, for our purposes, Jews were treated differently from the Christians,
and while it would of been nice to have a summary statement of the differences from
Drachmann, he dismisses the subject as being irrelevant to his purpose. It is however
very important to ours, as the details of this well known fact of a Roman dispensation
for the Jews, opens so important a window on superorganic nature, that its
significance cannot be overstressed. We make it a matter of course that the Romans
were the slaves of the Jews, any other scientific interpretation of history would be
inconceivable, just as we are all slaves of the Jews today, obviously. But it is another
matter to describe precisely how this condition of enslavement became established in
the ancient world, since we are clearly not supposed to be aware of the true meaning
of history, as an account such as History’s Greatest Liars, mentioned elsewhere in this
work, presumably makes clear.
However, when we start to talk about the Jews and the Christians as atheists,
in the context of a debate about the nature of atheism serving as a practical device for
destroying social power, by tying up some of the loose threads of Drachmann’s
reasoning, we cut to the quick of just how the trick was performed, whereby pagan
Rome was transformed into Jewish globalism. The distinction applied between Jews
and Christians seen as atheists, was derived from the established functional status of
Jews as a class of alien social organ. The Jews served as an executive muscle for the
none Jewish alien social authority, since the Jewish organ was permanently disbursed
throughout the extended biomass under the dominion animperial authority, such as
Rome. Jews served as an intermediary between alien military authority and the main
population, because Jews were not ofany population. Jews possessed an inherent
cultural mobility as a feature of Jewish culture, long before the Diaspora event
identified with the Roman destruction of ancient Israel. There was therefore an
organic relationship between Rome and Judaism, and when we think along these lines
we are tempted to suppose that the very roots of Roman power originated in Judaism.
Not exactly the roots, since these are known, but rather, once grown sufficiently, then
Jewish influence in Roman affairs perhaps aided the rise of Rome in subtle ways,
creating a state of dependence upon Jewish activities within the empire. A short essay
entitled Was there a Roman Charter for the Jews ? by T. Rajak, 1984, provides some
substance for the ideas of interlinking dependence described here. Our scientific
model of human society allows us to speculate more intensely about the continuity
between societies of this place and time, but the traditional historical method is
calculated to ensure that this intimate kind of continuity is one thing that cannot be
tracked, making it tricky to say anything specific about this connection between
Roman origins and Jewish priestcraft.
In general terms though, when we think about the functional nature of the
Jews as a special organ of command, acting as a slave organ of civil power, moving
from one civilisation to another, and then we wonder about the origins of the Jews
pivotal power base, the Romans, which served as the catalyst for ultimate Jewish
power, we are implying that the Jewish executive function had become so
sophisticated over the millennia,that they actually developed the means to nurture
civil authorities from scratch, as in the case of the Romans, according to this
reasoning. This seems like a wild fancy, I admit, but, there is no denying that the
Jews first created the slave identity of Christianity two thousand years ago, then, six
centuries later,they repeated the trick by creating the Islamic slave identity. No one
can deny that these two identities were a direct spinoff from Jewish culture, and they
were self evidently created by the Jewish superorganic core of master being, to serve
as kernels about which Jewish, slave civil authorities, could aggregate.
The Jews have a parasitic nature, I hate to say to it, if it were not for the Nazis
taboo against saying anything of this kind about the Jews, then I would say the Jews
were parasitic without a second thought. As it is, I apologise, but science forces me to
speak thus. I am sure all Jews would agree, ordinarilyat least, that the last thing any
decent person should do is let a man like Hitler deter them from doing what is right.
The so called Diaspora is just a fancy term for the functional nature of a parasitic form
of culture : an alien culture living ensconced within a host culture. Politically
speaking this description is horrific. Biologically speaking it is as ordinary as
sunshine, hence this organic view of the Jews is an inevitable outcome of the
scientific view of humans, which is of course why this view has been erased from our
society.
The origins of Roman culture has been a subject of much study, from whichwe
can see that Rome provided a suitable basis for the usual form of Jewish infiltration
and ultimate exploitation.
 But to that wonderful alloy, from which the Romans were to develop,
another element, and that the most important, had to be added. The Sabines
had driven the Aborigines from Reate and Carseoli and the surrounding
district, which became known as Sabina in classical times. It was here that the
simple, frugal, and uncorrupt manners of life lingered when the morals of
Rome had sunk low. According to the legend it was from hence that Romulus
provided his men with Sabine wives. War ensued between Romulus and Titus
Tatius, the Sabine king of Cures, which resulted in the amalgamation of the
two peoples under the two kings, the fusion leading to the classes of Titienses
and Ramnenses.
There is not only the evidence already cited to show that the Sabines
were racially distinct from the aboriginal Ligurians, but many proofs can also
be adduced to show that the Patricians were Sabines, the Plebeians the
aboriginal Ligurians conquered by the former, whilst it can also be made
probable that Latin, the language of the Roman empire, was the tongue not of
the Sabine conquerors, but of their Plebeian subjects, in other words that Latin
is Ligurian.

(Who were the Romans ?, William Ridgeway, 1907, p. 10.)

Here we see the usual exoskeletal form of superorganic identity hierarchy,

where one distinct class of people rule over another distinct class of people,
establishing a macro physiological hierarchy, of exactly the same kind we have today
in the global Jewish superorganism, divided as it is into two slave categories of
Christian superior, comparatively speaking, ruling informally, over the inferior
Muslim territories of Judaism. The Jews do nothing more than infiltrate, serve, and
eventually supplant civilauthorities by exploiting the physiological dynamics of
mammalian superorganisms, as we have been outlying those dynamics in this work.
No vicious imputation is intended toward the Jews, by describing their mode of
existence as ‘parasitic’, it is the right word to use for this behavioural form. By using
this word viciously, Hitler and his kind made it unusable for unbiased observers of
human nature. Which is why we say that viewed naturalistically, Hitler was the best
friend any Jew ever had, since the alternative to Hitler, was extinction at the hands of
people like me, people of good will, with no malice in their heart, just a love of
knowledge, associated with a love of freedom.
Why should we not suppose the Romans had been a precursor example of this
superorganic process, paired down to the bare essentials of civil command, not
infused that is, with an actual Jewish identity programme, as was the next stage, were
populations were Christianised ? It seems very odd that a power like Rome should of
come from nowhere at this time, it is as if a nation in the modern era suddenly sprang
from nowhere to superior status in civilised terms, without any apparent connection
with the modern world to account for the transformation. Japan did just this in the
nineteenth century, it transformed itself, but not by magic, by a definite process.
Rome achieved something similar, rising from nothing to greatness, and the
explanation lies in its culture. But given that Rome eventually gave way to Judaism,
there is good reason to assume some undercurrents of linguistic force bringing about
the incredible rise of Rome, and its dramatic fall, occurring in this highly positive,
desirable and constructive fashion. Our idea of organic continuity dismisses the kind
of logic we find in a normal history of such affairs, that would have us believe that
Rome was a self contained cultural phenomenon, that rose and fell as a person is born
and dies, so the end of Rome is just that, the end.
 There is nothing fantastical about imaging that after several thousand years
specialising in acting as the mobile master organ in one civilisation after another, as
recorded in the Old Testament, the Jews should of realised a way forward that
involved nurturing organsof civil power. The Romans served as the vehicle of Jewish
global empowerment, exactly as we have just been describing. Expressed in crude
political terms this all sounds rather contrived, but thought about in terms of human
corporate nature, where we accept that human form evolved to produce a sentient
brick, evolved to build the most perfect superorganic physiology, in the form of a
complex social structure, we must see in this idea of Jewish corporate being, the
unfolding of a remarkable and beautiful process, for all that it comes down to aeons of
exploitation, war and deception.
The Jews can also be associated with a similar mystery concerning famous
origins, this time regarding the Sumerians of five millennia ago who, having invited
in migrants to help work their civilisation, suddenly vanished, the whole elite order
ruling over ancient Sumeria was replaced overnight by some kind of parasitic invader,
that donned the master’s cultural skin and left only a slight trace of the dastardly deed
in a linguistic remnant of their former identity. Sounds familiar. How far back do the
Jews trace their origins ? Six millennia or so. There is definitely a fascinating line of
inquiry here, if only we lived in a free society where our real nature was not a
precious taboo, that our masters guard at all cost.
Jews were a mediumof social authority, able to function in any society by
virtue of their special identity programme. Jews in their turn needed authority to
protect their minority, alien position, within host populations of indigenous peoples,
while the civil, military authority, which was an alien physical presence of a different
order, that needed to maintain some distance between itself and the population it
controlled—Rome’s modus operandi prevented Romans from becoming one with its
subject populations, the idea was to get the subject peoples to become one with Rome
—so this required a portion of the main biomass to have a special interest in the
presence of Roman authority, to act as a catalytic social element fuelling the reaction
between alien Roman authority and the indigenous biomass. This arrangement makes
the Jews the practical slaves of the Romans, and of course the Jews are presented
throughout history as the slaves of powerful masters, but herein lies the key to real
power. The alien Jew provided an intermediary between physical power and the
reward of overlordship which came from farming the human biomass. So the Jew
was the intermediary of power, the tradesman of social power, which is exactly the
way Jews have always been seen throughout history, from the perspective of the
human cattle that end up being the real slaves of everyone. It is this true image of the
Jew, turned sour in anti-Semitism, that anti-Semitism is calculated to short-circuit. It
is, in essence, why Jews have always been hated down the ages, and why anti-
Semitism has been a vital defence mechanism of Judaism, found in all times and
places where Jews have been. It is also why Jews have always been connected with
authority in an intimate way that baffled people like the American car magnate Henry
Ford, as indicated in his publications dealing with the subject of Jewish power in
Western societies. These are structural, physiological issues, concerning the
superorganic nature of humans. It is from these facts that a special dispensation
existed for Jews in the Roman empire, such as not having to do military service, not
having to pay homage to Roman gods and being allowed to follow the dictates of their
own sabbath day, and so on.
The virgin status of Christians meanwhile, as a new body of Judaism detached
from Judaism proper, reaching out into the extended fabric of the pagan biomass
coming under Roman jurisdiction, presented an entirely different proposition to that
of the established Jew. For this new identity phenomena, bearing some critical
elements of the Jewish master identity programme, such as its denial of the pagan
gods, promised to turn pagans into Jews, by another name, and thus create a de facto
take over of Rome by the Jews ; which is precisely what we are talking about, and
precisely what happened.
Romans simply vanished once the identity slaves of Judaism reached a critical
mass, and the Jews seamlessly took their place, by default, although in the guise of
Christians, so that it may appear as if it was the Christians who replaced the Romans,
but the actual process was far more subtle and organic than this political
representation, that takes appearances at face value. We must imagine something
similar occurred in ancient Sumeria too, but we do not have the historical information
to prove it. These identity processes are not Jewish, they are human, the inevitable
biological fruition of human corporate nature, that made a sentient brick with a duty
to form superorganic physiology. Jews were already an erstwhile authority, by virtue
of their special executive status within the biomass of the empire. All that was needed
was for a custom made identity hierarchy to evolve, that was based on Judaism itself,
and the superorganism would be transformed into a living being bearing the Jewish
identity. Newly unleashed, Christianity formed the germ of Jewish overlordship, as
seen in its comparative atheism relative to Roman authority, but in order to serve its
functional purpose to Judaism, Christians had to be kept distinct from Jews. It would
be no good turning everyone into Jews, anymore than it would of been any use
making everyone into a Roman, or, in our period, any good turning everyone into
owners of industry, as communism pretended to do. Superorganic physiology needs a
core master organ, distinct from the biomass it governs and farms for its own sense of
purpose imbued into its identity programme, just as a cell needs a nucleus and a body
needs a brain. Christianity provided an identity programme for the pagan biomass of
the social fabric, which over time grew to dominance, turning the Roman Empire into
a Jewish superorganism.
It is easy to see how all this relates to the self-organising effect of an identity
hierarchy, which constitutes the physiology of a superorganism, that we have been
seeking to portray in this work.

Judaism as law

I came across a classic piece of anti-Semitic literature on the net yesterday,

14/08/2009, Germany and England, by Nesta Webster, 1938, and while looking at the
opening pages, a preface written by Jackie P. in 2003, I found this passage :—

However, there is no denying that the plan for World Dominion is a

millennia-old plan, and those born into the ‘religion’ of Talmudism (they call
themselves Jews) are being used by their Elders to push the plan—along with
tens of millions of “Christian-Zionists”. The word ‘religion’ is emphasized,
because Judaism is not a religion, according to Moses Mendelsohn, a learned
Jew well-known and respected by Jews. Mendelsohn said that :

“Judaism is not a religion, it is a LAW, religionised”.

 While researching and writing the book-in-progress titled “Jewish
Persecution”, it became clear that Mendelsohn meant what he said, and it is
true. There is no such religion as Judaism anyway ; the religion is ‘Talmudism’
or ‘Pharisaism’. It IS a LAW which contains the plan for World Dominion, and
it is well-hidden ‘neath its cloak of religion.

(pp. 2-3)

At first sight this made no impression on me, then, while mulling it over as I
supped my ale last night, I was suddenly struck by the excellence of the idea that
Judaism is law, as long as we apply our scientific model, which recognises that
humans are a species of mammalian superorganism, and linguistic force is the
founding principle of the human superorganism’s existence.
Life is information and language is the extension of genetic information into
the social domain. Information of life must express two primary features, structure
and identity, so that a genome gives rise to life forms that havestructure and identity.
And it is the same regarding language andsocial life. We emphasise the importance of
Jewish identitybecause it is the one true identity of the superorganism we all belong
to. But what makes the Jewish identity prime, is the fact that underlying the identity,
Judaism has a legislative directive that informs the structure of the superorganism
how to take shape. The structural element of the social genome, the culture as we call
it, is, in the civilised form we know, has developed to a degree of linguistic
complexity realised in the laws that govern us. All civilisations are obliged to
construct themselves on the basis of law, and they must use past laws in order to
advance, because that is how life evolves, by a process of trial and error based on the
information package delivering structure, notbased on the form produced by the
package, as Darwin fallaciously taught us. It is not the form being tested by the
environment, it is the information programme that is being tested. How often do we
hear it said that a law was rushed through badly ? We heard it this week regarding the
Alder Hey body parts scandal of a decade ago, where bits of babies were being stolen
for experiments, the law which responded to this crime has now suppressed
responsible research. And so we see, the information package is what material reality
tests. Law delivers the linguistic force, the potential for which was genetically
evolved with the coming of linguistic mammalian physiology, and it does so in a
structured manner. Judaism, to take the idea represented in the quote above, has
religionised this ‘law’ process by giving it an associated identity. But all religion ever
is, is identity, so there is nothing exceptional about this religionising of law, quite the
contrary, nothing could be more normal.
In the context of the above discussion about how the Romans came to exist,
and the role the Jews had in that process, we can think in terms of the Jews as a
cultural form that keys into the legal structure of a superorganism’s physiology. The
idea is that Jewish nurture creeps slowly into the process of an juvenile civilisation’s
development, as the would be host’s culture maturesand spreads across a region. This
would involve empowerment of the emerging culture, for which any young culture
would be greedy, but it would also result, upon maturity, in the Jews being
interwoven, through the law which gives the civilisation its structure, into the very
basis of power in the now leading civilisation, which is then ripe for farming through
the use of law to direct all energy flowing within the superorganism through a sieve of
Jewish organisation. In this way Jews are associated with the rise and fall of
civilisation after civilisation, and since transforming all humans into Jews via the
medium of Jewish slave identities, this process of raising leading forms and bleeding
them, has gone on through the medium of national structures, which, in the global
world, is nowtaking place on the continental scale. The Romans did not appear in a
cultural vacuum, they were raised from nothing to world domination in no time, just
as we might say America has been over the course of an even shorter time. So that
Roman culture smacks of a culture being planted, just as America was planted. And
we can see the same kind of pumping up and letting down relating to all of the chosen
powers over the centuries, and this pattern is no fluke, it is a definite biological
process based on the delivery of linguistic force to the formation of the human
superorganism that we call God. The Jews are the centre of this pattern, and the
description of Judaism as religionised law is a fine way of expressing this reality.
Well, it is my intention to finish this work tomorrow and to post it on Scribd,
so I will not linger further over this most fascinating topic, but I was so delighted by
this bit of anti-Semitic doodling that I wanted to capture it. It does go to show how
useful anti-Semitism is in any discussion of the nature of Judaism, for it is only within
the confines of vitriolic hatred for the Jews that we are allowed to say anything about
the nature of Judaism that in anyway reflects their true biological nature,as a feature
of mammalian superorganic physiology. Obviously no professional academic could
ever start speculating about the Jews scientifically, as we have done here.

VI

Sophist rhetoric : a model of Darwinian deceit

Chapter four begins by discussingthe relationship of Sophists to religion, in

terms of the tendency to deny religion. There is much of interest in this passage.

A leading part was here played by the sophistic distinction between nomos and
physis, Law and Nature, i.e. that which is based on human convention, and
that which is founded on the nature of things. The sophists could not help
seeing that the whole public worship and the ideas associated with it belonged
to the former—to the domain of “the law.” Not only did the worship and the
conceptions of the gods vary from place to place in the hundreds of small
independent communities into which Hellas was divided—a fact which the
sophists had special opportunity of observing when travelling from town to
town to teach ; but it was even officially admitted that the whole ritual which,
popularly speaking, was almost identical with religion—was based on
convention. If a Greek was asked why a god was to be worshipped in such and
such a way, generally the only answer was : because it is the law of the State
(or the convention ; the word nomos expresses both things). Hence it
followed in principle that religion came under the domain of “the law,” being
consequently the work of man ; and hence again the obvious conclusion,
according to sophistic reasoning, was that it was nothing but human
imagination, and that there was no physis, no reality, behind it at all. In the
case of the naturalists, it was the positive foundation of their system, their
conception of nature as a whole, that led them to criticise the popular belief.
Hence their criticism was in the main only directed against those particular
ideas in the popular belief which were at variance with the results of their
investigations. To be sure, the sophists were not above making use of the
 results of natural science in their criticism of the popular belief ; it was their
general aim to impart the highest education of their time, and of a liberal
education natural science formed a rather important part. But their starting-
point was quite different from that of the naturalists. Their whole interest was
concentrated on man as a member of the community, and it was from
consideration of this relation that they were brought into collision with the
established religion. Hence their attack was far more dangerous than that of
the naturalists ; no longer was it directed against details, it laid bare the
psychological basis itself of popular belief and clearly revealed its unstable
character. Their criticism was fundamental and central, not casual and
circumstantial.

(pp. 35 – 37)

Firstly we find some reference, once again, to the idea of discovering

something real behind religion, the Sophists being led to reject any underlying reality
to religion because experience taught them religious observance was formulaic, a
human convention, not a product of nature. Sophists were certainly not thinking
about religion from the standpoint of science, as we do. Whereby we take human
behaviour as is, and assume something natural lies behind it because we know that
humans are animals, created by a natural process. It follows that human corporate
nature lies behind all aspects of human existence, a biological nature that evolved to
bring a living being into existence at the level of social organisation. Religion is the
expression of linguistic force derived from human ‘sentient brick’ physiology, so that
linguistic force creates superorganic physiology by interlinking sentient bricks
according to a linguistic programme, that generates identity patterns to form the
template of social structure, the results of which biological process Sophists observed
on their travels about ancient Greece.
Then we find an exceptionally pertinent description of the naturalist’s
relationship of denial, as compared to that of the Sophists, wherein the naturalist’s
conflict with religion derives incidentally from the positive pursuit of natural
knowledge, resulting in point by point matters of conflict, exactly as we find in the
case of modern science, as set up by Darwin’s severance of humans from nature,
whereby humans are made part of nature in bodily form only, leaving their social
form beyond the reach of science. When we talk about Darwin severing the
connection between humans and nature, so that science, after Darwin, simply has no
means of treating humans as a natural phenomenon, we find the most interesting
comparison with Drachmann’s description of the very problem posed by the Sophist
interest in humans. Clearly it is always vital to the priesthood that humans are not
allowed to be included in anynaturalistic view of existence. This is exactly the
situation we endure today,thanks to Darwin’s incredible effort to produce a
groundbreaking science of life, that the theocracy has adored ever since. The
naturalist approach to humans contrasts with that of the Sophists’ because Sophists
tackled the subject of religion itself as a natural phenomenon, and thereby could not
help targeting the whole edifice of religion.
So now we have an exact comparison with modern conditions, where science
has been constrained to treat nature as a material labyrinth, where each nook and
cranny that is touched by the scientific method becomes an acknowledged part of
material reality, while anything that has not yet been so touched, is left unremarked
upon by the modern naturalist, or scientist, being left for any professional degenerate
to prognosticate upon according to their fancy. Whereas the Sophist is like the atheist,
in that they take religion as a starting point, because of their attempt to understand
humanity as a social being, which contemporary conditions made a subject of
naturalistic interest, leading to the discovery that there is nothing to religious ideas
perceived in terms of reality.
So, following Drachmann, we find that Sophists recognised the significance of
religion’s inconsistency of application, proving that religious form was due to human
imagination alone, while failing to see the equally obvious implication of the all
pervading presence of religion. So that however inconsistent its expression may be,
this uniform presence of religion must mean there was something real, some physis,
underpinning it. What could of made thesesupremely intelligent and well educated
men, so stunningly blind and ignorant ? This is like someone recognising that it was a
force of water in the form of a tsunami that flattened a town, while failing, despite the
rarity of such a wave, to suspect that something other than the mere presence of water
in the sea, had caused the catastrophic ejection of waterfrom its normal place of
residence. Such stupidity can only be the result of carful calculation, of the kind
befitting a priest.
The greatest frustration I experience, and disappointment, is when reading the
work of organicists from the late nineteenth century, who had it all, but who still saw
nothing. Benjamin Kidd in his famous Social Evolution of 1894,epitomises this
condition. He regarded society as a social organism, unequivocally. He saw the war
between religion and science as the single most important factor throughout all human
history. He recognised, most crucially, that it was religion that gave the social
organism its form. What he did not see—screaming abdabs—was that there was an
organic relationship between Christianity and Judaism, making Christians the slave
body of the Jewish master organ. Now I can curse and roll around in all the agonies I
like, but in reality, I know there can only be one explanation for this blind stupidity,
and it is the exact same limit being reached by Kidd, that Drachmann is indicating
restrained the Sophists 2,300 years earlier in Greece. And this direct comparison is
nice to discover.
We also have to comment on the way Drachmann describes the Sophist
revelation of emptiness in religious tradition as a psychological revelation, not as a
biological discovery about the nature of man. This psychological description is of
our time, the modern post scientific period, coming after the Darwinian deception had
been fully implemented, when the cleansing of naturalistic ideas from modern society
had been completed. Drachmann says the Sophists laid bare the psychological basis
of religion, which is the religious way of explaining religion according to a pseudo
scientific model,which makes the individual an end in themselves. As philosophers
directed by genuinely scientific principles,we go deeper in our search for underlying
causes. We dismiss psychological causes as a sham prognosis based on the mythical
principle of individual authority in matters of reason and knowledge, and assert
instead, biological mechanismrelated to the superorganic being of humanity. Where
Drachmann says Sophists were fundamental and not casual, we say they were
superficial and false, and that only atheist scientists are, or can ever be, fundamental
and central to any topic pertaining to human existence.
As the discussion proceeds, we discover how this inevitable tendency on the
part of specialists in reasoning, the Sophists, rather than just technical investigators,
the naturalists, was managed by self imposed restraint built into the Sophistic
profession.

From a purely practical point of view also, the criticism of the sophists
was far more dangerous than that of the old philosophers. They were not
 theorists themselves, but practitioners ; their business was to impart the higher
education to the more mature youth. It was therefore part of their profession to
disseminate their views not by means of learned professional writings, but by
the persuasive eloquence of oral discourse. And in their criticism of the
existing state of things they did not start with special results which only
science could prove, and the correctness of which the layman need not
recognise ; they operated with facts and principles known and acknowledged
by everybody. It is not to be wondered at that such efforts evoked a vigorous
reaction on the part of established society, the more so as in any case the result
of sophistic criticism—though not consciously its object —was to liquefy the
moral principles on which the social order was based.
Such, in principle, appeared to be the state of things. In practice, here
as elsewhere, the devil proved not so black as he was painted. First, not all the
sophists—hardly even the majority of them—drew the logical conclusions
from their views in respect of either morals or religion. They were teachers of
rhetoric, and as such they taught, for instance, all the tricks by which a bad
cause might be defended ; that was part of the trade. But it must be supposed
that Gorgias, the most distinguished of them, expressly insisted that rhetoric,
just like any other art the aim of which was to defeat an opponent, should only
be used for good ends. Similarly many of them may have stopped short in
their criticism of popular belief at some arbitrary point, so that it was possible
for them to respect at any rate something of the established religion, and so, of
course, first and foremost the very belief in the existence of the gods. That
they did not as a rule interfere with public worship, we may be sure ; that was
based firmly on “the Law.” But, in addition, even sophists who personally
took an attitude radically contradictory to popular belief had the most
important reasons for being careful in advancing such a view. They had to live
by being the teachers of youth ; they had no fixed appointment, they travelled
about as lecturers and enlisted disciples by means of their lectures. For such
men it would have been a very serious thing to attack the established order in
its tenderest place, religion, and above all they had to beware of coming into
conflict with the penal laws. This risk they did not incur while confining
themselves to theoretical discussions about right and wrong, nor by the
practical application of them in their teaching of rhetoric ; but they might very
easily incur it if attacking religion.
This being the case, it is not to be wondered at that we do not find
many direct statements of undoubtedly atheistical character handed down from
the more eminent sophists, and that trials for impiety are rare in their case.
But, nevertheless, a few such cases are met with, and from these as our
starting-point we will now proceed.

(pp. 37 – 38)

There is a telling line if ever there was one—ideas about reality derive from
specialists, ideas that laymen must receive as a baby must take gripe water from its
nurse. This is the world we live in today, Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’is our
spoonful of medicine, to be swallowed without pause or thought. But such elaborate
science was not the stuff of Sophist teaching, everyday facts formed the basis of their
lessons.
Because we are about to compare the Sophists as antagonists of religion, with
pre Darwinian scientists, we must take note of the observation that these priests were
not intentionally undermining religion, but rather, due to the advancement of
knowledge as compared to the contemporary state of religious mythology, their
teachings just could not avoid coming into conflict with everyday matters of religious
belief. Exactly as was found to be the case by Darwin and his confederates in the first
half of the nineteenth century, as they struggled to come to terms with the new
discoveries of science, bearing on life, its nature, and humanity’s place in the natural
order of things.

On Rhetoric

It is here, in the above selection, where Drachmann brings rhetoric into the
discussion, that we can see just how privileged we are in the modern world,to have
the example of the ancients to guide us. My one recurring use of this inexpressibly
superb resource, for the purposes of studying human nature in a scientific manner, is
where I refer to the comparison we can make between Darwinism as a deliberate
priestly fraud imposed upon us today, and the grandiose astronomy imposed on
ancient society by Ptolemy for the exact same purpose, by utilising the exact same
logical device of standing upon a false point of perspective, to view apanorama of
reality. Ptolemy viewed the heavens from a logical point at the centre of the universe,
while Darwin made sure all his reason was guided by the religious moral logic of the
individual seenas an end in themselves. Now it is a delight to find another, even more
telling example from ancient times, suited to the same comparison. Science always
benefits from depth.
Rhetoric was a weapon used in the fight to control knowledge. This is a point
of special interest because British education during the eighteenth century certainly
made rhetoric of prime importance, and while I have no facts on the matter to hand, I
am sure continuity was preserved in this respect throughout the nineteenth century. It
would not surprise me if those schools, the attendance of which is mandatory for entry
into the higher echelons of the priesthood today—the same ones as in the eighteenth
century, in spirit if not in name—continue the practice of training people to be
soulless professional liars, as Sophists evidently taughtin ancient society. The ability
to lie without the slightest sense of anything, except glee perhaps, is a gift we know
our politicians possess in superabundance, as surely as a fish has the gift ofswimming
in water. This gift for psychopathic dishonesty is way too precious a tool of political
power to let anything allow the art to be dropped from those establishments which
train our juvenile masters to be.
Being ever delighted to find an opportunity to use odd items from my small
collection of old volumes, let me entertain you with a sample defending rhetoric,
taken from a late eighteenth century Scottish work :—

INDEED, when the arts of speech and writing are mentioned, I am

sensible that prejudices against them are apt to rise in the minds of many. A
sort of art is immediately thought of, that is ostentatious and deceitful ; the
minute and trifling study of words alone ; the pomp of expression ; the studied
fallacies of rhetoric ; ornament substituted in the room of use. We need not
wonder, that, under such imputations, all study of discourse as an art should
have suffered in the opinion of men of understanding ; and I am far from
denying, that rhetoric and criticism have sometimes been so managed as to
tend to the corruption, rather than to the improvement, of good taste and true
eloquence. But sure it is equally possible to apply the principles of reason and
 good sense to this art, as to any other that is cultivated among men. If the
following Lectures have any merit, it will consist in an endeavour to substitute
the application of these principles in the place of artificial and scholastic
rhetoric ; in an endeavour to explode false ornament, to direct attention more
towards substance than show, to recommend good sense as the foundation of
all good composition, and simplicity as essential to all true ornament.

(Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, Hugh Blair, Vol. 1, 1811, p. 3.

First pub. 1783.)

It is a few years since I read any of this book, but my ideas on just what
rhetoric is came from reading it, so there must be some more in depth condemnation
made of the art of rhetoric further inside Blair’s work. I think he talks about how
disgusting it is to teach people to lie by getting them to defend ideas they despise. We
can imagine an ancient Sophist regaling his ardent young admirers with such talk,
much as this Scottish professor did in Edinburgh, now over two centuries ago, as he
taught that this weapon should be used ‘for the good’.
Rhetoric then, it should be understood—bearing in mind that we live in an
absolute theocracy, where the key to social power is the control of knowledge—
means training people to lie with a maximum degree of eloquence and persuasive
force, and zero conscience. To human pupae incubated within a chamber for plebe
making, as I was, the idea of lying is one of the most appalling things we can
conceive of. Notwithstanding that as a matter of routine we learnt to lie as criminals
lie, to get the better of our immediate plebe masters. We would still not of thought of
lying as a way of life, as taught in our elite schools and practised throughout the upper
reaches of our society. Our real masters, incubated in centres way beyond the
confines of our social induction centres, are trained to lie to a purpose, the purpose of
farming us. Consequently the idea of rhetoric never came anywhere near our haunts,
teaching us those tricks would be like giving the minions automatic weapons —you
could kiss theocracy goodbye yesterday if you did that !
To plebes like me therefore,the first shock upon hearing of this special art into
which our betters are inducted, is to wonder what is going on. It is like discovering
that our political elite eat the babies unemployed people cannot support, as a special
delicacy to give them inspiration in their effort to farm the cattle without feeling, or
something like that. Just as the Chinese communists are reported to sell off the organs
of their executed criminals to wealthy capitalists inTaiwan, Hong Kong and such like
immoral places, bereft of business ethics. Overlordship is all cannibalism of one kind
or another, capitalism is cannibalism, its all about the few feeding of the many. If the
gang of MG Rover managers, reported in yesterday’s news, 11/08/2009, as having
saved the failing car factory for the workers, only so they could extract forty three
million in pay and bonuses before the firm collapsed, are not modern day cannibals,
feeding off the helpless slave biomass, I would like to know just what animals like
these are suppossed to be.
Drachmann tells us that rhetoric is a weapon, he says it is about learning to lie,
but more to the point, it is about learning to defend bad causes, most especially those
to which you are vehemently opposed. And he tells us the excuse for such
psychopathic evil being employed as the basis of statecraft. The idea is that this dark
art will only be used for good, for right, for justice ! Just as we see in the Kung Fu
movies that the priests make to reinforce our servile slave training, where the gift of
flapping about, ten feet off the ground while foot slapping a dozen opponents with
onedeft kick, is only to be used by goodies. But wouldn’t you know it, there is always
a baddie that uses the same powers for evil, a rogue priest whomust be stopped by the
goodie. Trouble is, outside the realms of fiction there are only baddies, no white
knights exist. What tosser with unassailable power would use that powerfor good ?
Give me a break. Yeah, while the scum have milked us dry and given themselves all
the honours they can cook up, they also throw huge sums of money into charities—
peanut oil to them, the product of squeezing us dry—while claimingthey love us and
want to be our benefactors. Puke, puke, puke. But, once again, it seems to work.
The cult of celebrity is a reliable old scam. People just have no choice, there is
glamour in the ponsey lifestyle, that our sentient brick propensities are evolved to
capture vicariously, and to deny ourselves this pleasure is to cut off our noses to spite
ourselves, the alternative being to end up as a miserable old philosopher, and where is
the fun in that ?
As ever then, we ask where the sense of direction comes from in authority
figures or structures. Rhetoric was a tool designed to enable the control of
knowledge, the control of which is the key to social power. The weapon of skilful
lying is to be used only for good, which begs the question, What is ‘good’? And here
Drachmann once again provides the answer. The support of the establishment is
always what is ‘Good’. We can see the logic of this bias toward supporting civil
authority,expressed in Drachmann’s account. In this case we are talking about the
Sophists electing to deliberately refrain from bringing the inevitable consequences of
their studies to bear,at just those sensitive points where that true knowledge would be
fatal to religion. There are the severe penalties associated with not imposing this
discipline on themselves, and there are the institutional pressures derived from the
structure of society, that make it impossible for any organised band of professionals to
act in honour of unrestricted truth, as that would compromise their ability to find
employment. But all of this is accommodated under the illusion of safeguarding what
the poor old sad gits,who make up the mass of the people need, in order to feel happy.
It just would no be right to destroy the public faith, it would destroy society, it just
could notbe done. This last ruse, of caring for the people, being a fine piece of
rhetoric in itself.
Now lets pause over one of these last points, where we say that by ignoring the
effects of their teaching, these professors of their day, would compromisetheir ability
to work if they obeyed the primary objective of their profession, the pursuit of truth,
without limit or consideration. This thought suggests something of great importance,
for herein we delineate the necessary conditions whereby the near miraculous
production of modern sterile science has been achieved. By having an academic
profession, real and active, operating in the world, which does seek to maximise its
command of knowledge, while being contained within the vessel of social conditions,
we set up a paradigm that has the potential to strike the balance between science and
religion. That balance is Darwinism, in our contemporary world. Sadly, as we have
been saying, the balance is an illusion. It was a principle we early set out to establish,
that there is only one or the other, and if religion exists, then sciencedoes not. If
society is a vessel in which knowledge is contained, then in the end knowledge must
fit the limits imposed by the vessel,and take the vessel’s form. It is clear from
Drachmann’s account that it is religion which equates to the limits of the social vessel
as regards knowledge, and that science must respect this limit. It is perfectly obvious
that the modern mantra, that pretends religion and science can both exist at one and
the same time, in the same society, is a device reflecting the same conditions as
prevailed in Ancient Greece when Sophists pushed reason to the brink.
So there we have it. In this account of how the professors of their day, the
Sophists, managed the difficulty of science conflicting with religion, we find an exact
parallel with the conditions prevailing over Western society during the first half of the
nineteenth century. The description as tohow the Sophists worked their way through
the difficulty, matches exactly all that we have been saying right throughout this essay
on how religion survived the coming of the scientific age. Naturalism was used to
challenge religious myth, but not to destroy religion itself, as practised. This is
precisely the balance achieved by the Darwinian fraud. It wrecked the Biblical
account of life, while preserving the possibility of belief in supernatural power,
because Darwin excised humans from the reach of biological determinism, by making
the sole means of nature effecting any life form, being set by the genetic mechanism
of natural selection. If it was not written in the genes it could not happen, only
humans had been granted a creative power defyingthis constraint. Yeah right ! Who
do these tossers think we are ? But for all that these deceptions are insulting and
pathetic, we can see how they come to be the adopted solution to the problems faced
by our masters, in their relentless effort to retain control of their cattle. Darwinism
then, eradicates all religious myth, while leaving religion inviolate. This is why
Darwin’s work separated science from religion, making Darwin the hero of atheists.
One and half centuries on, the game really ought to be up, even without the
benefit of a full-blown atheist philosophy to explain exactly how things came to be as
they are today. Which is just as they were before Darwin ever put pen to paper, just as
they were, in fact, in Greece some two thousand four hundred years ago, as we can
see. And if we had the accounts to examine, we would find the same story applied in
every civilisation ever to of existed on Earth. Fish is fish, they swim in water ;
humans is humans, they swim in a social matrix composed of linguistic force. This
condition of our existence can never change, all that may change is the consistency of
the information of which the linguistic flux is composed. How far that may be
capable of changing it is rather difficult to say, as we can see, because when
allowances have been made for different social conditions, for the considerable
differences between the levels of knowledge in Ancient Greece and in our world
today, these physical transformations count for absolutely zilch in terms of the final
constitution of our all pervading linguistic flux. It was bullshit then, it is bullshit now,
nothing has changed except the stench of mindless oppression has inevitably
intensified as the power of knowledge has increased exponentially, burying us hapless
dupes under an ever deeper mound of priestly detritus.

Chapter 18

Fear of an Idea: Lets have a Moments Doubt

What have we got here, in this work we have produced ?

No, it is no good, I cannot drag myself away from the sense of deceived self
spouting bullshit, whenever I look at the world around me. But after some time spent
seeking to hammer home a specific idea that is deliberately opposed to another,
politically powerful idea, is there some way we can test our own stubbornness, of
which Carpenter accuses scientists when they refuse to pay heed to the sensibilities of
religious freaks. To be honest pausing to question myself in this light feels like
pausing to question the right to punish serious criminals who attack people and abuse
them in the most appalling ways. I am afraid I do not include people who believe in
God or value belief in God, amongst the class of human beings to which I belong.
Such people care nothing for truth and reality, and without caring about these two
qualities, what have we that says we are any different from the animals ?
It is a fact that we are not one iota different from animals, obviously, else why
would we have things like religion ? But if we valued truth, this would be anathema
to our animal nature, it would destroy our human nature as given to us by nature, and
it would therefore place us outside nature in the truest sense possible. In that sense,
valuing truth would truly make us different from the animals. But no society has ever
existed that valued truth, the power of human speech evolved to produce a flux of
living information that would create superorganic form, in terms of truth this power of
language has no meaning whatsoever. To value truth means going against the
meaning of the language that owns us, rules us, abuses us. It means destroying the
society we live in, our society is built by the raw untamed power of language, if we
would be free we must tear asunder all that language has built, and start again. There
is no choice, it is all or nothing.

But if this is true, then what else can there be, where do we find this truth ? It
just so happens that in science we have discovered a way of knowing truth that is
infallible, that has the power to make us into the likeness of the Jewish slave maker
God, in one goodsense, in the sense of being intellectually omnipotent. I happen to
like that idea. When I hear an idea I am determined to run it through my translator
before taking the message onboard. To me this is what scientific method means, in
terms of everyday regular usage. The trouble is, it follows from all that we have said,
that the everyday method of reasoning is not scientific, rather it is political, and by
political we mean : linguistic !
So, by trying to apply the primary maxim of science, concerning the nature of
causality to ordinary matters of importance to our daily lives, in terms of why we do
things and why society is as it is, I place myself beyond the pale of communion with
all people. Why ? Because they use language as a tool without any consideration as
to its nature, they take language at face value in the same way as they take food at
face value. This fact is the foundation of both religion and racism, because of the way
people use what they say as if it has at all times got full face value guaranteed, and
means what it says. As if when we use language it is always saying to us that any
words we use are legal tender, “these will pass”. And yet, by definition, some will
not, for without its opposite what use is the apposite ? Jews without Nazis, is like
heads without tails.
We live a compromise of sorts, where truth is annihilated, but science is
tolerated in principle. As long as we do not try to push the scientific method to
extremes, we can get by, what we need are ideas that allow us to slip the leash of
reason, and that is what Darwin does. We can all agree to accept Darwin, as we all
agreeto accept Jesus. Putting us in this position, where we all agree, is the name of
the game, that is to say leading us to the fountain of knowledge, in such a way you
can be sure we will drink of the poison springing forth to slake our need for
knowledge, when we get there. A problem then arises in scientists if they think they
can step outside this closed shop ; then the power of human speech contains them, as
it did Willis and his allies.
And so we come to the question : What is scientific method ? The question is
basic, but it comes to the fore because the answer is a pivotal link in the chain of
priestly control. Was it Bacon in the thirteenth century who established the
experimental principle of testability, as the basis of science ? I have never been taught
this history of knowledge and I have never read up on it, it has passed me by, but not
without my keeping a shady eye out for it when occasion prompts. There is
something about Bacon, in that he is the farthest recourse that scientists hark back to
from time to time, unless they reach for the ancient Greeks as the founders of
scientific thinking, which they occasionally do. Sadly we have had our fingers burnt
so often we do not know how to trust the authenticity of anyone any longer, no matter
how they are presented with catchy subtitles proclaiming their free thinking
credentials, of one sort or another.
Now here is a thing. Since my work is uncompromisingly atheistic, focused
on the annihilation of all religion from the face of the earth, by means of argument
alone, leaving no room for God in existence, are we not entitled to believe that the
world we live in is much changed as compared to that of the early mid-nineteenth
century when preaching atheism was a criminal offence ?
On the face of it, yes. But given that we have said that Darwinism served as a
linguistic mechanism putting forth a new strand of nervous tissue, upon which
superorganic flesh could be grown, and this new extension of the Jewish
superorganism was what we now call science, in the making, we must assume that
every heavily promoted establishment nugget of wisdom, that is critical in the
determination of the nature of anything, or the nature of the knowledge anything
creates, shall be bias in a very precise way. We cannot therefore accept any prior
principles about the creation of sound knowledge coming from early priests like
Bacon on scientific method, or Occam with his law concerning the necessity of taking
the most simple explanation as the most true. Our idea involves using science to
inform and understand our daily lives, and the world just does not work this way. We
cannot say “Well if we are so clever it is irrelevant how life works because our
superior knowledge of reality will overrule the sea of lies within which we live”. No !
The social structure that people are inducted into by acquiring a language, is the basis
of superorganic being, and we are just cellular elements of that superbeing. The
organic system is about lying, it is not about truth telling.
Science allows us to know this hidden reality about ourselves, and as such,
given that science always empowers us, even if all too often in a self destructive way,
we still love science ; so what is it that makes people shy away from scientific
interpretations of reality that would, you would think, make us all so much better off
in the long run ? Think about it. If religion is the menacing thing we say it is, then it
follows that just as humans have moved on from one religious form to another over
the millennia, then, once we have moved on, our descendants, not knowing what
Judaism means anymore than we understand the meaning of the Egyptian religions,
religion will mean nothing to them. The Jews hate this kind of talk, they call it anti-
Semitism, and if making valid complaints about social life, that are in any way
antagonistic to the Jews, makes such comments anti-Semitic, then we are, as we say,
living in an absolute theocracy that will brook no criticism.
Obviously this idea of gradual human development, like all ideas we can think
of, have been recorded before, if only to be lost and raised again, in a world that has
lasted 100,000 years, so that ideas possessed by humans come and go on a stage
reaching way beyond our imagining, as the superorganism rises from amniotic
beginnings, grows, extends, dominates and resides for aeons, then wanes, withers,
fades and vanishes, firstly from sight, then from mind. This does not make the idea of
cyclical development wrong, on the contrary, it means its time has come again, time
to listen, and ask the question, Can we move on ? Can we envisage a world beyond
religion, a world beyond Judaism ? We must put Judaism in the frame, keeping it
personal, or else it means nothing to answer the question.
 The important question is whether there is continuity from one stage to the
next ? I believe it is an attractive question we ask here, that exudes hope and would
favour a positive answer. Until now I felt unable to be positive however, because I
just cannot describe a scenario based on science that has the potential to carry us from
the present severely debased empowered stage, to a truly alien Spock-like stage,
where we are simply perfected, reasoning animals, existing as individuals in our own
right, where individuality is defined by knowing true knowledge, absolutely, and
purely for the sake of knowledge itself. Then again, is that what we all want ? Sorry,
of course it is ; I was just being silly—silly me !
Well, obviously these are not politically determined outcomes. No one made
Judaism, no one chooses to be a Jew, or any other cultural identity. Judaism is as
much a product of nature as a deciduous forest, and if it is to fade and pass the baton
of corporate being to a post religious form, then this event will be caused by nature,
and humans can have no effect on this whatever.
Perhaps the best work to think of in relation to this question is Lecky’s History
of Rationalism in Europe, a nineteenth century study of the transition from an age in
which society was ruled by belief in witchcraft to one in which no one believed such
ideas at all, a stark mental shift that occurred in a short space of time. Was this an
effect of science ? I suppose Lecky discusses the question but I cannot recall his
argument ; too long ago since I read it. But if this kind of radical intellectual
transition could happen once, sweeping right across the biomass, could it happen
again in a similar way ? If we assume the general argument is that witchcraft just
became untenable in the emerging modern world, and died a sudden death as a result,
then it is clear that the same condition applies to religion today, and the only thing
keeping religion alive is the artificial respirator of sterile science, built by Darwin. If
we can just turn the respirator off, by revealing the true nature of Darwinism as fake
science, we can let the living corpse of Judaism choke, and die. Whereupon we will
all feel the release as a weight of dead flesh is removed from our world, allowing us
suddenly to breath free once again ; religion will be no more, we will of moved on,
painlessly, without anyone knowing that times had once been so very different. That
is our hope, it should of happened a few generations back, but thanks to the relentless
dedication of the priesthood, masterminded ultimately by Adolf Hitler, the Jews were
saved, and the world was plunged once more into the sewer of worthless living,
characterised by a mindless existence.

We all have to think alike, we cannot have some go off thinking two is four
and others thinking four is five. We have to think the same, so why not let reality be
our authority in all matters ? It is all down to what people can take onboard. Thus far
no one is interested in my ideas, but I do not expect to plant an oak one day and see
the acorns appear the next. I love knowledge, I love the path toward freedom that is
true knowledge. I see the war between religion and science and I hate it, but we can
reflect upon the reality of the position we find ourselves in and accept that our
conception of society as a superorganism, which has a life of its own to which we
must be subservient, means we can relate to the fact that the goodness of our life
today, in whatever way we come to value it, is based on the work of those who are
already dead and gone. This idea too has no novelty about it. Still, on this principle
we can work away at things such as this piece of work that no one wants, in the firm
belief that if they do not want it now, there will come a time, and when that time
comes, the moment of need will be too late to start thinking about it. In other words,
it is an ongoing role within our world for each generation to try and leave a record of
its times, and as our times are changing rapidly they require a broad perspective to
leave a meaningful record for future generations to benefit from. I say we are heading
for gloomy times ahead, as the living embodiment of a Jewish slave organism. But I
like to think my efforts might flood the being that we are, with a mental virus that,
being intended to facilitate the power of science as a way of knowing existence, will
somehow hit the spot, and make headway on its own account, ultimately releasing
science from religion, at last.
All that is stopping us is fear of an idea.

_________

Wednesday, 29 July 2009

I might just finish by saying that I am not sure anyone will appreciate my
atheist philosophy. I have never found anyone that has. I write these ideas down
because these ideas are all that I have ever wanted, the knowledge I give here is all
that is missing from the world in which I find myself existing. What I have produced
is what I would of wanted to read as a youth, so that I could read something that made
sense of the world I could see all around me. Because I wanted this knowledge, I
offer it to others, take it or leave it.

Close

Apologies for shortcomings usually appear at the beginning of a book, but as I

have said already, my approach to writing is not usual. It is only now, having finished
this work, that I am in a position to consider where apologies may be due. They fall
under two categories, structural and spiritual.
Structural matters are uncomplicated, you can see what there is, and if you
have tried to read this work you will be in the best position to evaluate its structure.
You are in fact my reviewers, you are in the position of a friend, as first witness ; of
professional, as proof reader. None has seen this work, not a soul, not a fraction. I
simply knowof no way to contact like minded people, I have to this date never found
one single atheist on this planet, nowhere, ever, by whatever means I use. This work
is caste adrift like Voyager, sent in search of intelligent life, maybe, some day,
someone, somewhere, will pick it up, and be able to read the message. The internet is
not called “Cyber Space” for nothing.

Spiritual matters are more important, assuming anystructural issues are more
or less minor. By spiritual I mean matters to do with the ethos of the author. My
ethos is clear enough to me, it is liberal and open minded, it is caring and peaceful.
But we live in a harsh environment, and toughness is a condition of life, if, we want
freedom. And this work is all about freedom.
There is only one issue that requires a closing statement to do with motives,
and that is the Jewish Question. If this work captured any public attention the
material herein would be subject to rebuke for its arguments regarding the Jews and
Judaism. This is the nature of the game, we are engaged in debating the nature of the
human animal, we cannot avoid controversy of this kind. The work speaks for itself,
friends, should there be any, will value this work for its goodwill, expressed through
an unequivocal hatred of religion. Would be pretenders to affiliation with me, who
value the Jewish centred commentary as a validation of hatred for Jews, are notfriends
of mine. The best way to point out the difference between my strictly scientific critic
of Judaism, and a politically based critic justifiably called anti-Semitic, is to look at a
clever piece of anti-Semitic work that closely matches the argument presented here,
but which remains political, an imitation of science, just like Darwin’s work is an
imitation of science, as we have proven here, and something most definitely not to be
confused with How Religion Survived the Coming of the Scientific Age.
I was looking at some overtly anti-Semitic material by the American Neo Nazi
Revilo P. Oliver, and a short piece called History and Biology caught my attention as
touching on scientific themes rather as we might, but in that distinctive Nazi way that
we are all so familiar with. I am not sure it qualifies as clever in any sense, but it is
the best we can do in that respect.

Civilized human beings have long been puzzled by the mysterious

diversity of human beings. It is possible, indeed, that mystery was part of
the process by which some people were able to rise from barbarism to
civilization. The perception requires mental powers that are by no means
universal. The aborigines of Australia, for example, who are probably the
lowest from of human life still extant, have a consciousness so dim and
rudimentary that they multiplied on that continent for fifty thousand years
without ever suspecting that sexual intercourse had anything to do with
reproduction. Most savages, to be sure, are somewhat above that level, but
no tribe appears to have been aware of its own diversity, let alone capable
of thinking about it.
Human beings capable of reflective thought, however, must have
begun early to marvel, as we still do, at the great differences obvious among
the offspring of one man by one woman. Of two brothers, one may be tall and
the other short ; one stolid and the other alert ; one seemingly born with a
talent for mathematics and the other with a love of music.

(HISTORY AND BIOLOGY, part IV (last part) of History and the Historians, by
Professor Revilo P. Oliver (American Opinion, December 1963), p. 2.)

This is just a snippet from a true fascist who frequently writes along anti-
Semitic lines, there is heaps of this kind of material available, as there is of any brain-
dead semi religious gush of this kind. There can be no need to confuse our strictly
scientific atheism with this trash. If you want a piece directed at Jews try Oliver’s
The Jewish Strategy, available to download for free. There is nothing remotely anti-
Semitic in anything I ever write or say. My hatred of Judaism, and Jews, is no
different than my hatred for any religion, it is the hatred that Jews earn by being Jews,
as Christians earn by being Christians, as Muslims earn by being Muslims. It is not
the hatred of bias, it is the hatred of reason, for that which all people of goodwill
should hate.
Oliver’s anti-Semitic writing is very appealing in many ways, the above
selection is rather bland, I just wanted to grab something from the part essay History
and Biology, to show how the man tried to use modern science to feed his passion for
pouring forth mindless drivel supporting a racial identity powerbase. In some of this
work he talks about how we are but cattle, and how the Jews are the masters that farm
us, all highly delightful stuff that any scientist is bound to approve of, since it is so
evocative of the true nature of our condition as a mammalian superorganism. The
trouble is that Oliver is following up the model promoted by the Nazis, which makes
this a racial issue, that is a political issue, which is necessarily based on the
understanding that individuals are ends in themselves. The Jewish Strategyis one
hundred pages long, run a search for ‘social organism’, ‘superorganism’, ‘ant’ or
‘insect’ and we draw a blank. There is absolutely nothing in common with this
leading anti-Semitic author’s logic and that of a genuine scientist. Needless to say, in
our Jewish theocracy, the work of anti-Semites has always been prolific, and freely
available. Whereas that of real scientists, once freely available until the anti-Semites
made it the basis of their politics, and so provided the means of its destruction, is now
none existent.
But if we want an insect analogy in Oliver I have one to hand, although Oliver
is a peculiarly tricky fellow to follow, as he uses a variety of pseudonyms according to
the entry in Wikipedia that I took notes from in August 2008. Here is a passage that
uses an insect analogy, though only as a means of insulting Jews, not as a means of
recognising the natural order of human societies that has made Jews the masters and
the rest of humanity the slaves :—

The Jews are, by nature, a proletarian people. It is a matter of common

observation that when they invade a country, they infiltrate every prosperous
city and set up their ghettos, in which they huddle together, like ants in their
anthill, bees in the hive, or termites in their nest. Everyone has noticed that
when a Jew or a few Jews associate with goyim, they successfully simulate the
manners and culture of the people among whom they have planted
themselves ; but when Jews become a majority in any place, from a single
room to a city, they become a swarm, a buzzing synagogue, an unmistakable
alien species.

(Christianity : A Religion for Sheep, Ralph Perier [Oliver], 1980,

pp. 13 – 14.)

The sentiment in this quote is gorgeous, but it is also extremely dangerous to

the objectives of discerning a true science of humanity. It shows how prone genuine
science based on the fact that humans are a superorganism is, to a simple subversive
attack of this kind. This is a neat, crude example of exactly what scuppered the vast
science of human nature, that ruled the world until the First World War and the Nazis
put paid to it, allowing the fake rubbish fed to us today to take its place. But to be
fair, humans being what they are, it is easy to see how impossible it is to base a true
science on the facts of reality, as the above type of subversion is so appealing to
people living in a downtrodden state, such as we all necessarily live in within a Jewish
theocracy. This makes twisted ideas like those of Oliver’s easy to promulgate when
the theocracy has knackered science by imposing the Darwinian fraud upon its
universities, and made us all go around inanely mumbling about the clever
Chimpanzee and how wonderful it would be to understand how we came from this
animal stock. And we do not have to wait in anticipation of the elaborate hoaxes that
such Darwinian farce invites, we have already had some nonsense given to the world
at the hand of one religious freak, The Chimpanzees Who Would be Ants : An
Unscientific Story of Humanity, Russell Merle Genet, 1997, is just such a piece of
drivel, once again, like Oliver, taking the piss out real science. How can scientists
fight such an onslaught of arrogant degeneracy ?
 Last night, 9/08/2009, I saw a programme about Americans who have
monkeys as substitute babies, My Monkey BabyI think it was called, I swear, the more
I hear of those crazy loonies the more scary the Americans get. This insanity is what
comes of living in a powerful world ruled by religious deviancy, as no one knows how
to think rationally anymore, since rational thought is the one thing the masters do not
want to nurture. And I cannot help wondering if the degeneracy of Darwin’s religious
mimicry of naturalistic ideas is not seeping into the American psyche. There were
actually one or two items in the long list of works by Oliver that seemed to have
something to say about the danger of genetic science being used to make biologically
engineered crosses between apes and humans. This was too fringe insane for me to
pause over, but seeing this human monkey-mother on TV last night makes you
wonder, I suppose the promulgation of such ideas could somehow help drive the
Darwinian obscenity ever further into the madness that is the American slave
mentality.

There is a website devoted to Oliver with lots of essays to download, he was

an American far right activist, he wrote about communism for example. The obvious
treat in his work is that he hates Christianity, but although there is one short piece
with the word ‘atheism’ in the title, he does not really have anything positive to say
about atheism. His hatred of Christianity is all about promoting his race based hatred
of Judaism. One essay does have a nice topic for our purposes in How Religion
Survived the Coming of the Scientific Age, it is called Academic Prostitution, 1985.
Unfortunately its subject is not one to touch, even with a barge pole, it seems to be
about holocaust denial, which is as insane and offensive as moon landing denial,
almost. But while the topic is corrupt we do see an important point made, as to why a
layman should be needed to give genuine knowledge, when the universities are
packed with professional academics who exist for just this purpose. Except, in this
case, the lunatic is objecting because the liars who produce the priest’s religious
history will not produce bias that is promoted by priests who are not professionals,
boy is it confusing or what ! Basically, what we have here is a classic case of
misinformation. Misinformation muddies the water, where false knowledge forms the
basis of the academic machine’s output. So that any enterprising individual, such as
yours truly, who has a genuine unbiased love of truth, cannot come along and find an
open target to fire at. Due to a multitude of deviants, criminals, sickos and
professional degenerates, a full blown war rages between official bullshit and would
be officialbullshit, so to speak. So that when a rare genuine question is put forth, as in
our case, it is like spitting into a torrent of water, the impact is lost as the machinery
of defence against truth is always ready and waiting to protect the theocracy. Such a
defence mechanism within the physiology of a superorganic being that is built from
linguistic force, is inevitable and essential.
Oliver mentions another work which he says is devoted to exposing the way
theocracy is built on lies told by historians, this is History’s Greatest Liarsby Joseph
McCabe, 1951. I am not at all sure about McCabe though, as he is a turncoat. From
being a Jesuit priest he became one of the most prolific atheist authors at the heart of
the rationalist movement, and he was evidently a great supporter of Darwinism. It is
however always nice to hear of such work and I am considering ordering a copy from
the library to have a look at. I turned my attention to the Rationalist Press Association
a couple of months ago—McCabe wrote for them—I got hold of a list of their
publications, but working my way through it I found nothing of any real interest. I
became very suspicious that this was an organisation, set up, as it was, very late in the
day in terms of fighting for atheism, that struck me as being perfect for venting the
atheistic urge welling up in society, but useless at doing anything more. Modern
humanist organisations in America strike me as being very much of this duplicitous
nature, and even our British ones are of a similarly dubious ilk. As we know, the
priests come in every shade of thought, as they are the thought police of our world,
they will leave nothing alone. Their main tactic is not suppression, but corruption,
and very effective it is too !

In order to make sense of Oliver’s apparent atheism, which is incongruous in a

right wing fascist, we need to think about his social context, as a man who, in
addition, loved to berate communism ; and to make sense of his evident hatred of
Christianity, which is surely unique amongst right wing fascists. Even Hitler loved
the idea of the German people being the slaves of Judaism, as already established in
the guise of Christianity. Hitler hated atheism because he knew atheism was the
antithesis of the social power he craved, added to which he hated communists, who
were officially atheists ; but communism has all the essential ingredients of a religion,
it has an ideology, a power base within the biomass, an identity core and so on. All
Hitler wanted, supposedly, was to supplant the Jews as the master race, he saw no
need to give up the basis of Jewish power in his domain, which Hitler knew was
rooted in the Jew’s Christian slave identity programme. All of this is perfectly
apparent to anyone reading Hitler’s Mein Kampfwith a view to discerning these
aspects of his philosophy. Do not believe what the priests tell you about Mein Kampf,
about it being an evil piece of work written with all the merits of an illiterate bigot. It
is just a regular piece of priestly argumentation, perfectly readable, and from our point
of view as seekers after true knowledge, a most important book to read, in full. The
real nugget that lies at the heart of Hitler’s philosophy of power, is the message that
there can only be one message, though it may appear in a myriad of forms. And this
of course is the basis of Jewish power, and hence knowing this fact is the key to
understanding the Jewish master identity. We are using this key right now, to interpret
the true nature of Oliver, within the context of the American identity hierarchy. One
thing to understand about Hitler, is that he was the supreme student of the Jews as the
master race, that was the whole point of Hitler’s career, to out Jew the Jews. A futile
ambition because the Jews are Nature, and you cannot go to war with human nature,
and win. Hitler’s behaviour from beginning to end exudes futility, causing us to
suspect that this ambition was never about anything other than Jewish power as an
expression of the power of human nature, but, seen in terms of Hitler’s life story, his
ambition means what we say it means here : a desire to replace the Jews as master
race. It could mean nothing else, since the logic of this substitution is present in every
grain of anything the man ever did or said. We cannot seriously entertain the idea that
Hitler knew all along that he was just being a stooge for the Jews. Such a monstrous
deception is inconceivable, and unnecessary, because humans are at best nothing more
than organic robots, living sentient bricks that follow the linguistic identity
programme running in the social flux at any given time. Besides, as we have
indicated, the idea of becoming master by identity substitution is proven to of been
the basis of Jewish power, although anyone aware of this fact would know that this is
a long term project that cannot be achieved by brute force, in one person’s life time.
All the more reason to see Hitler’s pretence to such an ambition as a substitute
mechanism for the ongoing process of Jewish dominion over the world, which is the
only thing that was furthered by the prosecution of the two world wars. What is
certain is that Hitler did not make Hitlerism, the times he lived in made Hitlerism, and
it could just as well of been Bobism, Susanism, Sallyism or Dickism for all the
difference it would of made to the form, or the outcome. Of course the system itself,
the superorganic physiology realised in theocracy, did foster the rise of Communism
in Russia, Hitler in Germany and the world wars and mayhem to go with these
developments. Social structure has a direction built into it. But this has nothing to do
with individuals, they are the figureheads of the moment, the Napoleon or Hitler in
the driving seat.
As can be seen from the above, we always have to think about any historical
social process in terms of an identity hierarchy. Accordingly, if we want to
understand the perplexing incongruities in Oliver, we have to think about the special
circumstances of the American slave territories of Judaism. Oliver was a Yank, and
America is a very queer fish, in terms of its Christian fanaticism. We have come to
understand the functional need for anti-Semitism in a natural unquestioning manner,
so that we understand that however it may appear, the plain and simple truth is that
Hitler gave the Jews the one gift that was most precious to them, just when they
needed it. He gave them a ring of linguistic force, which we call a taboo, so powerful,
that none can get within a million miles of it without bringing down upon themselves,
all the hatred and venom the world could ever hope to muster against one man.
And so it is that while we do not even have a word for hating Christianity,
because the position of Christianity in the physiology of the Jewish superorganism is
such that attacks of this kind are deflected, rather than met head on, because
Christianity stands as the physical power in the system, and does not ordinarily need
subversive modes of protection, the peculiar position of the United States as the one
true superpower on earth, whilst being degradingly enslaved to the Jews, sets up a
curious situation where the Christians in America, need the same kind of special
protection from the hate monger within, as is normally preserved for the outsider
being foisted upon the biomass, as with Jews traditionally, and Muslims currently.
Thus Oliver, by venting an irrational, crazed hatred for Christianity, bound up with a
classic anti-Semitic message, short-circuits the inevitable complaints to be expected
from the poor American dupes, who must sit there and watch their beloved nation
being shafted ever which way but loose by their Jewish masters.
The key to a hate based defence mechanism is that it should say what every
sensible person would say, if they could, but in so outrageous and criminal a form that
anyonesaying the obvious is damned by association, through attacks by the
theocracy’s media and judicial system, and becomes persona non grata in society.
Obviously the need for such a hate based defence mechanism within the physiological
structure of an identity hierarchy making up the body of a living superorganism, only
normally applies to minority organs of higher social power. The Jews need this
special protection because they are the eternal master identity, the Muslims need it in
Europe because they are the alien infusion of slave identity being ushered in to
replace the indigenous slave identity, which has become decadent. But now we
suspect a special case pertains, where a superpower is based on a minor expression of
master identity, which is all powerful in a material sense, but impotent in the sense of
its own apparent identity of cohesion, that is to say in terms of the American national
identity. America is a special case then because it is the current seat of Jewish power.

There is no doubt that, according to this work’s own testimony, what this work
sets out to do, is to break a taboo. It is the Nazi imposed taboo against saying
anything unfavourable against the Jews that leaves science screwed today. And it
follows that the ideas contained herein could not be allowed to achieve this taboo
breaching attempt at intellectual freedom. The contents of this work would have to be
labelled as anti-Semitism, if they became of interest to a wide audience. Since my
venom is spread far and wide, and my agenda is atheistic, and I have a broad
naturalistic agenda, within which the Jews form just one crucial element, inevitably,
given human history, So how could the Jews argue that I was just another anti-
Semite ?
 The answer is that a Jew would argue that however I came at an understanding
of their position in the world, if my end point is that the Jews are the master, the
parasite of society, or even an integrated organ of command that the world needs as a
body needs a brain, no matter, I am laying the foundations for a new variety of anti-
Semitism. It is not the means which matters, would be their line, but the end.
Therefore to let me break the Nazi laid taboo against saying anything unpleasant
against the Jews, is to invite trouble, a Jew would argue. On this basis alone my work
might be labelled as anti-Semitic as any such piece, such as Sombart’s The Jews and
Modern Capitalism, a well crafted book, but in the end, no matter how nicely put
together its argument was, it made the Jews a special case within society, existing to
earn their living off the fabric of none Jewish societies. Thus Sombart’s argument fed
the imagination of those who would turn such ideas into mindless hatred for Jews. No
wonder the audience at Sombart’s lectures were packed wall to wall with Jews, as it is
the Jews who need to know how to promote anti-Semitism, since anti-Semitism exists
for the sake of the Jews, it certainly never did anyone else any good.
My detractor would be right. No matter how I have built my argument, I most
definitely reaffirm that the Jews are undoubtedly the master race, and all humanity are
enslaved to Judaism. Yes it is natural, yesit is the best thing that could ever happen in
terms of extracting the potential of human nature from our sentient brick physiology.
But it is also death to the Jewish culture. For we cannot act as the slaves of Judaism if
we know that we are the slaves of Judaism, that is the whole point of our carefully
crafted Jewish slave identities of Christianity and Islam. Therefore, if my ideas
served to infect the world brain with a linguistic virus, that set the world thinking as it
did when the world was free, such a short time ago, then everything that was needed
before, would be needed again, to cleanse the world of the ideas I had created and
released into its bloodstream. Decades of subversion, building a new lie, world wide
decimation of the biomass, and final resettlement, back where we were several
centuries ago, exactly as was achieved with the close of the Second World War, which
saw our return to the state of abject ignorance of the sixteenth century and back
beyond. But with a difference, we now had complete answers to all the questions,
false answers, but answers, and answers is all that matters in terms of keeping the
criminals in possession, that is always the purpose of a lie, as any nasty little thief
must know. Without anti-Semitism Judaism is powerless, without war Judaism is
powerless, without religious slave identities—Judaism is powerless.

The final question then, is whether Judaism can live with atheism, as Rome
lived with Judaism. Israel has only just been founded. Christianity is the face of
power in the world, and Islam is just bursting at the seams. We are set to reach a huge
global population by the middle of the century, approaching ten billion people. The
world is going to be a very crowded, ugly place, but one thing we can be sure of, is
that unless civilisation collapses, Judaism is not going to vanish as Rome did. We can
only hope to have the freedom to know what reality is, the freedom to be atheists in
the true sense of the word. This veers toward practical atheism, but we only desire to
be allowed theoretical atheism, for we are not the establishment, we are just the
people, powerless nobodies.

_________
Last Word: All that I am saying here, is one thing. All the detail, the Jew this and the
Muslim that, is all nothing. I care not one jot for anything I say here, apart from one
thing, and there is no reason why you should either, if, I am wrong about that one
thing. If I am wrong about that one thing, then all that I say here may as well be
dismissed as so much rubbish, and I will admit it freely. I am saying one thing only :
humans are a true, absolute and unequivocal, superorganic species of mammal. Just
as surely as termites are a superorganic species of insect, or ants or bees likewise.

That is it, and nothing else.

If you do not like anything I say here, for whatever reason, then this is all you
need bother about :whether or not humans are superorganic mammals. This is the
only question. Tackle me on this, and forget the rest, because the rest counts for
nothing. I would not apologise for the other stuff, there is no God, and so I do not
care about offending people who say otherwise. But all that I say stands or falls on
this sole item.

Humans are superorganisms.

But the problem you have, if you wish to challenge me, is that I am right. At
the heart of the issue is religion. And it is because I am first, foremost and always, an
atheist, that I have solved this problem of identifying human nature according to the
natural order of existence, publically, where no one else ever has. Tackle me on this,
and you will lose, but to tackle me on anything else, shows that you know it, as well
as I do, and you are just plain scarred of the truth.

As to the implications of this one idea, that is open to people to determine,

both in terms of science, and in terms of life, and how we live. I see ridding ourselves
of religion as the great leap, toward full maturity for humanity. But is it ? It is all
very well for the likes of Isaacs to say we need religion to maintain order, but that is
not what religion is about, religion is about vested interests. Order can prevail
without religion, potentially at least, but too many people would never want that.

Alas, I have thus far only ever spoken to deaf ears, and I only speak now for
the atheist, the person who sees the vileness of religion, but does not suspect that
religion is the mistress served by our so called science, and who, as a consequence,
seeks in vain for that which they yearn :a true knowledge of reality. If that is not you,
then what are you doing reading me ?

Bibliography

Abercrombie, Alan Contemporary British Society : A New Introduction to

Sociology, Nicholas and Warde, Polity Press, 1993.
First pub. 1988.
Allen, J. W. A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century,
Meuthen & Co. Ltd., third ed. 1951. First pub. 1928.

Annan, Noel Leslie Stephen : The Godless Victorian, Weidenfeld and

Nicolson, 1984.

Ardrey, Robert African Genesis : A Personal Investigation into the Animal

Origins and Nature of Man, Collins, 1961.

Bagehot, Walter Physics and Politics ; Thoughts on the Application of the

Principles of “Natural Selection” and “Inheritance” to
Political Society, D. Appleton and Company, 1890.
First pub. 1872.

Barabási, Computational Social Science, in Science, Vol. 323, 6th Feb,

Albert-László 2009. From, www.sciencemag.org., downloaded 5/5/09.
(Numerous authors listed, I just name the one I was looking for.)

Benn, Tony The Case for Dismantling the Secret State, in New Left Review
190, 1991.

Bernstein, Herman The History of a Lie, J. S. Ogilvie Publishing Company, 1921.

Blair, Hugh Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, Three volumes, Bell
and Bradfute, and Mundell, Doig and Stevenson, 1811.
First pub. 1783.

Bloom, Allan The Closing of the American Mind, Simon & Schuster Inc.,
1986.

Booker, Christopher The Great Deception : A Secret History of the European Union,
& North, Richard Continuum, 2003.

Burton, John The Book Hunter, William Blackwood and Sons, New Ed.,
1885.

Carpenter, William Nature and Man : Essays Scientific and Philosophical, Kegan
Paul, Trench & Co., 1888.

Chambers, Robert Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, third ed., published
 anonymously, Wiley and Putnam, New York, 1845.
First pub. 1844.

Desmond, Adrian The Politics of Evolution : Morphology, Medicine, and Reform

in Radical London, University of Chicago Press, 1989.

Djilas, Milovan The New Class : An Analysis of the Communist System, Frederick A.
Praeger, 1958. First Pub. 1957.

Drachmann, A. B. Atheism in Pagan Antiquity, Gyldendal, 1922. First pub. in

Danish 1919.

Elworthy, Charles Homo Biologicus : An Evolutionary Model for the Human Sciences,
Dunker & Humblot, 1993.

Epimethean website Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy, August 1996, by Kevin,
downloaded May 2009.

Farrer, James Books Condemned to be Burnt, Elliot Stock, 1904.

Gleason, H. A. Age and Area from the Viewpoint of Phytogeography,

American Journal of Botany, XI, Nov., 1924.

Goldberg, Michael Why Should Jews Survive ? : Looking Past the Holocaust
toward a Jewish Future, OUP, 1995.

Hitler, Adolf Mein Kampf, Hutchinson & Co., 1973. First pub. in German,
Vol. 1, 1925, Vol. 2, 1926.
Hobsbawm, Eric Worlds of Labour : Further Studies in the History of Labour,
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1984.

Hutten, Ernest H. What does it mean to be a Jew ?, in Question 6, Pemberton

Publishing Co. Ltd., January 1973.

Huxley, Julian UNESCO Its Purpose and Its Philosophy, Preparatory

Commission of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organisation, 1946.

Ibry, David Exodus to Humanism : Jewish Identity Without Religion,

Prometheus Books, 1999.
Isaacs, Alan The Survival of God in the Scientific Age, Penguin Books,
1966.

Jeffree, The Jews in France, two parts, in the Dublin Review, Third
Series, Vol. 18, 1887, and Vol. 19, 1888.

Jenkin, Fleeming Origin of Species, in The North British Review, June 1867.
From the Million Books online project, 2009.

Jones, Kate E. Age and area revisited : identifying global patterns and
implications for conservation, in Phylogeny and Conservation,
Ed. by Andy Purvis et. al., CUP, 2005.

Jordan, Stuart The Scientific Study of Religion, Secular Humanist Bulletin,

Volume 15, Number 1, 1999. Taken from internet 12 August
2008.

Kellogg, Vernon Darwinism To-Day : A Discussion of Present-Day Scientific

Criticism of the Darwinian Selection Theories, Together with a
Brief Account of the Principal Other Proposed Auxiliary and
Alternative Theories of Species-Forming, Henry Holt and
Company, 1907. From Million Books project, 18th June, 2009.

Kidd, Benjamin Social Evolution, Macmillan and Co., New Ed. July 1894.
First pub. 1894.

Lecky, William History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in
Europe, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1884.

Lubbock, John Pre-Historic Times : As Illustrated by Ancient Remains and the

Manners and Customs of Modern Savages, D. Appleton and
Company, Fifth Ed., 1890. First Pub. 1865.

Marshall, Peter Demanding the Impossible : A History of Anarchism, Harper

Collins, 1992.

McKnight, Jim Straight Science ? : Homosexuality, evolution and adaptation,

Routledge, 1997.
Midgley, Mary Evolution as a Religion : Strange hopes and stranger fears,
Methuen, 1985.

Mol, Hans Identity and the Sacred : A sketch for a new social-scientific
theory of religion, Basil Blackwell, 1976.

Morgan, C. Lloyd Springs of Conduct : An Essay in Evolution, Kegan Paul,

Trench & Co., 1885.

Oliver, Revilo P. History and Biology, part IV of History and the Historians,
(American Opinion, December 1963). Taken from Revilo
website 5th August 2009.

Christianity : A Religion for Sheep, Ralph Perier [Oliver],

Historical Review Press, 1980.

Rajak, Tessa Was there a Roman Charter for the Jews ?, Journal of Roman
Studies 74, 1984.

Ridgeway, William Who were the Romans ?, From the Proceedings of the British
Academy, Vol. III, OUP, 1907.

Roberts, Morley Bio-Politics : An Essay in the Physiology, Pathology & Politics

of the Social & Somatic Organism, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.,
1938.

Russell, Bertrand The Existence of God : A Debate Between Bertrand Russell and
Father F. C. Copleston, S. J., broadcast in 1948 on the Third
Programme of the BBC, in Why I am Not a Christian : And
Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects, George Allen
& Unwin Ltd., 1957.

Shelley, Queen Mab, in The Complete Poetical Works of Percy Bysshe

Percy Bysshe Shelley, Ed. by Thomas Hutchinson, OUP, 1912.
Poem first pub. 1813

Sinnott, Edmund The ‘Age and Area’ Hypothesis and the Problem of Endemism,
Annals of Botany 31,1917. Taken from www.wku.edu,
28th June 2009.

Sleigh, Charlotte Six Legs Better : A Cultural History of Myrmecology, John

Hopkins University Press, 2007.
Sombart, Werner The Jews and Modern Capitalism, T. Fisher Unwin, 1913.
First pub. in German, 1911.

Spencer, Herbert Transcendental Physiology, in Essays Scientific, Political and

Speculative, Vol. 1, D. Appleton and Company, 1892. First
pub. in The National Review, October 1857, under the title The
Ultimate Laws of Physiology.

Steiner, George Has Truth a Future ?, The Bronowski Memorial Lecture :

January 1978, British Broadcasting Corporation, 1978.

Stephen, Leslie The Science of Ethics, Smith, Elder, & Co., 1882.

Stock, Gregory Metaman : The Merging of Humans and Machines into a

Global Superorganism, Simon & Schuster, 1993.

Stoddard, Lothrop The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy,

Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1922. First pub. 1920.

Thomas, Gordon The Assassination of Robert Maxwell : Israel’s Superspy,

and Dillon, Martin Robson Books, 2002.

Thomson, J. Arthur The Study of Animal Life, 4th Ed., John Murray, 1923.
First pub. 1892.

Vincent, George The Social Mind and Education, The Macmillan Company,
1897.

Warner, George The Jewish Spectre, Doubleday, Page & Company, 1905.

Webster, Nesta Germany and England, reprinted from The Patriot, October and
November 1938, 2003. From Million Books, 14th August 2009.

White, Leslie The Science of Culture : A Study of Man and Civilization,

Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1949.

Willis, J. C. Age and Area : A Study in Geographical Distribution and

Origin of Species, CUP, 1922.
 The Course of Evolution : By Differentiation or Divergent
Mutation Rather than by Selection, CUP, 1940.

Wilson, Edward O. Science and ideology, Vol. 8, Academic Questions, 1995.

From net.

Sociobiology : The New Synthesis, Belknap Press, 1978.

First pub. 1975.

On Human Nature, Penguin Books, 2001. First pub. 1978.

Wolpert, Lewis The Unnatural Nature of Science, Faber and Faber, 1993.
First pub. 1992.

Wolski, Kalixt de La Russie Juive, Editions Delacroix, (Modern facsimile,

no date.) First pub. 1887.

Woolf, Leonard After the Deluge : A Study of Communal Psychology, Vol. 1.,
The Hogarth Press, 1931.

Worms, René Organisme et Société, V. Giard & E. Brière, 1895. Taken from
Million Books 18th December 2008.

Yule, G. Udny A Mathematical Theory of Evolution, Based on the Conclusions

of Dr. J. C. Willis, F.R.S, Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London, Series B, Vol. 213, Harrisons and
Sons, Ltd., 1924.

As luck would have it I found myself talking to a young man last night,
15/08/2009, who has been bugging me in the local ale house for years, after not
seeing him for a couple of months. He is very annoying because he wants to talk to
me about my ideas, but yet he doesn’t. I mentioned him in the work as finally going
off after I put him on the spot and tried to demand he actually tell me something for a
change.
Anyway the struggle to find ways to communicate my ideas to him stimulates
my attempts to find concise ways of saying the more unintuitive conceptsI am trying
to put over. The most obvious one is the idea that we do not exist as individuals. This
was the issue last night, and I tried to use my formula whereby I say we are standing
still on a planet while not standing still because the planet is moving. I use this model
because it serves comparison with social conditions that we know have moved on and
therefore, while once controversial, are now mundane. But the trouble is he
deliberatelygets me bogged down in words. I used the word ‘faith’ in a secular sense
and he objected that this had overpowering religious overtones to his mind so I should
not use it when speaking to him . . . idiot. Twat just loves to talk, me I prefer silence.
I was just thinking that if I were a virtuoso pianist and he a piano student then the
equivalent of what he does to me when he implores me to explain my ideas to him,
would be bashing the piano keys in the middle of a demonstration of Mozart or
something, and then grinning ecstatically and nodding to indicate the cleverness of
himself as a pianist ! It really is hopeless trying to talk to the man, but that is pubs for
you. I made him pause for a moment when I asked him how he understands being
stationary when in fact we are not because the planet is moving. He said he knew the
planet was moving because of the stars moving overhead and so on. So I told him
that he could not of said that 2,000 years ago, he would of been killed for doing so.
But once a second or two of silence had passed, the gob opened up again and on he
went, failing to understand triumphantly, while revelling in the brilliance with which
he bashed my keys. If ideas are the architecture of the mind, then people like this
man, who is by far and a way the greatest lover of knowledge I have ever met—if
judged by his desire to talk about my ideas—is a vandal. He loves to get me to
struggle and strain to build a structure, but he never lets me succeed, in truth, we are
always at the point where the first brick must be laid. Talk about Groundhog Day !
But while sorting this work out for posting later on today, last night’s
conversation was replaying, and I was trying to find a more incisive way to explain
how our certainty regarding our own individuality could be made sense of, when
knowing that in reality there is no such thing as an individual person. I decided a
more intimate model would help :a moving train. We know we stand still while
moving if we are on a moving train, so the question is how we think about this
conceptually. Our quandary is that we know, logically speaking, that we cannot be
both stationary and moving, yet we also now that actually, we are doing just this
impossible thing,in the situation described. The logical resolution is to say that when
we board a train we become part of the train, so that we no longer exist, therefore we
cannot be doing anything, standing still or otherwise.
From a scientific point of view this resolution of the logical quandary is real,
for the physicist, I imagine, would treat people as part of the mass of the train for all
calculations of the train’s momentum. Moving back to our real interest then, How do
we live as individuals if we are not individuals ? We are always part of the social
mass, and only the social mass has any independent meaning, so that any meaning we
experience as individuals is only ever a function of the social physiology : we are
never individuals at all.
I must admit that in the end I can only say that humans are a superorganism,
and individuals do not exist. If you want to understand this, then you will, and if you
do not, then you will not.
But this little story perhaps illustrates the very point I am making about the
nonexistence of our individuality. Try as I might I just cannot take possession of
knowledge, as long as someone is willing to stand before me and thwart me, I am lost.
Conversely, if a person will stand before me and become a disciple, then I am made.
Therefore the purpose of expounding ideas must be to gather disciples, not to speak
the truth, and there is nothing anyone can do about this, it is a function of our
nonexistence. We only become through being acknowledged. So we only exist when
we are integrated with others. Truth in society is a function of acknowledgement,
which is why Darwinism is the greatest truth ever created by humans, even though it
is actually the most putrid mess of reasoning anyone could ever wish to find polluting
their mind. Darwinism has this special status because it is an adjunct of religion, and
religion is the corporate identity to which we belong, hence Darwinism is religion in
the true sense of the word religion.