Seeking the White Lie :

The Biology of the One Message

by

Howard Hill

Godless House Posted to Scribd : Wednesday, 19 September 2012

Contents
Introduction 7

Ch.

Beginning
I Attitude II Being God III Professional philosophy IV Why biology of the message ? V Life beyond death

10 12 15 17 18 18

Ch.

The Nature of Knowledge, and its Void

I The test of a free society II Conformity

20 22 26

Ch.

From Origin to Analysis and the Knowledge Antigen

I II III IV Transcendence We all have to think the same The creative power of linguistic force The love of slavery

35 36 36 37 38

Ch. 4

Self-Deception as the Modus Operandi Prerequisite for Human Individuals

I Intuition is a form of consciousness

51 52

PART 2 The Gentlemans Club

Ch. 5 Jolly Fellows
I Playing stupid II Debate III The list IV Atheisms V Killjoys VI An ecological science

55 56 56 58 61 62 63

Ch.

The Books
I Tracing endemic corruption II When is corruption, not corruption ? III Atheist Science Exemplified

67 70 70 71

Ch.

Christmas Lectures
I Mediums of mind II A distraction III Forced connections IV Locating the individual V Connections, connections VI Jingle all the way VII Science as religion VIII Jewish global master authority

75 75 77 79 82 84 91 93 96

Ch.

Psychology, the Study of Personal Polarities

I Christmas Eve deliveries II Others III Language adventures IV Ignorance of human nature long lamented

97 98 98 100 104

Part 3 New Atheism Old Sociology

Ch. 9 Atheisms Values
I Harris II Continental sociologists of the organicist era III Durkheimian duplicity IV A continental sociologist of the immediate post organicist era V A miscreant definition of sociology VI From overt to covert theocracy

123 124 127 128 130 133 135

Ch. 10

Denigrating sociology
I Value of criminals II Labour of love and hate III I reason, therefore I am not IV Delightful delusion

137 140 141 143 144

Ch. 11

The Nature of Information

I Science finds God ! II Life nonlife III I have a dream IV Buzzing V Religion is Information, not Knowledge

150 153 154 159 162 166

Ch. 12

Jews Lead the Way, Treacherously, for Atheism

I Seduction II Internet control III What religion is IV Human nature identified, almost

168 173 176 177 179

Ch. 13

Over-Folding the Lie : Atheisms Self-Treachery

I Atheism is not a belief, nor any kind of faith or religion II Institutionalized bias neutrality III Keeping the lie pure IV A novel mode of early Dawkinesque atheism V Darwinian white lie firmly established VI Open University stuff VII And still more !

186 187 189 190

197

202 204 205

Ch. 14

Why do Viruses Kill ?

I A friendly adage in unfriendly hands II How Religion Made Us III Information

211 213 214 215

Ch. 15

Life
I Being a philosopher II An Atheist Science motto to live by III Life on a loop IV Innate individualism V Everything is a conspiracy

216 217 219 220 222 224

Ch. 16

Dawkins I What is God ? II Unabashed III Atheism apes religion IV War at last ! V Dawkins structural identity VI Arrogant priest VII On Organicism

225 226 228 230 231 233 233 234

Ch. 17

The Existence of Religion is a Window onto our True Biological Nature

I Not to know everything, is not to know nothing II Any old crap, wont do III Humouring atheists IV The joys of antisemitism

239 240 240 242 243

Ch. 18

Time for World War Three

I Imperfect reasoning perfects our world II Veil of lies III The delusion of pathological behaviour IV The long game : Iraq, expenses, and banking V Bliss : the new age of horror

246 248 249 251 253 254

Ch. 19

The Joy of Reading Crap

I A delightfully disgusting book II Herding

256 257 266

Part 4 Science of Linguistic Force

Ch. 20 Linking Linguistic Force to Social Structure
I Problem-reaction-solution II A bout of Bibliophilia

274 281 282

Ch. 21

Physics Applied to Social Form

I Meaning as the measure of linguistic force II Maths meets philosophy III Baeyer IV Shaping consciousness : the bias foundation of meaning

288 291 293 298 303

Ch. 22

Meanings Meaning
I Authority imparts spin to meaning II Einstein lends a hand III None conspiratorial conspiracy IV Schematic for a white lie V Linguistic probabilities

307 309 312 314 318 320

Part 5 When the White Lie was Lost

Ch. 23

Returning to Lecky
I A confession II A fine piece of garbage

324 331 335

Ch. 24

Bending Linguistic Force

I Early emphasis on language as the essence of human sanctity II Comparative sociology

338 339 343

Ch. 25

The System of Truth I Extreme lying

346 346

Ch. 26

Homo sapiens corporalis

I Unity as the essence of superorganic nature II The spiritual of religion, is the information of science III Frictionless structure IV Material-cum-scientific conditions predicate the White Lies form

352 360 363 364 366

Ch. 27

Edging the White Lie

370

Appendix Bibliography

381 382

Mythologizing of expertise Scientific expertise brings with it the power to define reality. As Goode (1969) says, Nothing has greater power today than the demonstration that a given assertion has been scientifically disproven. Our contemporary pawnbrokers of reality are scientists. One way in which science has achieved this power is through the mythologizing of expertise, which credits scientists with access to knowledge denied to ordinary mortals. (Celia Kitzinger, 1987)

Introduction
Free ! at last, Saturday, 13 February 2010, the first day of freedom from the detention centre, a punishment for being criminally unemployed in a slave society that likes its slaves to go to their duties willingly. Now I can begin to reclaim my mind, and start doing work on a more consistent basis. I will now close this work, in the sense that it has been the open portal into which thoughts from the last thirteen weeks have been included. I liked the theme of this work from the outset, and I explained when I began what prompted me to open a piece with this title. However I could not imagine how I might create a piece of sufficient substance to constitute a work bearing the above title. As I have endured my term of attendance I have built up this work from life, while keeping the theme of Seeking the White Lie in my mind, so that I turned many inclusions into an inadvertent expression of this function of the human yearning for knowledge, as I went along. This pleased me at the time, but now I must finish a first reading for the sake of structural correction, then I must read the work for the purpose of completion, making the piece coherent and readable, as far as I can judge this without any readers to correct my self evaluation. The idea of seeking the white lie is a logical extension of the idea set out in How Religion Survived the Coming of the Scientific Age, but the emphasis is distinctly different in an important way. How Religion Survived lays down a base level concerning the nature of society and human life, from which many threads may be spun, as and when they occur to any would be atheist scientist. The idea of seeking the white lie builds upon the base level laid down by assuming the normality of the process whereby society is shown to revolve around the control and management of knowledge, with religion, that is false knowledge, at its core. We argued that science and religion were anathema to one another and science could not exist in a world where religion existed. Hence the existence of science today is an illusion, so much so that we must even regard the most scientific work ever written, the Origin of Species, as a purely religious piece of work. This kind of extreme argument is

difficult to make, if we want it to be taken seriously. But it is correct. It does however require explaining. To this end we dismiss the notion that science is merely the exercise of technical acuity, which is what basing the idea of science on a particular method of interrogating reality makes science out to be, and instead we say science is : the means by which reality is known absolutely. We make the product of the method, not the method itself, the defining attribute of science. It follows that the vast swathe of scientific knowledge, about every aspect of existence, does not amount to one smidgen of science, unless it is synthesised into a body of knowledge that is scientific in its entirety, and explains what the technical detail reveals in a natural and complete manner. This leaves us with an interesting question about how it is possible to produce scientific knowledge in abundance, without ever producing any real science ! It is not as if scientists do not expend a great deal of effort in trying to produce a synthesis of all that science tells them, because they do. But even so, no matter what science we read, when it comes to ultimate mysteries about the nature of their subject, the scientist declares a supreme mystery to be a barrier to their efforts, one they hope will give way in time. Just as a religious priest does in fact. Meanwhile religion rolls on and on, untouched by anything science claims to know. The reason for this uniform failure of scientists to produce science where it really matters, in synthesis, revealing the nature of fundamental aspects of existence important to ourselves, such as the nature of life, the nature of information, or indeed, the nature of humans, is that in doing science, the scientists main aim is to ensure that the culmination of their efforts is never science in its pure form, as knowledge, but only ever science in its technical form, as demonstrated through physical techniques alone. This means that the ultimate goal of all science as science, is the subversion of science and the preservation of religion. This practice is neatly summed up therefore as : seeking the white lie. It is nice to find scepticism about the nature of scientifically qualified expertise, because this is indeed a nasty aspect of our world, used by governments relentlessly, to justify their fascist imposition of laws, to enforce social behaviour that suits the slave making agenda of a fascist theocracy such as we all endure. Laws that are fascistic because they are based on lies, laws against drink driving, laws against smoking, laws against anything that people enjoy, but which our owners say is bad for us because it causes them a loss of productivity and other extraneous costs too, that an efficient farmer would want to curtail. But this kind of recognition displayed by Kitzinger in the passage quoted at the outset, taken from The Social Construction of Lesbianism, 1987, (p. 10), and made in relation to a tricky social subject, is only political, it has no bearing whatever on what we mean by the subversion of science. Our meaning is far deeper, being constitutional, rooted in the very nature of the human animal. The conscious, political manipulation of scientific knowledge, is but the skin-deep reflection of this corporate nature, which we want to examine and discover here, in this work. This said, it does not mean there is not a direct connection between the physiological-subliminal origin of human behaviour, that is always unseen, and the overt manifestation of the same that all may see, and that some even think to take notice of. In addition, there is much more to the meaning of seeking the white lie than is concerned in how the professional priest-scientist makes the Lie possible in a scientific age. The really telling feature of the process of lie making is its pervasiveness. When we read science as atheist scientists, we come to see the corruption in every detail of all the work we examine, imbued into the logic of the people doing the work. But although we may impulsively despise these people as manipulative priests, seeking to glorify themselves, this

is a weak conclusion. The fact of the matter is that anyone we may happen to interrogate, anywhere, from closest family member to the most fleeting stranger, from the most intellectually naive to the most deeply interested, all will display exactly the same bias towards the all pervasive White Lie. And logic tells us this is exactly as it should be, if individuals do not exist, and society is a superorganism created by a linguistic force that delivers One message, to the whole biomass. I have recently begun writing a piece on Linguistic Force and I am currently reading The Nature of Information by Paul Young, 1987, as part of the basis for this work. Freely extrapolating from his discussion has led me to conceive of this pervasiveness of the One message as an expression of Quantum Sociology, because the idea of quantum physics in terms of information, suggests that information within a system exists at all points in the system, all the time. This is exactly what we find regarding the One message of identity in society. Even though the Message comes from a central sourcethe core social authority, the theocracy, Judaismwe are all impregnated with the Message as we grow in life, in a process of acculturation. So the message is part of us. This Message of Identity is the White Lie, and consequently we love the Lie, because the Lie is the very essence of ourselves, it is our self-conscious : we are the Lie that we seek to find everywhere. Sunday, 27 May 2012 I have recently finished Master Race and I need something new to work on when I get up in the morning, I have to do some reading then because that is when my brain is fully charged and fit for following ideas afresh. So I picked a shortcut from the desktop, My Idea, which turned out to be promising, being book length, but that work indicated I had dropped this essay to write it. This essay meanwhile was no longer amongst my current work, so I had to find in on the storage drive. This work indicates that it began life around November 2009, so it is getting on a bit. I think I will take a shot at this piece, it looks ambitious, with a lofty philosophical aim, and as such potentially interesting, if I can make it so, I wonder what its all about ! Wednesday, 13 June 2012 We must note regarding the work Linguistic Force, that keeps being referred to below, that this was never really begun. I checked yesterday and found an essay one page long, so I am not sure why I keep hammering on about it here. Writing such a work is a nice idea, but I evidently never even got it off the ground ; this work seems more suited to such a title, vaguely.

Chapter 1

Beginning

Yesterday, 21/11/2009, I got a leaflet through the post, from the university where I did some evening classes in philosophy a couple of years ago, saying a new round starts in January. Now I have begun publishing my work on Scribd I thought I might attend and see if it does any good this time, in terms of having my work accessible if anyone should be interested in anything I say, and hence in terms of my ability to engage people with my ideas. The declared object of this session is to see how ordinary folk approach philosophy, it is called Doing Philosophy. It proposes to tackle the big questions without emphasising the answers given by philosophys historical figures, particularly. My mind soon began roaming around the subject presented, and I wondered how I would like to begin such a class. The obvious question to begin with, is the one which comes before me all the time, about why we seek false knowledge, the answer being : in order to feel that we are part of the social body. Hence, we do philosophy to seek the white lie, that is : the knowledge that answers our questions in such a way that we can feel good about the realities of our lives, that cannot be faced head on without negating the power for which our mammalian species evolved the power of speech. Which is to attach us to the superorganism mindlessly, thereby creating the will of the superorganism. I explained in my last piece posted to Scribd, that the state obtains its power by imposing laws on us that take authority away from ourselves as individuals, and then giving authority back to us in a modulated form, called the Law, which we must both obey, and call upon when we have need of it. The law is a highly potent, pure expression of linguistic force, acting directly to create superorganic physiology, which is precisely the function that linguistic physiology evolved to enable. Now we are saying that knowledge works in the same way as civil law, relative to the existence of the superorganism. We are denied the power to define knowledge as individuals, just as we are denied the power to define law, as individuals, and then we are obliged to accept what is true, from social authorities that deliver knowledge to us. The state derives its power, not by acting as supreme nice guy, but by acting as supreme delinquent. By first attacking the civil majority and, over a period of many centuries, forcing them to accept its terms and conditions, forever turning the screw of authority extraction ever further, using any means it can to empower the core identity, which ultimately rests upon the Jews, as the master race. The state represents its higher ideals as the hallmark of civilisation, as personified in Christian idealism, based on love and compassion, whereas, in truth, it is merely a manifestation of criminal power pushed to its limit, to view things politically that is. How telling that both the seat of Christianity and the home of the Mafia are features of the same society. Christianity is able to be magnanimous because it represents a highly developed degree of human debasement, where people are so oppressed by the loss of personal authority to a higher, criminal order, that they simply no longer exist, as individuals, in any meaningful sense whatsoever. Christianity is the ultimate debasement of the person, or it was until the master race unleashed Islam upon humanity, and we see what a horror this slave identity is now its power to enslave has been unleashed upon the whole world, by our

masters, by the act of waging world wide war, first conventionally, and now in a diffuse, interminable form. But scientifically speaking, this concentration of power on a criminal elite, that avoids being labelled criminal by establishing itself as the law making bodythe stateis merely how the living human superorganism organizes itself. Of course the state is only a structure pertaining to the absolute theocracy, which is the real, total being of the human superorganism. Human corporate nature means there is no such thing as a human individual, as in the person, so it is befitting that Jewish slave identities should perfect the expression of this reality by capturing the nonexistent individuality in such a way as to make individuality seem the be all and end all of existence, manifested in a commitment to being a slave of Judaism, i.e. primarily, a Christian or a Muslim. We see this theme of authority in matters of knowledge or truth, heavily debated in Harris End of Faith, discussed below, where Harris has no conception of the functionality of the arrangement he deplores, he merely seeks to denounce it. The point is, that our human corporate nature, powered by our linguistic physiology, sets the conditions whereby our attempt to use our intellectual powers for our ourselves, inevitably fails, as the mathematical certainty of numbers of unitary entities, coordinated via a medium of information, such as human language, causes an inevitable coalescence of power in a core hub, because it is of the nature of information that systems utilising it, that is living systems, must be driven toward conformity by virtue of the nature of information, which requires the physical entities it relates to, to respond to a common code in order to make information what it is, i.e. information, that is, a pattern which can be recognised and repeated reliably, time and time again. Which means that, a process of capturing the potential authority of a unit, and returning it in a modulated form, ensures that we will always be obliged to take what is true from society, and not from reality, via our own recognisance. All Harris ends up realising is that Clearly, there is sanity in numbers. (p. 72) Then the idiot goes on to witter about how our particular religious inclinations are mere accidents of history. Give me strength, we are destroying good timber to make space for trash such as this ! This great atheist thinker has not got a clue what the nature of anything is, never mind atheism. If information did not generate order according to a fixed pattern, or reflect order according to a fixed pattern, then the medium of energy driving information would represent chaos. Chaos is a feature of reality, but information cannot be said to create chaos, it can only reflect chaos ; whereas information does more than reflect order, information creates order too, that is what makes information and life synonymous. It becomes clear when we find countless examples of highly trained professional intellectuals, appearing routinely in our civilisation, right down the centuries, from infamous men like Descartes and Darwin, to modern, lesser charlatans, like Harris and Dawkins, that philosophy is a long established art of lie making. An art necessary because religion is the means by which a criminal overlordship, or priesthood, comes to command the force of human nature, derived from the force of language emerging from the evolution of linguistic physiology. This role of religion as the basis of criminal power, manifested in a priesthood, means truth can never be known, and so we have an eternal war between religion and science at the heart of civilisation, just Kidd described in his Social Evolution of 1894. And the war goes on unabated today, where we see that the two world wars and the holocaust were just part of the strategy of war mounted by the priesthood to keep control over knowledge, and hence humanity. Reaching back to the illustrious intellectual deviants of ancient times, we find Plato towering above philosophy, as a man who really had a grip on reality, and showed the world how this knowledge could be sublimely perverted, to ensure it was fully discussed without ever revealing one jot of true knowledge. So it was that whereas we reveal the true nature of

social structure by recognising a triadic structure, delineated by Judaism and its two primary slave identities, Plato chooses to use the analogy of three social orders represented by a hierarchy of valued metals, as in gold, silver and bronze. This is clever, and so it is admired, but it is also a sham, and ultimately reveals nothing, directly, in the way we desire from science, and in a way that defines a free world, a world which has never existed on this earth, because religion is anathema to freedom. Just look at the names we have selected for denouncement here, these are the names of virtual gods of humankind, famed for their brilliance. This indicates a fundamental mechanism to do with fabricating a white lie, the machinery of lie making singles out its high priests, and projects them onto a pedestal of semi divine status. In modern times there is only one such example of a semi divine figure in the world of humanity, and that is Darwin. We might think of Einstein or Newton, or indeed Descartes, as similarly deified figures, but it seems to me, that Darwin stands out as the man whom our theocracy will be worshiping for aeons to come, as it still worships intellectual miscreants of the past such as Plato. The problem with all of these great people is that, no matter how brilliant they may of been, in whatever ways, they were always dedicated to the suppression of the truth, in so far as the truth impacts on the revelation of human nature as a natural phenomenon. It is because this question is of primary importance, that I select Darwin as the supreme deity of our modern absolute theocracy, since the work of men like Einstein is largely isolated from the conflict between science and religion simply because it is not directly concerned with life, and lifes nature.

I Attitude It is important to understand that we are not talking about intelligence here, intelligence has nothing whatsoever to do with the determination of knowledge. We call religion insane, but it is the speciality of the genius to advocate this insanity. We see the work of genius manifested in men whom we have named above, and women like the famous physicist from Poland who worked on radioactive stuff, Marie Curie, but this does nothing to curb their prolific demonstration of unbridled stupidity when it comes to the question of truth applied to the nature of existence, where all want to maintain childish mystery, before anything else. And so, what we are dealing with here is attitude, and nothing else. What sets me apart from all other humans ever to of lived, or living, is my attitude, I just want the truth, and accordingly, I will not accept any authority other than my own. Have there been other humans apart from myself that have demonstrated a similar attitude ? To me the way to answer this question is to ask if there have been any other examples of true science recorded, apart from my own ? I know of none. Feynman is an example of the kind of bloke that strikes me as a man of identical outlook to myself. I read a biography on him called Genius a few years ago. But, as we said of other noted scientific geniuses above, Feynman simply did not concern himself with questions of absolute truth, he never, to my knowledge, strayed into the realms of human nature. Which is a pity, because if he had I would of expected a man of his apparent ruthless fixation on reality, to of come up with the exact same conclusions I have come up with. But the key to this proposition, is not the evident intellectual brilliance of Feynman, but rather his unrelentingly rationalistic, unsentimental attitude, which shows itself in every facet of his life. In his personal life he disdained academic life for the pleasures of sensual living, for which he was castigated by his fellows, who felt he was born with semi

divine gifts, that he had a duty to use to develop the abilities of lesser mortals who longed for his abilities. Also, he did not even bother going to his Dads funeral, for example, showing a fine contempt for the cultural mores of emotional attachment, of which I heartily approve. Thus you see, we are talking about attitudemanifested in the rejection of all authoritynot genius per se. Although, people not so inclined to be independent, are in the habit of identifying the mere expression of independent thought, with the gift of genius. This appearance of intelligence however is a mere artifact of the contrast between people who operate in obedience to whatever is official, and therefore never presume to think for themselves, in any meaningful sense, and those who do think. All of which suggests that anyone can be a genius if they but care to be. However, humans are designed to be part of a crowd, we would not have a corporate nature and would not be the animals we are, if this inclination to act in unison were not the norm. So it is incoherent to discuss the possibility of people displaying genius just by thinking for themselves, since this disposition is inconsistent with the core imperative of human nature. Eccentric individuals are of course functional elements of a large superorganism, but they cannot form the bulk of such a being without compromising the possibility of such a beings existence. And this is why we find the kind of distribution of personalities that we do, that we are discussing here and now. Personality is not personal to the individual. Personality means a variety of individual expression, but its existence is a function of superorganic being, necessary for the complex organisation of superorganic physiology. We might imagine a periodic table of personalities, found in the elements of superorganic being, in the various constitutions of the sentient bricks from which a superorganism is formed, and thereby serving as the foundation for all social compounds, out of which social structure emerges. Feynman is famous for the part he played in the investigation of the space shuttle disaster that was caused by ineffective o-ring seals. He applied his uncompromising attitude to an elucidation of what went wrong, where others tended to be overawed by political considerations, giving us a perfect example of what we mean by independent minded, showing an attitude unencumbered by considerations of a political, social or personal kind. I think I noticed in a book of his a passing comment in which he says that the ancients obviously knew the earth went around the sun ! Superb, this is exactly how I talk all the time, never pussy footing around with a pretence that our ignorance is due to our inability to do better, but rather that it is always compromised by factors of an entirely different kind. Hence we find in Feynman a man who has both the ability to see the real solution to a real question, and the attitude to do so, which basically comes down to an utter contempt for forms of conformity to propriety of a false kind. This is what we are talking about when we speak of attitude being the real factor determining the ability to see what is real, and the failure we find in all the acknowledged geniuses who, alone, have been acknowledged exponents of these questions down the ages. In other words genius is generally used as a confirmation of the incredible mystery of all things, not as a means to reveal the unknown, but as a means to reinforce the stupidity that is the idea of the unknowable. It goes without saying that people like me are ostracised from society, we may perform the excision ourselves in response to the anathematising conditions set up by the establishment causing antagonistic elements to be rejected, while supporting the ever deeper ingress of the conformist into the fabric of conformity. The linguistic force is expressed in the One message that builds social structure by inducting elements in harmony with the message into the fabric of superorganic being, while simultaneously resisting the incorporation of those elements resistant to the message. Therefore this harmony versus resistance equates to the attribute of attitude, relative to the determination of absolute truth versus conformity to the message generated by linguistic force. This means that only true geniuses like Feynman can breach the core and become part of the inner sanctum of corporate

being, even when the person is also born with an instinct to be independently minded. So we have lackies who are always welcome and who may be geniuses, and we have rebels who are always hated to a maximum extreme, but welcome nonetheless when they have unsurpassable gifts. Such gifts are so extremely rare as never to serve as the vehicle of a Trojan horse, introducing aliens into the core of the absolute theocracy, which can therefore only benefit from the eccentric brilliance of the genius, whom we might otherwise think could pose a threat to the social order, so dependant as it is upon mindless stupidity. I think he was a Jew though, and this may account for some of his attitude towards authority, it seems to be a feature of Jewish culture to think you are special and above social authority, we can but speculate. The upshot of this dynamic of conformity and the self cleansing social process that maintains it is that we do not tend to find real antagonists within the upper echelons of message formulation and transmission, which is obviously crucial to the whole idea of One message. So that the apparent antagonists of established order are themselves part of the same order, as we keep saying, they are Gatekeepers appearing in the guise of protagonists, but always acting from the motive force of the One message. The idea of the genius in all of this, is clearly important to the idea of authority. Curiously, there is a programme on ITV now, 30/12/2009 16:23:49, called Lewis, the episode is The Point of Vanishing, about a celebrity atheist attacked by a born again Christian, the series is set in Oxford, of course, and feels like a play on Dawkins position as a strident atheist academic of that university, a programme about these Gatekeepers ! The same characteristic of the atheist argument as we find in Harris work imbues the story line, whereby the atheist bemoans religious imbecility but never thinks to take a scientific view of religion as a biological function of human nature, which obviously can only be done when the thinker realises that they themselves do not exist because the individual is not the end point in human affairs. So that opinions and beliefs are meaningless as ends in themselves to be taken at face value, because they are merely the end point of an individuals authority over knowledge. Whereas knowledge means something more than it means to the individual, so that it is knowledge as the sum of opinions and beliefs that matters. As such knowledge must be treated as an abstract summation taken across a population, not an absolute act of reason on the part of each and every person, which is how critics treat religious ideas. All of this follows logically from the idea of One message beaming out from a core authority, across and into a population. The more we think about this matter in these various ways, the more we must understand that for a mature theocracy like that of the Jews to exist, it must have an ongoing strategy to control knowledge, and this strategy must be established as part of the social fabric, so it must be epitomized by the academic institutions. The existence of such institutions explains the ability of Jewish power to deal even with the staggering potential of modern science, by fabricating Darwinism primarily, and sustaining the imposition for a century and a half. But the real trick concerning this state managed programme controlling knowledge, is warfare, self inflicted warfare, mounted by the nation against itself, as a means of managing the constitution of the biomass, especially at the level of message manufacture and promulgation. Seeking the white lie is a deadly serious business. A genius status is clearly essential to the misrepresentation of brilliance imbued into the deified figure selected by the theocracy for representation as a great thinker, such as Darwin, or even Dawkins, in a lesser degree but according to the same principle ; he is even featured in an episode of a documentary series called Beautiful Minds ! All we can say is that how fickle nature is, how soon beauty can turn to ugliness. In truth social structure is a machine relative to which the individual is a component, so that any tosser can do the most incredible jobs, such being Chancellor of the Exchequer. Doesnt it always amaze you that a politician is selected for these posts, and they are swapped willy-nilly as political expediency

demands ? Such a post sounds incredibly technical, yet it is obvious that no politician ever enters politics on the basis of their professional ability, such as being a professor of economics. Many of them seem to be lawyers and parliament is a law making assembly, but other than this match up, which is a bad thing, because it means that law is made by lawyers make law, whereas people should make lawand that explains a lotso that we never see any tally between their supposed duties and any proclamation of professional knowledge. No, these are front men, and there is no reason why they should even know how to spell their own names, practically, take the last incumbent of the White House for example, George Bush junior. Feynman shows us an example of genius of a contrary kind, displaying the perfect attitude to destroy the One message. But genius is rare, and portrayals of most geniuses indicate mundane personalities are the norm, making geniuses as snivelling as anyone else outside their gifted zone. Rebelliousness is commonplace, but rebelliousness with a high moral purpose is rare, high to the point of negating all social values, negating everything in fact except the value of truth for its own sake, which is not only not a social value, but really the antithesis of social values, where truth is about collective ideas fostering unity, not abstract knowledge of existence. This independent kind of attitude is anathema to society, so it is bound to prove a hindrance rather than a help to anyone seeking to advance their truth agenda in the social structure, where the machinery can be run by any idiot. The ability to build complex machines seems, on this reasoning, to be a natural extension of the need to build exoskeletal structure that can be driven by anyone, just like a car. The era of my entering manhood, the seventies, did see an age of rebelliousness, but this only acted as an invitation to alternative thinkers seeking to impose an alternative complexion to absolute theocracy. The socialists and freethinkers of the seventies were no advocates of truth for truths sake, they were just like any other bunch of priests come would be politicians, and the system let them in as a holding mechanism serving to facilitate the transition from old English life, to the new Muslim way, which is now heavily advanced. So that strict religious figures committed to capitalist values are the only kind of politicians we have now. Today it was announced that Gordon Brown would give a New Year speech denouncing the threat of a decade in which the rich and powerful entrench themselves while the rest of us suffer. I wonder, will he begin by reminding us that over the course of a decade the socialists have moved Heaven and Earth to foster an all powerful, grossly enriched elite, at the expense of the people, such that the Tories can but sit and wonder how it is that they were not the ones in power, striving to create this divided society, since it is their declared objective to crush the slaves, and empower the pigs ? How people still get away with speaking of a democracy in this society buggers me completely, you may as well talk of the planet Mars as a Garden of Eden.

II Being God The one thing that humanity does not ask questions about reality for, is to seek the truth, even though this is the very thing we say is the reason for which we ask our questions. All liars say they love the truth above all else, obviously ! We get around the difficulties inherent in this contradiction by making our individuality the unspoken end in itself, so that the logic of individuality is imbued into the logic of our language. Hence we might talk about our beliefs, as if we individuals had some kind of absolute authority in matters of knowledge, derived purely from the existence of our personal beings !! This is sheer,

unbridled insanity. Who gives a toss what any person believes ? What has the existence of such individual ideas got to do with anything, where reality is concerned, or truth ? Yet a primary principle of our lives is a respect for the opinions of others. The reason this stupidity is a core principle of social life, is that it prevents the individual challenging the core authority coming from the priesthood, because it makes confusion reign everywhere, except where social power can stamp its authority on a single body of knowledge, posing as truth on the basis of social power. Accordingly we make our opinions into a kind of sacred right, whereby no one may put their opinions above anyone elses, and all must respect everyone elses opinion. This treatment of opinions as being in effect sacred, makes opinion about secular matters equivalent to religious beliefs, and thereby gives nonsense in the secular world the same status as the nonsense we are familiar with in religion. Because I have found the true key to all knowledge, and I alone talk of reality in terms of this key, I am the only person on earth who can give valid answers to any questions of interest to people, so I am as close to being God as anyone could ever hope to be. If anyone wants knowledge they must come to me. I sometimes put this idea into what I write, and I sometimes communicate it to people directly. Imagine having someone tell you that they had the answer to all questions, that they alone could tell you anything you wanted to know. The joy anyone would have upon meeting such a special person, you can imagine it cant you, just think about how you feel about what I am saying about myself, now. People cut me dead. To say you know everything is an arrogance beyond the pale, and meeting such a person is such an affront to oneself, that, when it is someone as intense as me, you do the one thing you can, you just go into a deep silence of total rejection. What we learn from this reaction, is that the sense of personal authority is deeply imbedded in the individual psyche. And yet, the peculiar thing is, that individuals do not feel authority in themselves, ever, they seek an authority figure that makes them feel empowered in society, and they make this persons ideas the personification of their own power. In other words, there is an instinctive urge to seek a focal point of social authority centred about a body of ideas, or knowledge, from whence an individual derives their personal power base in life. In this way arrogance is earthed to social structure and can be espoused with gay abandon by anyone, about anything. Thus when an individual baulks at someone who implicitly denies their own personal authority, they are not defending their own arrogant presumptions, they are treating knowledge as exactly the biological phenomenon that it is, as the basis of social power. They are rejecting a person who is in effect telling them that they cannot choose to follow a particular set of ideas that suits them, for whatever reasons. This realisation about the nature of peoples relationship to the idea of personal beliefs, teaches us that a definite effort has to be made to be clear about what the knowledge is that we deal with here. We are only concerned with absolute truth, which has no personal value whatsoever, and belongs equally to all. The dilemma arises because the work of society is to ensure that this true knowledge can never exist, so our place in society means that we all have a vested interest in ensuring that the ideal of perfect ignorance is maintained by making sure knowledge is vested in the individual, and can never be determined by any one person, who can ever have any more authority than any other one person. Meaning that only an organized body can have a pretence of true knowledge, to which people can then subscribe if they choose, and be socially empowered thereby, and lend their weight of opinion, which they could not do if we did not give opinion weight in the first place. Finding true answers can only be done by a lone seeker after truth, and then upon finding the answer, we find we alone possess the answer to all the questions everyone ever

asks, or can ask. But when we try to give the answer, we find a solid system of rejection in place. Which is all exactly as it should be, because humans do not seek the truth when they seek knowledge, we seek the white lie of social being. We are not ranting on about bizarre ideas, we are promoting main stream science that has been erased from society, but which still will not die off in the mainstream, in some form, because it is real. The real justification for our campaigns boastfulness is that we have no voice, if people would discuss the idea of the superorganic nature of humans, then our job would be done, it is all we want, and all that science needs in order to be free, to exist. Tuesday, 29 May 2012 I had the benefit of some input into my world from an academic recently, who sent me a few essays. The thrust of my criticism of the academics who wrote these interesting, relevant pieces of work, was that they had no idea what the nature of the world is that we live in. They wrote as if they were dealing with an open and honest society in which all intellectuals were striving to obtain the truth, and represent it honestly and without any form of bias, conscious or unwitting. Which is utterly ludicrous, it is like a business man acting as if everyone is incapable of being dishonest ! They would be living in a dream world in which they could not exist. Academics are constrained by the taboo identified above in connection with the voicing of opinions, whereby we are obliged to treat everyone as equals. Thus an academic cannot treat the work of earlier periods of history as if it were a kind of conspiracy by the powers that be, representing the age of conflict over knowledge, as between religion and science. And this handicap makes it impossible for any academic to do proper work of any kind, for the one thing that matters, that we do not live in a free world, is something they cannot make central to their approach. However, unlike the businessman, being thus handicapped is a prerequisite of being able to survive in the intellectual world, because that is how power over knowledge is organized.

III Professional philosophy The principle of professional philosophy, reflects this sacred nature of opinion, only on the wider scale of knowledge itself. In professional philosophy the object is not to find the one true answer, but rather to ensure that no one can find the one true answer. The professional is there simply to examine the answers offered. For absolute answers to questions we must turn to science, and science has been so constrained as to ensure it cannot make the questions of central importance to humans part of its remit, because science is constrained to deal with physically manipulable entities, and not linguistic products such as beliefs. Professional philosophers do enter the game of knowledge creation, Harris End of Faith is an example, and his fellow philosopher Peter Singer became famous by writing on animal rights issues, and has produced a recent work on ethics in politics, looking at the ethics of the last President of America, George Bush. But these are not scientific works, they are the professional equivalent of an individual opinion, and as such they have no more validity than an opinion, other than that the authors can claim to have the, considerable benefits, of devoting their time to the cultivation of their opinions. They make no direct pretence to offer absolute truth, and when examined by professional philosophers their arguments will be analysed for their logical consistency and such like linguistic attributes, not for their scientific veracity, of which they have none. But what follows from this knowledge creation process is that these academics are professional opinion creators, for their opinions

will be affiliated with particular political bents, and they will have associated supporters who will adopt these professionally produced opinions and make them their own. None of this can happen if scientists are allowed to enter into the domain of social life, as can be seen by the way we handle social issues from a naturalistic perspective that nullifies any notions of individuality as an end in itself.

IV Why biology of the message ? The reason our search for truth is really a search for the white lie is that we do not existas ends in ourselves. Therefore when we seek knowledge, we act collectively, and we accept the formula worked out by the high priests over the generations, in whatever form these priests may appear, providing a formula that is programmed into us in the form of our cultural inheritance. Clearly then, the idea that the search for knowledge is a search for an accommodation between our self awareness and the place we evolved to occupy as a functional unit within a growing organism, means that this search for knowledge is a biological process conducted by the human superorganism to serve its own ends as the object of human existence, to induct us, its unitary elements, into its structure. Hence what we see as a search for knowledge serving our own ends, is really a biological process shaping the One message which induces unity amongst ourselves in the shape of an integrated superorganic beings physiology. This is why we have the title of this essay in the form found above.

V Life beyond death Because of the quite natural difficulties of trying to run contrary to the instinctive resistance to allowing anyone to profess the truth, unless they are an acknowledged priest of one persuasion or another, the true truth teller must accept that communication with the people of the world they inhabit is futile. However, in my case, I find myself living at the dawn of a new age of information which cracked open just this year, as far as I am concerned, with the coming maturity of the internet as a fully fledged information highway. For most people this has meant they can live their personal lives online, through services such a Facebook, Twitter and so on, things I have no desire to know anything about. But Scribd opens up the possibility of my communicating with people who do not exist, yet, people who may be open to the ideas of a dead man, that they would find intolerable in one who is amongst them. And since I find myself immersed in the ideas of dead men myself, I see it is befitting what I do that I should see my efforts as being directed at those who are to come, without any interest being felt for those I am amongst. Although it is alien to our experience or ideas of life, this notion of writing for people of an age to come, maybe thousands of years hence, is perfectly in keeping with the realisation that we do not exist, as ends in ourselves. And the fact is that many aspects of our culture utilise this scientific reality, usually in the name of a higher corporate being such as the state or a divine being. And I can assure you I feel far more satisfaction in addressing myself to an unknown future of intelligent beings, than I do at the thought of addressing myself to my fellow humans alive today, although I cannot help but hanker after an

affirmation of what I know is true now, by people who are alive, as it would just be nice to think there might be decent humans on this planet now, people worthy of the name human, even though there is no reason whatsoever to think so.

Chapter 2

The Nature of Knowledge, and its Void

Knowledge exists as part of the human animals physiological being. Knowledge has a strictly biological function. The function of knowledge is to bind the human organism into a living biomass, composed of individuals, subject to One unifying message. The realisation of this organic function has two polar directives. The One message must be delivered ; the One message must be protected. Knowledge has no meaning to us sentient beings, relative to the Message, we are the object to be controlled by knowledge, acting in its capacity as an information flux, creating living tissue in the form of a superorganism. Our individual form evolved to fulfil the function of responding appropriately to the Message that is itself generated by our linguistic physiology, so that we soak up the message as efficiently as red blood corpuscles take up oxygen. Hungrily we look for the Message. We must have the Message. Just as blood cells must have the oxygen that they have evolved to access. When we speak of linguistic physiology we must not be simplistic, the mechanics of speech are the equivalent of the keyboard on a computer. The real powerhouse of speech physiology is the brain, just as the powerhouse of the computer is its fancy electronic hardware, the chips and drives, along with their associated interconnective electronics. The brain obviously appears in many animals and has many functions, but in humans the mammalian brain is the organ of distinction, and the primary reason for its uniquely human developments have to do with the need to create an efficient mechanism of One message production and management, as the basis of creating a true mammalian superorganism. The unifying, bonding function of knowledge, means that the Message must be uniform. This uniformity does not exist outside the body of the human animal, as oxygen does, as a feature of universal existence just waiting to be absorbed, the Message is part of the human animal, it does not exist apart from the human animal. The human animal must evolve the Message as part of its life story. The Message is integral to the structure of the animals body that creates the Message. There is, in other words, an interdependent feedback loop operating between the knowledge that creates the human animal, and the body of the animal that creates, protects, and delivers the Message, in the same way there is an interdependent feedback loop between the words on a page and the message the words deliver. The Message consists of the words, by means of which the human animal is turned into the Message. Just as a book is composed of the message it delivers, so that the book must be written in a manner that composes the message that is the book. When elaborating the analogy of the superorganism to a book, it must be understood that the superorganism is self-creating on the basis of its species genome. The genome is the author of the book of superorganic being, which is literally the Jewish identity programme, in our world. Thus we have stated that knowledge has certain requirements if it is to fulfil its biological purpose of acting as a binding force in human society. The specific form

knowledge takes must therefore be dictated by the need to fulfil this function, and this function is identical with the form of the society that knowledge creates. Hence it is to the physiology of the human superorganism that we must look in order to observe the manner in which knowledge is shaped, protected, and delivered. To this end we need to think of the social structures related to knowledge, as in churches, schools, media, government and public services of all kinds, not forgetting the economic and developmental systems that harness social power, enabling these core institutions to exist. Thursday, 31 May 2012 Over the last couple of days I have been reading Hugh Dohertys Organic Philosophy, 1874, volume four, book one. The last section on relational classes was a seemingly pointless mechanical elaboration of the social structure, merely saying how wonderful society is, but which reminds me of this argument I formed a few years ago pointing our how the message creates social structure in conformity to itself, so that Dohertys account describes this state of affairs. But for Doherty instead of the unifying idea of a linguistic message, there is the spiritual message from God, hence his approval of society as it is under a Christian dispensation. This makes his ideas completely useless, yet because he uses the correct scientific model of society as an extension of nature, he manages to outline a pretty good model of superorganic being. Only instead of our detached interpretation his interpretation is all about vindicating the Christian message of divinity, and perfection under God that is to come. This of course makes it impossible for him to understand the true nature of religion, and to see that it is Judaism that is the basis of social development, and the perfection that is to come in the shape of unity is biological, not divine. Hence his religious skew invalidates all that his ideas have to offer. Dohertys ideas indicate how the modern Jewish message conforms so perfectly to the actual requirements of human corporate nature expressed through the medium of linguistic force. But his ideas, like Judaism, are part of the message, part of the superorganism, part of nature, not a description of the same. ___

There have been a couple of recent news stories of special interest to us with regard to the nature of science, which is of especial interest to us as we examine the theme of knowledge as a natural phenomenon, because we are seeking to reveal science, whereas the being that we are part of exists to ensure that this revelation can never be. Yesterday, 06/12/2009, there was a discussion conducted on a BBC national radio station concerning the subject of science in society, in the light of a recent and ongoing furore over corruption in science. The subject is global warming, the issue involves a pool of emails maliciously released from a university repository, casting doubt upon the integrity of scientists who have played a leading part in arguing that global warming is taking place. Two interesting snippets caught my attention that I would like to mention. Firstly, someone remarked that it could not be true that four or five thousand scientists all worked to deceive the world. The other remark came from a leading scientist in the studio, who said that science does not deliver universal knowledge. The question of mass deception is of great interest. We have already stated a couple of primary factors that have to be born in mind with respect to knowledge. We do not exist as ends in ourselves ; and knowledge is a message having the biological function of binding us together as units of superorganic being, into the physiology of the superorganism. The Message is therefore constructed by a highly specialised and exclusive segment of superorganic physiology, which incorporates a highly exclusive, tiny portion of the biomass, to be programmed intensely with the resulting formulation. In other words there is

a feedback loop acting within the limits of the core authority, to create the core authority and the message it delivers to the prone biomass. So the message creates the unified elite, and the unified elite sustain the message. This exclusive portion of the biomass then acts as a priesthood, operating as guardians of the Message created by the superorganism over the course of millennia, acting at the behest of its genomes linguistic potential. Any adjustments to the Message can only be made by members of the priesthood, and all communication between the priesthood and the biomass has to be one-way only. The priesthood cannot receive message content from outside itself. The priesthood delivers the Message, and no one can make contributions to the Message, or influence it in anyway, unless they are part of the priesthood. I noted a passage in something of Bertrand Russells recently, where he said that as a matter of general consideration, a professional academic was always going to be more sound in any area of speculation than any layperson could ever hope to be. This says it all. Thursday, 31 May 2012 I am currently operating under the hope of changing this dynamic, thanks to the Canadian academic taking an interest in my work, but how far that can go remains to be seen. If I should breach the protective membrane of status about the inner sanctum of academia, causing ideas to flow from the biomass into the priesthood, this will not invalidate the general principles of knowledge management outlined above, it will merely indicate how change can happen under certain very specific circumstances. And I will still have to appeal to the academics for their favour, I will not become them.

I The test of a free society On the face of it of course, Russells adage is beyond question, except, there is just one point of consideration that needs to be dealt with that always goes by the board with these miscreant priests whose only objective is to serve the absolute theocracy we live in, by lying to the masses. Do we live in a free society ? Because, what Russells proclamation about the scientists superiority implies, is that we do live in a free society. Because only within a society constituted upon the basis of perfect freedom between all individuals, could his claim for scientists be true. If any degree of imbalance exists in the degree of freedom available to anyone, then this must impart bias to the system. We are of course concerned with the system of knowledge generation here, not the social system in any wider sense, however when we speak of freedom we are obliged to examine the social system in general in order to evaluate the nature of freedom relative to knowledge creation. If it can be shown that a person such as the billionaire Richard Branson has more freedom to express himself in ways that can influence the generation of public knowledge than the detainees in the unemployment detention centre with me now, then we have proven that freedom to create knowledge does not exist in society, and hence science is not without a core of corruption. Any alternative assumption would require that the assumption Russell makes for scientists, must be extended to all those with the power to influence knowledge creation, such as the churches involved in education, and that these religious gangs would have to be assumed to be committed to truth above all else. The fact is, that Russells idea is only reasonable at the most pathetic level of consideration, as with the idea that thousands of scientists cannot be part of an attempt to pervert knowledge. These ideas are simply the blabberings of people who are defending the system, just as Russell was, when our system is so corrupt as to be utterly contemptible, as can be seen from the respect it affords to religion as being valid in terms of true knowledge.

The only other point we might mention, is that the ideal, which is no doubt claimed for all varieties of authority, is that science is independent of any outside influences. But this is pure nonsense, for this to be true science would have to constitute a parallel social system with its own government, tax raising powers, schools programme and so on. So if the above argument about freedom as the key to understanding that scientists are not automatically superior to laymen is a little weak, it does not take much to build up its strength. A fundamental concept of atheist science which views the human animal as a superorganism, and not as the person, in relation to knowledge formation, is that of the pivot of perception. We can spend forever elaborating descriptions of the contrasts between the conditions of social life that impact on the integrity of scientists, but the crux of the matter comes down to the core principle, the pivot of perception from which reality is interpreted. All these arguments pertaining to the vindication of scientific veracity, rely upon the idea of authority vested in the individual, which is why a person may assert that the idea of a whole collection of scientists being prepared to cooperate in a deception, is absurd. We must agree with this entirely, but then we must deny the validity of the principle upon which this idea of integrity in numbers is based. Our point is that there is no such thing as an individual, so that the whole point of our individuality, such as it is, is to allow us to be drawn into collective mindsets. Our individuality is a state of consciousness programmed into us by a core authority of linguistic control. We think in terms of integrity in numbers being derived from the individuality of the person, whereas the exact opposite dynamic applies when there is no individuality as an end in itself. So that any collection of individuals automatically implies a uniformity of ideas derived from some source not originally belonging to any of the individuals forming the group. So that all individuals, to be part of any given group, must also be part of any bias inherent in the formation of the group. Indeed it is the induction of bias through the expression of linguistic force that creates social structure. This does not automatically imply false knowledge is the product of such bias, for a group could be bias towards true knowledge relative to the biomass they are part of. However, the whole point of linguistic capacity evolving in mammals is to create superorganic physiology, which means bias with a physiological purpose that we experience as group structure. This principle applies to all groups of course, the individuals of which the groups are composed must be inducted into the groups defining qualities, whereby they derive a quotient of personal identity, such as that of being a scientist. Although this quotient of personal identity is nothing of the kind, obviously. At the most superficial level Russells point is valid, scientists are trained in knowledge that makes their evaluations superior to the layperson. But at a deeper level, where higher degrees of truth are concerned, the exact opposite determinant comes into play, because the scientist is constrained by the groups defining qualities, whereas a lone individual can cross boundaries imposed on those carrying the identity scientist as part of their identity makeup, boundaries that are set by the theocracy in which we all live. Individual integrity is not the issue in terms of a broad concept such as global warming, and the opposite assertion is a political tactic that exploits the apparent overt indiscretion of some scientists relative to the broad issue. Russells generalisation about scientists is not linked to any specific scientific idea, but there is the ever present political dimension, where knowledge is concerned, of religion. The conflict seen over the global warming issue is indicative of the true nature of science in society, it is inescapably part of a political agenda. All of which considerations show how pathetic the great Bertrand Russell was as a philosopher of truth, though he was a superb Gatekeeper for the theocracy. We could get embroiled in a discussion of the nature of freedom very easily. We will however avoid this by stating that freedom does not exist, and cannot, freedom can only ever

have a relative meaning because there is no such thing as the object of freedom which is implicit in the word freedom, the individual that is. Hence when we do use the term freedom in an absolute sense, as we do now, we have a very specific test of freedom in mind. The test of a free society is whether or not we have free access to knowledge, that is it, that is all of it, and that is the end of it. And the answer is, that no society can ever have free access to knowledge, for such freedom would negate the functional purpose of knowledge as a medium of superorganic bonding, that directs the units of superorganic being to act in a predetermined manner, on mass. If we know why we do the things we do, which is in order to serve an unwitting purpose at the core of society, such as delivering all the earth into the hands of the Jews, we would be disgusted with ourselves, and we would refuse to act as we must, according to the dictates of the ruling Message, which is Judaism. As it is, we believe the machinations of war, terror and political venom ; we believe we have real enemies in the likes of the Nazi or the Muslim terrorists, and so on. So, like lambs to the slaughter, we march off to our own destruction, gleefully, never realising that the whole point of the entire exercise is our own destruction!so that we can be manipulated and managed as elements of superorganic fabric. So, when it comes to Russells self righteous, arrogant proclamation, which is superficially beyond question, we find it to be just another facet of the deception, part of the One message teaching us to accept our worthlessness as individuals, and our dependence upon the expert, trained in knowledge. But the truth is that the countless thousands and millions of professional deceivers are not engaged in an act of collaborative deception, they are all acting as unitary elements of a superorganic whole. The purpose of elite structure in society is to build and maintain the Message. The act of deception only concerns the ordering of the knowledge which will be made sacred, as in the creation of Darwinian science. Once the machinery of knowledge manufacture has fabricated a portion of the Message, such as Darwinism, the job is finished, the establishment then acts as guardian of the Message, it delivers the Message, and will tolerate nothing but the Message, or anything that in any way contradicts the Message. So the induction of the academic elite into the role of academic, is all about creating a priesthood dedicated to the guardianship of the Message. Obviously, for this process to work the professionals do have to be intelligent and expert in technical skills relevant to their specialities, which does make the detection of the deception at the core of academia extremely difficult, given that none of the professionals themselves would ever compromise their own set up. The sociologist Stanislav Andreski gives us a twist whereby he appears to seek to reveal the terribly flawed nature of sociology back in the seventies, when the world knew sociology was trash knowledge, which was inevitable because of the destruction of true sociology by the two world cleansings of 191418 and 1939-45 left sociology stripped of any rational basis, and struggling to make sense of itself as a sham science. At this time an overt protagonist of the system was necessary to serve as a voice for all those who could see the sham, so a man like Andreski, who never broke step with the Message, beyond mere superficiality, stepped in as a Gatekeeper. Time has moved on, the generations who knew the fraud had taken place because they were of an older generation from before the cleansings, are dead and gone, and the new slave identity vested in the Muslim Jewish slave implant, is now deeply imbedded in our collective flesh, so that religion is now unassailably in the ascendant over all aspects of our world once again, and no one alive today has the faintest idea what science is anymore, seeing it as nothing more than a matter of technical expertise carried out by soulless technicians. Atheist science of course is a real enemy of the Message, so we do know what reality is, but who are we, in this world ?

When we talk like this about how academia works we are not describing something that is not seen, we are describing something that everyone sees and knows, but we are looking at the same reality from an entirely different point of view to that which people assume is correct. Academics are trained in knowledge, they then preserve it and teach it, which is all we have said. But the idea is supposed to be that each academic acts as an end in themselves, and knows the knowledge they dish out is true. This is not so. The academic may know more about the knowledge they deal in than the rest of us ever can, but, in the end, the academic is as hopelessly lost as any of us are, in terms of knowing whether the bedrock of their science is real or not. We must take everything on faith, whereas the academic must take the basis of everything on faith. In this way knowledge of reality is controlled by levering knowledge away from the masses by a series of knowledge levels, the same principle of separation is used in religion, in mythology, in so-called secret society lore, and today it is used in science. The priest must take the basis of their science on faith. So it is that when science was being made the key foundation stones of sciences subversion were laid, namely Darwinism, and long before that Baconism, asserting that science must deal only with manipulable elements of reality. From the mid nineteenth century on the scientists have delivered the Message of Darwin as faithfully as the slaves of Judaism, who came to the fore after the Roman slaves of Judaism exterminated the none Jewish, Druidic priesthood, have delivered the Christian slave Message mindlessly, ruthlessly and relentlessly, for the last two millennia. There is therefore, in the end, not one iota of difference between science as we have it, and religion as it has always been, as in the servant of social authority. Last night, 8/12/2009, on The One Show, BBC 1, they did an interesting little slot on our personal psychology. Because we are now well into the shopping craze of Christmas, they did a piece on how we can be manipulated by sales techniques based on psychology. First we were shown how we favour things on our left rather than our right, because we read from left to right, and we choose the things we see first. Then we were shown how we favour candles smelling of Christmas, rather than others smelling of summer, at this season. Then the best experiment involved wine tasting, where German and French wine was offered as a taster in an off-licence, where music of the respective nations was being played over the stores audio system. People favoured the wine according to the music playing. The guest psychologist said this was because we like harmony and consistency, so that the wine we prefer depends upon the music we are listening to ! The presenter of this slot concluded by saying that when we are shopping we should be careful that the choices we are making are our own choices, and not those of the vendors. But had he been more honest, he would of told us that we do not exist, only the superorganism exists, and we are always inclined to take our decision making cues from the Message informing the structure of the superorganisms physiology, and these little examples offered a fun demonstration of a far more serious feature of our true nature. So, for example, in my local paper today, 9/12/2009, there is a piece on how the Christian lobby fixed the continuity of the fanatically Christian nature of the member of parliament who will represent our constituency for the next quarter century, exactly as it has been fronted by a Christian fanatic for the last thirty or so years. At the selection process the candidate, a lawyer, called on all the local churches to send out people to vote for her. This is how the programming of Christians keeps Judaism at the core of our slave societys reason for existence, exactly as in America, and no doubt all the other Jewish slave nations on earth. This is what our masters call democracy ! It is what we call slavery, working at the behest of superorganic physiology.

II Conformity

We are all free to disagree in the same way, to an infinite degree ; but we are not free to disagree differently, at all. Last night, 9/12/2009, on BBC 2, a Horizon programme presented by David Attenborough asked How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth ? I did not watch it through, but the final statement was the best bit I saw. He said that he knew this programme could be seen as depressing, as it proclaimed humanity faced a future of burgeoning population, combined with diminishing resources. However, he went on, humans are different to other animals, we can make choices ; we are rational ; we have reasoning powers. If in half a centurys time the mess comes that his film predicts, he said, our children will ask of us, How, if we saw it coming, we could just sit back and do nothing about it ? In terms of an answer we might give to this question, the problem is encapsulated in this movie, which was all talk and no truth, all platitudes, and no reality. It was a political message, not a scientific package. Humans are just like any other animal, humans have no more power to reason than a dead ratin the sense that this programme deals with, where we seek to understand our impact in totality. If we were reasoning truly, our first ideas would concern our superorganic nature, and the core motivation imbued into the mindless body of Judaism, which drives relentlessly toward global domination by any means possible, regardless of all considerations outside the remit of the identity programme established millennia ago. Crucially, for Judaism global warming is meaningless, there is only one imperativesurvive and persist, thrive and grow. This is our problem ! And we are completely oblivious to it. And what is more, there is nothing we can do to wake ourselves from this nightmare, as this programme showed more than amply just by showing how we continue to act as we always have in regard to all aspects of our life as it has developed over the last two centuries, which are characterised by empowerment seen in terms of material luxury for the masses, rather than, for example, knowledge for everyone. The first thing we are likely to imagine after making this observation about the Jews motive force, is that it can do the Jews no good if the world is decimated by ecological mayhem. Wrong ! That is the whole point, why else would we have manic idiots in charge of Jewish slave nations like America and the upcoming China, pushing us relentlessly toward the cliff edge of global catastrophe if in reality the master race, for whom we all exist, was not benefitted by such a strategy ? It would not happen. Once we understand that humans are a superorganic species within which the Jews constitute the master organ of our global superorganic being, it is a simple matter to understand that a deluge scenario such as that recounted in the myth of Noahs flood, is a primary mechanism of Jewish culture. Warfare and economic meltdown are two regularly occurring modes in which Noahs mechanism manifests itself. But of course the actual model used by the Biblical mythology, is probably derived from lessons in reality from the early times of the master identitys origins in the Mesopotamian gulf regions, creating the original message naming this mechanism, which is suitably evoked by the notion of global warming. Thus, rather than pull back from such global catastrophe, it is in the interests of the master race to drive us over the edge, for they know that come hell or high water, their culture is evolved to survive and persist, and when the world recovers, however long it takes, it is the Jews that will be there to see that the world is repopulated with themselves, and the slaves made in their image, after having been

cleansed, once again, for the umpteenth time, by disaster caused by the Jews themselves, acting as the motive imperator of our mindless collective lives. Speaking to my thirteen year old nephew Samuel last weekend, he slagged off my beaten up old motor, and said that he would bet all on the fact that in ten years time, he would be turning up at the house in a Ferrari. I asked if he thought such a car would of got him from my home to my mothers any faster, and he said No, but people would be looking at him in admiration. And that is how we live, as we have always lived, mindlessly, without thought or wisdom, driven by the social impulse to conform to core values, imposed upon us by the system we are part of. We drive ourselves relentlessly forward on the basis of material prowess, we care nothing for any other values, because this is the core nature of our superorganic being, and we are powerless to do anything about it. Only one thing can stop us, and that is death, and it will, the world ecological fabric will collapse, and we will deflate with a vengeance, emulating the Biblical records of the flood. This is the moment our masters are waiting for ; not consciously, the disposition is built into their cultural programme. Our demise therefore, is the moment of release for the catapult launching the Jews onto their next great sweep of reformation. The Jews will rise again like the phoenix from the ashes, but the rest of us, will be gone forever. With the planet cleansed like never before, the whole planet will be the Jews oyster this time. And now the Jews have the state of Israel established for the first time ever, awaiting the cleansing of the world that will unleash the potential of this great bounty, delivered by the greatest ever hero of the Jews, Adolf Hitler. So that the world will then be repopulated from scratch, by Jews. This is part of the Jewish cultural plan, it is no secret, this is how Judaism has come to rule the world. The Jews determine our self destructive behaviour because they farm us, and they are programmed by their identity implant to drive us to destruction, because this is how they come to own us. Of course they can only do this as effectively as they do because we have become parasitized by Jewish slave identities in the form of Christianity and Islam, which we are so stupid as to think of as our own identities. But behind this attachment to obscene ideas is the fact that the Jewish identity is associated with a powerful culture that makes those attached to it extremely powerful as individuals, and that personal empowerment is what my nephew was expressing, and it is why we are trained to be avaricious for wealth, but careless of knowledge. All of which makes it inevitable that we will be driven over the edge of calamity, upon which the prowess of Jews depends. If we could establish a stable society Judaism would be rendered stone dead, stability is anathema to Judaism, obviously, which is why we, their slaves, value change, as in progress, as a sacred benefit. Boy are we pathetic or what !! It follows that if you want to make a programme based on science, that looks at what humans are, and asks about the sustainability of humans on earth, it is this superorganic dynamic that must come to the fore. And that will never happen. The problem is that because we live by religion, the Jews are our masters. The Jews, in whatever form, take all the day to day decisions that matter, and we take no decisions informed by reason, of the kind Attenborough spoke of last night, because we do not have power over the economic fabric, the machinery of government. We see from the preceding discussion how the Jews keep control of our political machinery by placing slaves of Judaism in power, by using the machinery of the church, as with my local MP. And these people are driven by an identity programme, any other considerations are meaningless to them. This is how our life systems work. The question as to how many people can live on earth implies reaching a stable population, but we have just seen that as a Jewish superorganism stability cannot be tolerated, there must be growth followed by collapse so that a core master organ can be built up, preserved, and reinforced.

While religious freaks would object to the way atheist science talks about them, the truth is that we are not saying anything about the Jews that they do not say about themselves. The Jews recount the story of the cleansing of humanity and the remaking of the world in the story of Noahs Ark, and we have just recounted the same story, only we have given it a naturalistic tone based upon the principle of human corporate nature, that develops by undergoing rounds of relentless expansion, interspersed with devastation. Where, on each occasion of deflation, a seed-like core of social being is preserved, each more empowered than the last seed to set, being more widespread. The power of Judaism does not come from nowhere, it comes from its accurate rendition of the true nature of human corporate nature. Viewed on this basis Jewish mythology is awesomely fine, and to be admired as a human expression of the natural phenomenon that is human nature. But the question is somewhat different if we are part of the sacrifice, and we see it coming, so that we squirm, and wonder why, and why we can do nothing about it. Then Judaism looks like what it is, which is monstrous ! Anti-Semitism does not exist for nothing, it is there to protect Jews from the realisation of what Judaism really is : a parasitic culture, which our forbears have recognised as such, time and time again. But, just like ourselves, it did them no good either, because the Jewish slave culture induces an anti-Jew within the slave biomass to take the sting out of the realisation, and make the world pay for denouncing the Jews, in a process personified by the Nazi manifestation of the consequences of our waking up to our Jewish slave status. The anti-Jew mechanism is a permanent feature of our slave social structure. It emerges spontaneously as soon as it is needed, we see its simmering presence in relation to all core elements of social power, homosexuality and Islam being two prominent examples of the anti-master dynamic at the moment, currently basking in the superior group status of having their own official anti-figures backed by state force, making homophobia and Islamophobia serious criminal offences. I have a comical refrain whereby I say that my greatest desire is to pay 500,000 tax a year, as a counterblast to the degenerates who moan about paying higher tax levels. What I am driving at in an arse about face way, is that only staggeringly wealthy people have huge tax bills, so that expressing a desire to pay huge amounts of tax is a way of saying you want to be obscenely rich, but in such a way as to highlight the obscenity of rich peoples arrogance. The same logic may be applied here, we might wish that we were part of a specially despised category I wish I was part of an exclusive minority for which the mass of people had a pathological hatred. sort of thing, that had, as a consequence, found itself placed in the driving seat of national life, so that laws were made to give these outsiders special protection from society at large, transforming these outsiders into a highly privileged class, with extraordinary power to abuse and exploit the machinery of the society which hates them. And of course we see queers working the law all the time, which has resulted in the most grotesque outcomes, where men marry men, and a truly evil phenomenon of queer couples having children to raise, a more vile parody of real life could not be imagined. I am of course not homophobic, but what I have just said makes me deeply homophobic in comparison to the extraordinary degree in which queers, by virtue of the anti-master mechanism which protects the Jews, have been able to take the reigns of power and drive society where they want it to go, in effect turning normal rational attitudes into an extremist stance. And the same applies to Muslims, the latest example being the report that Muslims are going to carry empty coffins through the streets of Wooten Bassett where the military parades its dead, brought back from its foreign wars against Islamic states. People hate this idea of these aliens rubbing our noses in their sick religious attitudes, but then fascist mouthpieces like the Wright Stuff stooge argue that our elite members of society, the Muslim Nazis, should have the right to do as they please, just like any other Jewish fascist. And so it goes on, and we see how delineating people via a plethora of identities,

whereby some special few are selected on the basis of their extreme repugnance, and given control of the state by providing special laws to protect them, is all part of the natural physiology of a supermassive superorganism, derived from the linguistic programme generated by the Jewish culture, to exploit the linguistic potential of written law. When we talk like this about the dynamics of superorganic physiology, where we perceive sections of the social fabric as units of a whole structure, we clash head-on with the idea of the individual, thereby indicating why a true science of humanity cannot exist, and why the efforts of the priests always revolves around some sort of formula for validating individuality as an end in itself. Making individuality count is a means of suppressing the ability to extend functional links between social elements, making these group elements act as structural elements of a higher form. Consequently, our description of how laws protecting minorities against majorities serve to form an elite core driving the state machine toward the ultimate objective imbued into the identity of the whole social body, which is Judaism, looks idiotic, not to say sick and depraved, because of the way our approach treats individual suffering with complete equanimity. But our depravity is negated if we are right to treat humans as superorganisms, in order to examine the true nature of human existence. The logic of individualism is that individuals come within categories that attract malice, but the individual is the only reality, where the category is an abstraction of individuality, so that any crimes committed against individuals within categories must be prevented purely for the sake of the individuals, so that laws are passed solely to ensure this protection is provided. We can hardly fault this logic, it is real enough, taken at the interface of social living where we find ourselves as individuals. But this interpersonal dynamic is not the end of the story, because major consequences flow from this intra-superorganic dynamic, that have importance way beyond the question of individual suffering. Which means that our interests, positive or negative, in any given situation, are akin to the polarities in subatomic dynamics, they induce macrostructure beyond the ken of any individual, whether we like it or not, or know it or not. And these unseen consequences are important to us, because they are not just consequences of social dynamics occurring at the level of interpersonal interaction, they are also causes of the social dynamics, because of the functional nature of the consequences at a level of social being beyond that of individual existence. Hence a supermassive, civilised society, always has a well spring of hated and reviled minorities, ready to be called up for duty as an element of the master organ, ready for special state protection. In keeping with a proper scientific method, we look to the permanent nature of the whole social body. We do not bury ourselves within the body and look from left to right to determine what each event means, and this requires detachment from individual concerns, whatever they may be. This is shown most powerfully when we speak of Hitler as the ultimate hero of the Jews, and the holocaust as a sacrificial mechanism serving to protect the Jewish master race by inducing highly charged pulses of linguistic force, generating an intense linguistic flux called a taboo, that allows the Jews to farm us with total immunity from examination according to a rational, genuinely scientific method. No one can do anything about being homosexual or Muslim, these identities are given to us at birth, either genetically and, or, contextually, and cannot be changed, to all intents and purposes. Viewed individually, people should have the protection of the law if this purely natural, and inescapable condition, is part of their being. But if we think about Islamic identity, no more Muslims lived in Britain when I was a boy than Martians, or so few as to make no difference to the comparison. If we passed an open field one day, and passed it one year later to find a block of flats on it, we would imagine that an immense and determined effort had transformed the site. We would never accept the idea that the flats had arisen

spontaneously, because people needed a rubbish site and it just so happened that when lorries dumped the rubbish a block of flats burst from the trash. Likewise, to suddenly find, in the twinkling of an eye, that our society has been transformed from a society with no Muslims to one dominated by Islam by pure fluke, as we have long been told, this not something any sane person would accept. The factors turning Britain into an Islamic state in waiting, have been as deliberate as the construction of a new building on a vacant lot. If this were not so, then the obvious problem of people hating Muslims could of been anticipated, and efforts made to ensure that our social biomass was not infected with this reviled Jewish slave identity poison. But instead, we are told this just happened, no one could do anything about it. And now that these alien people are as British as anyone else the law must protect them from the hateful populace that want to destroy all Muslims, and to return themselves to a free society. So the law protects the wedge of slave identity, and in the process makes these vile aliens our masters, protected by special laws, so that the state becomes our enemy, the tool of our enemies. And this is how we see the Jews, our masters, they being at the centre of a web of identities and associated laws controlling the dynamics of identity, to ensure that religion remains focal to superorganic being. Individuals suffer for their identity, but ultimately the benefits are vastly superior to the costs, which is why Jewish culture has evolved as the basis of the global superorganism, by exterminating all non-Jewish identities. And with the ingress of Muslims across Europe since the Deep Cleansing of 1939 45, we see that Judaism is as potent a force of domination today, as it has ever been in all the millennia gone by. The most interesting point to emerge from the above, comes from my complete rejection of recent moves emphasising the perfect equivalence of queers to straights, which makes me deeply homophobic, even though I am not, and have never been homophobic. The reason we get this contradiction is because we do not exist, only the superorganism exists, and therefore our identities are defined by the superorganism to which we belong. Ten years ago no one would of thought me homophobic, now everyone would think me homophobic, and all that has changed is the law. The law has the power to change who we are, to change our identities, and this is why identities are so important in relation to a society based on law. This is an interesting observation to make because the Jewish identity captures the essence of this relationship of law to identity, in other words the coming of law created the Jewish identity. It follows inevitably from the evolution of state machinery based on law, that a specialised organic identity must evolve to exploit the latent potential of identity of superorganic form, that is inherent in such a law based structure as the state. Which means that the coming of state structure created the Jewish identity, causing state structure to spread around the world under the influence of Jews, which is why Judaism is the chosen of God, because God is the superorganism and the state is an exoskeletal unit of a global superorganism. This is a feedback process we find operating between patterns of information and form, throughout all life. Law, bear in mind, is simply a highly pure, and especially potent expression of the linguistic force which projects authority into social space to form social structure. As such, given that linguistic force is created by the evolution of linguistic physiology, a social structure created by linguistic force to generate law is in fact a projection of linguistic physiology into a social, or superorganic fabric. The coming of law therefore represents a massive new engine of linguistic force, and it follows that such an engine will hold the potential within it for a major new kind of superorganism to come into being. New engines of life create new forms of life, fitted with the new base engine. And that is what has come into being today, in the shape of the Jewish global superorganism. So when we see the flux of social dynamics swirling around the foci of alien identities buried within the main biomass, we need to understand that all the highly charged political issues associated with the clash of aliens with established residents, are but energy flows in a superorganisms

physiology. My view of homosexuality is perfectly normal for one who is an outsider and a liberal, but not homosexual, where my inherent bias against homosexuality being considered as identical to heterosexuality use to be imbued into the law, so that my acceptance of homosexuality as strange, but natural, would of looked homophilic a couple of decades ago, but not now. It could be said that I am a remnant of a former cultural attitude that modern lawmakers have advanced beyond, and the latest generation will learn to think as the law teaches them they should now, so that these are cultural matters having no inherent aspects to them. Such an argument bears the hallmarks of a nature-nurture debate, and since we now understand that there is only nature, and the shift from genetic to cultural imperatives is merely the product of our linguistic physiology turning individuals into a molecular hub of a higher molecular accumulator, or higher life form, then we can see that the ebb and flow of identity dynamics, revolves about the superorganic energy derived from the interaction of these individual hubs of identity. It is because language has turned individuals into molecular hubs of superorganic identity, focusing the energy of superorganic being, of the true human being that is, upon the individual, that identity differentiation has become the means of generating social energy that can be accumulated to create supermassive superorganisms. This is all about linguistic force, but linguistic force is a continuum of the force inherent in genetic information, so that for a new kind of information to come into being and create a new hierarchical level of organic being, a material form has to serve as a hub of the transition from one kind of information to the next. The two kinds of information must exist simultaneously, being made to act in unison by their being relayed through the living hubs of information that link them. The investment of energy in the creation of identity at the level of the individual operating as a hub of superorganic being, is what causes forms like homosexuals to evolve. So that homosexuals represent new life engines of superorganic being ascending an energy gradient of human form, and hence driving a more complex social structure to come into existence. Homosexuality could not evolve without the latent potential energy of superorganic being serving as a stimulus to this higher stage of development. It must be clear to all that being homosexual is a higher grade of existence than being heterosexual, because homosexuality exists in the more refined and complex order of a supermassive superorganism, where hierarchical definition has taken shape across a number of socio-physiological identity platforms, such that a master class and a slave class inevitably exist, as in our own Jewish society. Homosexuality represents an intensification of the information energy load upon the linguistic, as opposed to the genetic pole of the living hub of superorganic identity. So it is not a matter of nature versus nature, it is a question of the ebb and flow of the flux of identity about the individual existing as a unit of the global superorganism, where these fluxions are orchestrated by the core machinery of the state, which taps into the identity flux to harness the energy of the living units, to create its core engine of superorganic identity, be it homosexuality, Islam or Judaism. And this is why the law continually chops and changes its stance on what identities to favour, and why. When a resident identity form has discharged its energy of identity, a war is enacted by the machinery of state to unbalance the discharged accumulator of identity energy that is its resident population, so that a new mix can be taken in, to fill the void created by the act of self annihilation. Pumping Muslims into the European biomass has reenergised the identity accumulator at the core of the global superorganism. And this is what wars and laws are all about, they have nothing to do with individuals and their needs, individuals do not exist as ends in themselves. And when we speak of different identities being favoured at different times, we must keep in mind that in reality there is only ever one identity, which exists at the core of the One message. That One identity is Judaism, so that all other identities, no matter of what kind, such as Nazism, exist

to serve Judaism, as the One message deceptively says that : the individual is an end in themselves. The One message is the basis of power, as it decouples the link between genetic and linguistic information, allowing the core identity to tap the energy of identity occurring at each individual hub of living tissue, from which linguistic force is derived to build a superorganism by organising people along the lines of their linguistically implanted identities. Remember, linguistic force is no abstraction, anymore than gravitational force is an abstraction. Linguistic force creates all social structure, the job of the machinery of the theocracy is to modulate linguistic force by controlling the One message, which organises the rhythm of identity patterns supported by the theocracy. The One identity is Judaism, simply because it has captured that position by creating a parasitic form of superorganic organ, which in turn has evolved a whole order of superorganic physiology shaped according to its own identity programme. Subsidiary identities like homosexuality that appear to have nothing to do with Judaism, become enslaved to Judaism simply because they are minor elements of the Jewish system, and because they adhere powerfully to the core principle of the One message. Homosexuality evolved genetically, to produce a social identity, in order to generate structural complexity. Religions like Judaism evolved linguistically, to produce a social identity, in order to generate structural complexity and order. There was an interesting moment in the Timbuktu show last night when the man recounting the local history spoke about one of the later empires to take shape in the region, saying that the emperor was a deeply devout Muslim who imposed his own language on all the peoples of the region because he had only one idea in his mind, that unity was the key to all things beneficent. My ears pricked up at this, this is the classic hallmark of Jewish slave programming, and it is interesting to see this Jewish slave body in the depths of Western Africa, carrying out the imperative of Judaism in total obedience to its master, preparing the way for the Jews, who have yet to capitalise on this part of the world, but who, we can be sure, will turn their attention to at sometime in the forthcoming millennia. Of course this Jewish slave imperative, is derived from the imperatives of genetically evolved human corporate nature. The public reaction delivered by the machinery of the state, would represent our ideas expressed above as repugnant in the extreme, and seek to combat them by any means available. We live in an absolute theocracy, so this brutality is inevitable. The real solution to these issues is to advance beyond the fabric of organic identities, which includes both genetic, as in homosexual, and linguistic, as in religious identities. But we discussed this matter in The Colonial Ape when we talked about how our masters had categorised one of the greatest modern British thinkers, H. G. Wells, as an anti-Semite, for saying exactly the same sort of things we say above. We cannot win against our masters, they own our society, and we are but puppets in their hands. Teaching people to hate Islam in a sensible, rational, and calm way forward, according to the science we set out in our atheist works, it is clearly a vital part of the effort of the British people to preserve their identity and to recover the freedom they had obtained prior to the great cleansing of 1914 18. But this is where the Jewish slave bodies like the British National Party come into their own, as the real bulwark against reasoned self defence against Judaism. These fanatical Parties of Hate, have a crucial role in Jewish slave societies, they are the pinnacle of the defence mechanisms that operate in order to ensure an arrow of identity forever moves against non Jewish identity, and toward Jewish identity. If Islam is the point of the Jewish arrow transforming our society back into a debased Jewish slave nation, then the BNP is the barb ensuring the advances made in this direction cannot be reversed by the awareness that indigenous British people cannot help having of the attack being made on their cherished national, but non Jewish identity. This is how we make sense of the otherwise insane existence of bodies like the BNP or the Nazis, which assume to

themselves the guardianship of the British, or German identity, and then conflate that identity with Judaism, through the Jewish slave identity of Christianity. Politicians have no choice but to attack our ideas because there can only be One message. As we know, politicians are mostly religious freaks or lawyers, or both, they have no interest in aspects of life which might occupy us lesser, unprivileged mortals. The oneness that politicians favour mindlessly, is focused in the identity of the superorganism, which is Jewish, hatred expressed in an irrational manner by Christian organisations such as the BNP or the Nazis, is in accord with the One message because it is Christian. Our ideas break with this continuity by decoding all natural identities and proposing a new uniformity based on pure information, offering a scientific knowledge of reality in other words. Atheism is often condemned by fascist religious freak organisations as being absolutist, and it is, because it is pure knowledge based on reality, which replaces the absolutist identity of the One Jewish message, or any other naturalistic message which might exist, if Judaism had not eradicated all alternatives from the face of the earth. No one hates for hates sake. Christians hate other Jewish slaves and Jews, because their religion is their power base. We hate all religions because we do not want to be part of anyones power base, which means we want to be our own power base, we want to be free, in other words. The inherent conflict between Muslims in Europe and free thinkers, is because free thinkers are the highest expression of human kind, a rare breed, a produce of highly privileged social orders. This is why Britain produced a class of freethinkers in the nineteenth century, when Britain dominated the world. Muslims are good for the Jewish master plan today because they come from the downtrodden world order, they want to come to the first world in order to obtain power, and they are invited to do so on the basis of their vigorous slave identity, ousting those of us who have inherited freedom as a consequence of our forebears having ditched their Jewish slave identity. Our rulers want to erase troublesome freedom, which is why they want to transform our biomass back into a primitive religious type. We see Muslims coming up in our world, becoming educated as we are, and we know that Muslims are the same as we are at heart, because they are human, so they want what we want. But they occupy a different place in the physiological hierarchy, where they need their special status derived from their Jewish slave identity. So we are obliged to wage war against Muslims living in this country if we want to be free, because the Muslims have to promote and preserve their Jewish slave status, their religion, as their power base within our biomass, supported as it is by the law, which effectively makes the indigenous British person the slave of the Muslim, because of the way the state works to suppress our antagonistic reaction by protecting the Muslims special, religious based privileges. The only solution for us in this position is to travel with the arrow, and to accept that Muslims are now part of the British biomass, and thus we want them to become freedom lovers just like ourselves, and thus we want them to lose their Jewish slave identity and thereby to become truly British. That is the only objective we can have in this essentially powerless position in which we find ourselves. If Muslims become atheists, they become British. Whereas if Muslims persist as Muslims in Britain, then Britishness must cease to exist, being subsumed by Islam, which is exactly what our Jewish masters intend to happen. All scientists want to see the total destruction of religion, by definition, since science, as we are constantly demonstrating, cannot exist where religion exists. Technicians are not concerned with anything other than the same concerns as all molecular accumulators, they just want food, sex, shelter, security and the status their evolved nature makes them crave. Scientists are in effect already living in a godlike state, in a world in which information has

become detached from its biological mass, and become pure information, reflecting reality as it is. From this position information can be made to create superorganic forms that are completely detached from any organic foundation, from any concerns with those organic motives we have just said the technician is compulsively attached to. Information still has to create structure in order to make sense, and really it cannot ever become detached from universal imperatives, anymore than we humans could ever of become detached from the imperatives of nature, as we are generally forced to believe by our masters who control all public knowledge, from which we are obliged to draw the information content of our minds. As we have discussed above, only complete anomalies like Feynman qualify to be called a scientist according our idealised definition, so, to all intents and purposes, scientists do not really exist. But if they did, then they would desire the total eradication of religion, in all its forms, from the face of the earth, just as we do. And political creeds capturing the essence of religion, as with Communism, are included in the definition of religion, as we use the word here to mean the expression of bonding linguistic force in an identity mode creating social form.

Chapter 3

From Origin to Analysis and the Knowledge Antigen

Real interpretation, or science, indicates why precious religion needs its evil counterpart. Judaism is a fabulous representation of human nature, Organicism is a fine scientific model of human nature, and Hitlers philosophy is a perfect projection of the raw essence of human nature too. All three representations are accurate, but only one is true, while the other two are to a common purpose, that of promoting and protecting the core identity of the Jewish superorganism. The Jews are the personification of a linguistic programme that identifies a living people with the essence of human nature, intuitively, as opposed to directly. This identification of a group of people with a linguistic programme is the point of origin of a superorganic human being, a god in fact. We see the importance of history in the Jewish linguistic programme, which is important to the retention of continuity across the generations of perishable cellular units, enabling the units to retain a common cause beyond the limit of their own mortality. This extension is an inherent feature of the human social unit, it is seen in all human groups ever known, it is usually recognised as a kind of religious instinct. In a linguistic programme like that of the Jews, which is by no means unique to human history, the religious instinct, if we may call it that, is highly developed, and this is essentially because it actually uses what we call language, in its purest form, that of a recorded script. With the rise of Judaic processes to domination, the basic methods of a linguistic programme become established, and as a result they eventually become available for wider general use, leading to a true analysis of the core material of human existence in the shape of science. As soon as people are free to examine reality in an open and unrestricted manner, they obtain a sound conceptual grip upon reality. In terms of human nature, this led to the realisation that humans are all about social being, and as such they are social animals. This opens the way to an examination of society as a natural phenomenon. And this means an interpretation of human historical records in terms of patterns and processes. This is a very old story, the modern conflict between reason and religion is not unique to this era, and it is for this reason that we find history littered with accounts of anti-Semitism, created by Jews wherever they go, as an antigen to the truth which is anathema to Jewish priestly power. What we are saying here has the exact opposite nature to that of the White Lie, the great comforter of our minds, soothing us in our dependence upon the super being we are part of. Our words grate on our consciousness, painfully, because they are true words.

I Transcendence Life is, of its nature, transcendant. We mean this in a mundane sense. We work our way from the most fabulous expression of transcendence, found in human social order, to the most abstract and basic principle of life, to get to this description of lifes nature. If we do not exist as ends in ourselves, so that we only exist as a transcendant element to be realised through our role within something greater than ourselves, by virtue of our linguistic capacity, then this transcendence is a product of the ability of language to project living matter, in the form of persons, forward, onto a higher plane of physical order and being, that of the superorganism. We have said that the essence of life is Information, where human language is but one example of information. This power of projection, whereby matter is made to transcend itself in one form, to become another form, is a function of information, such that the whole basis of living form, is of a transcendant nature. The Jews have become the focus of this power of transcendence, as expressed in mammalian physiology, via the vehicle of linguistic physiology. The Jews are the Chosen, therefore. Information is not mystical or magical, information is the codification of a programme for building organic structure by directing a flow of energy, all of which is in keeping with all ideas to do with the nature of matter and life, the universe, and everything within it that is known to science.

II We all have to think the same We all have to think the same thing, or else social life is impossible. This is implicit in the idea of the One Message, which we make central to atheist sciences understanding of human society. The question then, is what we should think. We have been unable to take any idea of life without religion forward, the problem being that science indicates that religion is the natural mode of creating human superorganisms. Religion imparts an identity, and this is what constitutes the unity of thought. Our discussions of the One Message have recognised that religion carries a bias at its core that validates its message, while making any contrary analysis of a true kind impossible. This bias involves adopting a fake point of observation from which all reality is interpreted, inevitably wrongly, but wrongly in accordance with religious bias. Science necessarily adopts a true pivot of observation for all reality, and hence negates religion. But in the process science cannot impart an identity, or so it seems at first thought. But if we express the idea of the One Message in terms of a need for us all to think the same thing, then this suggests a neutral possibility, where science can replace religion in terms of its biological function. This is a theoretical possibility, but clearly there is a lot more to this situation than we embrace within a short consideration of the matter. The point about the propagation of identities is that it is from generating a host of identities, all identical in reality, but different according to our individual capacity for the perception of these factors, that this is how a superorganism derives the curious phenomenon of complexity in unity so typical of life in general, and of human societies at the stage of existence we call civilised. Below we talk about the manner in which the idea of human evolution from an ape ancestor helps keep Christians true to their Jewish slave identity by offering them an alternative view of reality,

courtesy of science, that is self evidently wrong, because it fails to address the precious realities of Jewish slave programming that Christians know are real from their own experience. If a real science were to show that God is the superorganism, and the idea of unity in honour of God linked to the meaninglessness of the individual as an end in themselves, which ideas are embroiled in Christian slave identity programming, then people could be carried forward from Jewish slave identity to science. But what about the parameters of identity from which the power to organize society derives, from which social order thereby arises as the master race uses that power to innervate the superorganism according to the motivation of the master identity of Judaism itself ? The purpose of subverting science is to keep the Jewish master race in control, so it is not clear how this master race would be replaced if we destroyed Judaism by revealing what Judaism really is. Identity, in the sense of a superorganic identity imbued into the individual, does seem to be a vital element of human existence, that we cannot exist without. Saturday, 02 June 2012 A basic idea of linguistic force is that its expression is compulsory, and that expression projects this force into a social space, which is created in the process, wherefrom linguistic force then takes the form of a linguistic flux, a culture, from which social structure arises. The core of this social flux or culture, is authority, thus linguistic force projects authority into social space, and this authority appears in its purest form as Identity. Therefore, no identity must mean no authority, and hence no social structure. This is the logical end point of insisting that the individual is the human animal, existing as a point of authority in its right ; which is my ideal of existence, that I have always lived bycan you tell ?which I know from experience is wholly impossible to realize in practice.

III The creative power of linguistic force We might say that the need for us all to think the same is a reflection of the natural order of the universe which makes the discovery of absolute, or scientific knowledge, possible. Because life is information linguistic physiology can generate its own order, by causing us all to think the same thing. This is why religion has no need to be true in order to be functional, and in actual fact, for reasons we have considered above, regarding the difficulty of generating a superorganic physiology by means of true knowledge, religion needs to be false in order to allow an infinite variety of expressions of its One theme, so that a complex physiology can be developed from the resulting diversity of individuals. So the order of the universe creates the substance of knowledge whereby we all come to think the same thing, as in recognising the earth is a planet attached to a star. While the capacity for creating knowledge operates the process in the reverse direction, whereby developing a mode of thinking the same across a biomass, leads to an emulation of universal order within the confines of our mammalian species that evolved to form a superorganism, by creating an extension of universal order and substance as an expression of the knowledge generating process. Obviously the latter process, whereby linguistic programmes come to induce order across a population via the medium of the One message, occurs firstly as an intuitive product of the evolution of linguistic physiology. The shift towards recognising the natural order of the universe occurs later, as a highly developed expression of this intuitive capacity, which leads to the eternal war between religion and science. Discussed in these terms, we can see that the war thus named, boils down to the impulse inherent in linguistic physiology to induce

order by causing a uniform state of consciousness across a population. There is a perennial habit amongst our priests of delineating things in terms of good and bad, or natural and unnatural, and the dichotomy we identify between religion and science, described in terms of a war, accords with this priestly imposition. Reduced to a naturalistic model however, we can see that the shift towards a pure form of scientific knowledge, which is anathema to the bias form of intuitive religious knowledge, is a natural consequence of the evolved capacity to create knowledge as a medium of superorganic identity, so that the resistance of bias knowledge, to true knowledge, is inevitable. There is nothing malicious in this conflict. If we did not see all living forms in a perfect state of being all the time, but instead could see the whole process whereby perfection is realised, we would surely see something approximating to Darwins struggle for existence. We would see conflict occurring where forms pushed themselves toward perfection and were driven back by overreaching themselves, coming to settle within a functional range of perfection. In reality that is the condition in academia now, religion must exist, and it does, while science must exist only as a technical prowess belonging to the superorganism, for that is the means by which the superorganism constructs its exoskeleton. So we are obliged to admit, against ourselves, that the present appalling situation regarding knowledge, is exactly as it should be from a naturalistic point of view. It is only from our personal point of view, where we assume the authority we possess courtesy of the idea that we are ends in ourselves, that we are able to protest that we want true knowledge, and we are being denied it by an elite which exists to control and manipulate us. In our society the aim is to seduce us into thinking we are free when we are not, and this is probably as it has always been, where the eruption of more overt forms of control have indicated a lack of perfection in the process of accommodating people to the body of knowledge informing the order of the social structure. The fact is that when all is said and done, our world devotes more energy to producing the White Lie than it does to all other aspects of our existence. Accordingly the White Lie as we have it is a staggeringly clever deception personified today by Darwinism, and it does seem to work. But the truth is that the reason the White Lie works, even when pushed to this extraordinary degree of elaboration, is that we individuals are desperate for the White Lie to exist, and to work. This in turn explains why society requires to be successful in order to remain peaceful, as long as people are fed and watered they want to be at peace with the ruling order, whereas the moment they find themselves wanting the necessities of life, they kick-off. Even so, people do not then want the truth, they just want to find a new order of authority that can provide them with the wherewithal to live, and from whom they can accept the soothing blanket of a finely crafted White Lie.

IV The love of slavery Last night, 11/01/2010, there was a deeply disturbing report on Channel Four News about the modern American slave trade, exactly equivalent to the slave trade of the ancient world, brutal and treating humans as cattle ; although it was presented in a manner that disguised this fact by making it a matter of Mexican criminality. Nonetheless, it is the Americans who are the customers of this satellite nation, so that makes it an American slave trade. Humans love owning slaves, and we adore being slaves too. Capitalism is only an extremely refined form of slavery wherein the slaves love the system of slavery as much as

anyone, much of the time, at least in our modern capitalist system they do, as experienced in the West ; and craved for everywhere else it seems. Slavery is the purest expression of human nature, and obviously we cannot be slaves unless we are slaves. If we wanted to discover some kind of social behaviour that defined human nature, because it was found in all times and places, slavery would be a fair contender for the prize. This is valid as long as we recognise that slavery is more than the technical ownership of people which provides the modern definition of slavery, and understand that from cannibalism in deeply primitive superorganic conditions, to capitalism in modern conditions, the core feature of these social physiologies is slavery, in that the victims of these systems are treated as material objects by a superior human set, where the victims exist to serve the superiors ends. This arrangement makes perfect sense from a scientific point of view because individuals never exist as ends in themselves. Individuals are sentient bricks that evolved to form complex social structure, and slavery is the baseline of such a social structure, imparting an instantly hierarchical physiology of superorganic being. A hierarchy is necessary to the existence of any superorganic physiology, it is weird that some anthropologists, such as Topinard, were able to get away with arguing that the primitive individual was a unit existing solely for themselves, when most informed people a century ago understood all too well that primitive societies were incredibly oppressive as regards the possibility of individualistic expression as we knew it then. Priests can say anything they want, they could then, and they can still. Religion is of course a people enslaving system that operates from within the constitution of the person, just as ant modes of enslavement do, by taking control of their brains, by imprinting this organ of individual command with a slave mind, inducting the individual into the biomass of the superorganism controlled by a priesthood acting as a master organ of social command, or social brain. The idea of a social mind comes into vogue somewhere toward the end of the nineteenth century and continues to be popular until the Deep Cleansing of 1939 45, but I have never seen anyone apply further nuances to this conception of the social mind, such that they recognised that when examined in detail, within a Christian society, it was obvious that what is called a social mind is most tellingly thought of as a slave mind. The point being that the social mind is a general abstraction, whereas the slave mind is a more precise abstraction of the general type, of which Christianity is a precise example. If we look at a book like The Social Mind by Boodin, 1939, we find he wants to make out that the universe is a kind of mind possessing willpower, of which the human social mind is simply the greatest example. In other words this philosopher took the sound scientific idea of organicism and turned it into a religious ascetic, as per usual for the professional academic priest. Meanwhile any would be genuine scientists were forced to give up trying to use organicist ideas to unravel the nature of human life, so no one ever reduced Christianity to an expression of a social mind with a negative personal implication, which is the obvious thing to do from a genuinely scientific perspective that treats humans as a species of superorganic mammal. After the Great Cleansing of 1914 18, only philosophers were allowed to deal with scientific matters impinging upon human nature, while those called scientists had to devote their efforts to technical matters concerning the material fabric of the person, being forbidden to pay any attention to the human as a feature of nature, beyond the question of the individuals material substance ; a situation which continues to this day. As we can see when we discuss the nature of a virus below, modern scientists are still forced to act like dumb fools, being forbidden to say whether a virus is alive or dead, because this would require them to say what life is, and the first thing any biology student learns today is that life is a mystery forever beyond the ken of human understanding. Thinking about these cleverly proscribed domains of legitimate scientific enquiry, puts us in mind of the restrictions our theocracy use to place upon the examination of the material fabric of the body until a few

centuries ago. Accordingly we see that although the priests want to represent the relaxation of the constraints imposed upon science centuries ago, as having been removed absolutely, this is not true. All that has happened is that with the advent of Darwinism the limit set on the examination of the fabric of the body, has been reset at a deeper level, so that science is not allowed to penetrate into the nature of the human body, beyond the material function of the genes. This new limit is incredibly sophisticated compared with the blunt proscription of earlier times. Today the theocracy uses knowledge to inhibit knowledge, rather like using a thief to catch a thief, or using magnetic fluxes to contain nuclear fluxes, it is all about using something of a like kind to contain something of a like kind. Thinking about this matter allows us to understand how the deception engineered with the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859, was simply one element in an established method of knowledge control, so that now we live in a world where science is all about containing knowledge, so that the truth cannot be known, as opposed to simply suppressing knowledge with brute force. Although, that said, if we transport ourselves back to the days of an overt absolute theocracy in Europe, the prohibition against dissecting human corpses was based on mythical ideas, which are forms of knowledge rather than immediately physical impositions of authority. The shift we sense today concerns the way our ruling intellectual priesthood has become covert and now uses scientific knowledge to contain scientific knowledge, whereas formerly it used religious knowledge to contain scientific knowledge in an overt expression of religious authority. And as to the application of brute force, well, if worldwide warfare is not an act of brute force, I do not know what is ; although this method also conforms to the principles of covert control, appearing as a defence of freedom against an external enemy, when it is in fact the exact opposite, an act of social cleansing acting against the internal enemy of freedom realized within. So that whereas an overt theocracy can apply threats of terrible violence against its slave biomass continuously, a covert theocracy must use massive, catastrophic violence on a wholesale basis, periodically, such that it can maintain control of society in a devious, insidious fashion. Events like the destruction of the Twin Towers can be considered top up events to the periodic devastation of a world war, and of course this event served to licence a world wide war against terrorism, which continues ten years on, and shows no sign of coming to an end. The idea of an expanding horizon concerning the fixing of a limit on knowledge, allows us to see a sophistication concerning knowledge control which I have to admit I have never twigged before, although I have wrestled with the problem posed by seeking to understand how works like those of Darwins are manufactured to serve an absolute theocracy by mimicking science. True knowledge obviously presents a natural horizon of course, so it should be no surprise to find that false knowledge continuously exuded by the institutions of an absolute theocracy, should emulate the unconstrained process of universal creation in an identical manner. Official science does not so much subvert science therefore, rather it limits science by fixing boundaries at genuine points of the natural domain that science examines, as with the genetic limitation beyond which life cannot reach, as set by the Darwinian deception of life as mechanism. By this means the science we are given is real and true, as far as it goes, it just cannot penetrate beyond the artificial limit set by priests such as Darwin. This method of knowledge control by means of fixing artificial boundaries on the reach of scientific method, is therefore akin to telling lies by omission, as opposed to telling lies directly. Once again we have an observation that accords with the transition from an overt absolute theocracy where lies, as in religious knowledge, are forced upon society, and a covert absolute theocracy where lies, as in subverted science, are imposed upon society. This explains why these frauds are so successful and powerful, as science ; it is not that they are wholly mad, but that they are artfully insane. This process of knowledge manufacture and

the setting of artificial boundaries upon knowledge works because of the limitations of human native abilities to perceive reality via the sense of immediate impressions, such that things of a like kind can hide within an apparently uniform appearance some very critical structural distinctions. This is certainly the case where knowledge is concerned, as we can see from this discussion, where knowledge of the genetic foundation of life is made an absolute limitation beyond which nothing can exist, because all life is made by genetics. This is of course ludicrous, but that does not stop our world being run in obedience to this insane limitation, imposed by religious principles. The war between religion and science is here reduced to a struggle between monism, that would recognise a continuity of order throughout the universe ; and dualism, which allows discrete enclaves to appear in an infinite hierarchy of independent structures, making it possible to separate the divine from the natural at any desired point the priest is able to get away with. Once we recognize the equivalence between the prohibition on dissecting the human body and the restriction upon examining life beyond the genetic horizon imposed by Darwinism, we can suppose that the priests who orchestrated this prior limitation on science knew precisely what they were doing, and why. The limitation on examining the body is always presented in religious terms, as being natural in a world ruled by an overt theocracy which enforced belief in sacred ideas about human nature. But our mundane view is that cutting humans open would obviously show that we are just like animals, so this knowledge had to be forbidden because it would undermine the notion of our sanctity. Darwinism provides the exact same functional limitation for modern science which now, accepting that humans are an animal kind, finds dissection a boundary that is irrelevant to knowledge containment. Now it is the social fabric that constitutes the sacred portion of human existence that the church cannot allow to be explained by science in naturalistic terms. Speaking like this about a genetic horizon imposed by Darwin suggests that the high priests of the time knew about genetics, where we normally say the perversion engineered by Darwin was based upon the idea of the individual as an end in themselves. Our answer to this query, is that the genetic horizon beyond which the force of evolution cannot reach, is fixed within the body of the individual, so these two aspects of evolution meet in the Darwinian model. Prior to 1859 books talking about species freely use the word genetic in their discussion of where species come from, and what they are, so that while I am lacking specific information on how people understood the word genetic at this time, and its use in relation to the species idea, I assume it meant pretty much what it means now, that one animal is connected to another via the act of reproduction. The only difference between our ideas on this matter and theirs, is that we now know what the actual mechanism of transmission is, a form of biogenetic code. We often focus our attention upon the survival of religion in the scientific age, but it is obvious when we get into the subject, that this act of survival involves the control of knowledge according to long standing strategies. For this reason the question of the purpose of philosophy, and also history, have been much debated in the recent past by society at large, because these somewhat artistic intellectual endeavours have long seemed superfluous with the coming of modern sciences dealing with matters of human nature. The fact that these two major academic disciplines have survived unchanged from the essential form they have held for millennia, is made sense of when we examine the means by which religion has survived. Not only have history and philosophy persisted because they are vital to the preservation of religion in opposition to science, but these subversive political disciplines have been bolstered by the major new discipline of sociology, which has been modelled on both history and philosophy, to absolute exclusion of science, in order to ensure that sociology could bear no relationship whatsoever to science. We truly live in a sick society, but if this seems farfetched when we discuss academic disciplines, we only need remind ourselves of the

dominance of religion in our world, allowing us to see that with the obscenity of religion still manifest everywhere, it can be no surprise whatsoever that all academia is vile and corrupt, in a most gross and obscene manner too. Scientists do not exist, since anyone training to be a scientist ends up as a priest. We realise that on the one hand we say that priests can say anything that they want, that scientists are priests, but scientists are not free to say anything of a scientific nature. Which is potentially contradictory, but this is because of the corrupt society we live in, which makes us say that anyone with a public position is a priest, even if they are called a scientist. We create this confusion by insisting upon calling everyone with a public or official profile, a priest, while officially these people carry the names of their distinct positions within the extended theocratic structure. You will just have to make sense of it yourselves, our approach is justified, and would make sense to anyone who wanted to follow our atheist argument based upon the principle that we live in an absolute theocracy where all that is official is corrupt, and must be decoded. Even so, we apologise for any confusion caused by mixing up terms too freely. It is important to our masters that the idea of slavery is confined to a narrow band of activity, and not generalised to the point where people can recognise that they too are slaves of a most terrible kind, even when classed as free. We may even reason that a Christian nation like that of Mexico supports an open slave trade with the United States is in order to help define their Christian identity, and let people know subliminally that being Christian is certainly no kind of slavery. In order to know you are free, you must know what it means not to be. The poor parents of the enslaved and murdered girls in the documentary mentioned above, were shown praying to Jesus fanatically, in effect pleading with their political masters to do something to end their misery. This is exactly what we see regarding the negroes of America, who are fanatically committed to Christian slavery as a means of escaping the brutality of physical slavery, and its continuing influence on social attitudes in former British colonies such as that of North America. We have already mentioned the gross manifestation of this idiotic affection for the Christian slave religion as a reaction seeking liberation from an evil system devised by Christians, when talking about the election of Obama in The Colonial Ape. Slavery is a highly functional aspect of a Jewish slave biomasses superorganic physiology because of its ability to provide structural definition of this kind, and to inspire devotion to the subliminal slave programme written by the Jewish priests, to attach the worlds biomass to their organ of superorganic being subliminally, in keeping with human biological corporate nature. We may imagine that the priests in the Vatican who dictated the form of colonisation in the Americas will of deliberately sent negroes there in order to create a divided society, which they must of known is essential to the functioning of the Jewish slave identity programme. We live in a mature slave society, a capitalist society where we are oblivious of our slave nature because we think our identity is our own. But the virgin territory of the Americas at the time of its acquisition by the Jews required a solution suited to the condition of the land into which the Jewish slave biomass was being introduced. Such behaviour does not constitute a conspiratorial enterprise, it is normal political practice in Jewish society ruled as it is by a covert master class, where the masses are always controlled by such political routines. The best modern overt example being the blatant manipulation of the global society when concocting an excuse to go to war in Iraq five years ago, on the basis of weapons of mass destruction capable of being launched within forty five minutes. At the Chilcot Inquiry taking place now, we heard from two senior legal advisors just this week, today being 19/09/2012 (Oops, dont know what happened here, this is todays date, oddly enough, so this section must of been written as part of the original work in 2010, or been added in 2011.), to the effect that they had declared the war illegal at the time, one had resigned in protest at the

time, the other had stayed on and been given a knighthood for his pains. But our society is routinely manipulated by the mere organization of law, taxation, and public spending, there has just been a row about Tory plains to re-establish tax breaks for married couples, which Labour says is social engineering, but everything politicians do amounts to social engineering of one kind or another. Judaism needs a naturally occurring hierarchical division across a biomass to create an opening in the social structure for it to implant itself into, allowing the Jews to infiltrate a biomass ruled by an overt master identity, that of Christianity in our case, where Jews then act as a covert, true master, by providing the motive force of superorganic being attached to their own identity programme ! This is why America and Britain are such staunch defenders of Israel of course, and why the Nazis made the extermination of the Jews their raison detre, as do the Muslim warriors of Judaism today. This arrangement then requires a base class, the slave order, to do the work which sustains the superorganism as a whole, that bears the covert masters identity. It follows from this, that slaves are as much an integral, fully incorporated part of a society as anyone else, even though we are taught to think this is not the case because they do not have the same rights as their owners. Those taken to Rome from all over the empire were then, in reality, Romans. Any other view of the situation is illogical, although, certainly, in political terms, such people would not of been regarded as Roman, nor thought of themselves as Roman in their own lifetimes, and we would not speak of them as Roman now. But in reality, viewed as organisms living on a planet, to whom we have no sympathetic attachment, these people, once taken to Rome, must be Roman, when viewed as functional entities and not thought of in terms of their own personal sense of who they are. In the same way that if someone steals a car, that car becomes their property, not in law obviously, but if they keep the car and use it as their own until it is due to be scrapped, or sell it and spend the proceeds, then the reality is that the stolen car belongs to them in all but name. In the same way the Africans shipped to the Americas were part of American society from the outset, however we are taught to think about this now. These particular examples of the way language manipulates our sense of reality concerning ownership is an extremely potent one for us to consider in this context where we desire to see through our identity implant programming. This delineating of people in terms of differential social identities related to an exclusive social hierarchy, relies upon the idea of the individual as an end in themselves, as opposed to the idea that individuals are units of superorganic physiology. And here we get to see how the language that we use everyday actually creates these social divisions, where ownership and property becomes a linguistic essence of social form that generates words and social structure as part of one dynamic organic continuum. At the same time, an inverse dynamic applies when our masters inflict self destruction upon their base order, as they did in Europe when they launched the world wars against their host biomass, or as they have done now with global Jihad which hurts Muslims more than anyone else, and thereby helps animate Muslims across the world to feel their inner identity programming urging them to feel distinct from the higher Christian order. Now we are obliged to honour a unified hierarchy, a multiculturalism, but the principle still requires that identities are distinct from the ground up in order for the hierarchy preserving Judaism to persist. Another useful comparison may be made between the victims of slave maker ants and the victims of empire building humans, in terms of the resulting status of the slaves. We in fact anthropomorphise the ant circumstances when we name the slave maker species as we do. We know the slave maker cannot exist without its slave, so the symbiosis between the slave maker species and the slave species is as complete as the interdependence between domesticated species of animals and the civilised humans that depend upon these species. The slaves of ants and humans do live independent lives prior to their induction into alien

superorganic structures, and would continue to do so if they were not preyed upon by the avaricious species. But nonetheless, once enslaved, the incorporation of ants and humans respectively becomes complete, and the superorganic form of the two kinds of animals, ants and humans, means that the slaves become part of the master organism, because individuals do not exist in their own right. The master species of ant, on the other hand, could not exist without its victims, which is also true of the Jews and their master culture, without a slave biomass to imbed itself within, Judaism could not exist as it does, as an independent social entity, something the relationship between Israel and America makes abundantly clear. How far Christian or Islamic countries could exist without being farmed by Jews is a matter of debate, but here too, we may imagine what would happen to the slaves of the master species of ant if the masters were removed. Would the slaves be able to reconstitute a superorganic form based on their own inherent identity ? No, is the answer, because they would be lacking a foci of master identity. Certainly neither Christian nor Islamic cultures could exist indefinitely without Judaism, though quite what would happen if Judaism vanished is impossible to say without conducting an experiment such as Hitler supposedly planned for real, to find out. In any case, the Jews cannot be exterminated without a simultaneous extermination of Christianity and Islam, and this is obviously what atheist science would like to achieve, but it is an impossible goal. Christian and Islamic countries have persisted without obvious links to Judaism for centuries, but our assumption is that from the first moment of these two slave identitys development, and at all times and places occupied by them thereafter, Jews were present too, even if we have no proof to this effect, superorganic biology makes this condition an imperative. We consider Jews to be present if they are involved in trading with a nation, so we are not saying Jews need to live in a society in order to be present within it in a functional, physiological sense. Thus, even when Jews were officially banished from British society up until the time of the English Civil War, Jews were still present within British society, just as much as they have been at any time before or since. This curious reality exists because the human animal is a superorganism and, as in the individual body, the brain is present throughout the body even though it is only contained within the skull. Its presence is made real via the nervous system with which the brain, as an organ of command, communicates to the whole body. A Christian society can never exclude Jews from its fabric, nor can an Islamic society, or any enclave of these, and this also applies to a Communist nation such as China, since their state ideology also derives from a Western perversion of the essence of Judaism. Whatever the Taliban may say about the Zionist enemy, as they sit in their pockets of resistance, the Jews are with them in spirit as long as Mohammed is, and it can never be otherwise. For this reason, when the Islamic terrorists hit the Twin Towers, they took the Jews with them, if they had not taken the Jews with them, then they could not of gone there themselves. The attack on the Twin Towers was therefore a Jewish project, since Jewish identity always trumps any other identity as the foci of human energy in any event. And the same argument applies when we look at the most awful aspects of modern history impacting directly upon the Jews themselves, as in the case of the Nazis and their grand European pogrom. No Jews means no Nazis, it is as simple as that. Of course the Jews do not make themselves, they are an expression of human corporate nature, and perfectly natural. I hit upon a title last week from the 1980s called Why the Jews The Reason for Anti-Semitism by Dennis Prager, I want to buy it just to see the excuses given out by way of explanation in this directly named title, but it will only be the same old drivel about the poor, hard done by Jew, pleading for help from the all powerful Christian world. Here we give the real reasons, and no one other than an atheist scientist is going to give you that knowledge, mind you, no one other than an atheist scientist is going to want it, and I am the only atheist scientist I know of, so what does that mean, that I am sitting here talking to myself ? Well, yes, actually, I am.

Over time a slave base can be inducted into the slave identity class, as with the slave class of Christians, leaving an immensely powerful Jewish slave society. Some such scenario fits American history, and a true science of sociology, perfectly. This gives a natural triadic physiological hierarchy, consisting of a covert master, that is the unified organic identity (Judaism) ; an overt master, the social executive (Christianity, Islam, Communism, and so on ad infinitum ; and a homogenous biomass, which can be based on racial identity, as in African negroes taken to America in the eighteenth century, or it might consist of Muslims, relative to the global biomass ruled by a covert Jewish master, in conjunction with an overt first world order coming under the Christian denomination. Obviously this is my simplistic effort to conceptualise the manner in which a global superorganism organises itself, expressed using the names we know from life. It would require a true science of life, established officially, to unravel how real this general pattern is, but the idea of a triadic hierarchy is very familiar from religious mythologies of several distinct kinds, and as such it has more to it than my imaginings. Added to which the selection of names is in keeping with the historical record, in terms of fitting the manner and pattern of social evolution we set out here. Sunday, 03 June 2012 Just a note on this important topic of triadic superorganic physiology, since writing the above I have come across a factual statement of this phenomenon in pre-civilized societies, mentioned in my Master Race soon to be posted, courtesy of Landtman, Origin of the Inequality of the Social Classes, 1938. The reason why slavery is so important to us, is because we do not exist, except through the existence of the organism to which we belong. In other words, we could say that we evolved to be slaves, this is what our sentient brick physiological status implies. In the film about Mexico screened last night an ex-slave, who had been grabbed from the street at the age of sixteen and used as a whore until she escaped, described how she had been forced to watch as a girl who had tried to run away was set on fire, and beaten while she was burning, to the immense delight of the men who tortured her. The Mexican government was fully behind the kidnap and rape of these children, police and judiciary made up their wages by supporting the criminal gangs, and no doubt got to rape the children as and when they fancied too. All this is as normal for humans as it is possible to get, this is how humans have always behaved, and we all absolutely love this kind of thing. Although our love for this kind of thing may not be as obvious as we make out here, because we are supposed to hate slavery and abuse of all kinds. It is an especially noticeable feature of our Jewish Christian slave programming, that we are forced to express an overt hatred for all forms of slavery, thus relishing the freedom we have in being the mindless, servile, maggot like slaves of Judaism. Of course, in order for us to appreciate our free-slave status, there must be others whom we can take pity on. Charity is a mechanism devised to invoke this sense of superiority of course. The burning of people at the stake in past times is no different to the burning of a young girl by a criminal gang when all is said and done, and hanging people in public is equally a way of exploiting the very same love of slavery, even though this official, state sponsored behaviour, is dressed up as something legitimate. Queer bashing, when being queer was illegal, or paedophile killing, which is a popular pastime now, encouraged by the law making plus propaganda activities of the state, though officially denounced, is again an expression of the human love of slavery, taken out on sanctioned victims. Society always has to have a bogeyman to express vitriolic hatred against. It is irrelevant who the bogey figure is, but it is essential that society can enjoy unrestrained hatred. Myself I would make politicians the bogey, but that is just me. And of course if we had no politicians, who would organise the hatred in the first place ? In these circumstances this love of slavery has been so subverted as to of lost its raw expression, so that in fact it looks nothing like what we are describing it as just now. But if we turn the situation around and assume that the special

licence to inflict brutal treatment on people for engaging in particular activities, is an expression of our sense of humanity, which loves justice, then why do we express this love of humanity and justice by behaving like a sadistic criminal gang, of the worst kind ? We talk elsewhere in this piece about a programme on Timbuktu, and at one point in this programme the local historian described how the town became a focal point of trade, made special because of the movement of gold and slaves through the town. I select this snippet because it is the latest example to come to my attention of how slavery is at the heart of human social life, always, everywhere, and forever. Judaism is a slave making culture, and Christians and Muslims are Jews who are both slaves to Judaism, and hence makers of slaves themselves, as we can see from the programme on Mexico last night. By virtue of our nonexistence we could say that our very status as individuals is that of slavedom. We might then ask, When is a slave not a slave ? The obvious answer in our modern world is, When they do not know they are a slave ! But the other alternative is when they live in a tribe which is at one and the same time identical to their own personal identity, in other words where the superorganism in question is genetically, that is racially constituted, and hence precivilised and without any hierarchical physiological layering based on identity differentiation, such as we endure within a Jewish superorganism. A consequence of the idea of a linguistic force creating social structure, is that it follows that no one wants to live in society as it is, ever, at any time in existence. We are all inducted into society as it is, the most we can say about the part of personal desire in the process of socialisation, is that it represents a degree of plasticity in the units physiological makeup allowing a continual growth in the superorganism to take place, which is experienced as what today we typically call progress. This tallies with Kidds way of expressing the same thought by saying that religion provides the non-rational, or super-rational sanction for our unwitting relinquishment of personal power to the interests of collective unity, to which we belong, Even though this means living our lives in a state of permanent compromise, as regards acting in our personal interest. In other words Kidds explanation for religion given in his Social Evolution of 1894, argues that we live in a state of permanent denial as regards our true status as ends in ourselves. We do this because of the advantages we accrue as animals on this planet, making us king of the beasts, by means of cooperation. Kidds argument makes our cooperation unwitting yet functional, because it ultimately rewards us as individuals. This is a deeply flawed logic, making as it does a causal link between unwitting motives and conscious gratifications. Thus allowing us to have our cake and eat it by allowing us to be the human animal by not being ends in ourselves. This illogical idea is a product of thinking of the human animal as the person, who can then be unwitting and conscious at one and the same time, in respect to any given issue. So we believe in religion because it serves our conscious ends, even though we do not know we are believing in religion for any mercenary reason whatsoever, we think we believe because what religion tells us is real. The Christian obsession with sacrifice seems to serve as a dramatic mechanism of unwittingness, pushing us deeper into a submission to unwitting devotion to religion, and thereby making us willing to die for a belief that only exists to give us material benefits ! Such are the complexities of human superorganic dynamics. Sunday, 03 June 2012 Another essential note updating my knowledge of the subject handled above is required, as I recently became aware of Kidds pro-religious motives in writing what seems a near perfect atheist account of religions biological nature. This insight came from A Hundred Years of British Philosophy by Rudolf Metz, 1938, where he indicates Kidd enabled the populace to take heart in their Christian faith as still having a role in the world it had appeared to of been ousted from by science ! I never got before.

The obvious scientific approach would be to seek consistency, by saying that the human animal evolved to be a collective organism, and that language serves this end via the unwitting agency of religion. So that from start to finish there is only unwitting force driving human social behaviour, and there is no question of satisfying any individual imperatives. We might look at the recent banking disaster and say this is all about personal greed, but this is wrong, it is all about Jewish power, as there has to be some such economic system to allow a master race to farm society by cropping it periodically. It looks like personal greed, but commonsense tells us that this kind of system has nothing to do with personal effort, these dynamics represent a social structure occupied by individuals, that serves the ultimate imperatives inherent in the nature of a mammalian superorganic being. In relation to this imperative even the Jewish identity is ultimately reduced to a function of the living human superorganism, thereby removing the personal from all existence, except that of the superorganism, which presently happens to live by virtue of the Jewish identity. According to this reckoning the collective consciousness of the superorganism would be the sum of the individual consciousnesses of which it is composed. So we have a range of individual consciousness, from self sacrifice, to solid belief, to overt commitment without any belief, but all together making an accumulative, complex flux of belief, which constitutes the human organisms mind. Our minds are really just micro-portions of the one superorganic mind. In the age of the social organism the idea of a social mind was commonplace, but this way of thinking was expunged from society by the Great Cleansing which destroyed the real science of human nature. The crucial point to understand is that it is not that individual consciousness accumulates to form a coordinated social mind, but that mind exists in the fabric of the superorganism and is deposited into each individual during the process of induction into the superorganisms body. From our point of view it looks as though we have minds that make for a collective unity, even though this is a ridiculous notion in reality. This said, it is all too obvious why we just do not go for this scientific model, as it has a very strange effect upon our sense of self. It is one thing for an individual to come to such conclusions, but how would it be if this knowledge took over, what kind of world would we live in then ? Still, we are not concerned with such matters, as true philosophers we just want knowledge. We leave it to the professional scientists to seek the White Lie, that is what they get paid for. At the same time, this knowledge did rule the world and was destroyed by the Jewish priesthood, so we are a second phase of recognition, a consequence of the pretence our world now engages in to preserve the imposition developed to replace the true method we are seeking to resurrect. But the prior existence of organicist sociology does not allow us to say how a world existing under the influence of this true model would work, because the priesthood fought a relentless war against this freedom. There were many novel political and social movements in the pre-cleansing era however, particularly of a socialist, or what we might call a Hippy nature now, and these have been suppressed, apart from a brief upsurge after the Deep Cleansing of 39 45. Now we are well and truly under the veil of right wing religious autocracy, so that everything is, at last, back to normal, which is why we have leaders who are religious fanatics taking us to war on the same apparently idiosyncratic basis as any absolute dictator from any previous time in history. Keep in mind that all this is dictated by nature. Personal feeling, however we may talk about this social history, has nothing to do with the outcomes we discuss here. We cannot have the truth because it would destroy the social fabric, that is why we undergo remaking processes that return us to abject ignorance, under a veil of supposedly supreme knowledge that is the White Lie. I am currently getting into a new essay called Linguistic Force, and to that end I have just read The Nature of Information by Young, which gives us a deeper sense of linguistic force having a quantum effect, that facilitates a mental resonance

across a social biomass. This resonates with the vibratory rhythms of identity wavelengths of which the superorganic being is composed, demanding a state of harmony to one primary identity harmonic, which clashes with any identity wavelengths that are out of synchronicity, with material results that we call history. This description is not meant to be scientific, but rather more suggestive ; which does not mean it is not real, only that we are only in a position to reason along these lines as suggested by Youngs more scientific account of information in its wider existence. Others have talked of a unifying resonance emanating from ideas, such as Freud talking of myths (see World Mythology page 10). This talk is intuitive and mythological in itself, but we make resonance in social life real by making linguistic force the basis of this organising phenomenon. Kidds interpretation, though subtle and unspoken, boils down to religion seen as a form of pathology, viewed from the pivotal idea that humans are, or should be, ends in themselves. We think to bring in the idea of pathology here because of a discussion of Dennetts way of seeking to treat religion as a natural phenomenon, discussed below. Referring to Kidds late nineteenth century work Social Evolution, 1894, we see that Dennetts more blunt and unashamed interpretation of religion as pathological, is merely a modern form of the scientific mode of expression, i. e. naturalistic mode of expressing the essentially religious imperative : that human individuals are ends in themselves. Continually seeking to find new ways of expressing this old lie, is what academics are trained to do ; to interpret life in such a way as to preserve the mythical imperative that religion relies upon for its survival in a scientific age. So that modern academics merely perform this age old duty in the new milieu of scientific knowledge. Religion is only pathological if the person is the human animal ; religion however is not pathological if the person does not really exist. Therefore, where religion is vital to the existence of the human animal, where religion is normal and healthy, that is, a natural phenomenon, the human animal can only be a superorganism. Instead of taking their inspiration from this logical imperative, the priest-academic forces this critical point of revelation to serve as a fulcrum of logical inversion. Where logic obliges us to see that we are a superorganic species the priest imposes the idea that the individual is everything. This is how the observation of reality is inverted via the manipulation of linguistic force, by picking out knots of significant information and inverting their logical imperatives, so as to weave a conceptual pattern to impose upon all individuals, and then call this deception our mind. Being made by nature to succumb to such programming into social life, we are defenceless against this process of slave induction. Added to which, it can be seen from this description of how we are enslaved by a priesthood imposing a Lie, that for a superorganism to come into being at a higher level of organisation based upon linguistic force, a master form has to come into being, so that the existence of a master class of human is inherent in the corporate nature of the human species. The Jews are that master clan, today. By recognising the logical imperative inherent in the idea of pathology extended to normal features of human social life, we discover a general principle of knowledge control, whereby major assumptions underpinning extensive arguments, are imbued into the rhetoric of those arguments by way of devices carrying hidden logic, supported by a clandestine body of authority, the traditional force of occultism. As in the case of pathology which requires us to assume that the individual is an end in themselves, against which the normal individual can be made a test of what is pathological. Without an individual, or range thereof, to use as benchmarks of normality, how could we define social pathology, since morally pathological individuals are invariably perfectly normal as far as they are concerned ? No one can be expected to spot this deception unless they first discover the true solution to the problem of what humans really are. And no one can be expected to solve this problem without devoting their life to its solution. Hence all the theocratic establishment

need do is ensure that it does not foster this discovery, and any stray individuals that come upon this knowledge, like me, will be allowed to come and go. While people like Kidd or Dennett will be forever present, supported by the establishment, and making sure the only message subliminally received by anyone interested enough to ask, is that the person is the human being. And lets face it, who is going to reject this idea, under normal circumstances ? A love of slavery is bound to be functional if we evolved to be slaves, and human corporate nature means that we did just that. Hence collective acts of sadism help coalesce us, because none of us, generally, want to be the victim of social torment. That said, a curious inversion of this dynamic can manifest itself, somewhat in the manner of antiSemitism, although here we have in mind a manifestation at the personal level, whereby a form of social empowerment can come from being sacrificed, and thereby martyred. Christianity seems to make a virtue of such self destruction for the glory of God, and we see modern Islam using the same Jewish slave mechanism to impel the suicide bomber to act as a weapon of everlasting Zionist globalisation. Faced with these obviously controversial arguments, opponents could easily invert our logic by saying that delinquent individuals are responsible for unofficial evil, and they are invariably the product of pathological conditions, either social or genetic. However, society is never wanting for psychopaths and criminals, even when it is the state that takes on a monstrous form, so that evil acts become official, notwithstanding that most people in society are inclined to be constructive and passive. The persistence of pathological individuals in society indicates that such so called pathology is normal. In fact, it turns out, as we have just noted above, that pathology is a pivotal religious idea, a subliminal assertion that the individual is an end in themselves. And this linguistic mechanism, the idea of pathology in society, is derived from human corporate nature ; as are all the linguistic mechanisms of which the Jewish identity programme, that gives our brains their mental content that we call our mind, is composed. This linguistic mechanism is not an invention of people, we cannot help ourselves thinking in terms of pathology when we face behaviour we abhor. And this is why morality varies from culture to culture, because it is the action of the linguistic mechanism making us think in terms of pathology that matters, exactly what is defined as pathological, is completely irrelevant, as long as something is seen as pathological, in order to set an inner standard of normality to conform to. The most sick and depraved behaviour I can think of is being rich, or advertising in order to make money, as opposed to advertising in order to supply things people may actually need. Thus lawyers advertising on TV or charities showing images of sick kids or animals are engaging in legal crimes, according to my ethical ideas. Maybe one day others will agree with me ! Of course being rich would be nice, but that does not make it acceptable in ethical terms. Ethics concerns the imposition of collective norms. Hence, I love drinking and driving, and it is outrageous that I am not allowed to visit pubs without facing heinous retribution from the state, but as it is this delightful, comparatively harmless activity, given that it is the greatest joy in life, has been deemed a norm ethically unacceptable, adjudged so in terms of the whole biomass considered as a lump by those who own and farm us, who are the only people able to decide what is ethically valid, because as our masters they alone have the role of serving the needs of the human animal, the superorganism, by controlling the behaviour of the human person, the individual, according to a uniform pattern. A physiologically functional uniform pattern, is all that ethics really is. If we lived in a world that served individuals we would not see the extreme harm caused by drink driving as a reason to ban this precious activity, upon which the most valued aspect of British life depended for its existence, the brewing industry that is, when it did still exist. We would seek ways of a making sure that society accommodated this activity, otherwise what the hell is the point of living in a world where there is no good beer, and no

good pubs to drink it in !! But the arrow only moves in one direction, and that is towards global uniformity serving Judaism, so this great British drinking tradition has been eradicated, and no one in the future will ever again know what it was, what a tragedy. This weekend I have been drinking in a new real ale bar recently opened in town, it is Sunday, 03 June 2012, and the young folk think the beer produced by the micro breweries that is sold everywhere nowadays is real beer, and great. But it is all just the same syrupy liquid with added flavourings, and daft names to boot, with no really good guzzling qualities based on the art of large scale, but still local brewing, that is the only way to produce a true living beer fit for getting hammered on. They have no idea, and if I introduced them to the real stuff that is still to be found in a couple of local haunts I like to visit, they would almost certainly not understand the difference. And this is why we can be manipulated in this terrible way by the farmers of society, we are so damned malleable.

Chapter 4

Self-deception as the Modus Operandi Prerequisite for Human Individuals

Sitting in the dungeonthe detention centre for the criminally unemployedI have been conversing with people who make out they want work, but they dont like it when you try to tell them how they could get work. I ask myself why these people feel the need to bullshit me when I am one of them, and I do not give a shit. Superficially there are practical reasons for sticking to a story, it is good in principle if we need to lie, to make sure that we are in lying mode as a default position. But after talking to this fellow yesterday I decided that he actually believed that what he was saying to me was true, and that he was not making excuses. This struck me as having the same quality of deception as we find in a religious person. But in this practical context of a need to accommodate oneself to the politics of life, to play the system, which always wants to own us while we want to serve ourselves, this development of a true state of self deception is of major importance. It is the means by which we survive being part of a superorganism where we do not exist in our own right. Added to which this behaviour is not simply a strategy instinctive to the individual, it is in fact a cultural device imposed by the One message of our culture. For the fact is that when we are in shit with the authorities they like us to show our obsequiousness by confessing the error of our ways, by an acknowledgement of the rightness of what the central powers say we should do. And of course we should work, and so my friend is only playing up to the system when he promulgates his seamless lie of life, which I hate to hear because I know it is bullshit. The key to understanding me as a philosopher, is that I set out to make it my business to resist the One message, in all its details, at all times. This is not an intellectual strategy, it is my life story, from year dot. No one likes me for it, unless they too happen to be a little like myself in this regard, and there are few like that, since to be like this is against human nature. Even so, the occasional radical is a natural product of human nature, it serves a function of the same kind as other peripheral types of individual, of which there are many variations. Without peripheral entities there can, after all, be no core normality. These considerations are part of understanding the pattern of superorganic physiology. It is an obvious move to draw attention to the institutionalised lying of the political person, who makes lying a professional art, a lawyer is a professional liar, in that law is a form of instituted lie. Why so ? Because law is a model of understanding that is made accessible only to the specially inducted, and therefore it has the quality of a lie, in that a lie is a piece of information that belongs only to the liar and their confederates, if any. In the above we have spoken of the defensive lying strategy necessary to living in a superorganism, but, put to work, by going with the flow of linguistic force, lying becomes a major tool for advancement, not defensive, but empowering. In either case, as is well known, the best liar believes their own lies, in other words deceives themselves. In politics this means that the

person who is best at deceiving themselves becomes the best liar, or the most honoured politician, and this certainly conforms to all that we know about political priestcraft. Self deception then, is the primary strategy of both self preservation and advancement, which almost allows us to introduce individualistic Darwinism into the corporate organicist model of human nature. Whereby we make the individuals struggle for survival involve an attempt to exist most efficiently that serves the needs of the superorganism, operating as the testing environment, where our individual well being is dependant upon our position in society. This idea of social competition existing to serve the superorganism in this roundabout way is quite logical, which is why Darwinism works as a functional lie. The idea is logical as long as certain adjustments are made to reality, particularly the one that pretends that people are ends in themselves. We can say that people lie to serve their own ends, but in truth lying is an implied function of being a robot programmed by a corporate message. According to this idea there is no such thing as lying, beyond the most personal level of individual action, because there is only ever a state of unwitting obedience to the linguistic force. Our lies are therefore always self deceptions as much as anything else, and therefore they are not what we think they are, and therefore they cannot be lies. As ever, our whole language is imbued with a subliminal force obliging us to think in terms of our having personal responsibility for what we say and think. But this is just not so, and we may realise this, a little, when we grasp the idea that there is no such thing as linguistic meaning, there is only linguistic force and its associated function. All meanings are functional levers attached to word forms, serving as part of a programme directing human collective responses. Meaning is therefore an energy expression of linguistic force, and this is why meaning always expresses a form of bias engendering structural delineation, as in the subliminal bias of the idea of pathology, which cannot be avoided because we always have a view on the value of things, such as drink driving, or beer ! This is like saying that meaning in a computer programme resides in the array of zeros and ones that dictate the response of the machinery toward a coordinated outcome. This indicates that lying is just another word with a subliminal meaning, or message content, telling us that we are ends in our own right, responsible for what we say and do. If we want to stick to the Darwinian model of life we can make Darwinism work even when we deny the existence of the individual, as defined by the integral living unit. I have never thought of this before because to me the Darwinian approach is superfluous, and it was always designed to be anathema to science and friendly to religion by making the individual an end point in the evolutionary process. This is so absurd that scientists have sought to maintain the deception by concocting ways of diffusing individuals into wider conglomerations, concocting ideas like kin-selection to take the place of a true organicist conception of human nature, which recognises that the true living human unit is the superorganism, not the person.

I Intuition is a form of consciousness We have said that Judaism is an intuitive representation of human nature, which atheist science replaces by consciously recognising that human nature is corporate, where individual sentient brick physiology evolved to bring a living superorganism into being at the level of social organization. Science is self evidently knowledge. But intuition is equally evidently knowledge of the same kind, only of a lesser degree of perfection. Intuition is therefore knowledge, and is therefore consciousness, even though we more typically feel inclined to describe intuitive

knowledge as unwitting, implying a lack of consciousness. These contrasting modes of description are part of the linguistic programme that controls our consciousness by setting up contrasting definitions, thereby creating artificial knowledge as part of the process whereby linguistic force creates superorganic physiology, or social structure as we more familiarly call it. Really, we want a continuity of sentience, whereby unconsciousness is seen as part of consciousness operating at a lower level of linguistic force, producing a lesser degree of knowledge, such as intuitive knowledge that is nonetheless just as much knowledge as the absolute knowledge produced by science.

PART 2

THE GENTLEMANS CLUB

Chapter 5

Jolly Fellows

This morning I was up early to get off through the deep frozen snow to the detention centre, and these early rises are familiarising me with the pathetic gush that is BBC breakfast time TV. Today, Monday, 21 December 2009, there was an interesting-ish piece on celebrating Christs birth atheist style ! That loathsome creature Dawkins was there, we saw him on stage doing his bit as the Gatekeeper of the Theocracy, saying something about The gardener and the cook, but why the priest ?, which obviously made no sense being a chopped out snippet, but we could listen to this jerk for an age and still get no sense out of the man, he is just there as part of Oxfords longstanding miscreant game plan of muddying the water and suppressing freedom and true, i.e. scientific, knowledge. The female guest in the studio joined a reformed atheist, now Bishop Shithead, and the gush flowed as freely as I wish the blood would flow from the veins of these vile, ugly minded people. We should be at war with religion, not sitting on a sofa with these disgusting intellectual criminals. Its alright for them, they rule the world, it suits them just fine to talk sweet talk to their pet atheists, until kingdom come ! I thought this little display of obscenity from the infamous Dawkins worth commenting upon, but its not this item which got me typing just now, it was the events at the detention centre today, where I was getting right irritated. I cant believe how thick people can be, I had to sit at a different computer today and the young man I sat next to was getting one to one tuition in how to round up ! Can you believe it, it was just like being back at school, surrounded by dickheads talking endless shit about nothing but moronic crap. These men are not stupid, few people are really stupid, though pinning down exactly what intelligence taken at its most basic expression is, is tricky. But thinking about this farce at the detention centre today, after recalling the topic of Dawkinss performance this morning recounted just now, I find some connection between the two cases. Reading this today, Sunday, 28 February 2010, two months on, I find I have a more recent, and even more staggering example of moronicity to recount from TV world. There was a programme about mathematical illiteracy presented by the babe from Channel Fours Countdown, Rachel Riley. I did not see much of it, first there was some bloke talking about how he was not allowed to use a calculator when he was at school, then we saw Rachel talking to a young girl maybe ten years old, asking here to do a sum, the sum was ludicrously easy, no one alive could fail to perform the calculation, or so you would of thought, but in the end, incredibly, Rachel went to the wire with this child in order to discover how incapable of handling numbers she was, she asked the girl what would be left if she took 599 from 600 ! The girl looked blank, thought for a while, and gave a muted indication that she did not know. It is easier to believe shyness was her problem, rather than such ignorance. But there we have it. Talking to the head teacher later Riley said that some of the kids could not even

handle units. I mean it is not as if she was visiting a rain forest where a new species of subhuman had just been found, this was an English school, and the kids were halfway to adulthood. How bizarre is that ? But, the point of education is to induct the cattle into the fold, not to teach them to think ; I bet the same girl knew plenty about Jesus and Mohammed, this of course being what really matters in our world today. Knowing how to add and subtract is neither here nor there, we do have calculators, but knowing who is god, who your master is, now that matters, to the masters who own and farm us at any rate.

I Playing stupid We all play at being stupid. Again though, the tricky thing is recognising wilful stupidity when we see it. One of the most telling things about mindless stupidity, I always think, is that it is a sign of the most unquestionably intelligent people, which is certainly frustrating from a rationalists point of view, and when stated like this, it is downright odd. Explaining the importance of stupidity is of course the easiest of things for a scientist, since we know that there is no such thing as a person, there is only the superorganism that all persons are a part of. Therefore from the persons point of view the height of intelligence comes from conformity to the One message, and the One message is always as brain-dead as any message can ever hope to be, because inanity is the prime quality of a unifying message, where reason, truth, and rationality, is anathema to the capacity to induce social binding through mindless identification with the collective body. It is from this set of circumstances that we come indirectly to this most exasperating aspect of the whole business, whereby real intelligence is always enslaved to mindless stupidity, namely to the One message. So it is from the resulting elevation of the most mindless stupidity at the hands of the most highly gifted, best educated, and most powerful people, that stupidity becomes sublime. While the relationship of the gifted elite to the promotion of mindless stupidity is of great interest and importance, the existence of mindless stupidity at the individual level of existence, impelling us all to behave in a conformist way that the superorganism finds acceptable, is highly important to a proper understanding of what the nature of this curious aspect of the mammalian superorganisms behaviour is. For we should be clear, this ingrained stupidity is not a feature of our individual behaviour, which we all know is personified by our cleverness, this inveterate stupidity is a behavioural strategy of the superorganism, an organism without a personal consciousness, without a personal mind that reflects on itself, but with a very definite reality.

II Debate What led me to thumping the keys again this evening, was my frustration with the junk computers we are expected to work with at the detention centre where we are stuck using floppy drives which make it a nightmare trying to take enough work to and fro. I ended up wrecking my own work in frustration at waiting on the floppy drive, but after a brew and calming down I fell back on rooting around on an American book dealing site I use, where I ran a search for atheism. This gave plenty of results, an immediate feature of which was a splurge of fascist religious responses to the atheism of four leading modern commentators, of

whom Dawkins, with his God Delusion, is the only one I had heard of. These fascist works spoke of a new debate fired up by these characters, and I decided to throw a bunch of books in my basket and see what I got. This gave me thirty two items and the impression of a gentlemans debate going on. Naturally this was a one sided debate, as all gentlemans debates are, so that what we have revealed here, in this scoop of current literature displaying a surge of interest in atheism, is a to and fro rant all based upon the rationale forming the essence of the Jewish slave making identity programme. All the important questions were asked, but always from an assumption that is set out by religion ! Science as presented in this gentlemans debate does not exist, despite the fact that much of the work I selected for consideration is promoted as being written by scientists, or by those examining the questions pertaining to religion from a scientific point of view. But they do not in any way whatever, take a scientific approach to religion, and only a person of an astoundingly stupid kind could think otherwise ; the sort of person who had been educated in a modern Western state system perhaps, where subtracting the number one from a larger number is beyond the comprehension of an intelligent person. We had indications in the accompanying blurb that our favourite question was very much in view. People wanted to ask what religion was and why it existed. But we never caught a sniff of the question we really need. The question asked and the question wanted have a common linguistic form, but the approach taken toward the question creates the difference. Science should assume that its objects of interest are real, so that when asking what religion is, science must begin by accepting that religion is whatever exists under that term. This these atheist scientific authors did not do. They allowed religion to provide its own definition. The scientists worked with what was given to them by the priests that focused science upon the mysteries envisaged by religion, not on religion as a behavioural phenomenon. This meant science was made into an investigation of the mysteries of religion, such as whether there was life after death, whereas science should be an examination of the fact of religion itself. This is because we assume that what we see is real, and from that assumption we seek the explanation. This strictly scientific approach is simply not evident in anything I saw today, where the question of God or religion in general was treated as something that stood in its own right, as knowledge, that therefore might be wrong, but was never treated as something that exists in its own right as a feature of the human animal, that could therefore be understood in functional terms. Just by treating religion as if it was knowledge serves to vindicate the reality of religion, and the truthfulness of belief in God. Indicating why a degenerate Oxford professor like Dawkins is a blatant and crude fraud, since he fails to take the true scientific approach that recognises the reality of religion as religion, and treats it as something real, instead of treating it as knowledge. Dawkins treats religion as knowledge and calls for us to forego it, because he says it is obscene knowledge. Well so it is obscene knowledge, but it still overrules science, and so the question is why ? Darwinism is of course not science, it is a science based idea woven from the essence of religion, obeying the rule that says humans make knowledge to serve their own personal ends. It is this approach that Dawkins rabid hatred of religion is really promoting, which is exactly what Darwinism was designed to enable, a scientific defence of religion, injected right into the heart of the academic soul. In other words religion needed to make the newly emerging scientific knowledge into a form that people could take as a belief, like any other belief, hence Darwinism was invented. Forming a belief like any religious belief because it, like all religion, would embody human social motives and ultimate understandings about existence, but would not be science. Darwinism, in short, is just another Jewish religion.

III The list It was this list of books that made me think of creating a second part to this growing essay on seeking the white lie, entitled the Gentlemans Club because it evoked the eternal fraud of parliamentary politics which pretends to oppose radical opposites against one another, while always only ever seeking to find the most efficient formula to deceive the masses, all the masses, all the time, hopefully, but, at very the least, all of the masses some of time, and some of the masses all of the time. Of course if you do not have the true solution to the problem, which has been banished since the Great Cleansing of 1914 18, and tabooed since the enhanced, Deep Cleansing of 1939 45, then you are left baffled by the welter of argument, which thereby serves its purpose of keeping the game of deception hot, according to the fascist ploy of democracy and freedom, which is anything but. Lets have the list of atheist related works, just for the record :

1)

Critiques of God : Making the Case Against the Belief in God, by Angeles, Peter A (Editor)

2)

The Delusion of Disbelief : Why the New Atheism Is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, by Aikman, David When Atheism Becomes Religion : Americas New Fundamentalists, by Chris Hedges

3)

4)*

The End of Faith : Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, by Sam Harris.

5)*

Atheism : the Case Against God, by Smith, George H.

6)

The Religious Significance of Atheism, No 18 Bampton Lectures in America Columbia University 1966, by Macintyre & Ricoeur

7)

God ? : a Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist, by Craig, William Lane and Walter Sinnott.

8)

God-the Failed Hypothesis, by Stenger, Victor J.

9)

The Last Superstition, a Refutation of the New Atheism, by Feser, Edward.

10)*

Why Atheism ?, by George H. Smith.

11)

After Atheism : Science, Religion and the Meaning of Life, by Mark Vernon .

12)

The Battle for the Mind, by Tim Lahaye.

13)

Religion Without God, by Ray Billington.

14)

The Future of Atheism : Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett in Dialogue, by Robert B. Stewart.

15)

Atheism and Philosophy : With a New Preface By the Author, by Kai Nielsen.

16)

Western Atheism : a Short History, by James A. Thrower.

17)

God Without God : Western Spirituality Without the Wrathful King, by Michael Hampson.

18)

Atheism : a Reader, by S.T. Joshi.

19)

The Irrational Atheist : Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, by Vox Day. The Devils Delusion : Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski.

20)

21)

The Dawkins Delusion ?, by Alister McGrath, Joanna Collicutt McGrath. Answering the New Atheism : Dismantling Dawkins Case Against God, by Scott Hahn, Benjamin Wiker. Atheist Universe : the Thinking Persons Answer to Christian Fundamentalism, by David Mills

22)

23)

24)

God and the New Atheism : a Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, by Haught, John F.

25)

Irreligion : a Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Dont Add Up, by Paulos, John Allen.

26)

The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, by Edited By Martin, Michael.

27)

The Non-Existence of God, by Nicholas Everitt.

28)*

Letter to a Christian Nation, by Harris, Sam.

29)

God and the State, by Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin.

30)

Atheist Manifesto : the Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, by Michel Onfray.

31)

The Real Face of Atheism, by Ravi Zacharias.

32)

Faith of the Fatherlessthe Psychology of Atheism, 1999, by Vitz, Paul C.

Setting out this list now, it occurs to me straightaway that my search was for atheism, and what I wanted was books about atheism, would you believe ? Is that what I have got ? Is it heckers like. Ive got a result all bunged up with shit, which is exactly what we are always saying about religious freaks, these arrogant swine think they own the world. Well they do, but this is because they think they do, and no one can do or say anything without their assuming the arrogant right to impose themselves upon what others say. What religious freaks love more than anything else when dealing in person with an atheist miscreant like myself, is asserting that I am an arrogant individual who just wants everyone to think what I think !! Ha, it would be funny if these twats were not for real, and absolutely everywhere. Of course it makes sense that their arrogance is exactly what they see in those who oppose them, because we tend to think others think as we think, if we lie habitually we think all people are liars for example, and we are just doing as everyone does. But they started it, all we want is to recover the situation by getting rid of their power mongering lies, allowing us to discover the liberating truth. While I actually want works offering a proper atheist account, which I have written myself because no one else ever has, things being what they are, this list of fascist, state sponsored propaganda cum state sponsored misinformation, gives us the mix of the moment, and it is taking this material as it is, as real, and examining it as such, that allows us to do science as atheist scientists, as real scientists of human nature. The two world wars must be viewed as the reaction of the superorganism to the coming of science, or if we want to personalise this idea, this is our theocracys reaction to the coming of science. We say this now, following our sampling of the living flux post these two world wars, more than half a century on, where science is supposedly triumphant beyond

belief, where true science can only mean the way of knowing reality. Yet all we have is what every human kind has always had, no matter how primitive and debased they were, still they had religion ! These world wars then, were all about religion, and nothing else, about preserving religion. This is no idle spouting, what the heck do you think the rampant anti-Semitism of the period, especially seen in relation to the dynamics of the Deep Cleansing of the second bout of self annihilation, was all about if not religion ? And this pipette of linguistic flux recorded above, proves the fact as well as we could wish for. Just as archaeologists sample the minutia of the past to reveal astounding facts, or as a biologist may do likewise with DNA, so we philosophers can sample the linguistic flux of the living present, or the past, and perform similar wonders. Reducing the whole phantasmagoria of the world wars to nothing more than a minor move in the control of the linguistic flux, that is the controlling force determining the form of the superorganic physiology, the form of the global society that is, that we all live in.

IV Atheisms One of these books argued that there were so many varieties of atheism that it was difficult to know what to make of modern trends in atheism. I think this was pro-atheism, ostensibly, but its logic is in perfect accord with the political logic of Jewish slave programming, which makes the individual an end in themselves. There can only be one kind of atheism, just as there can only be one kind of anything. By assuming the legitimacy of a plurality of forms of any one kind of entity, we make a very specific and definite assumption, thus we adopt a specific point of view. A point of view must be adopted in all matters, but if we are doing science then the point of view is the pivot from which we extend our argument. For a scientist the assumption of kind, essence, or nature pertaining to anything, must always demand a uniformity, a monistic form. Thus there can only be one kind of eye, that is an organ to see by, where seeing refers to sensitivity to the environmental factor of light energy. Within this uniformity there can then be a plurality, but it would be absurd to say that we are baffled as to the use of the eye because of its multiplicity of forms, for the multiplicity of forms always comes back to the exact same thing. We say Dawkins, a famous, strident atheist, is not an atheist at all. He is in fact the most forthright theist it is possible to imagine, for he defends religion by taking a post external to religion, which is why we call him the Gatekeeper of the Theocracy, given his prominent position as a crusader for atheism. All such uncovering of deceptive strategies requires a scientific stance, directly opposed to the religious stance adopted by people like Dawkins, who bases all his ideas on the primary idea that he is a human being, addressing himself to other human beings. We deny that we are human beings, we say the superorganism is a human being, so that each of us is but a unitary sentient brick existing to serve the being of which we form an unwitting part. This is not a proclamation of belief, it is a scientific fact, as demonstrable as any scientific fact could ever be, it is how science explains the social life of humans. Without the idea of the superorganism science is incapable of explaining anything about human existence, and since the idea of the social organism was destroyed by our theocracy, this has indeed been the position of science, one of total incapability to explain anything fundamentally when faced with the wonder of humanity.

Thus we reduce all pluralities of social identity to one common kind, that of a structural pattern relating to the physiology of the superorganism. If we say there is a plurality of atheisms, then we make atheism nothing more than an extension of the plurality of religions, which makes atheism a religion, and clearly we do not want that. All atheism is, is a denial of the validity of religion. Of itself such a denial can tell us nothing, for it is a negative condition. But, if we make atheism a precondition for our search for knowledge, as a pivot of observation from which to begin our explanations of human nature, this leads us towards pure science unencumbered by any form of precondition or bias, since the assumption of atheism merely returns conditions to their natural, untouched state. Thus atheism and pure science become one and the same thing, whereby science is the positive expression of atheism, whereupon science then explains all things, starting from the overt declaration that there is no God, and all religion is false.

V Killjoys The other accusation that cropped up in the run of works recorded above, was that of atheists as people who deny all joy and value, and instead assert pointlessness and emptiness. These are old, very old accusations, they come from the raw simplicity of an arrogant, careless mind. Their teaching is part of priestcraft, and they are just a pathetic example of the evil mindset that religious leaders teach their lackeys to wallow in. When I was a kid my father use to say to me What difference is it to you whether some old lady takes comfort out of attending church and believing in a life hereafter ? He really could be a twat. But Dad was only being like everyone else in this respect, and I assume no right to demand that people give a toss about such matters. I address myself only to those who do give a toss, and who do not want to be comfortable, but who actually want to know what is what. And the fact is that the nasty mentality displayed by the ignorant works we are considering now, is intended to bolster the fascistic outlook of a religious sect, it is not intended to address atheists. In that sense we should not even be looking at such work, but this is the barrage of garbage we get from the theocracy when we run a search for atheism, so we are only reviewing the product of one such search. Defending oneself from these eternal and infinite criticisms of religious freaks and their swarm of apologists, is a pointless exercise, we will not sink so low as to pay heed to their pathetic drivel any more than we must. But we can consider the nature of this particular type of criticism. Obviously my Old Mans rejection of my atheist ranting was rooted in the imprinted assumption of individual integrity, where the person is seen as the end point in any discussion of reason or belief, and we reject such nonsense out of hand because humans are social animals that mean nothing as individuals. But a point of interest in the general area of puritanical objections to religious fervour coming from atheists, which certainly emerges from my atheism, arises when we talk about the Jews as a master race exploiting the biomass of the human global population, and driving us relentlessly toward Armageddon as a natural part of the Jewish cycle of self empowerment. Such that I condemn capitalism and demand a pre-capitalist value system that sets cultural values above the all consuming value of moneydriven cultural development. All social activity takes on a radically different meaning under the gaze of science which simply does not exist when people are enslaved to Judaism, and the scientific view no longer exists outside of my work because the theocracy has destroyed its initial rise through all the means provided by the superorganic physiology associated with the Jewish identity programme. Atheism is not about stopping people taking solace in a belief in

immortality, or rejoicing in the unconditional love that Christians proclaim to have for all humanity. First it is simply about having the truth, as in having a real science of humanity. And secondly, in moralistic terms, atheism is about wanting to show that religion is the personification of evil, that without everything that we all call evil, religion could not exist, as we explain throughout all of our works. The point then, is that it is of the nature of religion as we know it courtesy of Judaism, that exploitation and extravagance is fundamental to religion, notwithstanding that versions of puritanical Judaism are well known and have been dominant for periods of time. So that when we hear these accusations that atheists are just miserable wretches that will suffer no high spirits and must have everything deadpan, we see this kind of defence for what it is, like that of my fathers, it is just drivel, meaningless drivel. Such drivel is an extremely important element of linguistic programming, keeping the force flowing in one structural line, but it is not something to take at face value as a valid observation from a scientific point of view, as it is nothing more than a rhetorical refrain. We may ask what important function such ubiquitous drivel plays in the mammalian superorganisms physiological order, but we cannot ask what such drivel means, since it means nothing. It would be like asking what the alarm cackle of the blackbird means, other than an alarm ; does it mean Look out lads, trouble about ? or Screw I just had a fright ? No, it is just a raucous call that is itself an alarm, symbolic of the alarm triggering the call, that may then alert those hearing it to the presence of something worthy of attention that they have not noticed directly themselves. Human drivel is of the same nature, it has no meaning other than the message it imparts, which is to thwart reason that conflicts with the irrationality of the One message. It is a One message alarm call, we might say, a cackle designed to shut out reason conflicting with internal linguistic programming routines. Asking why one should want to destroy something of comfort to the weak, is an attempt to dismiss the question, which is implicitly a defence of the status quoa cackle in other words, a meaningless noise intended to fend off discordant linguistic expression. The projection of the weak old lady to the forefront of the debate is a rejection of the debate, and this is all that religious freaks want, to suppress the debate between science and religion, which they have long since reduced to farce by every psychopathic trick in the book. My father, by the way, was not religious, not to my knowledge as I knew him ; although there is more to this subject than is revealed in this statement, too much more to be bothering with now.

VI An ecological science Last night, 21 December 2009, I watched part of a Channel Four documentary called Man on Earth, presented by Baldrick (Tony Robinson). They examined the demise of two civilisations, that of the Maya and some Pueblo Indians, due to shifts of climate. The subject is of great interest, but from our point of view the human side of the equation is what really counts, and needless to say in a programme about man, science is strictly forbidden from putting any input into the subject, beyond the limited contribution arising from the examination of physical remains. Some of that evidence indicated that the Indians had reverted from farming back to hunter gathering strategies, but in the end abandonment and dispersal was the only recourse left to these people. But what of the nature of humans as part of this equation ? What about thinking of humans as animals and not just as people ? They gave some thought to the contrast offered between wild Eskimos and civilised Europeans, these two peoples, while living apart, having

shared Iceland when the mini cool period struck in the Middle Ages. Europeans were geared up to a civilised pattern of life, in effect they represented an outpost of civilisation, and as such they faced the same terminal effects of climate shift that whole civilisations had faced elsewhere at various times. While the Eskimo was already operating at the hunter gather level and had nowhere to fall to, so they endured when times became hard because for them there was no hierarchical degree of change threatening the energy level of their social order. Clearly the crux of the matter of survival is the advance made in unleashing the potential of human corporate nature, which leads to the explosion of superorganic complexity and biomass, and a consequent massive upsurge in energy consumption required to fuel such physiological growth. At a time like the present when the Jewish slave making programme has maximised the potential for human nature to take on a supermassive superorganic form, and the potential of this linguistic programme has reached a peak, we find the world taking an interest in how we impact on our environment. We have recognised a special feature applying to the Jewish slave implant which revolves around a cyclical period of growth, whereby periods of devastation are incorporated into the linguistic programme itself, so that the Jews survive the collapse and return when suitable conditions are restored. In the case of the Jews this special mechanism has been enabled by an elaboration based upon the dispersal of a master class, the Jews proper. This clearly maximises the potential of the exploitation of cyclical social growth, and explains how Judaism has been able to create a whole superorganism in its own image by generating two sub-Judaic slave, or sub-identities. So we would like to bring these matters of human nature to bear on the subject of how humans face the current threat of imminent disaster. This is positive atheism seeking a better life for all humanity, struggling against head-in-the-sand theism, which threatens the existence of our species. The fact that humans evolve a linguistic programme that builds a superorganic physiology that maximises the capacity to increase biomass through farming is clearly a basic attribute of our kind, and the Tony Robinson documentary last night gave a nice impression of this process, only it lacked a true scientific foundation in human animal nature, of course. For us the missing ingredient when people wrestle with the question of global warming, as they just did in Copenhagen last week, to no effect, is the deeper question of human nature. When we see a standoff between the likes of China and America which dooms the conference, we are seeing the effects of the unacknowledged dimension of human nature which forces the world to take a self destructive, competitive stance, on this most difficult and potentially dangerous challenge to the modern world. However, because it is part of the programming of the Jewish master identity to endure and survive disaster, we can have no hope of anyone seeing it as being in their interest to back-down, since a total collapse of the world order is of little meaning to the master race, who know they will endure and in five centuries, or a millennias time, rise again, vastly empowered as compared with their position today. We may not know what the future holds for the world in terms of its well being, but we know for sure that the Jews will be there, and they will be the rulers of the earth, for all the future of our kind ; no other outcome is conceivable. And this in its turn does mean that we can be sure that humanity is doomed to terrible troubles ahead, because we exist to serve the existence of the Jews, this is what our Christian religion means, it is also what the Muslim religion means, and capitalism is the engine of our servitude that cannot be shutoff without killing the master race. One part of the Mayan story involved looking at a pile of skulls found under one of the pyramids, they were the high priests that had been slaughtered by the people, the heads had been decapitated and had their eyes and tongues removed, because the priests had failed society by having lost their power to communicate with the gods, or so the story seemed to be. And this story goes to show how the evolution of a mobile priesthood could be of

especial advantage, so that as the inevitable demise of the superorganic body occurred because of the dynamic nature of the beast, burgeoning to the limits of maximal potential, and only stopping when it hit the brick wall of ecological constraint, it is evident that a priesthood adapted to shift from such a dying body to a new opportunity would be a radical advantage in human organic evolution. Jewish history as recorded in the Old Testament, is a testament to this kind of special priesthood. By discovering a mechanism for transcending this growth limit built into supermassive superorganic being, Jewish culture unleashed the potential of human nature to form a global superorganism. Judaism has done this by harnessing to itself the power of linguistic force that creates all human superorganic physiology in the first place. One might say that the Bible forms the reins by means of which the Jews have been able to tame the human superorganism. Or we might like to extend the analogy by saying that the two parts of the Bible plus the Koran, taken together, are a harness placed upon the beast known as God. Now all humanity must ride this beast, ere it will take us, whether we like it or not, for we cannot let go of the reigns of Jewish power that have brought us this far and made us what we are, all we can do is cling on, until we fall off. Once a strategy of advancement beyond boom and bust at the faunal level of civilised complexity has evolved, it does not just exist as a negative solution to a perennial problem, far from it. The physiological strategy leading to the evolution of a mobile master class creates a whole new kind of superorganism, capable of consuming all the elements of which a continental superorganic fauna is composed, and as such this mobile cultural organ becomes a major source of power in its own right. Small wonder that capitalism, the personification of a few consuming the many, should be the result of this models culmination in a unified global human biomass. And really, if we think about, this must be the case, the mobile priesthood must have something to offer the would be host, and because they bring preserved knowledge about how to run an organised society with them, they are able to empower any resident social order that invites them in. Once in however, the priesthood shows its true parasitic nature, it then feeds off the host and exploits it to death, for its own ends. We can see this today with the Americans who are so appallingly enslaved to the Jews it is somewhat horrific to see. And on that point we find a work appearing in our list above, the Letter to a Christian Nation seems to be a reaction to the enslavement of America to the Jews. Only the author will have no idea this is so, he just wants to bemoan the abasement induced by slavery to Christianity, having no idea that Christianity does not exist as an end in itself and that what is really going on is slavery to the mobile priesthood of the Jews, who always seek out the point where potential power resides to focus their efforts at engorging social power, for the purpose of feeding themselves. In this way the Jews induce the maximum expression of the potential of human corporate nature, and cause a human superorganism to exist in the name of Judaism. It follows from what we are saying, that a human form such as that which is Judaism, had to evolve by virtue of the laws of nature, as realised through life in mammalian form, and its specifically human expression in a creature based on a corporatising nature. As Jewish history reveals, the key to actually realising the global potential of human form came from the special setting found in the Near Eastern regions, which offers the first evidence of humans living in settled, farming based communities. The Turkish name for the place is too tricky to be able to write it without looking it up, it was featured in a earlier episode of Man on EarthCatal Huyuk, actually. From this earliest of known beginnings humans continued to farm in the general area for thousands of years, but their ability to do so relied upon the fact that the region offered lots of opportunities to move to pastures new. Robinson said something about the early peoples of the Turkish region forming the kernel of cultured peoples from which the Egyptians arose. According to this logic we get a sense of the idea of

a mobile priesthood, or intelligentsia, being a long established cultural pattern in the region, and it is clear that the Jews emerged from this kind of tradition to become the living origins of the modern human world, and as such the master race. It is tragic that professional scientists are no longer allowed to reason along these naturalistic lines today, thanks to the solid work of the Nazis as servants of the true master race. It is clear what mayhem this would cause for the Jews, as indeed it evidently did before the Nazis put a stop to genuine scientific reasoning about human nature. Tuesday, 05 June 2012 Last night I watched the Queens Diamond Jubilee concert, which was pretty amazing, staged slap bang in the middle of a major London thoroughfare as it was. The set with Madness performing on Buckingham Palace roof, with the amazing panoramic light show beamed across the palace facia was a real delight, that must of been something to see in the flesh. The whole bash was almost enough to make a life long republican like myself turn over. What society can put on a show of collective celebration like this other than ourselves, all because of the peculiar nature of our constitutional monarchy ? It is however of its very nature that our royal system keeps one foot in the dark past, preventing us from leaving that past behind us. I cannot help but object to the monarchy with its deeply religious attachments. But given this, it does offer an annoyingly impressive solution to the problem of a national figurehead that only seems to have one alternative, that of a politically constituted presidential emblem. Which is never a good thing, not even in its more refined cases, such as the current American equivalent of our royal office, Obama. When this show ended I switched channels, many times, as usual, and one of the programmes on offer, as it happened, was a about the immanent doom of humanity, as we were discussing above a couple of years or so ago, above. And so it goes on. Endless numbers of intellectuals pontificating hollowly upon a subject they have not got the first clue about the nature of. It was unwatchable. I cannot recall the title, something to do with escaping disaster, on BBC 3 maybe. I caught one bloke saying that we had to accept that we had been conducting a grand experiment that had failed, the experiment had gone on for a couple of hundred years . . . At another point, or was it the same one, the Romans came up as a previous example of society demonstrating some kind of recurring theme in human social development. But these people did not have the real clue, which we give above, that this is all about the Jews, screw the Romans, its the Jews, the Jews you tossers ! This brought to mind just last night, that our Atheist Science is really an ecological science, when understood properly. For that is what we deliver, a science of human ecology. The key insight that comes from all that we say, when all is said and done, is that we are not in control. And that means our science tells us that something else is in control, and that something is nature, which makes our atheist science a science of human ecology. This fact of our passivity in the midst of our own collective activity, is the precise point that these intellectuals were not getting. That is why they were talking in fanciful terms about our need to realise that our experiment was not working. Boy, can you get any more stupid than this ? How can these grand social developments be something we do, ourselves ! Give me a break. With help like this who needs mother nature to bring on extermination ? But of course this is a Jewish mode of reasoning, fixated on the individual as an end in themselves, which is in perfect harmony with the Jewish programme, for it is calling on us to be more efficient cattle, and that is a central concern of the Jews who farm us, as the master race.

Chapter 6

The Books

A red asterisk indicates books I think are supposed to be by the four atheist authors that are rattling religious freaks cages. I just bought a nice cheap hardcover copy of Sam Harriss book The End of Faith, so we will soon see what sort of stuff lies therein. To my amazement Smiths Case Against God is 1979, Ive never heard of it ! And they call it a classic. The freaks took their time to react didnt they ? Is it worth buying ? This is the synopsis : With this intriguing introduction, George H Smith sets out to demolish what he considers the most widespread and destructive of all the myths devised by man the concept of a supreme being. With painstaking scholarship and rigorous arguments, Mr. Smith examines, dissects, and refutes the myriad proofs offered by theists the defences of sophisticated, professional theologians, as well as the average religious layman. He explores the historical and psychological havoc wrought by religion in general and concludes that religious belief cannot have any place in the life of modern, rational man. To me this seems heavily oriented toward a discussion of religious freakishness, and there is no sign of any conception of religion as a functional phenomenon which exists in modern life for biological reasons. It must be more like a Dawkins diatribe than a piece of worthwhile atheist science. Skip it. The following is the synopsis for God, The Failed Hypothesis : Prometheus Books, United States, 2007. Throughout history, arguments for and against the existence of God have been largely confined to philosophy and theology. In the meantime, science has sat on the sidelines and quietly watched this game of words march up and down the field. Despite the fact that science has revolutionised every aspect of human life and greatly clarified our understanding of the world, somehow the notion has arisen that it has nothing to say about the possibility of a supreme being, which much of humanity worships as the source of all reality. Physicist Victor J. Stenger contends that, if God exists, some evidence for this existence should be detectable by scientific means, especially considering the central role that God is alleged to play in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans. Treating the traditional God concept, as conventionally presented in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, like any other scientific hypothesis, Stenger examines all of the claims made for Gods existence. He considers the latest Intelligent Design arguments as evidence of Gods influence in biology. He looks at human behaviour for evidence of immaterial souls and the possible effects of prayer. He discusses the findings of physics and astronomy in weighing the suggestions that

the universe is the work of a creator and that humans are Gods special creation. After evaluating all the scientific evidence, Stenger concludes that beyond a reasonable doubt the universe and life appear exactly as we might expect if there were no God. So once again, and as ever, the scientists take their cue from the freaks ! Here the damn idiots even begin by saying science declines to deal with religion on its own terms, and then it proceeds to show us how science will deal with religion on religions terms, according to some bullshit notion of science. It is no irrelevance that this defender of religion in disguise, is a physicist, a supreme exponent of science as determined by theocratic decree, as an art to be applied to material form directly, and exclusively. What we need is a sociologist offering to put religion through the scientific mill. But even then it would do no good as long as organicism is outlawed. Skip it. How the hell can religion be called a hypothesis anyway !! The Last Superstition : A Refutation of the New Atheism by Feser, 2008, is slightly intriguing, but the man seems to be a professional philosopher, and I see no summaries of the drift of his argument, which is bound to be utter garbage. But we could say that about anything ever written when all is said and done, because no one ever writes without bias unless their writing is informed by a true scientific approach to reality, and this has never been done in relation to religion, except by me. Here is the blurb on After Atheism : The broadside against religion launched by a new breed of evangelical atheists has generated much heat but little light. Locked in battle against their Christian opponents the argument goes nowhere fast, and in an age of extremism, nurtures the dangerous vice of intolerance. Mark Vernon was an Anglican priest, left a conviction atheist, but now finds himself to be a committed and increasingly passionate agnostic. Part personal story, part philosophical search, After Atheism argues that the contemporary lust for certainty is demeaning of our humanity. The key to wisdom as Socrates, the great theologians and the best scientists know is understanding the limits of our knowledge. Well this geezer was a professional religious freak, then he becomes an atheist, and now he is agnostic ! Stone me. What a piece of trash. For some reason one of the famous four new atheists did not cough up his work in my list above, but I just dropped on Dennetts book about seeing religion as something natural, it is the most perfect idea, so unique, so rare, and an utter load of shit, as presented by Dennett. The twat talks about history and psychology, Ha! can you imagine, I am living in a society owned by lunatics. History is an age old Jewish ploy ; psychology is the new route to obscenity in the realms of priestly truth, and this miscreant plunges headlong into the sewer of this stuff in order to finally, at last, touch ultimate knowledge, by asking what religion is as a natural phenomenon. Is it addiction, or a real human need ? the cretin asks ! But, you see, here we are, we know the answer. OK, no one wants this answer, because it is true. But you see what gets us, is that millions, upon millions, upon ......... well, everyone it seems, desperately wants to ask the question, but not in order to get the answer ! Oh no, they want the answer in order to reinforce the idea that they have done the best they can, and that the answer they have is therefore solid. But what does this feigning a passionate desire for knowledge get them ? It gets them a solid White Lie.

When we see the immense effort made by the people of the world today, to feign a real search for knowledge, when a true attempt is simple and would lead to the place that atheist science occupies, we can perhaps make some sense of how things were when the world vomited out the putrid mess of reasoning that is The Origin of Species, the biggest White Lie ever concocted. We can sense how this monstrous imposition could be so well devised, and so smoothly insinuated into our culture, then imposed upon the world so as to keep the master-grip on the slaves minds. Look how people strive to find the white lie today, unashamedly they churn out the same old drivel, always making the simplistic, idiotic, pathetic assumption that individuals are animals in their own right, none of them ever thinking that we might be superorganisms. How do they avoid coming across this idea ? They dont, they know full well what it means, as we can see from what happened in the aftermath of Wilsons gaff in 75. Everyone knows all about the idea that humans are a superorganism, indeed it is the one good thing I found in Dawkins God Delusion, a slanting dismissal of the idea, wherein he indicated there were some who pursued this idea, which is how I learnt of Darwins Cathedral by David Wilson, 2002. Dawkins said he could not go along with the superorganism idea, and when I checked what he was rejecting, nor could I, since it was not remotely close to a sane proposition concerning the corporate nature of the human animal. All these nasty people pose as sound, intelligent, sincere people, and are loved and admired accordingly by society at large. What this great variety of approaches to the subject of atheism that we have just sampled, amounts to, is the linguistic fluxion of an informal team who pass the ball which is atheism, between themselves. Where the object of the game is to ensure that the ball is never dropped, so that atheism never reaches solid ground by connecting with real science. If that were to happen religion would be dead, and the game over. The whole performance is out and out garbage. Could we ever have any better proof of the fact that we are nothing more nor less than social insects, in mammal skins ? When I first looked at Darwins Cathedral the opening statement, I thought, was wonderful, but naturally, it could not last. All these professional message makers stick strictly to the One message. Are we then to think of these people as engaging in a conspiracy, which would be the usual populist kneejerk response to what we are saying ? No, of course not. When we examine a book like Human by Nature, discussed elsewhere in my works posted to Scribd, we find that the sociologists are well aware of the danger of presenting an idea of society as an organic phenomenon, so we know that in academia the One message has had its effect stamped upon every department of thought that needs its constraining influence. There is therefore no need for anyone to step outside the comfort zone of the One message, even when we think there might be, as when we speak of a coordinated effort to follow a given line, while avoiding any other. The unspoken taboo, established by Hitler, rules. If not a conspiracy, then what ? What is the nature of the obedience to the message maintained by all these intellectuals ? Put like this, we must refer to the institutions which all these people derive from, and hence represent. The institutions train these people, employ them, and publish their lying bullshit. It is the institution that gives these worthless, degenerate, miscreant knowledge mongers their exalted status. Really, if we refer to the subject of the Mayan hierarchy presented in Man on Earth discussed above, there is not one iota of difference between the Mayan high priests disembowelling people and draining blood in sacrifice to the gods, and the academics spewing forth the printed volumes we are discussing here. The Mayan priests had authority, and so do our academics, and in both cases this is an intellectual hierarchy based on institutional structures.

Lets put it this way : Do fish conspire to live in water ? No, it is of their nature that fish live in water, they can do no other. This is what we are saying about our rulers, those specialising in the formulation of the One message must swim in the linguistic flux of that message, they can do no other. The message then, must be formulated and then maintained. What we saw in the open clash between religion and science in the nineteenth century, was a requirement for the formulation of the One message to be updated, and Darwin provided the upgrade to the One message which is now continuously maintained. Wednesday, 06 June 2012 We avoid the implication of conspiracy by the simple application of two principles : the imperative of linguistic force creating all social form ; and the nonexistence of the individual. By this means we indicate the point of origin of everything human ; while at the same time we make it impossible for any individuals to be consciously responsible for the same, for anything human that is.

I Tracing endemic corruption This being so, we can but wonder how we would ever know a real academic if we saw one. The idea I have favoured for a few years now, when dealing with this topic of elite sublimation in academia, is that of the police force. The police officer lends themselves to this model because they encapsulate the precise dynamics of social action that we want to identify in academia, but cant. I usually ask if a police officer can be a criminal. The answer is no. But lots of police officers are criminals, in which case we call them corrupt. It follows that police officers obviously can be criminals, but not officially. So this dynamic is the principle we seek to overlay on our academic fabric, like taking a tracing of one structural form and laying it over another, to see if any of the main structural lines are the same in both cases, and where the crucial differences lie.

II When is corruption, not corruption ? It is Christmas in two days time, and when I ask this kind of riddle it always reminds me of the Christmas cracker joke from my childhood, When is a door not a door ? The answer should appear upside down at the foot of the page, but it is When it is ajar. I cannot remember whether they kept the true spelling or said a jar, probably the latter, so the play is on the sound not the spelling. As discursive as this consideration of Xmas jokology may seem, it may be more apposite than we think. It is a fiendishly difficult problem to know how to proceed with, if academics abide by establishment practice in producing false knowledge as established over time, then can we call them corrupt ? Hardly. Clearly we must say the academic establishment is corrupt, not the individuals within it. But how do we make this argument stand up in a society like ours, a knowledge rich society, where the deliverers of knowledge are our most highly respected members of society ? The answer is that we do not, this is a wall of protection defending the integrity of the superorganic identity, that we cannot penetrate. And so it is that we defer to the rigmarole of word play tickling our fancy at the Christmas dinner table. It is all about the control of

linguistic force. So when is corruption not corruption ? Answer : When it is the law. Or, in academic lingo : when it is official. Just as humans make laws which they treat as sacred, so they do likewise with knowledge, and this is an inevitable consequence of humans being a superorganic species whose physiology is created by linguistic force, since both law and knowledge are expressions of this natural force of linguistic physiology. We knocked off for Christmas yesterday, 23rd, phew !, what a bloody relief. The place and the people have not been so bad, and I have been able to find work of my own to do while in detention, but still, it is hell just being forced out of bed and off to a drudge hole, all for nothing.

III Atheist Science Exemplified Anyway, something good happened yesterday, a book arrived ! Rationalism and Religious Reaction, Jane Harrison, 1919, is a very slight volume, I think it was the only copy available, so I am always keen to snatch such things up when I see them, at a good price. It is one of the Conway Memorial Lecture productions, and leafing through it I hit on this trio of sentences : Please do not be alarmed. I am not a disciple of Mr. Kidds. I do not believe that power in civilization rests on collective emotion rather than reason. (p. 18) I have emphatically demanded to know why it is that the idea of the social organism, so prevalent across society during the open war of atheism against religion, never came into the hands of any atheists, who would of then been forced to come to the same conclusions we come to about the true mythical nature of God being that of the social organism of reality. This is as close as I have ever come to an opportunity to consider this matter on the basis of something someone has said, which is not very close at all really, but still, this is a most important question, and we must squeeze what we may from this morsel, our problem being that we are looking for evidence of why people said nothing about something so major in their world, a tricky proposition. While on the face of it all Harrison is doing is opposing emotion to reason as a driving force in social life, because she chooses to do this in the context of Kidds work we can read a little more into this contrast. First we must convert her emotion into something more profound, on the basis of what Kidds work was really all about. She is actually referring to a later work of Kidds, not his original 1894 masterpiece on Social Evolution. This further jeopardises our efforts, as the emphasis of Kidds argument did shift. Even so, the plain fact of the matter is that Kidds main idea was that of religion acting as a super-rational sanction for social life, validating selfless behaviour that could not be made sense of in any rational terms based upon the interests of individuals seen as ends in themselves, because social life involved so much self sacrifice. Even when the idea of emotion related to the contrast between the male and female gender derived from a later work, is the focus of attention, we can still sense the essential import of Kidds logic in Harrisons reference to his way of thinking about the driving force of life in a civlized society. So we can juxtapose Kidds general argument that says an irrational body of knowledge creates social life, to Harrisons idea asserting that social life is driven by rational

thinking. At the heart of this contrast is the implication that social life is a product of force beyond our control. On the one hand our natural fabric causes us to create society whether we, as individuals, like it or not ; while on the other hand, given the limitations of our natural fabric, we find the fortuitous availability of extended intelligence gives us our best chance to compete in lifes struggle for survival when we choose to act socially. Compromise is required equally in both cases, but with Kidd it is enabled by the otherwise inexplicable prevalence of religion. So that his idea is strictly centred upon human nature and life as we know it ; while Harrisons explanation is rooted in human individuality, portraying humans as rational, while leaving the inexplicable dependence of social life upon irrational religious behaviour flaying in the wind. Compared to Kidds functional explanation of religion, Harrisons model of social life makes religion completely superfluous, which will not do given how utterly vital religion is to social life. Thus Harrison, the supreme atheist, stands as the most aggressive defender of religious irrationality, deliberately setting herself in opposition to the best voice science has ever had on the subject of religion and social life and the nature of human sentience as an emotional phenomenon. Kidds idea of super-rational sanction is however not tantamount to an emotional mental state. Religious minions are characteristically emotional because they are slavishly dependant upon the master class disseminating the Message of identity. But the master class that rules them is practically psychopathic, the very antithesis of emotional, as we can tell from looking at any Ayatollah, Hitler, Blair or Thatcher, or any of our regular modern politicians, who have not got a shred of sincere emotional feeling in their animated carcases. Only a true psychopath of, lets say Obamas intelligence and erudition, could present themselves as a Christian, Muslim or Jew, for it takes a total detachment from all that one says, for the sake of all that one is as an agent of mindless power, power for powers sake that is, to tolerate being such an intellectual tosser as this. But this soullessness is absolutely normal for most people, we are not saying it is abnormal at all, just revolting, and the reason why we need Atheist Science. By now we should all see right away that the spontaneously occurring trick we find here, created by linguistic physiology through which linguistic force flows towards the unified organization of social structure, is that Harrison is standing upon the pivot of absolute individuality, making the individual an end in themselves, which is the keystone of Jewish slave-identity programming. As such she is rendering rationalism into a religion, or mythology. Whereby the idea of rational thinking is made a preconceived condition, and all is interpreted from that bias assumption. Whereas, the correct stance of a rationalist is to think rationally, not to worship rationality. There is no contradiction between being rational and arguing that the knowledge informing social life is irrational at its most crucial part. On the contrary, this is exactly what we would expect of a scientist, that they would observe what is, and then explain it as it appears, not moralise about it and deny its reality because it contradicts the presumptions of the so called rational observer. Indeed it is for just this reason that science can be deemed an unnatural way of thinking by normal standards, because it thinks about all things in a manner that is alien to our normal mode of reasoning, which tries to find explanations for things that serve our purposes. A sentiment expressed in the title of Lewis Wolperts book The Unnatural Nature of Science, 1992. Miss Harrison is the very epitome of irrationality ! No surprises there then, just another bloody gatekeeper. I ought to tread warily after my experience trying to figure out who Matilda Bernard was relative to Henry, but my assumption is that this Jane Harrison is the daughter of Frederic Harrison, a famous advocate of Positivism, the religion of August Comte. Jane Harrison refers to having grown up living and breathing rationalism, but there is nothing remotely rational about Comtes Positivism, or her fathers pursuit of it. Which is perplexing really, because Positivism certainly should of been rational, given its origins, but it was just crazy, it

was science deliberately rendered into a religious form. Given this, it is no wonder that Jane misunderstood the nature of rationalism in precisely the manner her essay reveals she did. I took a book by Fred from the net yesterday, 04/03/2010, called The Positive Evolution of Religion : Its Moral and Social Reaction, 1913. Shall we take a peek and see what kind of job it looks like ? I have long wondered what on earth the nature of this scientific religion was, and this work seems to state simply at the outset, all that we need to know. He talks about our sacred emotions needing to be correlated with our root beliefs, and as such he gives emotional force an important place in society, which does not tally with Janes outlook regarding the irrelevance of emotional forces. He also begins by acknowledging that religious sentiments cannot be eradicated from human life, which is why science must be inspired by religion, as religion must be founded on science. But this is just so much nonsense from a scientific viewpoint, as we show by elaborating our atheist science model of the human animal as a superorganism, wherein we show what religion is without getting ourselves tangled up in religion while doing so. Positivism is dead now, but it was an important feature of the historical period we are most interested in, and as such always worth a gander, and not least because of its association with the father of scientific sociology and creator of the phrase, and hence the idea of the social organism, Auguste Comte that is. Kidds approach exemplifies the method of atheist science because he treats religion as a normal, functional aspect of human life. Unfortunately his use of this insight, while vastly superior to any other thinker, was severely constrained, so much so as to be completely useless in the long run. In that it did not make a scientifically substantiated link between religion in social life and human biological evolution, realised in the possession of linguistic physiology from which religion arises as an expression of linguistic force, which evolved to allow what he called a social organism to come into being, at the behest of religion. Meanwhile Ms. Harrison, as a voice for atheism, shows us that atheists and so called rationalists of the period had an emotional antipathy for unbiased science, because they hated any functional approach to human nature that undermined their self centred evaluation of human rationality. By rational they meant not acting in obedience to irrational myths, they did not mean positively understanding according to the strict terms of scientific detachment. These atheists really were nothing more than what Christianity made them. As such rationalists like Ms. Harrison prove that atheists of the day were nothing more than godless Christians. Which line of reasoning links up nicely with the argument we have been finding contained in Bradlaughs work, discussed in our ongoing work on Linguistic Force, where he too shows that he was not concerned with the triumph of science in itself, but only with using science to put outdated Christianity in its place. We see similar lines of thinking in modern conflicts between secular blocs and the church. As with homosexuals who want the church to embrace them, they do not want to destroy the church, their one time arch enemy, they want to become part of it! so they can now join in being someone elses arch enemy, presumably. Sick bastards. Let arse-bandits look out for their own, I know they have been persecuted in modern ages, but when given power they inflict themselves on others with unabashed glee, so I see no reason to give a toss about them, as a group they certainly care nothing for anyone but themselves, just like everyone else. And there seems to be something of the same motive force animating atheists of the period of most interest to ourselves, they just wanted to be included in society at large, without discrimination. This would explain why they would be happy to accept the compromise offered by Darwin, that decoupled science from religion, making atheists willing to fall into line and opening the way for the corrupt society ruled by an absolute theocracy that we have today. Wherein science no longer exists because, ultimately, of the treachery of the atheists who allowed the Darwinian deception to pass muster, because they did not care

about truth as such, but only about the right not to conform to anothers bullshit. In effect these people were political atheists, not intellectual atheists, which is what we are. They did not care about the freedom of science, they just cared about freedom of belief in society. This explains why we have come to the sorry pass we are in today, and why we have had the horrific history that we have since these lame, so called atheists, had the power to make a difference, and didnt. Wednesday, 06 June 2012 Two things to catch up on. First, I acquired A Hundred Years of British Philosophy by Rudolph Metz, 1938, a couple of months ago, wherein I learnt of Kidds true philosophical nature as a friend of religion, allowing the ordinary person to discover a value for religion in the scientific age, as a super-rational sanction for devotion that was necessary to make society thrive. Hence Kidds continued commitment to Christianity as the highest expression of religion ever, instead of the obvious conclusion that Christianity was the slave identity of Judaism, and as such the greatest expression of human corporate nature, and the greatest subversion of individual freedom, making ourselves most like insects of all humans ever to of lived, explaining why the Christian world was so powerful and the highest expression of superorganic physiology. I always wondered why this was, why he failed to make the functional connection between Christianity and Judaism, and I have mentioned this revelation courtesy of Metz, in my soon to be posted work Master Race. Then there is my recently acquired awareness of the Canadian atheist Stefan Molyneux, which prompted me to write a short piece called Political Atheism, posted to Scribd just last month. So we have expressed the idea of political atheism arising from a failure of atheism to transcend Judaism before. Only in our latest efforts we discovered more telling principles, to do with the suppression of true knowledge causing these sorts of biased expressions of a political kind, which were functional because this rendered pure knowledge into flesh, in political form, from where it could either be absorbed into the body of the Jewish superorganism, in a way sought by Ms Harrison ; or expelled due to its causing trouble, as with the Nazis ; or dissipated due to its suffocation, as with sociological organicism. First make it live, then you can kill it. This is a facet of the social cleansing process which keeps the Jewish identity core pure, at the heart of a pure being constantly cleansed of all conflicting linguistic information by this very means. So that granting freedom of expression as we have it in our society, which is not free at all, becomes like is a grand version of giving them enough rope to hang themselves by.

Chapter 7

Christmas Lectures

These are annual television lectures given in a series about Christmas time, in a lecture theatre, before an audience of children, and dealing with scientific subjects. On plants this year, last night, 23rd December, was about plant communication, and it was very interesting. If ever anything supported the idea that life is information, this session was it. Volatiles was the key word. They were the medium of the messages sent to the insect allies, such as parasitic wasps, telling them that a nice juicy caterpillar was feasting on a plant. Ive never heard of that before, what an amazing idea. Immediately my mind reaches for comparisons with our relationship to plants ; first I think of domesticated plants, but think no ; then I think of psychotropics and think yes ! Why do humans have such a close relationship with plant substances of a kind that do not provide nourishment, but do act as mediums of mind states giving a shared experience of super-sensual intensity, like being on another psychological plane of existence ? This is just what the human superorganism needs, so this mind food may be the plants communicating with the human superorganism, to get an animal to favour it in such a way as to promote the plants existence. I read a report in our local paper the other day about a cannabis farm in an industrial unit in town, and it mentioned several other similar examples. If this is not an animal promoting a plant on the basis of its attributes as a mind food, I do not know what it is.

I Mediums of mind Our political creed imbues this behaviour with all sorts of moral invective that is linguistic force in action, controlling the social fabric. From a scientific stance the dynamics of these events are biological, and what is contemptuously called a drug by those who own and farm us by making and managing the laws we live bynever mind the criminals owning and farming the cannabisis quite simply one organism interacting with another in a symbiotic relationship, that is as normal as any other inter-organic relationship found in the vast domain of life. Psychoactive plants act as mediators of superorganic being, and many, like peyote, were used as a pathway to the gods, and as atheist science has now revealed, all any god is, is a representation of the superorganism. With the coming of vast, complex superorganic physiology, linguistic force ignited a linguistically constituted core of identity, which eventually became focused enough to take power in the form of the Jewish global identity, based on language. So that while some drugs, like alcohol and tobacco, still play an active part in superorganic dynamics, they are more soporific and habit forming, rather than mind-bending and transcendental in themselves. The real eye-openers are now suppressed

and controlled, as we have become ever more intensively farmed, domesticated individuals. The same applies to many other of our older ways of forming social unity, a suppressive modification of our modes of social organisation has produced what is called a civilising effect. I am thinking of sexual arrangements here. Religiously inspired laws impose a tight regime in this respect, forcing us to become perverts, ogling pornography to assuage the normal venting of natural lusts and emotions, in order to adapt us to our roles as slave units of a global Jewish superorganism. And the process continues, yesterday, 05/03/2010, there was a piece in the news saying that now we have banned smoking indoors, a fascist medical lobby has signed a petition demanding we ban smoking in cars ! The oppression and remodelling is relentless. And always these moral fascists promote their law making oppression by using the power of the state to coerce and crush individual freedom, on the basis of some contrived superior moral agenda. In this case it is the holy-idea of the innocent child, and their sacred need to be protected from the selfish, delinquent adult. Well one day the child will become an adult, if there is any adulthood left to come into, because at this rate the world will be fit only for children to live in. And that is how we become domesticated, by forcing childlike dependence to encroach upon adulthood, where authority is transferred away from independent adults, to an all powerful priesthood. It is an oft pondered question what prompted the extraordinary elongation of human infantile dependence, and herein we see a clue, as the self same process of reducing our ability to be individual foci of social authority, shows a capacity to continue, seemingly indefinitely. The child becomes an adult in its lifetime, but over the lifetime of the human species it seems the adult must become a child. This transformation, which I moan about in the personal terms of an infringement of my authority, and curse in political terms as being driven by a malicious power mad clan of self aggrandising scum, is a physiological process, driven purely by nature. We feel our place in these dynamics, but we are incapable of seeing the true nature of the causes, or we are as long as science is prevented from providing any insight into what society is, and how it works. The reason why the massive transformation in our way of life has occurred during my lifetime, in respect to the suppression of freedom, is that alternative modes of living, of delivering the Message of slave identity and of organising superorganic physiology, have been coming online during this half century. Use of cars is one example, the significance being the change in the social infrastructure based on widespread car ownership, allowing the human farmers to adjust their cash farming strategies to the new maximum potential provided by such mass organising transport. Cash, we must understand, is the symbol of collective human energy, it is not some vague nothing, ultimately money is real social power. Television is a major factor, this can serve as a way of achieving what only drugs could achieve before, and it must be a vastly superior tool for the owners-cum-farmers to use, rather than having to provide facilities allowing their animals to dope themselves. Hence pubs are no longer needed for farming the masses, so they no longer exist. If you can control livestock by feeding manufactured cerebral stimulation directly into their brains, forcing them to enjoy whatever you create for the purpose, while keeping them in their pens ready to go to work when they have been allowed the prescribed down time, how much better is such a system going to be ? Soap operas, game shows, cookery, dance, star making, all these pathetic, brain-dead shows, are like a drug to the masses, the people absolutely adore them, and cannot get enough of them. So, time to stomp on the much more deleterious control systems used by our masters a generation ago, and this is why new laws are working to eradicate old ways of behaving with greater intensity than ever before, as the total eradication of freedom is made the main goal of all social organisation today, thanks to the real, but undeclared benefits of modern technology.

II A distraction I am letting us be distracted now, momentarily ; but last night, while trying to reduce my stock of books, I pulled a likely looking target from a shelf only to find it carried an unintended message, born of its subject. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers : Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000, Paul Kennedy, 1987, will of come from a charity shop, so it was a casual, not a targeted purchase. It looked militaristic and as such of no great interest, but it is really making a link between economic development and warfare, and this is like making a link between feeding and growth, except on the structural level of social existence. The rise and fall component of the title indicates a cyclical pattern of growth occurring across a territorial medium, which is always nice to see at this level of social examination. The contents unwittingly describe the exoskeletal state structure of the Jewish superorganism, generating the kind of large scale growth that makes the Jewish linguistic identity programme capable of driving the growth of a global superorganism over a millennial long cycle, by making relentless warfare the primary factor governing long-term social organisation, warfare rooted in a similarly long term fluctuation of interconnecting economic factors. War and money, war and money, this is what Jewish globalisation is all about, as our history more than amply proves. Jewish globalisation meanwhile, is nothing more or less than human corporate nature made manifest in the social flesh of our being. We introduce these thoughts now in order to point out that economics is a physiological process. Our little example of how a change in transport drives the restructuring of society whether anyone likes it or not, because the economic structure forces this readjustment in such a way that the living biomass is subject to the will inherent in the linguistic regulation of its superorganic physiology. Taken in conjunction with Kennedys work, we can shift this localised sense of change driven from above to a higher level of awareness, guided unwittingly, by a military historian showing us how the exact same type of change causes the state-as-person to be farmed in a like kind of process as that which the actual person must endure within a state, ultimately in a manner over which no one state has any more control over itself than a barrel shooting Niagara Falls has. History shows this lack of control as modern governments appear to be more lap poodle serving business interests, than foci of popular will directing the way we all live. We could not wish for a better illustration of this fact than the furore over bankers bonuses which governments can do nothing about, yet, when it comes to their own lower order of civil servants, they have no hesitation in tearing up decades long contractual agreements over redundancy pay in preparation for large scale layoffs after the general election in a couple of months time. Strikes taking place this week, today being Wednesday, 10 March 2010, bring these facts home to us. Government can deal with the lower end issues, which pleases the economic machine, but it is powerless to touch the detail structuring at the higher end of the economic machine, which is at the heart of the Jewish global superorganism. What we have in the above is a model of superorganic physiology relating to social structure, indicating a seamless process dividing into micro social structure and macro social structure. Modern sociology acknowledges the micro but not the macro division, in keeping with its usual practice of making the individual the end which society serves, while ignoring the biological imperatives of individual being that oblige people to live as nature dictates. By way of example we may take an item I happen to own, Organizational Behaviour : An Introductory Text, David Buchanan and Andrzej Huczynski, third edition 1997, in which chapter eight is Group Structure and Process. Here we are told that group structure is a key idea helping examine the nature and functioning of groups, where Structure refers to the

way in which members of a group relate to one another. (p. 209) Group structure is defined as the relatively stable pattern of relationships among the differentiated elements of a group. (Ibid.) Mixed feelings vie for attention when reading a modern piece of social science like this when we live in the long dead past where social science was a real subject, and not just a piece of politically crafted slave ideology, jam packed with words which tell us one thing : We are wonderful, because we are divine beings. Is there anything valid about this book ? We need to pull back from the subject and get our bearings, the corruption is imposed at the foundations of the ideology of sociology, which subverts the principle influencing the logic expressed throughout. As I always say, if two people point at the arch of the moon shifting through the zodiac and describe what they see in exactly the same words, one will be talking nonsense and the other telling the truth, if one believes they are at a point at the centre of the universe while the other knows their true place relative to the sun, galaxy, and so on. Would sociologists be able to talk as they do in a book like the one just considered, if it was an established fact that humans were a superorganic species and individuals did not exist as ends in themselves ? Obviously not, because the principle object of this text is to explain social structure in detail, in terms of individual dynamics. In this model a huge amount is made of personal differences, when talking about communication within the structure they describe how some will sit quietly and listen while others will impose themselves. They imply that this setup allows individuals to express their personal qualities within a collaborative effort serving everyones needs, thus making personality the essence of our sacred individuality. Such reasoning gives a blowjob to our ego, we squirm with delight at such talk, while any contrary talk denying our individuality is obnoxious in the extreme. But the fact is that once we know that the human animal is a superorganism and the person does not really exist, then the existence of personal variation such as this text makes paramount to its sociology, is revealed to be akin to the variation in cell structure that is necessary to allow a body to exist, and nothing more. Both interpretations, the scientific and the sociological, recognise the same physical conditions, both observers see and describe the exact same things, it is the interpretation they make of those conditions that makes all the difference. And this interpretation is all about the pivot of observation adopted, providing the principle informing the logic applied to the facts observed. Sociology assumes that personality is the possession of the person, while science assumes that personality is an attribute of the sentient brick unit of superorganic being, just as physical elements have attributes from which material complexity arises. Oxygen and hydrogen do not agree to bond in order to make water, any more than Europeans agree to become Jews in order to make a new world. Both these outcomes are the product of natural physical processes, pure and simple, the result of entirely deterministic forces, the only difference between the living manifestation of determinism and the physical manifestation is that the end product did not have to be Judaism. But it did have to be some linguistic form functionally identical to Judaism in its capacity for unifying a continental biomass, on route to unifying the global biomass. This sociology text book is used to train people to go out into the world and be useful, and with that in mind the material is valid, it is showing people how to work as managers of social organizations, perhaps. But if we are going to say this is valid science, then it can only be so in a world where science is condemned to the tool shed, which leaves pure science in this area, pure sociology in others words, to take the matter further and ask why personalities exist and what function their diversity plays in human life. The issue then becomes whether or not the two areas of sociology can mix, the pure and the practical. The obvious answer is, Why not ? So why is it that they do not ? And there can only be one answer to that question : because of religion.

III Forced connections I dropped on a nice comment in a book yesterday while looking for items to ditch, I want to use it and so I am going to force myself to discover a connection between what follows, and what precedes this passage. Lets say the connection is that we are continuing a theme that examines the way science is made to serve a social purpose, by not being science. When we came to classify humans, with typical immodesty, we honoured ourselves with the name Homo sapiens wise man. As we were the only animal on earth to call ourselves anything at all, it was concluded that we were the most intelligent. . . . With a more detached and less emotive view, Desmond Morris reviewed the original choice of name and suggested that humans should be redesignated as the naked ape, which is a name zoologists from another planet may have chosen for us, if they had been given the task. (The Great Apes : Our Face in Natures Mirror, Michael Leach, 1996, p. 88.) The subtle adjustment here reflects the advancing confidence and sophisticated presentation of the ongoing White Lie. How does a shift from wise man to naked ape tell us anything new about ourselves ? All it does is shift the boundary of arrogance from the boastful to the bland, or blatantly obvious. It tells us nothing about the nature of the creature in hand. It may well be that scientific nomenclature never reveals much about the nature of the species identified by its name, and that really the whole business is only about discovering a practical means of identification allowing complexity to be managed. Which is fine, but in that case lets be clear about what such nomenclature does, and hence what it leaves still to be done. Speaking for himself in the introduction to The Human Race, 1982, Morris says to remind us of our humble origins, I referred to us as Naked Apes (p. 9). Which means there was no serious attempt at modernising the scientific name given to humans. Morris was only trying to emphasise the animal foundations of our nature, which was the theme of his work bearing this title. Leach was taking liberties with Morris famous renaming in order to make his own point with added authority, by garnering the acclaim of a successful contemporary. Atheist science on the other hand, for the first time ever in sciences history, with its creation, was trying to provide a name for our kind that is a direct representation of our occult biological nature, and not just our obvious familial origins. So we do like Leachs comment, precisely because atheist science has discovered the exact name we can be certain a wise alien would of given to us, the Colonial Ape, that we used for the title of a previous work. I wish I had used the above passage in the introduction to that book, but I think I can get away with using it now because it can be butted up against the discussion of how sociologists manage reality in a selective manner, that always succeeds in appearing to deal forthrightly with everything, while always revealing absolutely nothing, beyond that which any dickhead could of told us about social life five thousand years ago. In keeping with this theme, and as a neat example of inane stupidity to a purpose which is at hand, lets take this : We have no way of knowing what triggered the initial blooming of human brain power, . . . . they [early hominids] had a huge advantage and that was a natural

upright stance . . . . One theory for the appearance of an upright posture is that our ancestors adopted this unique carriage as a way of keeping cool . . . . (Leach, p. 90) Can you hear me screaming with laughter ? No, well that is because the sound is ringing in my head only, but it would be as loud as Krakatoa, and it would ring for all eternity if it were to do justice to how this grossly obscene travesty of scientific reasoning makes me feel like screaming. But you can be sure that this garbage is just the kind of thing professors in all our universities are obliged to believe, and to get their acolytes to absorb into their mind meat. Yet this mode of expression carries the hallmark of its degeneracy, which is the very essence of Darwinian logic, and it is useful to take notice of this from time to time. It is the logic of mechanical leverage which denotes the action of an existing mechanism, like the mechanism of legs in motion when walking, moving one step at a time, and thus resulting in a journey. As we know where legs are concerned, the legs have no idea what they are doing because they act at the behest of the brain, so the journey does not belong to the legs which make it happen. Knowing this is the key to understanding the function of the mechanical logic misused by these sick perverters of science. It is all about making sure that mechanism is the only thing ever to be found in nature, leaving room for will to play its part when we come to ourselves, to the wise man. Here we see this mechanical logic used to inform the evolutionary journey made by humans, where each shift toward our coming into being is but a mechanical moment in a journey, that our bodies could have no foreknowledge of. Human evolution proceeded just one step at a time, until, lo and behold, there stood upon the earth a creature strangely empowered, possessed of a body capable of making a most amazing journey, and now conscious of that power, this creature determined to make that journey exactly as it willed to make it ! Give me strength. I shudder with the sense of an involuntary urge to vomit, as I tease this deranged perversion of the most sublime beauty known to humanitytrue knowledge of selfout into the open. But like performing an autopsy on a putrid, ghastly looking body, belonging to a once fine looking women, cruelly butchered to serve the ends of a monster, the job must be done if we are to understand the nightmare that is science today. Friday, 08 June 2012 I recently acquired an second edition of a weird book I obtained a few years ago, The Chimpanzees Who Would be Ants, by Russell Genet, 1997 ; which has now become Humanity : The Chimpanzees Who Would be Ants, 2007. The later edition looks more slick, it has an introduction by a noted scientist of relevance to superorganics, and we get the sense of a more considered representation of what was previously an off-the-wall, chaotic presentation of the core idea of humans as a superorganic species, with aspects of comparative interest to creatures like ants. I happened to dip into this recent acquisition last night, and found it displayed the same errant nonsense about how humans evolved as we found above, while at the same time this author uses the idea of humans as superorganisms to be compared directly to superorganic insects, right upfront. Thus we find the sublime and the grotesque juxtaposed side by side in one book. Under the subtitle Crossing the cultural Rubicon he has this : In making culturally-based tool manufacture and use an integral part of their lives, our ancestors crossed the divide from a predominantly genetic to what would eventually become a predominantly cultural world. (p. 77)

Here we find the usual crass use of expression clearly intended to impart a sense of people choosing to follow the course of evolution they have followed. Priestcraft writ large ! Stone tools, however, may not have been nearly as important in the emergence of Homo as was our transition to the open savannah. Anthropologists increasingly believe that the changes our ancestors made in social organization to adapt to their new way of life may have been more important in sustaining the evolutionary spiral that produced the remarkably rapid growth of our brain. (Ibid.) The same criticism applies here, invoking human willpower instead of natural processes as the main driving force of human biological evolution, as in the changes our ancestors made. But this section provides the direct link to the passage quoted above, where a mechanical logic is introduced in order to expressly block any possibility of a natural process being responsible for our current social form. Thus we find no expression of human nature, as in a corporate nature, only the chance occurrence of events such as climate change forcing us out of the trees, obliging us to adapt to a new environment in double quick time, or perish. And finally, we come to the sublime : Early city-states human ant colonies The first expressions of the planets newest superorganisms were the city-states in Sumer on the flat plains of Mesopotamia (p. 97)

Its not much, but such modes of expression are as rare as rocking horse shit, and must be sampled when found. This makes you wonder what idea of the superorganism was informing this mans consciousness ? I suppose we could discover his answer to this question by examining his book ; but why bother, its bound to be as real as the proverbial outpourings of rocking horses ? Lets just be clear, while the appearance of the civilized social form is undoubtedly the material personification of the superorganic form that we are bound to find evidence of in other species, such as ants, to say this was the first expression of this superorganic form in humans, is the height of ignorance. By definition, humans were an expression of superorganic form from the first moment they appeared on earth, as denoted by their power of linguistic communication. So that stone tools and cave painting would be the more valid first signs of this new superorganism that we have cognizance of, where stone tools actually foretell the coming of our superorganic kind, being associated with prehuman, hominid precursors, on route to the fully fledged superorganic status we represent, and from which, civilized social life arose as a matter of course. This error by Genet is obvious, just as it would be if someone in ten thousand years time were to write an archaeological treatise on our civilization, assuming it lost for millennia, and to say that the evidence of major highways spanning a region were the first signs of the existence of motorised transport. Motorways were a late development of the automobile, that first appeared over half a century previously, taking Britain as our location. It is obvious that city states could only be the blossoming of something that existed in its fullness long before they arose, just as with motorways relative to the cars that gave rise to them.

IV Locating the individual Returning to the subject of micro-macro social structure, I was just thinking about the report in the news yesterday, 10/03/2010, under the heading of the British Frizl in honour of the Austrian man who imprisoned his daughter in a custom built cellar. Our man raped two of his daughters for decades, fathering nine kids, and the report said twenty eight agencies were involved, and a hundred opportunities had existed for intervention. The point of relevance for us, is that no one in these agencies has been punished, because failures were so pervasive they were endemic, and no individual could be held accountable. This, it seems to me is a form of proof that social structure exists, where people do not. And this is hardly an aberration. The attempt to bring into being a crime making individuals responsible for corporate failure involving deaths, has been very difficult because there is no such thing as a person where social structure is concerned, only the social structure is real, in other words. A senior director may hold a post that can be associated with them as individuals up to a point, but bearing real responsibility for events occurring occasionally, randomly, and unintentionally, this is a hard thing to make a person liable for in a court of law, that needs to have a person it can make directly responsible for an action. It is a bit like the problem of holding a murder trial when there is no body. The solution has been the introduction of a lesser charge, that of corporate manslaughter, which does not need to prove direct intent, but only a definite chain of responsibility the integrity of which senior management must maintain, that can be shown to of been broken. I am currently writing another piece of work, Linguistic Force, and this made me look at a book called The Social Mind the other day, by Boodin, 1939. Lovely title, shame about the rest ! That said I spotted a snippet which was rather nice : In primitive civilization we can scarcely speak of an individual. Man exists for the group. It is the life of the group that matters. Just as their language is holophrastic, every situation being expressed in a unique combination of sounds which have meaning only as a combination, so the individual is significant only in group patterns. Life is regulated from beginning to end by group customs and taboos, though the desire to live does at times bring about a change of medicines. We cannot speak of moral freedom unless there is the conscious realization of ideals. Man must develop analytical language and analytical concepts before the individual can have moral significance within the group. The penalty of such analytical thought is that the individual may become an abstraction and forget his group responsibility. Such individualism must be overcome by the development of creative imagination and a sense of unity on a higher moral plane. (pp. 549 550.) The man who wrote this was an appalling philosopher. His factual details are a delight, which is why we quote him, but his interpretation is miserable in the extreme, being guided entirely by sentimental religious mindlessness, bereft of scientific reason. What is delightful, and makes this passage perfect just here, is that he is making a direct link between the nature of a linguistic programme and the nature of the social physiology it generates, and he links the place of the individual within this physiology to the impression that the form of the linguistic programme makes upon individual self consciousness. This is absolutely gorgeous, I would love to have an extended discussion of this topic to work from, I am certainly not capable of producing any such discussion myself, he was evidently well

informed by the anthropology of his times, prior to the Deep Cleansing taboo against so much as mentioning the nonexistence of the individual instituted by Adolf Hitler in service of the Jewish absolute theocracy. We have made the architectural unit of construction a simile for the unit of superorganic physiology by calling the person a sentient brick, and if we take this idea further we may liken the primitive civilisation generated by linguistic force to a dwelling made of sundried mud bricks. The sophistication of analytical language then becomes the equivalent of an expression of linguistic force in the form of an architects drawing for a city, something like that which Christopher Wren knocked up after the fire of London in 1666. In contrasting ancient mud brick dwellings with magnificent architectural buildings of the modern age, do we discover the appearance of a radically new kind of animal ? If so then we are saying that the people who lived five millennia ago were effectively not the same species as ourselves, which is absurd. What Boodin wants to extract from the shift from primitive society to modern civilization, is a transformation of human kind that makes us a radically different kind of animal. From one which might well of been a true superorganism in which the individual did not exist, to one in which the individual reigns supreme and the superorganism, now grown vast, exists solely because every man and women on the planet has consciously decided it will exist, and exist exactly as it is today, and tomorrow, when tomorrow comes, and the day after that, ad infinitum, where whatever changes come, all humans, everywhere, each and everyone, has fully decided that those changes will be. This is of course trash philosophy. The building may be bigger and sophisticated beyond imagining as compared to its earlier form, but the nature of the thing is not changed one iota. And this is perfectly obvious, so that the continuity of the objects nature must be the guiding principle in any attempt to understand what makes for the illusion of change from a state where individuals do not exist, to one where individuals are all that exists. The continuity in the objects nature indicates a continuity in the nature of the organism creating the object. Boodin gives us our answer, though he does not have the answer himself, because he is not looking at his facts from a true perspective. What has changed is the language. That is all. Boodin indicates why language has changed in such a way as to induce in ourselves a great sense of individuality, because this is necessary to build a vast complex physiology by enabling complex differentiation to be established between the elements of which the growing superorganism is composed. However, people have not made this change, it would be ridiculous to suggest they have. Since at all times people do what they do, but times change in ways that those alive earlier would always deplore, and stop if they could. Change is a consequence of a natural force unleashing its potential upon the objects of the force in question, so that a latent potential produces an unfolding complexity. Boodin even concludes by hinting at the link with the increasing sophistication of language as a medium of superorganic physiology, and the rise of a Jewish master identity to direct the process, as when he says there must be a development of creative imagination and a sense of unity on a higher moral plane. Judaism is such a development, projecting unity onto a higher linguistic plane, not in any sublime sense, but rather in the purely mechanistic sense that saw a species of slave maker ant evolve to utilise other ant species as lower orders of its extended superorganic being. Friday, 08 June 2012 An important point to raise in this context is the role of internecine species competition, occurring between human superorganisms. The discrete superorganism seeks to maintain its identity, this is the core attribute of the global superorganism to this day, despite the fact that the internal dynamics of our living superorganism makes transformation a key aspect of its linguistic programmings avowed character. So that where Boodin talks about the shift away from simple linguistic forms that are very much of the moment, to complex, fixed structural forms, that enable the

development of complex social structure, we must understand that this shift almost certainly came from the collision of superorganisms inducing structural change over time, as we know that this process of conflict induced amalgamation is very much a part of human history.

V Connections, connections Coming back to my clearout, we have a really nasty piece of work, designed by the powerhouse of fascist propaganda as it is concerned in the war between religion and science, the British Broadcasting Corporation. The Human Race is a book written by two producers of a television series presented by Desmond Morris, namely Dixon and Lucas, published in 1982. I was not living a settled life then, and never watched television, so this documentary series is unknown to me, I should think that had I seen it I would of loved it. That is how well programmed I was by the slick propaganda machine of the British slave state of Israel. I have only dipped into the book to see if it was a keeper, so I have no great sense of its motivating idea. However the bits that have caught my attention carry a very weird impress that strikes me as typical Morris. Morris great idea was that humans are a hunting animal that preserve all of the biologically induced imperatives of such an evolved disposition, but now sublimated to an alternative ecological setting, that of a social environment. I rather like this idea, I often think of myself as hunting when I go to the supermarket because I always look for discounted food and I buy whatever is reduced, effectively letting the lie of the land determine my diet for the week ahead. But this is not normal, and certainly could not serve as the basis for a theory of human existence ! But Morris, on the contrary, seeks to do just that. Except it is tricky talking of Morris when the book is supposedly the work of two producers, I am going to treat it as being by Morris anyway, if we think of his other books on human nature, like The Human Zoo and Intimate Behaviour, then the same twist extending a biological paradigm into a modern social context, is found therein. The book begins by echoing both Leachs and Boodins miscreant logic, thus : It makes sense to talk about primitive man, our Agricultural Revolution, and our Age of Enlightenment, because our behaviour and its codes change in time as we create cultures (p. 13) So once again we have the emphasis laid on a natural discontinuity, managed by conscious human will as the factor that makes the human animal unique by providing developmental continuity. But, as we just said regarding Boodins facile display of reasoning, there is in reality only one seamless physiological continuity, where any change is a function of massive growth, and nothing else. We create nothing, nature creates everything, as any real scientist would always affirm as a matter of principle. This obsession with errant nonsense in regard to human nature is like the idea of perpetual motion, people love the idea so it never really dies. But physicists being entirely in command of their subject, always rebuke such musing as the equivalent of harking back to magical fantasies because, like it or not, science knows, as sure as any universal god could ever know anything, that there is no such thing as perpetual motion : energy in a closed system decays to zero. All mechanical devices are closed systems, which is why they must be supplied with fuel from outside themselves. The same applies to natures creativity, it is total, there are no divine interventions, and there are certainly no human interventions ! Everything we do is dictated

by nature, absolutely. But, as we see in all the texts we are reviewing now, the exact opposite principle is made the guiding factor, which is why these priests can tell us nothing real and final about human nature. Saturday, 09 June 2012 Of course God is the superorganism, and the superorganism intervenes in our world constantly, through the action of linguistic force dictating every detail of every action that every individual performs, at any moment in time. So the representation of human will as the all embracing creative factor is an expression of this reality, it is not simply an error without any reason. The first point of interest in what they do come out with here, is rather delightful. Chapter three is called Masked Hunters, and on page sixty two a subheading is How society influences us to accept work, which could of been written by me in my most demonstratively anarchistic mood ! Its ace. It begins thus : Special techniques were developed to convince people that a grotesquely unnatural behaviour was, after all, a proper thing to do. (p. 62) I must admit that I cannot quite believe this, it is too good to be true. This is certainly just the kind of thing I would say, and it implicitly denies the existence of individuals as ends in themselves. On page sixty four we have a discussion of Japanese society, which we are told was especially suited to become a work-slave society, because its cultural imperatives were long since based on a dualism splitting social life into the close personal and extended social domains. Japanese society has several characteristics which make it easier for the skilful industrial managers to exploit the commercial potential of mass production. Each Japanese is born and grows up in a rigid double world, a world which divides absolutely into uchi and soto. The word uchi means the automatic and largely unchanging inner circle of each Japaneses life. Into his or her uchi comes family, school mates, and finally fellow workers. The outer world of soto contains more or less everybody else. The separation of uchi and soto is rigid, but not totally inflexible. In-laws, for example, move from soto to uchi when a marriage takes place. Mergers and business associations can widen the uchi of the workplace. How good is that ! I love it. Such a description of social structure ignores the individual, making collective being everything, it is the Japanese equivalent of Judaism, into whose superorganic physiology Japan has now been drawn by the acts of war which defeated the nation and made it subservient to the capitalist economics which represent the life blood of the Jewish global superorganism. In this international merger we see an example of the relationship between war and economics made manifest in the extension Judaisms uchi ! As with all other peoples on earth, the Japanese have been harnessed to the yoke of Judaism, and thereby become slaves of Judaism, or put more simply, they have become Jews by another name, as have we all now. We must just note however, regarding the above quote, that it opens with an expressly individualistic statement, making the will of the individual who determines all things, according to Jewish slave ideology, reside in the manipulative industrial managers. 1983, and socialism was still alive and kicking, but little did it know, death was only a day or so away.

Now we come to another piece of miscreant reasoning worth considering, in the regular form of miscreant science. This time concerning the origin and nature of language, which is always a subject worth looking at to see how the priests have sought to subvert knowledge in this most important area of human nature. Chapter four is called Golden Tongues and it is nice to see a chapter devoted to the power of speech, even when it is full oshit. The ability to speak is linked directly to our intense sociability, which is excellent, it is extremely rare to see anyone acknowledge that there is a link between speaking and human sociability, modern science always assumes that people speak because they want to be social, and if they had not made that choice they would not bother speaking, or so you would think. But aside from the link between speech and sociability, all reasoning ends and drivel pours forth, in that our communicative behaviour is described at length, but nothing is said about its significance. Until we come to Language as an aid to survival, which heading invokes the Darwinian mantra. So what do our pair of tossers say here ? Another excruciating moment. It is painful to read this kind of stuff, it really is. It is like reading Nazis or Soviet propaganda, or Creationist bullshit, but we prefer the former two because science is secular and as such none religious crap seems the most obvious comparison. In all these cases it is a matter of assuming a political pose, and then spouting whatever shit suits the agenda, it is appalling. Lets take the spray of verbal diarrhoea in question, and you can see for yourselves : Language as an aid to survival The key to understanding the origins of language is recognising the commitment of our earliest ancestors to a life based on close small-group co-operation. Because of their relative weakness and vulnerability, the members of the earliest human groups were highly dependent on one another for protection and support. Their common survival depended on all the members of the group conforming to its rules. The survival potential of the group would increase if its members intelligence and flexibility increased, because they would have a larger range of behaviour to deal with new problems and opportunities. Unfortunately, increasing the flexibility of individuals in a group also increases the chances of individual assertiveness, and thus disorganisation of the group. This paradox can be resolved if intelligent individuals share a common language which makes them highly responsive to one another. Our social groups are as securely unified by our acceptance of the agreed rules of grammar and the meanings that our language conveys, as those of our simple primate relatives are by their inherited patterns of social behaviour. The crucial difference lies in the potential for free and flexible action that language leaves us. The earliest languages were probably barely grammatical, involving far more gestures and facial signs, as well as vocal signals, than we are now familiar with. Even so, their immediate effect was not only to increase the complexity of the message that could be exchanged between group members, but also to deepen their intimacy with one another. The value of language in maintaining intimate human contact cannot be overemphasised, and even now, a great deal of the language exchange that goes on between humans has little function other than to remind them of their common membership of the same group, and their acceptance in it. This small talk has been called grooming talk, since it can be compared to the mutual grooming that goes on between members of several co-operative primate species. More dramatically, early language allowed humans to extend and develop group activities more complex and various than those available to any other species. For example, groups of hunters

could agree to return to a home base, they could plan their hunt and then could quickly modify it as new circumstances dictated. How culture develops language and vice versa They could also pass on new techniques and experiences in the forms of stories and traditions. From these developed the uniquely human attribute of culture, that accumulated reservoir of information, beliefs and traditions that distinguish one group from another. Language ensures its transfer from one generation to another. (pp. 87 88.) What about that opening sentence, eh ! What is that ? Who, where, when, what kind of lunatic would swallow that sentence ? You may as well ask someone to believe that a man appeared on earth who was the Creator of the universes son, and . . . . oh, but there are people who believe that. Well, if people can buy that, they can buy anything. But this is science, how can a spokesperson for science get away with saying things as insane as we find in the Bible, without any attempt being made to think about what is said, just blurting out the equivalent of whatever any Christian freak will swallow any old time ? But this science is made for Christian freaks, and the rest of us just have to take that for our science or lump it, because science must, first and foremost, serve religion. Otherwise religion could not exist in the alternative social state, a world of free science that is. What is so terrible in the above, did I hear some moron ask ? Understanding the evolution of the human power of speech requires that we grasp the commitment of the first humans to social life. What, I mean just what the hell is that supposed to mean ? It is so painfully stupid, in terms of the modern understanding that humans are animals that evolved on earth, that one feels daunted by the prospect of spelling out just where the absurdity lies. It is too stupid, or, it would be, if it were serious. But of course it is not serious, it is out and out corruption, there can be no other explanation for such crass reasoning. I think this man really did mean for us to understand by this statement, that it was the accumulated will power of individuals, consciously striving to get the best out of themselves, that allowed the human power of speech to evolve. To be fair to the dumbasses, this stupidity is saying no more than is said of us today by the likes of Dawkins, or any other leading commentator. These idiots, who evidently knew absolutely nothing about the subject they were employed in teachingnothing new there mindwere only projecting the logic of science applied to humans in the post cleansing era, as far back as contemporary science had come to understand the origin of modern human life. And to be frank, that is the correct scientific approach, but first you have to have a sane idea to apply your correct method to. The two producers responsible for this mess were a psychologist and a philosopher ; say no more. This is tragic, it goes to show how twisted science can become once it is perverted by the academic infrastructure that has the job of promoting science. Heres a thing, last nights Channel Four news, 11/03/2010, had an extended report on the kidnapping of five fools in Iraq a few years ago, the only survivor having been released a couple of months ago. The kidnapping had been organised by one hundred Iraqi police officers ! Ha, what about that. This victim was told by his captors that since the people looking for him, the Iraqi police that is, were the people who had kidnapped him, he was not going to be found. This situation had come about because a Shea sect had infiltrated the establishment. We do not often get raw examples of this kind of structural manipulation, revealing the inner workings of superorganic physiology in such stark terms. But the plain fact is that this raw example betrays the norm. The penetration of Judaism into all lands is merely the

expression of all that our atheist science is all about when it talks about the evolution of subJudaic slave identities, harnessing formerly alien biomasses to Judaism. When we come to specific matters of knowledge control and the subversion of science, and we see raw examples of sciences corruption, and we know this rests upon the establishments involvement in the creation of Darwinism, by sending Darwin out on a Royal Navy vessel, and then planting his work in the academic domain and nurturing it thenceforth, and we see inane works such as we are considering now, rooted in Darwinism, then what we are seeing is the opposite end of this raw example of social dynamics from war torn Iraq. The control of science is the healthy, normal social flesh, corrupted to a social end, just as nature intended knowledge should be. And indeed the rawness of Iraq is settling into the norm, that is why this remaining fool was released. The establishment is Muslim and this criminal sect was always part of the establishment, just not the main part. This is how our social order, indeed all social orders are constructed, and that is why religion is crucial to social order. Religion is the badge to which people attach themselves, especially nasty people, and that is how Jews have become the master race by creating alternative forms of themselves and ensuring, by warfare, that only their own shall exist. And it is why science, which is all that need concern atheists, is nonexistent in our world. Saturday, 09 June 2012 We just need to comment upon an apparent inconsistency in the above that cannot be corrected as is. That people are mindless slaves inducted into a slave identity in religious form, is a principle of Atheist Science. Therefore it cannot be right to say that people attach themselves to this identity, especially with malicious intent. The problem here is that we are merging two distinct aspects of human behaviour into one simple process. The baseline of unity is laid down by nature, but people recognise this baseline as crucial to their lives and actively reinforce their slave attachment to whatever form it takes relative to themselves, so that a compound dynamic of attachment will exist. Thus a trajectory of attachment describes the norm across a population, ranging from complete mindlessness, to outright cynical attachment. As we just saw, the insane ideas these men produced were a natural outcome of the science they have been programmed with. I doubt that any anthropologist would of made this kind of gross error, I was reading something yesterday where it was stated that linguistic empowerment was physiological, and hence not optional. Ah yes, as I suspected, it was in this book ! The acquisition of language is part of an inherited human development programme we are told (p. 85). Because I know this is a reference to the fact that language is physiological, I must of assumed that is what these twats were saying. But when we come to examine it in the light of their later travesty of reason, this notion of a human development programme does not appear to credit genetics with any serious role whatever. Indeed it looks as if they were trying to effect a slight nod in this direction because they knew they must, while doing their utmost to leave an impression on the mind of the credulous reader, dependent upon their erudition, that humans speak because they want to, and nothing else matters. We have torn the above passage to shreds without exhausting any more of it than the first brief sentence. And still we are not done here. On the plus side, this sentence makes the link between speech and sociability absolute, and on that we could not agree more. It is obvious that language must be a programme directing individual behaviour, just as a piece of software orchestrates the behaviour of computer hardware. But what these professional liars are doing is working to ensure that this obvious fact is turned around, as all real knowledge about human nature must be turned around in order to harness the living biomass to the yoke of an absolute theocracy. Following on from this logical inversion these twats

make the next obvious link twisted too, by saying that because people are feeble, they needed to create a social body. Whereas, the true view is that the emergence of feebleness, such as it is, and the power of speech, was all part of the process of extracting the potential of mammalian physiology to give rise to a true superorganic species by creating a dependant sentient brick form that has no claim to existence in its own right. They go on to say that the flaw in releasing the power of independent reasoning was that it may tend to induce social fragmentation. But the fact is that it would of been the retention of ape like prowess that was in conflict with intense sociality of the human kind, as we can see from social apes like Chimpanzees, or social baboons. These creatures are intensely social, individuality has gone far along the road to dissipation, but still individuals are in no sense expressive of a corporate nature such as we find in ants, termites, or humans, where individuality has gone so far as to of created different types of individual specialised for specific tasks, as with human queers that cannot breed, by virtue of their own nature, and who are therefore clearly evolved to serve a special elite role in the human superorganism. So these twats who produce the knowledge we are supposed to imbibe take what they want, ignore what they dont want, and freely spout off in any way they fancy, all the while. The next short paragraph continues the weirdness by continuing to talk in the most evasive and indistinct manner about the link between social force and social structure. Social structure is fixed by our acceptance of the agreed rules of grammar and the meanings that our language conveys, they say ! Bugger me, what is this ? All they needed to say was that the human superorganism is created by a linguistic force derived from our evolved human physiology, which creates a linguistic programme that directs all human behaviour at all times, over the course of a potentially infinite number of generations. Simple, incontrovertible, perfect ; job done. The next short paragraph continues the evasiveness while still keeping close to the real question in hand. The first languages used by fully fledged humans were comparatively simple, they say, and this is indisputable. The upset here derives, as ever, from the interpretation of this fact. Saying that despite their simplicity these first languages empowered social cohesion, emphasising the interpersonal aspect in addition to any impersonal structural implications, continues to maintain the subliminal message that this is all about a free willed animal making choices, and increasing in its power to make those choices. Whereas, the reality is that humans have never had any choice in what they do, and how they live. Any idea to the contrary is utter rubbish. Linguistic empowerment came with the realisation of a fully developed, modern human physiology, from which point onand this had been an ongoing aspect of the means by which this much human development had taken place, with uprightness, dexterity and so on, each being a definite stage in the process other aspects of physiological evolution could settle down as the weight of superorganic development began to rest upon this linguistic capacity. This is why our completed physical form stopped evolving at some point a little over one hundred thousand years ago, as academics so frequently enjoy telling us ; though they have no idea why, or what this means. They do now, if they read this. But they wont, and if they did they would call it trash. The simplicity of languages will of given way to greater complexity, in association with structural developments of a cultural kind. Which is exactly what we mean by linguistic force depositing exoskeletal structure in the form of a superorganic body, within which the living biomass spends its life. So that any initial simplicity in respect of linguistic communication was part of an ongoing process of superorganic evolution, where the shift to greater complexity was intimately linked to structural development. The Bible viewed as a structural device, a piece of technology, as in a text, is a case in point, which is why the culture of the Bible has led to us all becoming Jews, because culture is tantamount to identity.

The closing part under this subheading makes a further important observation, and proceeds to twist it to serve the political end based on the individual seen as an end in themselves. It is quite naturalistic to suggest that chitter-chatter is akin to ape grooming, and this is as close as we get to the hint of linguistic behaviour filling an unwitting social role of major importance. This is nice, but they have to spoil it by emphasising the practical use of language, and thus making light of this one concession made to a truly scientific outlook. The truth is that this small talk as they call it, is a social flux within which the individual swims, like a fish in water, and without which constant stimulation, the human cannot exist for a moment. Added to which, even in making this nice remark, they further their miscreant plans, for by making this concession to small talk they hide the fact that in truth, practically all communication is of this chattering kind, being concerned only with keeping us within the influence of a binding linguistic flux. This is apparent when we reduce the greatest science of the age to a fiction, by revealing that Darwinism was concocted, and is maintained, purely in order to keep us bonded to Judaism by means of an artificial science, satisfying our need for a sense of knowing about things that we cannot help thinking about, if we are to be able to function as sentient brick elements of a mammalian superorganism. From this it follows that everything is of the nature of a chattering flux : science, atheism, religion, politics, war mongering, moralising, everything. None of it is true, So what is it ? It is chitter-chatter keeping us bonded to the core identity of the superorganism that humans evolved to be, which happens to be Judaism. Saturday, 09 June 2012 I often think of this bonding factor of human language when I hear the tits visiting my garden in search of insects amongst the trees. Their tweets are incessant, and it is clear that as these birds move in a group, the purpose of their tweeting is to maintain the group as it flits from location to location. This is exactly what humans do by means of speech, and little else. Except that human tweeting has taken on a more introverted dynamic supported by the evolution of their kind into sentient brick units of extended organic form, to make the group one integral entity, with a being that consumes that of all those of whom it is composed. I also took the beginning of the next section because it held a kernel of important knowledge regarding the nature of language, and its relationship to superorganic physiology. Culture is made the product of language, and at the same time an accumulated product of individual lives that distinguish[s] one group from another, in other words giving each superorganic human being its own unique identity. So although these people certainly do not mean to help the cause of true knowledge, by sailing so close to the wind of truth, they allow one who knows everything, courtesy of atheist science, to make use of what they do say as a means of affirming the arguments of atheist science, that these slaves of Judaism thereby unwittingly serve, even while actively engaged in their life long servitude to Judaism, which relentlessly seeks to oppose true knowledge in order to preserve the Jewish master identity. No one can help what they do, because no one knows what they do. Judaism has harnessed the power of subverting knowledge in the process of evolving its culture, in obedience to the laws of human corporate nature. As inheritors of an astoundingly powerful scientific tradition we have discovered the key to understanding all things pertaining to human existence, by learning that human nature is corporate, so that we can readily decode any and all messages coming from the Jewish superorganism. This indicates that whether knowledge is real or false, whether it is about reality or socially functional, it still has to follow a logical formula eventually dictated by reality if it is to have any durability, and hence power as a kernel of social order. This is what keeps religion so closely bound to science, and it is also what has allowed atheist science to crack the code of Jewish identity, and reveal all. It is this

link between functional, false knowledge, and true knowledge, that makes seeking the white lie such a major preoccupation of advanced societies.

VI Jingle all the way The Three Hundred Million Year War is the title of this years, 2009, series of Christmas lectures. What we should realise about this title, is that there is much more to it than we might imagine at first thought. When science is presented to children, it is done with a very deliberate emphasis upon the core essence of fake science, involving the implantation of the imperative lie of Darwinism, which makes the driving force of lifes existence a matter of competition. This is how society trains up its miscreant priest-scientists of the next generation, that it is so demoralising to meet as young adults with blinkered minds, fixed on pursuing an intellectual career where all that matters is position and money, and being focused upon the Message as a given, by its coming from authority disguised as being open and friendly, as in these lectures. This is where the making of a corrupt scientific priesthood begins, with the subliminal implantation of the core of the fake scientific message into the minds of all children who are ever going to take an interest in knowledge. This is why government cares so much about education, education, education, as our religious freak politicians like to put it. And this is why the priests producing this wonderful lectureship have chosen to plonk the word war slap bang at the centre of this title. The trouble is, as we listen to the lectures themselves, the lecturer has to apply the core deception continuously, in order to fight against the logic inherent in her own arguments. While she is determined to ensure we keep Darwins white lie firmly, if unwittingly lodged in our minds, she cannot help telling a story of a completely different kind to this competition routine. What just brought this realisation to mind was seeing a guest talking about seed forms. After having shown us some forms that could easily be related to modes of dispersal, he concluded by showing some strange seed forms and saying that they had no idea why these seeds should have such a variety of peculiar forms, as they could not see how they were an aid in the struggle for survival. It was then that the penny dropped and I realised why the three hundred year war was the title of the show. Sunday, 10 June 2012 A white lie is a lie told with good intentions, that, rather than doing harm or having any malicious or self serving intent behind it, serves only the good of others, or of people in general. Keep this definition in mind when reading this work. If science were permitted to be a complete alternative to religion, how could children be taught science without giving up religion ? They could not, it would mean that none of the children could participate in these lectures without being forced to deny their religion which is above all things. Lectures on science like these, bring home the fact that science and religion cannot be in real conflict, and if they must be, then religion cannot exist in the same place as science. In this lecture hall the teacher should of been imparting science that negated any alternative way of knowing reality, but as we see from the example given, science is lame, it constantly, and at all points, reaches a barrier beyond which it cannot go, and in this case that barrier was Darwinism. It is not that we cannot go wherever nature leads us, because we can, but we cannot go beyond the limits fixed by our own ideas, the limits imposed upon us by the fascist priesthood that is.

One of the things it would of been nice to see being discussed in connection with the weird and wonderful ways that plants communicate with animals, is in regard to our fabulous pharmacological relationship with plants which means that wherever we live on earth there is no shortage of psychoactive stimulants. For me this is a fascinating side of drug culture which is never considered openly, because we have become a slave based society where all the natural, but thoroughly evil things we all do, like taking drugs, raping women, murdering and eating people, have been banned, because now we are farmed and managed to serve the agenda of a distinct master organ. But, in the past, when people formed small integral superorganisms, it was psychoactive foods that helped form the core focus of linguistic force in the special way that is now achieved by linguistic formulas expressed in religion and such like cultural devices. Sports are a modern aid to such unification processes, a sanitised mechanism suited to our deeply domesticated status today, but there is no doubt that drugs tend to induce and aid mind-melding between people, so that all become one. I was checking out a text book of behavioural physiology yesterday, 12/03/2010, to see if I should hang onto it, and I noticed a section on The Blood-Brain Barrier that was intriguing. Physiology of Behavior, Carlson, fifth edition, 1994, tells us that Some substances cross the blood-brain barrier ; others cannot. (p. 29), and then it explains why, technically, and suggests a reason. They do not mention drugs in relation to this barrier, annoyingly, since it seems to me that drugs must have the power to cross this barrier freely, in order to have the relevant effect. So I was just thinking that the evolution of this barrier might of been about enabling our relationship with psychoactive drugs, which once played a crucial part in allowing us to form a superorganism, before language came dominate us directly. Drugs do still play an important role in delineating social structure, even if it is in a roundabout way, by serving as a tool allowing us to be manipulated by law enforcement agencies and their counterparts, the criminal corporations. Its all grist to the mill of superorganic physiology. I caught a bit of the Christmas Day Doctor Who show tonight, and there was a curious use made of this idea of all people being unified into one and thereby, bringing about the extinction of the human race, with its replacement by a master race ! Of course this model is absurd, if all are the same then there can be no master. This is why Judaism comes in a myriad of forms. So that all are Jews, but only one tiny portion going by the name Jew, and thus a true master race, exists as a result of us all being turned into Jews by virtue of the Jews infiltrating their mind, into us all, exactly as was shown in Doctor Who, but in a natural and real way, not the crude ludicrous manner portrayed in the show. It is a very curious theme this portrayal. It appears to be a key element of Christian slave aftercare propaganda. Whereby the Jewish alien slave identity that takes possession of us, reinforces its possession, by invoking the nightmare of being taken over by an alien slave making identity ! The trick involves making the actuated identity enslavement feel natural, good, and comforting, partly by ensuring that a fearsome, unknown alternative awaits beyond the protecting arms of the slave identity embracing us. Hence the Christian emphasis upon high ideas in respect to equality and lovein justifiable obedience to God, whom all must honourcontrasted with a blatant manifestation of the essence of the trick of possession, embodied in a horrific form such as blood sucking vampires, or an alien superorganism into which the individual is absorbed by being made mindless, in conformity to the One Mind, as in the Borg in Star Trek. Sounds just like being a Christian to me. Ooh, being so possessed would be terrible wouldnt it ? Well apparently not as it describes reality, and we mostly seem to love it. But we should understand that we love it because this is what we were made to love, all Judaism is doing is extending the reach of our biologically driven corporate nature. Before slave making identities like Judaism evolved our corporate identity will of

bound us to one small, integral superorganic being, on the basis of identical mechanisms, telling us that we are the People, and all others are just animals. This is why humans ate people coming from other superorganisms than their own. Enslavement to Judaism removed this deep seated idea of alienation because Judaism was the real alien taking possession, and it developed ideologies of love which suppressed the old ways of knowing the alien, and then claimed new moral ideas as a method of developing its slave making identity programme. These linguistic strategies have been highly effective and the engorging superorganism has been unstoppable, naturally. Sunday, 10 June 2012 We may sense the white lie seeking imperative in the creation of these slave making religious forms, for at their heart that is what they do, they formulate a conceptual reality, which is slavery to an identity, by way of a formula that gives this horrific state the pleasant form constituting our cultural white lie, showing us as captured by love and rewarded with freedom. Under such a dispensation it is hardly surprising that science is so easily manipulated and transformed from the search for reality, as in our corporate nature, rendered into the obverse, where reality is understood through the prism of our individual omnipotence. This mechanism of contrasting emphasis laid upon opposites of this inner-outer kind, is found playing itself out in so many aspects of our slave culture, both mythical and real. Good and Evil are mythical ideologies working this theme. Criminal and Honest opposites have a very real aspect to them, forced upon us by our social structure, which obliges many of us to be criminals by making laws that allow honest people to have rewards only obtainable by the exploitation definitive of crime, but which is not crime. Did I say bankers ! Well then. Love Hate ; Peace War, Jekyll Hyde, Up Down, oh no, thats not one, is it ? Does up and down really exist, or is it a perceptual bias produced by the linguistic programme that commands us to think in this two dimensional fashion ? One thing is for sure, this split focus of our visual perception lends itself to our subconscious acceptance of the diametrical placement of favoured and unfavoured opposites, upon which the fixation of our slave identity evidently rests. This suggests that the social structure within which we live determines the manner in which we perceive the world external to that social structure, and this link indicates a requirement for us to have a sense of natural order regarding the place we occupy within society. I am sure I am not the first to make this commonplace observation, but for such an observation to seem worth repeating in a scientific age is akin to denying the existence of a scientific age, for science should rob us of our intuitive sense of our place in nature as determined by social structure, obviously. Clearly the linguistic identity programme must have a role in delivering this kind of sentient interaction between ourselves as individuals and the material existence we experience. With this thought in mind we may make sense of the chitter-chattering flux which must consume all things into itself, even our most sophisticated science, and make it serve a social function, and thus conform to the mythical opposite of our real life in society. This is the White Lie in the making.

I Science as religion These science lectures that we began talking about a while ago, are then, all about religion ! Which is a truly remarkable thought, that we simply could not grasp without the aid of atheist science, which teaches us how to understand the true meaning of everything within a society where religion exists. Where everything must conform to the One message,

so that even the most emphatically scientific activity is nothing but pure religious devotion. And when we think of this, we see how important Darwinism was, and how inevitable. The people that run society must know this, these results are as far from being an accident as the appearance of the Eiffel Tower on the Paris skyline. But how, in the ordinary course of events, are we to perceive this deception ? We cannot, because through the medium of language which shapes all our thoughts, the deception is breathed into our being. It becomes our soul, our essence, so that the crude, pathetic deception, is all we know, and as such, it is the sacred truth. As a consequence, when we look upon the likes of a Dawkins parading his stupidity for all the world to see, no one sees anything. His complaints against religion appear real and sincere, instead shambolic and pathetic, as they truly are. When we attack the priests presenting the Christmas lectures for churning out their Darwinian Jewish-slave programming to the children, via a load of silly games which look like fun, but seem more sinister once we know what the whole scheme amounts toa corruption of the young minds at their disposalwe should bring to mind the alternative offered to us by men like Henry Bernard. Where Darwins religious model of evolution based on the integrity of the individual as an end in themselves helps destroy continuity, thus providing a means of segregating humanity from the life process, Bernards scientific model of Colonial Evolution does the exact opposite, as his own account of the human colonial organism indicates. Thus we have the idea of force sustained by the idea of continuity, and so, as Bernard says, life undergoes a cyclical process of evolution, where radical advances establish a unity that unleashes a profusion of diversity, in conformity to the initial point of unity. Under these circumstances there is no question of thinking in terms of competition, or seeking to understand all that is seen in terms of survival. The primacy of individual survival denotes an everlasting chain continuously broken, which can have nothing to do with lifes evolution. On the contrary, lifes evolution is all about exploiting the latent potential energy of the environment, as realised in the latent potential energy of the initial forms that have ascended the gradient of potential energy presented by a given environment, as we discuss in our earlier works. Hence the inexplicable profusion of forms presented by seeds is not something to be explained in a point by point fashion, in terms of the function of shape relative to the survival of individuals. But can instead but understood as a profusion of form unleashed by the relaxation of a need to adapt to the environment, because of the basic form of the seed having accomplished this primary requirement in the initial process of evolutionary development. In this way an excess of functionless elaboration means that a seed, which must carry the potential of the species onto the next generation, will have latent potential built into it, preparing it for unexpected demands or opportunities. This invokes the idea of a species as an expression of force, denoted in the flow of its form, to call on Young, as discussed in Linguistic Force. As opposed to the idea of survival centred on the individual form of each and every seed, seen as an end in itself, representing the species from which it comes. Sunday, 10 June 2012 The profusion of seed case patterns discussed above can be understood as an expression of the underlying force of information that creates all life. Thus patterns with no apparent function in themselves might derive their actual function from an underlying cause, as an expression of latent potential, as in the pressure of information seeking to express itself in living form, the very imperative that caused life to emerge from nonlife in the first place. Such functionless structures would thereby have a negative function providing the force of information with an outlet, a means of dissipation within neutral structural limits of variation. After all structural variation is an important attribute of seed forms, as the functional variations aiding dispersal demonstrate, so that an excess in this direction would be a reasonable thing to find. The existence of structures serving to dissipate

the expression of the natural force of life as a negative function, may seem an odd idea, but the alternative is to imagine that the force of information that creates all living form simply expresses itself until the perfect form is realised, and then switches off, until a fresh demand turns it on again, which, put like this, sounds even more unlikely. Darwins theory requires that all form has a function, because it negates the idea of a creative force of a general character, substituting the mechanism of natural selection for the creative action of such a force. This causes all sorts of problems for science, such as this inability to explain random, yet persistent variation of no apparent use. As we can see, our genuine science, uncorrupted by religion, takes such matters in its stride. In teasing out this thought we find ourselves talking about the force of information seeking a way out into the world, through the evolution of energy seeking life forms. This prompts us to think of linguistic force creating a profusion of knowledge that we are trying to understand under the heading of seeking the white lie. Thus we may find a comparison between the excessive profusion of seed patterns and the excessive bounty of ideas pumped out relentlessly by humans. Much of our highly contrived communication is like these seed patterns, appearing for no apparent reason other than for its own sake, as an effusion of linguistic expression. Thus we find much of our knowledge simply expresses the pressure of linguistic force that is constantly seeking to express itself in social form, such that when no new expression is required a channel of dissipation must be formed for this force to run along, it cannot just stop dead. Of course this is not quite what we are saying creates the white lie ruling our world, for this lie has a definite function within the creation and maintenance of a uniform social identity. But the pressure of linguistic force is an imperative of our linguistic physiology, that obliges us to project authority into the social space in the form of linguistic expression that creates all social structure, and that linguistic pressure is the initial motive force of our human existence. When we ask why we exist, why we do what we do, why we work, why we seek technological advancement, why we seek knowledge ? This is the answer, To express the linguistic force that came into existence through the biological evolution of our animal form. According to this reasoning we could say the profusion of seed patterns is the seeds poetry. We might imagine our conceptual artists stringing seed case patterns together as if each of a set of patterns were a letter able to compose a script, to show the force of information in life, and how its nature is linguistic at all times, and in all places, and how that linguistic nature is always linked to the structural expression appearing in life form. ___ In the midst of this profusion of form, some kinds will carry the process of evolution a stage further, and take life onto a new plane of development, as and when, or if, the occasion arises. When we examine some life forms, such as the minute seeds shown to us in the TV programme, we find ancient remnants of an earlier unleashing of profusion have survived, so that when we find them we can make no sense of their forms because we are obliged to work with the Jewish slave model of science. Atheist science saves us from this imbecility and allows us to see things as they are, to cut through the profusion of ignorance that has gushed forth since the unifying event of 1859, and to explain the nothingness that is the profuse consequence of this major bullshit event. But, from the television shows point of view, everything is as it should be. The science hall becomes an extension of the church built to induct slaves into their slave role in Jewish society, where expounding a dead-end to knowledge born of the limitations of science, leaving many things in nature a blank mystery, that is just what the Jew ordered, and must have if the Christian slave implant is to retain its virulence as a poison for the defenceless human brain.

VIII Jewish global master authority There was a gorgeous example of Jewish global master authority on Channel Four News last night, 16/03/2010, and this is a neat place to record it. Riots had flared in Jewland because of the re-dedication of a dormant temple. Hilary Clinton was shown talking the night before and saying bluntly that the Jews had insulted America by announcing the building of some 1600 new homes on occupied territory, on the very day a senior slave (American) arrived in Jewland. Then they showed the soft cow back at the podium the next day, spouting a script the Jews had evidently written for her, proclaiming the unbreakable link between America and Jewland, and declaring that the Jews were free to do anything they like, whenever they like, anywhere in the world. As if we did not know that already. It is sad to see people in a position of power and authority forced to their knees, and made to grovel before a hidden evil that we all like to think is not there, but obviously a master can only stomach so much abuse from their slaves. The Jews are the masters, the Christians are the executive, and the Muslims are the muscular mass. This triadic macro structure is dictated by nature, as organicist thinking pointed out long ago, saying that this hierarchy of authority must be preserved for the superorganisms integrity to be maintained : There is a mistaken view that these different powers are equal. This contradicts the organic nature of the State. The members of an organism have each their own power, but in subordination to one another ; otherwise the connection and the unity of the whole would not be maintained. (Theory of the State, Bluntschli, 1901, pp. 519 520. First pub. in English 1892.) We freely represented Clinton, to reveal the real significance of her words. But her own words naturally evoked a mutual bond between Israel and America, wherein the two nations shared common goals. She named a few of these goals, a two state solution in Jewland and democracy spread across the planet being the only two I can name. But this is farcical. Who are these people to declare such arrogant objectives for the planet ? Who the hell do they think they are ? And if these secular, political objectives, aside from those specific to Israel, are the common goal of Western civilisation, why the religion ? What is that all about ? How come it is all about insanely Christian America and Jewish Israel ? Why ? The answer is perfectly obvious. There is only one goal, one shared value, and that is the Jewish identity. The rest is misinformation. And this brings us to the link between this news report from yesterday and the Christmas lectures of last December. The things we say about the true nature of these science lectures are so bizarre, and yet we argue that all things must be sucked into the vortex of the One message. And here we are, taken fresh from real life, yet another blatant example of the same thing, but in a completely different context. Corruption of knowledge is everywhere. Newsnight dealt with the same topic, I caught the tail end where Paxman was getting the brush-off from a Christian slave of Judaism who was adopting the Jewish master approach to public debate, namely, sod you and your pathetic questions, I will tell you what you need to hear. These Nazis just spit in the face of freedom, they despise democracy as much as Hitler did, but use it as long as it serves their purpose, as a more convenient method of abuse, as stroking with fur leaves the host less ruffled.

Chapter 8

Psychology, the Study of Personal Polarities

Think of a person that has a way of parasitizing personal situations and then being offended when people fail to cater to their normally successful attempts at the exploitation of social dynamics. All made possible for them by adopting a false polarity based upon some notion they have of their relationship to people. Such false polarities allow our brains to achieve personalisation and self identity through a predisposition to adopt a perspective centred on the self. The bias towards the self is not pathological, it is normal, it is the making of the individual, but a manipulative individual shows the nature of the pattern best. Psychology as we have it, is then the science of this polar fixation on the self, hence psychology is automatically a vindication of the self as an end in itself, and as such a total contradiction of science applied to humans, because this way of gaining individuality by locating oneself in a social landscape is clearly all about the social structure, not the individual. This fact means nothing if the individual is all there is, we just ignore the social structure as a thing existing in its own right and assume it is a by-product of our existence in our own right. But once we know the human organism is a superorganism this view must been turned around. According to a true science this predisposition to make the self real, must be viewed as a mechanism of self deception serving to make the sentient brick see no further than limits of its own mental geometry, indeed this bias establishes the units mental geometry within the superorganic physiology it belongs to. An essential process of individuation, if the superorganism is to be able to construct itself from sentient bricks. Where this inclination to raise the self to a position of pre-eminence amongst individuals invokes an exploitative bias in favour of the person so inclined, and turns them into a parasite of the personal situation, a central figure, this is interesting because Judaism is a higher expression of exactly this kind, making a personalised culture superior to all other cultures and so creating a parasitic class of people, a master race. Yet this is something natural that most people come to desire, shown in their love of monarchy or celebrity and such like. The desire for fame that is so admired in our world is an expression of this sentient brick instinct to act in the interest of creating a superorganism, by seeking to create a hierarchy with the self at the top. This is how psychology should be seen, in terms of the unitary dynamics of superorganic being, organised via personalities created through the aegis of linguistic force. Tuesday, 12 June 2012 It is no accident that just as the true science of human nature emerged from the freedom attained by science in the mid-nineteenth century, so the beginnings of the false science of individuality, psychology that is, also came into being. The rise of Freudian psychoanalysis and the even more deeply introverted ideas of related workers like Jung show how far human corporate nature lends itself to the elaboration of individuality, focused upon the self as the sole existing reality to which all facts of human existence must be deferred. This is all about locating the foci of linguistic force upon which human physiology is based, though none of these grand theorists have a clue this is so

because they have no idea what the human animal is, a superorganism created by linguistic force, composed of a myriad complexity of individual, cellular linguistic objects, each expressing a quotient of individual polarity within the superorganic matrix. What a fine example of this idea of a sentient brick expressing a quotient of linguistic force we had with Gordon Browns appearance at the Leveson Inquiry yesterday, where he lied through his teeth while under oath, manipulating the focus of attention upon himself as a lynchpin of social structure, where manipulating linguistic force about yourself as a focus of social polarity is what social life is all about, most especially in the extreme circumstance such as person as this occupies, a man who fought tooth and nail to become prime minister, only to loose the post the first chance people had to say what they thought of him. Why do people want to be politicians ? Because we are made to seek a position at the vortex of linguistic force, expressing our personal polarities relative that force, from which we thereby obtain power, status, and all that is wonderful in life. As a servant of superorganic being we receive the rewards commensurate with the flow of energy that makes that being. It is as if the superorganism needs honey and by having a position that causes honey to flow to a central point we get to be bathed in that honey ourselves as we deliver it to the master we serve. And of course this describes politicians perfectly, they are at the centre of attention, lauded as the elite figures deciding our future as a society, and they always end up stinking rich, even though they tend to be so before they even set about serving the beast. And above all else this dynamic fosters the most dedicatedly manipulative individuals. Which is why politicians are all such scum, filthy liars of the most extreme kind, with not a shred of decency in their bodies, the most vile people in existence, they are the ones we love, because they are so manipulative and can use their malevolence to personify goodness, as it were. But, truth to tell, we are all like this, to some degree, it is what being human, from an individual point of view, is all about, tragically.

I Christmas Eve deliveries The Structure of Man translated by the Bernards just arrived, it is a very strange book, not at all what I expected, despite having previously taken a digital copy from the net and checking it out. It just goes to show how big the difference is between having a book in your hands, and having the exact same item on your monitor. The work opens with the most strident eulogy to Darwin anyone could ever hope to see. Which immediately has my little brain going ten to the dozen, asking why Bernard would want to translate such a book when there are so many other works of critical importance that no one ever paid any attention to, but which serve his cause of arguing that humans are a colonial species, first and foremost being Lilienfelds 1873 work Human Society is a Real Organism. I made the same remark concerning atheists of the day, and used Annie Besant as my example, in my last work posted to Scribd.

II Others Thinking about the negativity of atheists and their destruction of purpose in life, my mind wandered onto the correct response to such accusations ; apart from silence that is.

What was said above is all that is necessary as regards the meaning of such complaints, they are simply an effort to fight for established privileges. We should begin by asking what purpose is ? Purpose, like so many other features of our language, is a political word, a word that has no meaning outside our existence, a meaning we create, but, a meaning which is rooted in the reality of our corporate nature. When we say we create in reference to a word, we refer to a mindless act that uses the linguistic programme as it is written into our brains. Obviously humans do not create any part of the linguistic programme, this programme is a product of nature, created by the superorganic physiology of speech to institute a process delivering superorganic form. The only reality in respect of linguistic meaning is the reality of human corporate nature. There is no doubt that atheism destroys society as we know it, and if we seek an abstraction of what it is that is destroyed, we can sum it up as purpose. This is commonsense in terms of our assertion that a natural force drives the formation of social structure, and this force is linguistic, and that religion is the personification of this force acting in human life. It follows that the constructive expression of linguistic force should come to be felt as, and hence known as what we call purpose. It is for this very reason that we are forced to ask ourselves if we can exist without religion. But what we have here is a creative principle centred on linguistic force leading to a typical organic feedback system, where the linguistic programme creates a structure that supports the programme that creates itself. This means a Jewish identity programme creates society, and hence the linguistic programme we acquire within society forces us to think in such a way as to spontaneously support the preservation of Judaism. This unified result arises from the complex interaction of social structure orchestrated by the fundamental principles of linguistic programming, relative to the array of identities its orchestrates. Tuesday, 12 June 2012 We added a remark above asserting that when we ask why we do things, the answer is always because we are expressing the imperative of linguistic force. A force that came into existence when biological evolution brought our species into being as creatures with a corporate nature, evolved to form a living animal at the level of social organization. We are therefore made to act with a forward objective, and that causes us to be aware of a potential future condition different to that which we know, and implicitly better ; a condition, what is more, that depends upon our personal action. The statement of Why, clearly finds an alternative expression here, where we make the sense of Purpose the expression of linguistic force ; it is the same thing in a different context, here described in terms of our sense of our own lives. There was an interesting little story on Newsnight on BBC 2 last night, 11/06/2012, talking about the downer on science in Washington. It concerned a satellite project initiated in 1998 by Al Gore, the climate change guru of America. When Bush came to power he cancelled this satellite and it has been mothballed ever since, but now it is set for launch under a new directive, disguising its remaining climate spotting mandate. Asked if those who oppose human caused global warming theories would not benefit from having the scientific data to validate their arguments, one of the enemies of science said that it would be pointless having scientific data disproving human induced global warming because the aficionados of this mantra would not believe the facts if we had them !! Boy the Yankee politicians are in a whole other league of vileness. The centre of Jewish power in this world has no problem waging war on science to protect its Jewish interests, as the basis of master power on earth. ___

III Language adventures I obtained a book from the net yesterday, 19/03/2010, called Language, Thought and Reality : Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, edited by John Carroll, 1959, (first ed. 1956). I was not impressed by the introductory remarks on Whorf, but there is some discussion of another academic called Sapir, which talks about language organising data and thereby directing social action. It is not easy to track down this kind of genuinely scientific detachment in relation to language, so we should snatch this while it is in our mind, and while we have a slot handy, adjacent to some relevant comments of our own : THE RELATION OF HABITUAL THOUGHT AND BEHAVIOR TO LANGUAGE
Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the real world is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group. . . . We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation. Edward Sapir
Reprinted from pp. 75-93, Language, culture, and personality, essays in memory of Edward Sapir, edited by Leslie Spier (Menasha, Wis. : Sapir Memorial Publication Fund, 1941). The article was written in the summer of 1939.

There will probably be general assent to the proposition that an accepted pattern of
using words is often prior to certain lines of thinking and forms of behavior, but he who assents often sees in such a statement nothing more than a platitudinous recognition of the hypnotic power of philosophical and learned terminology on the one hand or of catchwords, slogans, and rallying cries on the other. To see only thus far is to miss the point of one of the important interconnections which Sapir saw between language, culture and psychology, and succinctly expressed in the introductory quotation. It is not so much in these special uses of language as in its constant ways of arranging data and its most ordinary everyday analysis of phenomena that we need to recognize the influence it has on other activities, cultural and personal.

THE NAME OF THE SITUATION AS AFFECTING BEHAVIOR I came in touch with an aspect of this problem before I had studied under Dr. Sapir, and in a field usually considered remote from linguistics. It was in the course of my professional work for a fire insurance company, in which I undertook

the task of analyzing many hundreds of reports of circumstances surrounding the start of fires, and in some cases, of explosions. My analysis was directed toward purely physical conditions, such as defective wiring, presence or lack of air spaces between metal flues and woodwork, etc., and the results were presented in these terms. Indeed it was undertaken with no thought that any other significances would or could be revealed. But in due course it became evident that not only a physical situation qua physics, but the meaning of that situation to people, was sometimes a factor, through the behavior of the people, in the start of the fire. And this factor of meaning was clearest when it was a LINGUISTIC MEANING, residing in the name or the linguistic description commonly applied to the situation. Thus, around a storage of what are called gasoline drums, behavior will tend to a certain type, that is, great care will be exercised ; while around a storage of what are called empty gasoline drums, it will tend to be differentcareless, with little repression of smoking or of tossing cigarette stubs about. Yet the empty drums are perhaps the more dangerous, since they contain explosive vapour. Physically the situation is hazardous, but the linguistic analysis according to regular analogy must employ the word empty, which inevitably suggests lack of hazard. The word empty is used in two linguistic patterns : (1) as a virtual synonym for null and void, negative, inert, (2) applied in analysis of physical situations without regard to, e.g., vapour, liquid vestiges, or stray rubbish, in the container. The situation is named in one pattern (2) and the name is then acted out or lived up to in another (1), this being a general formula for the linguistic conditioning of behavior into hazardous forms. In a wood distillation plant the metal stills were insulated with a composition prepared from limestone and called at the plant spun limestone. No attempt was made to protect this covering from excessive heat or the contact of flame. After a period of use, the fire below one of the stills spread to the limestone, which to everyones great surprise burned vigorously. Exposure to acetic acid fumes from the stills had converted part of the limestone (calcium carbonate) to calcium acetate. This when heated in a fire decomposes, forming inflammable acetone. Behavior that tolerated fire close to the covering was induced by use of the name limestone, which because it ends in -stone implies non-combustibility. A huge iron kettle of boiling varnish was observed to be overheated, nearing the temperature at which it would ignite. The operator moved it off the fire and ran it on its wheels to a distance, but did not cover it. In a minute or so the varnish ignited. Here the linguistic influence is more complex ; it is due to the metaphorical objectifying (of which more later) of cause as contact or the spatial juxtaposition of thingsto analyzing the situation as on versus off the fire. In reality, the stage when the external fire was the main factor had passed ; the overheating was now an internal process of connection in the varnish from the intensely heated kettle, and still continued when off the fire. (Language, Thought and Reality, pp. 134 136) How do you like that term linguistic conditioning ? Is that gorgeous or what ? I love it. It is saying that linguistic force creates a linguistic programme, for the purpose of creating social structure. The very notion of habitual thought being related to behaviour and language is tantamount to saying that language is a programme that directs behaviour unwittingly. What induced this thought in Sapir we cannot say without some investigation, since the quote from him is not from a piece of his own, but Whorf shows us how we might think about this matter in an uncontroversial situation, where complex knowledge is involved

in regard to a strictly physical setting. We of course prefer the setting to be as controversial as possible, and must therefore summon up some situations to our own liking. Wednesday, 13 June 2012 These academics are as limited in their comprehension of the nature of language as the ordinary folk they refer to when speaking of the way people think about the suggestion that language influences behaviour. But if they would only of connected the ideas they were toying with here to the basic principles of biological evolution, and to the actual conditions of social life, they would of seen that what they had in their hands was the key to understanding all things : the realisation that the human animal is a superorganism created by language, and the individual does not exist as anything more than an object of linguistic manipulation serving that end. ___ Last nights Newsnight (19/03/2010) had a lengthy discussion of the Catholic religion, in view of the Popes apology for child abuse cases in Ireland. A senior English Catholic was being interviewed and he said that the big lesson for him, is that when a priest assures him that all is well, he can no longer blithely take such an assurance at face value ! Durr! Well theres a thing. We could relate this idea to the MPs expenses debacle, where these people were left to organise their own expenses system, and so they degenerated into a cohort of arrogant thieves robbing the very people they were supposed to be serving, whom such relatively omnipotent overlords and masters inevitably come to despise. How novel is that outcome ? Not very. About as novel as water running downhill ! The night before, a documentary tried to address the problem of voter apathy and the public hatred of MPs, and used the Tory MP Anne Widdecombe as the star of the show. At one point she was placed opposite a peace campaigner who effectively accused politicians of being warmongers. Widdecombe went off her trolley, aggressively challenging the women to confirm that she was saying that MPs voted for death and injury on a massive scale, on a whim. The women shrugged and said Three wars in a space of no time. To wit Widdecombe went mad, cursing the women, she denounced her for her scandalous accusations. To Widdecombe the idea that these things could presume to judge their human masters was an outragethere is no other way to read her manner. We are not supposed to judge politicians by their actions, we are supposed to judge them by their words, which are, by implication, sacred. Clearly she was not addressing herself to equals, she was condescending to meet the underlings. Wednesday, 13 June 2012 Of course within the confines of political discourse there are rules of etiquette about how people address each other, precisely in order to allow everyone to lie as they must, with impunity. So Widdecombe was only applying the professional standards of politicians to the ordinary human situation where such artificial routines are, by definition, not so well established, meaning that people will call liars what they self evidently are. There was a line quoted on Newsnight last night, 12/06/2012, An American journalist once said that a gaff is when a politician tells the truth. And there you have it, politicians are professional liars, lying to the world is what they do, it is their job. And that is why Widdecombe exploded when called a warmonger, for that is what barefaced liars do when called out to their face, they adopt the delinquent pose of outrage. These examples of ongoing social dynamics occurring in the hierarchy of overlords, all carry the same imputation of habitual thought patterns. Only here this behaviour is made a virtue, in that the habit denotes an assumption about certain classes of peopleCatholic priests and MPsas being presumed to be possessed of an unquestionable integrity. This is the very foundation of a social hierarchy. And this structural edifice is established on the basis of linguistic programming, or conditioning, and absolutely nothing else. As is proven

by the evidence of corruption, which is the hallmark of all superior types, as known throughout history. How else could we account for the fact that those who are sublimely good by repute, are the essence of pure evil, by the evidence of their actions in life ? But the real point of interest, as ever, is to understand why these situations exist. And the answer is because this endemic contentiousness is the essence of human superorganic physiology, where inter-structural tension is how it has to be because society is a biological structure that must have a complex hierarchy, and a unifying bond that does not fail. We view these conflicts from the personal perspective implanted into us by the linguistic programme, which creates these conflicts as the functional basis of social structure. But atheist science allows us to step beyond this programme, and to see our existence for what it is. Atheist science has this ability because the linguistic programme creating our living superorganism that we are all part of, that gives us our internal programming, is religious. Set religion aside and the whole being of the superorganism must disintegrate, which is why a whole new form of science has been created to keep religion valid. Widdecombe we must know, does not act as the supreme individual that, with the usual total insincerity of a politician, she absolutely declared she was, as the programme demonstrated. She is a Christian slag, just like most of her colleagues. She starts from a false pivot of reality, from which an evaluation of integrity relative to war, or anything else, can have no meaning whatsoever. These lackies do whatever their Jewish masters want them to do, without the slightest comprehension as to why. All this comes about simply via the directive action of linguistic force, relayed through the medium of social identity structures. It is this very force that propels these people to take over the machinery of government in the first place, as I had an opportunity of noticing recently when the corrupt bitch who is to be our next MP after the coming election, engineered her selection as the Tory candidate by getting her fellow Christian freaks to vote for her at the local meeting of the Tory party that decided who would rule our constituency for the next couple of decades or so. It is all corruption. What pretenders like Widdecombe hate is being seen for what they are, because their whole persona is about pretending to be something they are not. The Jews are of course the epitome of this. I had a similar experience with someone I bought a piece of junk from on EBay last month. When I called his stuff junk he was livid, he tried all sorts of fancy talk to feign being a genuine trader, but I just went right on calling his trash junk. He hated me, he told me how wonderful he was, and what a piece of human garbage I was. Nice, considering I was the one that had been robbed ! Isnt it always the way. And that is just how that bitch behaved on TV when she was called, to her face, what she is : a warmongering, evil, slut of the Jews. ___

Thursday, 25 March 2010, the day before yesterday a high ranking Jew was expelled from Britain, believed to be a Mossad agent. This was a mark of disgust after Mossad used six British passports to clone identities to make up a murder squad that killed a Palestinian in Dubai last month. It was reported that some Israeli MPs cursed Britain as being a nest of anti-Semitic scum for objecting to being abused in the name of their masters. This is what Jews are, and this is how we should think of them, they are the original Nazis. What is a Jew ? That is the question. Without God the Jews are nothing, a meaningless bunch of idiots. But although God does not exist, except as a belief, the Jews are the masters of the earth because of this belief. ___

IV Ignorance of human nature long lamented Ignoring the insert, the newsflash immediately above, the preceding section is coloured by my place within the linguistic flux, that gives me my own wavelengths of social identification. For most people Widdecombe or Catholic clergy represent the height of human perfection, for me this kind are the very dregs of humanity. But we are not concerned with inter-physiological rivalries which determine our normal state of consciousness, we are interested in perfect understanding, because we are atheist scientists. Yesterday I hit upon a piece in a digital book recently taken from the net that makes this same point, even though I noticed no sign that the author had any more notion what a true understanding was, than do most priests. Social Progress and the Darwinian Theory : A Study of Force as a Factor in Human Relations, George Nasmyth, 1916, evokes a core principle of atheist science : that it is no good complaining about how society is, we must know why society is as it is : Now, all our advance on the material side threatens to be of no avail in the really vital and fundamental things that touch mankind, because our understanding of the nature of human associations has not kept pace with our understanding of matter and its control. Of what avail is our immense increase in wealth production if we do not know how to distribute it in the order of our most vital needsif the total net result of our discovery and achievements is to give still more to those who have already too much and to render the underworld still more dependent, their lives still more precarious ? What should we say, asks Shaw, of the starving man who, on being given a dollar, forthwith spends it all on a bottle of scent for his handkerchief ? Yet that is what the modern world does, and it is, we are told, incapable of doing anything else, so intellectually bankrupt are we to assume it. So immense is the failure on this side that responsible students of the comparative condition of men seriously question whether the mass in our society are in essentials either morally or materially better off than those of the thirteenth century. Evidence enough remains, as one good historian points out, to show that there was in ancient Rome as in London or New York today, a preponderating mass of those who loved their children and their homes, who were good neighbours, and faithful friends, who conscientiously discharged their civil duties. Even the Eastern Roman Empire, that not many years ago was usually dismissed with sharp contempt, is now recovered to history, and many centuries in its fluctuating phases are shown to have been epochs of an established state, with well-devised laws well administered, with commerce prosperously managed, and social order conveniently worked and maintained. And one remembers, of course, the sad doubt of Mill :
It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the days toil of any human being. They have enabled a greater population to live the same life of drudgery and imprisonment, and an increased number to make fortunes. But they have not yet begun to effect those great changes in human destiny which it is in their nature and in their futurity to accomplish.

So that unless we can make some equivalent advance in the understanding of the laws and principles of human association, in the management of society, all our

advance on the material side, the management of matter, may go for nothing, or conceivably even worse than nothing. It is conceivable, for instance, as an ingenious novelist has suggested, that our researches in radio-activity might give us the secret of atomic disintegration so as to make a cents worth of rock equivalent in value as a source of energy to a train load of coalto multiply the wealth of the world a thousand timesand the result of it to be merely more poverty of the many, and luxury and dangerous power on the part of the few. The great need, therefore, is an understanding of the nature and mechanism of human association, a realization of its more fundamental laws. It does not help us to take the position that the present defects of society are the result of a plot on the part of a powerful few and that if their rule be broken, a new earth would come into being next Tuesday morning. If we ask ourselves, What would happen if the reins of government were seized by a group of very radical and advanced Socialists or Syndicalists, or other social reformers ? we are obliged to reply that nothing at all would happen ; things would go on very much as usual. It has occurred more than once in Europe that wild revolutionaries have achieved power and they generally end by accomplishing less than their more conservative colleagues and becoming more reactionary. They were obliged to realize that society, because it is an organism, cannot stop breathing while experiments are made with its internal mechanism. The mere possession of power does not give control either over a complex machine or a complex organism. If the mechanism of your motor car works imperfectly, it serves no purpose that you have a crow-bar which will smash the whole thing in pieces. You must know how or you are helpless, since the power of destruction serves no purpose at all. And the revolutionaries who have from time to time arrived have not known how. For the social organism is even more complex than a motor car, and its general control is in the hands not of experts but of all of us. Can we ever hope that the general mind will rise to effective knowledge fitting men for the control of their own social destiny ? In these complex matters where the experts differ, is there any hope that the mass will ever achieve sufficient capacity to enable social progress to equal the advances made in those material sciences which are in the hands of experts ? Many would answer that question in the negative, although a negative answer involves a paralysing pessimism which one is glad to think is no part of the American genius. But I do not think that a negative answer need be given. I will appeal to an analogy that I have used elsewhere. In the sixteenth century Montaigne, who did not believe in witchcraft and saw the evil that it brought, wrote to this effect :
The day will never come when the common ruck of men will cease to believe in witchcraft. If the lawyers and judges of our modern sixteenth-century France, men trained to sift evidence and learned in science, can be so far deceived as to send thousands of victims to their deaths for impossible crimes, how can we ever hope that the common man will avoid these errors ?

Yet, ask a ten-year-old boy of our time whether he thinks it likely that an old woman would or could change herself into a cow or a goat, and he will almost always

promptly reply : Certainly not. (I have put this many times to the test of experiment.) What enables the unlearned boy to decide right where the learned judge decided wrong ? You say it is the instinct of the boy. But the instinct of the seventeenth-century boy (like the learning of the sixteenth, or seventeenth-century judge) taught him the exact reverse. Something has happened. What is it ? It is probably the unconscious application on the part of the boy, of the inductive method of reasoning (of which he has never heard, and could not define), and the general attitude of mind towards phenomena which comes of that habit. Again, to quote myself : He forms by reasoning correctly (on the prompting of parents, nurses, and teachers) about a few simple factswhich impress him by their visibility and tangibilitya working hypothesis of how things happen in the world, which, while not infallibly appliedwhile, indeed, often landing the boy into mistakesis far more trustworthy as a rule than that formed by the learned judge reasoning incorrectly from an immense number of facts. Such is the simple basis of this very amazing miracle, the great fact which is at the bottom of the main difference between the modern and mediaeval world, between the Western and Eastern civilizations. (Introduction, pp. xiii xviii) We have quoted this at length because it is an absolutely gorgeous piece of writing on the nature of sociological science ; for all its terrible flaws. It is a delight to find an observation on the true meaninglessness of material advance, that always expands the bulk of the social mass, but never alters its nature one jot. And now, ninety four years on, the exact same observation is as true as ever. This constancy is of course because social order is an organic order made by nature, so why would its nature change just because slate and crayons turn into laptops and internet, or whatever ? This above passage is good because of the subject matter, it is terrible because of the lame ignorance of reality that it displays. Sadly the whole tenor of the work is one of terrible stupidity approached from a point of sheer genius. Genius of intent is of no avail if it is hit upon by a total dunderhead. His theme regarding the advance of collective wisdom, utilising the example of witchcraft, is far from original. William Lecky famously wrote a whole text on the topic called the History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, my copy being 1884, but it was first published some time earlier. As long as religion persists humans can be more than animals, that is the key point, and there is no excuse for anyone delving into the matter not realising this. Nasmyth brings the question of morality into his evaluation of progress, indicating that he is an ally of degrading mindlessness by way religious indoctrination. Morality will take care of itself in a world capable of living without religion, since there can be no higher moral sentiment than atheism, because atheism is the truth. Atheism as a goal is the key to nirvana. But it must be a positive atheism, in effect it must be atheist science, since obviously the mere denial of an obscenity cannot be a philosophy in itself. Atheism is the key to heaven on earth because it unlocks the way to human life made by humans, for humans, and it makes it plain that religion must not be tolerated, as all false knowledge must not be tolerated. In the passage above Nasmyth is crying out for atheism, because he is crying out for true knowledge of human nature, which cannot be had unless atheism is the pivotal base from where the seeker after true knowledge begins their analysis of humanity. It meant nothing that witchcraft fell into disuse as a tool for tormenting the population, since religion in the shape of an absolute theocracy, the hand that held the weapon, remained, and the tool can always be refashioned. Indeed the rise of the Nazis shows this, for their gas chambers for undesirables, in which the religious motif of Judaism figured larger than most, was only the same old

witchcraft tool in another form, cutting the flesh of the superorganism to keep its Jewish meat lean and keen. As long as religion persists it will need such tools to do its work. Although Nasmyths passage is full of remarks indicating society to be a social organism, he still manages to think the organism is driven by the will of conscious people, comparing its maintenance to the running of a car. This is too bad for words. Especially when he has just pointed out that we do not desire to speak of how things are, but why they are as they are. The trouble is that he has a fixed agenda : the denial of force as a functional factor in human life. By force he means warfare and such like brute strength. How can denying something real, serve as an advance of the knowledge of reality ? The man is a total tosser ! The crucial point is to take Spencers argument, discussed on page eight of Nasmyths piece, and make it work by seeing that war is about preserving identity, about ensuring that Judaism takes over the biomass, as Spencer says in general terms, and then ensuring that we all stay enslaved to Judaism. If Nasmyth had realised this he could of predicted the Great Cleansing of 1914 18, and the rise of the Nazis and the holocaust, as inevitable developments arising from the challenges posed by science to religion, which would of caused Christianity to go the same way as witchcraft, and hence meant the vaporisation of Judaism. Such public foresight would not of stopped the priesthood from bringing these things to fruition, since they had to be, but their anticipation would of served as the greatest vindication of science ever, in its application to the understanding of human existence, and would of armed us for the fight back against Judaism today, enabling us to destroy Christianity, the greatest goal for humanity now. Instead war has plagued us ever since, precisely because of the failure of intellectuals like Nasmyth during the period of freedom, a brief window of opportunity, shut fast by the great wars of the twentieth century that annihilated science and all freedom of thought, and so rejuvenated the evil of religion once again, that torments us now. The key point then in the advancement of knowledge, is the role of the priesthood. The priesthood lost heart in witchcraft, stopped burning people at the stake and prosecuting dogs for blasphemy or whatever, and so the masses stopped being programmed by this shit. But when it came to the advancement of knowledge calling Christianity itself into doubt, the priesthood fought back, moving heaven and earth to ensure that ignorance prevailed over wisdom. So it is that the priesthood has preserved religion and the masses have continued to be programmed accordingly, so that today we can watch a TV programme like The Big Questions on BBC 1, Sunday, 21 March 2010, and see vile degenerates talking about the existence of God and the Devil, still. And, know that these vile humans are our social superiors, they rule our society, run the economy, run the schools, make our laws, wage our wars, give us the reasons we live for, just as their equivalents were masters in the Middle Ages, the Dark Ages, the Stone Ages and beyond, right back to oblivion. It is all about the linguistic programme pervading the biomass, which depends upon the occupying denomination controlling the management of the core structures of message formation within the social physiology. The way Nasmyth talks about a modern boy spontaneously picking up the modern way of thinking more scientifically in all matters, is suggestive. It is an intuitive recognition of the idea of a linguistic flux pervading society in the form of a linguistic programme dictating how everyone thinks. As such this is nice, but without earthing this idea in the biology of human nature it is useless as a comment upon social science. There has been no advancement of rationalism in Europe, or anywhere else, ever ; we are in the pits of ignorance. Yes, in Leckys time the advance was awe inspiring, and we can read the many books bearing witness to the sense of advance. Today, Sunday, 21 March 2010, for example, I finished reading The Social Mind and Education by George Vincent, 1897, and it concludes with an evocation to a new education that I thought anticipated a new

kind of future based upon the modern era of science, albeit the man seemed to me to be a votary of Christian freakery, though he never quite said as much. Such promotions of a great future come spewing forth like sewerage from a pipe these days, everything is bright and beautiful. But I did make a note to the effect that this man seemed to think some sort of new age was beckoning, and education needed to prepare for it. However, as just noted above, left to its own devices such advances can only mean death to Judaism, if they are to become pervasive and settled, and this could not be allowed. So the advance was destroyed, and in its place science has instead been made into the pursuit of the White Lie. Though white, it is anything but. More like crimson red. It follows that what now passes for science, is given all the attributes of science, and hence we hear our priests talk endlessly of our advancement and progress. Which is in reality nothing of the sort, save in the matter of technological details which count for nothing in terms of the real meaning intended when the words progress or advance are used in the context of society at large. We still have the advance, we talk about it all the time, but now the advance comes in the form of a collective White Lie. We have to have advancement, as we have to have science, but they cannot come in a genuine form, they must be faked, appearing in a form that is really enslaved to religion. Curiously this means that our advance is in reality a regression from the first age of freethinking, but that is what all religion amounts to, that is why religious mythology is so gross an abomination to reason. The gist of Nasmyths piece, evoking the organic theory of social order, while failing to apply its logic, prompts us to take a biological piece indicating how we would like to see the man apply science to sociology, a piece that can be made more sense of in terms of our upcoming work Linguistic Force, which makes the factor of information the base level organiser of all living structure : The organism is a self-regulating mechanism because it is so constituted that each part responds to the reactions of its associates by speeding up or slowing down its rate of functioning in accordance with the kind of message it receives. One of the most noteworthy facts of recent physiological research is the discovery of more and more instances of the kind of relationship between organs here described. But one may object that functional balancing can be explained only when there is an adaptive mechanism to start with, just as one can explain the regulation of timekeeping in a clock. And as a clock does not build itself, so, it may be asserted, must we look to something besides the organisms own functioning to explain its structural make-up. But organisms really do build themselves through functional adjustments. The only question is. How far can the process go ? Can we say that development is just one grand series of homeostatic efforts ? This, I concede, is quite too sweeping and grandiose a generalization to be justified by the facts, since there are certain morphoses not evoked by homeostasis. Nevertheless, the structural developments due to balancing may be sufficiently numerous to become the chief guiding influence of ontogeny. On this interpretation, the adaptations of ontogeny with the regulatory activities operating at every turn, bringing about cordinated growth processes, inhibitions, unbuilding and starting along different lines, repair of injuries, and various other integrative processes, both normal and exceptional, are susceptible of essentially the same kind of explanation as the interadjustments of the functions of the adult body. One may conclude that formative physiology and functional physiology are one. The period of self-differentiation is quite as much a functional stage as any other stage of development. It is through functional interaction that the self-

determining areas are first blocked out, and it is by the same means that the subordinate regions of each are differentiated into harmoniously organized parts. Early cordination is, like the cordinations in the behavior of primitive animals, largely effected by a step-by-step process. Parts early organized act in turn as organizers. Each step in morphogenesis may be regarded as a matter primarily of functional adjustment, a part of the general process of homeostasis, or balancing, as much as the various processes subsumed under this name in the adult body. One might conceive of the integration of the first developmental stages of the frogs egg as resulting from hypertrophying one or another of the primary physiological processes of the cell. We know little of the steps by which the physiology of the blastula becomes converted into the physiology of the mature body, but the process must be one of continuous orderly evolution, like the increasing elaboration of embryonic structures. In the higher animals the step-by-step method of achieving cordination is supplemented by the evolution of two important organ systems, the endocrine glands and the nervous system. Increase in size, if it is to be effective, must be conditioned upon the development of means of readily cordinating the activities of remotely situated organs. Although every cell may be assumed to produce hormones or some other substances which diffuse out and affect contiguous parts, the endocrine organs of higher animals elaborate secretions that exercise a much wider influence. Such action is greatly facilitated by the movements of the blood and lymph, and it may result in marked changes in form as well as in function, as is illustrated by the morphogenic effects of the secretions of the thyroid, anterior pituitary, and the sex glands. Equally striking are the morphogenic changes effected by the nerves. The transformation of ordinary epithelial cells into taste buds under the influence of contact with sensory nerve endings, and the reversion of these cells to epithelium after the nerve supply is cut, are illustrative of the morphogenic potency of nervous influence. The sensory nerve ending is apparently an organizer for the development of taste bud cells. We may say that nerve endings affect the metabolism of these cells in such a way that they respond by manifesting a new potency. This morphogenic influence is probably chemical, like that of the endocrine glands. Physiological investigation has shown that nerve cells and their processes really are endocrine glands secreting acetylcholine, adrenalin or some similar substance, and possibly other products. Nervous cordination and endocrine cordination, therefore, rest on a common basis. The nervous system performs its endocrine functions much more precisely than the other endocrine organs. We might define nerves as chemical applicators analogous to those employed by a rhinologist who applies a chemical to a particular spot of ones nasal membrane. By applying its hormones in sharply restricted areas the nervous system is able to function efficiently in achieving nice and delicate cordinations required in the life of the higher animal. (Organic Form and Related Biological Problems, S. J. Holmes, 1948, pp. 18 19) This is a detailed biological description of physiological processes that is used here as a prompt to how we would like to see sociologists talking about social structure as being composed of cellular units, in the form of humans, interfaced by means of linguistic impulses allowing the superorganic form to come into being. This biological method would be used to account for all kinds of collective behaviour. Nothing would be outside its remit. Yesterday, 24/03/2010, I was mooching through a modern text on the nature of scientific knowledge, The Force of Knowledge : The Scientific Dimension of Society, John Ziman, 1978 (first pub. 1976). Anything post the Deep Cleansing of 1939 45 is considered modern for the

purposes of atheist science, because this denotes a new era of the One Message, constituting a uniform state of the collective mindset that persists still, and will persist for a long time to come, I fear. When Darwinism falls, then this mindset will be over, because the publication of Origin of Species laid the foundation for the pseudo science of the self that is the essence of the modern, religiously enslaved mindset. Darwinism is not science, and one day this fact must be known. Along with this knowledge it must be understood that Darwinism never was science, and was never an error, but was always a deception, an inherent expression of the nature of an absolute theocracy. Only then will science exist. Zimans book then, is a perfect example of a freshly invigorated religious confidence where science is concerned. In dealing with sociology he meets the issues head-on, and freely expounds upon his topic : So formidable are these obstacles to the scientific study of the relations between race and intelligence that one must begin to question the motives of those who advocate such a programme. Are they truly honest seekers after truth or do they have political, ideological ends which they are attempting to justify by an appeal to scientific authority ? It must not be forgotten, that the whole investigation is offensive, by implication, to those who might thus be deemed inferior ; why should their sensibilities be ridden over in the name of research when the most likely outcome is continued doubt.

IS SCIENCE NEUTRAL ?

Some people go much further and use this controversial topic as evidence that science can never be value free and neutral. They point to the power of the social ideologies within which we are all brought up, and assert that every scientist must be affected by prejudices of capitalism, or socialism, or fascism, or whatever it is, in all his observations and deductions. Such an ideological slant is particularly significant in the social sciences, where there is no simple instrumental device to correct the bias of the observer. Looking back to such famous works as those of MALTHUS (p. 130) or SPENCER (p. 283), we can now easily detect implicit assumptions about the organization of society that would have seemed self-evident at the time but which we now reject. It is impossible, therefore, for any one of us now to avoid making the same sort of error, which will thus spoil every attempt at scientific objectivity. This fundamental challenge to all efforts to build up a valid body of social science has much force. It is certainly to be taken very seriously whenever we try to use scientific knowledge as a basis for political decisions that touch upon human values. But this is only an extreme and significant form of the basic question of the absolute truth of scientific knowledge of all kinds. In the end we are bound to rely upon our own judgement of the validity of each observation and deduction, and are all subject to the intellectual climate of our own times. The paradigm of classical physics in the early twentieth century was as much an obstacle to the acceptance of relativity and quantum theory as the cultural paradigm of European society was to the acceptance of anthropological relativism and functionalism. Having seen this, however, the gravest folly is to suppose that the bias of an objectionable (i.e. false) ideology can be corrected by embracing its opposite. In many many cases, those who denounce science for not being neutral are mainly concerned to make it an ally on their own side of some political or religious conflict. But this is a matter on which each one of us must exercise his own judgement, relying

upon the common sense virtues of honesty and scepticism that he has derived from his personal experience of life.

THE SOCIOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW

This chapter was begun with little hope of settling so vast an issue as the place of the social and behavioural sciences in society. It might be summed up somewhat as follows : The sociological viewpoint, that takes man in society as a proper object of unprejudiced enquiry, is immensely valuable. It removes the blinkers of conventional religious, political and social systems of thought, and gives the observer freedom to see things in a new light. The map of the social and psychological world that the average person carries around inside his head is extraordinarily narrow and restricted : sociology and anthropology suggest entirely different schemes by which it may be represented. The uncovering of the immense variety of actual social and cultural conditions is also extremely instructive. It is very easy to be blind to the realities of life around us, to ignore what is not before our eyes, and to notice only those people and events that our prejudices allow us to see. By observing, recording and counting all manner of simple facts, the social scientist brings them with due weight to the attention of the managers and politicians. Scientific criteria of objectivity, or reproducibility of data, of measurement, and of quantity, make this information much more reliable, as a basis for possible action, than mere opinion. But the part played by theory in this realm of science is much weaker than in the physical and biological sciences. The facts themselves are often sufficient to demolish what J. R. Ravetz has called Folk Science the old systems of prejudice and superstition that govern the minds of most people concerning race relations, sexual practices, barriers of caste and class, etc. But the social sciences have not succeeded in building up a thorough-going theoretical framework from which reliable predictions can be deduced in the abstract without reference to the facts. The real power of physics is that we can fire a rocket into space, with prescribed velocity, and can calculate with precision that it will land on the moon. Nobody can launch a social reform or an industrial enterprise, and calculate its trajectory by the aid of mathematical sociology or economics. Theoretical models and concepts are absolutely essential aids to practical research in the social sciences, but they can seldom be taken literally as guides to action. Little is gained by setting aside a Folk Science shrewdly based upon long experience and replacing it with a pseudoscientific expertise based upon glib theorizing and superficial observation. On many matters of great social concern, true science has nothing positive to say. We do not know, for example, whether black men are somewhat cleverer than white men or the other way round. What society needs is the positive assertion of our ignorance on such issues that is, the denial of any scientific authority that is claimed to favour a particular prejudice or superstition. Perhaps this is the most important ideological task of the scientific attitude in the realm of general ideas, social action, philosophy etc. to make clear the values of scepticism, open-mindedness, and attention to ascertainable facts, on matters that cannot be settled by the mechanical application of the type of rationality used in science itself. (Ziman, pp. 299 301)

We call for the application of science to society, which must mean treating human society as a biological phenomenon created by nature. So we want social structure and its related dynamics to be treated biologically, and we quoted the kind of biological approach we would like to see turned on social form above. This was the method of the first true scientists of the nineteenth century. This method was cleansed from society because it was working, and in Ziman we see how academia has continued its work of knowledge control in the postcleansing period of the scientific age. We demand that science be an atheist science denying religion as a matter of principle, as an act of demolition, before the rebuilding of knowledge by science. Ziman concludes by saying that science must be anti-scientific, denying the power of science to answer any question that people hold dear. This is an extremely nasty piece of writing coming out of the Cambridge publishing house, typical of the place, and quite as vile as anything the Nazis turned out during their brief tenure of rule over the Jewish slave nation of Germany. British slave service is rather different to German slave service to Judaism however, as per this contrast anyway. Nazis were just as much Jews as anyone else, obviously, but they were taking up the negative polarity of the dualism imposed for the purposes of conducting a phase of rigorous cleansing across the board. This shows up in the subtlety of British slave propaganda which takes the approach of stroking with the fur, not against it. Thus when making science inherently flawed because of the bias of individuals, Ziman names several political categories causing such bias, but does not mention the only factor of any importance, to wit, religion. This mode of programming by not identifying true things, is vastly more powerful, subtle that is, than the kind of fascistic programming that does name incisive things of the kind Ziman condemns out of hand. I also dipped into a classic piece of conspiracy theory yesterday, The Biggest Secret, David Icke, 1999. A passage caught my eye at the close of chapter fourteen, Under the Influence, which is about the drugs trade. Here Icke uses the phrase problem-reactionsolution to denote a power loop derived from such deleterious social phenomenon as drugs, whereby drugs are being distributed by those fronting the drug war, who are offering the solutions at the same time. (p. 286) Distribution is the problem, the war is the reaction, coming from the authority providing the solution. This gives us a power loop created by one integrated organisation, appearing in three distinct forms. Icke is an extreme conspiracy theorist. The one thing such a corrupt social structure based upon this kind of power loop would really need, is an Icke in the structural framework. Icke is a classic example of someone providing the noise, without ever providing an explanation or solution. This is what conspiracy theorising is all about as a functional expression of linguistic force creating superorganic physiology, it is a major tool of fascist theocracy. In fact when we talk about Christianity concocting horror stories about creatures that rob us of our identity and turn us into zombies or vampires, this is a mode of conspiracy theory mimicking the true nature of Judaism, and projecting it in the form of an anti-Christian slave identity. Maybe the strange contemporary upsurge in fascination with this counter image of identity theft by religion, seen in the mass of movies using this vampire theme, is due to the revitalisation of the Jewish slave identity in general. The appearance of tattooing on a huge scale, used by all kinds of people, can only be an indication of the unsatisfied impulse to possess a corporate identity. These two recent popular phenomenon, tattooing and vampire possession fantasies, seem to be in accord with one another, in terms of the sentient bricks need for an identity cementing it into a social fabric, which modern folk do not have access to because of the return of the Jewish slave identity making religious identities supreme once again, especially the alien Islamic identity. Indigenous Europeans cannot attach to Islam at all, and for many Christianity has lost its force too, leaving them to

fall back upon more primitive ad hoc modalities of identity imprinting. Identity dynamics are a curious thing. But we can see from these two secular expressions of corporate identity dynamics, that the urge to be stamped with an identity that takes possession of the individual self, is a vital force within the human animal. A clear sign of human corporate nature. We want to be slaves ! The practice of following trends is ordinarily described as a means of expressing our individuality, but there is no such thing as an individual, so that the practice of expressing individuality is just another expression of conformity. The existence of a range of true individualities, in terms of personality variations and such like, proves that there is no such thing as an individual existing as an end in themselves, because such extreme variation indicates interdependence within a wider ruling structure. Diversity of type indicates the superorganic dimension is driving variation for the sake of creating its own complexity within the unity of its own being. An immense diversity among people can only be explained in such terms, as a manifestation of a specialised social nature, evolved to create a living being at the level of social organization. And so, with Ickes stark theorising in mind, we can return our attention to Zimans account of social dynamics, and readily see the same general logic being applied by both Ziman and Icke. Racism is equivalent to the drugs trade, i.e. a problem. A caution against the possibility of science ever being unbiased in relation to society, is the equivalent of the war against drugs, where Ziman poses as the representative of academic authority, presuming to give the correct analysis of all things pertaining to society. Here then we have a particulate example of an Ickian conspiracy loop occurring in real life. And it works. Ziman is providing the official mantra, delineating how sociology is to be circumscribed in the aftermath of the Nazi outrage against humanity, which meant religion would never again be brought into the scientific frame of reference in any serious way, nor Judaism, nor human biological nature. Ziman says an ideological slant is particularly significant in the social sciences, where there is no simple instrumental device to correct the bias of the observer. This inadequacy is however a product of sociologys wilful destruction, as a true biological science. Where otherwise the idea of the individual would not exist and bias of the kind he identifies would be seen as structural, and mediated by identity parameters derived from the linguistic force that creates all superorganic physiology. A true model of human nature would allow us to make sense of all kinds of bias, including that which Ziman shows here, where he is determined to acknowledge official science rather than [exercising] his own judgement, relying upon the common sense virtues of honesty and scepticism that he [might of] derived from his personal experience of life.according to his own drivel. He says it is impossible for us to avoid making the same scientifically fatal errors as those that were made by the first great sociological thinkers, men like Spencer and Malthus. Impossible ! Imagine that. He is saying that it is impossible for humans ever to comprehend themselves. What kind of statement is that ? No priest ever uttered a more religious statement, ever. This statement is true, if individuals exist, and this is what this statement is really seeking to affirm, that the individual is the end point of human evolution, so that there is no determinacy involved in how humans live. But he does not say this, he just lets his language impress this assumption upon the mind of the reader, who will already be programmed to assume this is so anyway. His argument is therefore stroking along the sentimental grain of the programmed mind. Yet, on the next page, he talks about social life in terms that make it perfectly evident that there is no such thing as an individual. But, again, he does not draw this conclusion. Neither Malthus nor Spencer came within a million miles of possessing a remotely true conception of human nature allowing them to think about social structure in a scientific

manner. The first idea anyone needs for this purpose is the idea that society is a social organism, and this thought never so much as occurred to either men. Writing an essay entitled The Social Organism seems to contradict this assertion, but it does not, because Spencers essay of 1860 no more invoked the true idea of society as a social organism, than it described the Americans landing on the moon. To this extent Spencers organicism was the greatest foe that the true view of human nature could ever have, it served, in other words, as a gatekeeper work, seeming to promote an idea that it only made a mockery of, and hence brought into disrepute. This gave the overt enemies of science a target to address themselves to without having to worry about dealing with any seriously dangerous truths. What about this sentence The map of the social and psychological world that the average person carries around inside his head is extraordinarily narrow and restricted : sociology and anthropology suggest entirely different schemes by which it may be represented. ? That is exactly what the human sciences do not do. On the contrary, the social sciences look at what ordinary people think, and then expressly make these thoughts the guiding principle of their science. Thus sociologists will tell you that, uniquely, sociologists can ask their subjects what things mean to them ! Instead of working it out scientifically and then telling people what their religion means ; what war means ; what drug taking means. Atheist science, which essentially replaces all human sciences, suggest[s] entirely different schemes by which [existence] may be represented, because atheism is the necessary precursor of all such reasoning, since atheism rejects the notion of any other determining factors than those dictated by nature, as seen by science : these being the sole means we have of knowing reality in intellectual terms. Zimans argument then proceeds to negate the existence of the individual as an end in themselves, and to indicate that only by summing up individual phenomenon into vast collections of facts, can the true nature of social existence be revealed. But he does not draw this conclusion, oh no. What he does do is to justify the collection of such data for the training of the master slaves, the managers of government and industry and such like, so that the fruits of a true science of society can be applied in technical terms. While not being allowed to encroach upon our actual knowledge of self, that would undermine our identity attachment making the Jews the master race. What of this contrast between a missile and a business enterprise ? It is no more meaningful than my decision to say that Spencers Social Organism did not discuss the moon landing. I just wanted to make a point and snatched the first idea I could conjure up. Ziman did the same here. If however we take his point seriously, we would have to dispute his assertion. If instead of the vague idea of an industrial enterprise we try and find things that do have a predictable energy curve, identifiable with the predictability of a rocket launch, such as the growth of communications, then we would easily confound his glib nonsense. The point being that a newly established business enterprise as a reality, is a highly personal thing, a feature of the individual acting as an end in themselves. An object necessarily biased toward affirming the reality of the individual thus conceived. Whereas the phenomenon of communications is of a historical nature, and as such a feature of social orders themselves, a true object of sociological interest already abstracted from any individual bias, though its story may string together many beads of individual entrepreneurship and invention. He is in other words confounding two distinct levels of existence, as in structural levels of organization. As it happens I just ditched a modern book on the history of communications which would of allowed me to illustrate this fact ; that is what happens when you try to clear your bookshelves, damn it ! Predictability in respect of communications is easily accounted for when we know that the human animal is a superorganism, where communication structures are to the superorganism what the brain is to a somatic organism. So that empowering

communication goes hand in hand with growth, as noted by Holmes in the above quote on biological form. This is why, despite all the fuss about air travel in relation to environmental problems, all nations are striving to increase air travel even as they struggle to find means of suppressing energy consumption and such like. Air travel being vital to the continuing growth of the still juvenile, global Jewish superorganism. No politician knows that humans are superorganisms, they do not need to, the linguistic programme determining all human action directs behaviour at all levels, according to the needs of the superorganism. Which the individual understands in political terms that inclines their relationship towards the programme with a sense of awareness based upon localised-cum-personalised factors of intent and value. This is why absolute contradiction is normal in political affairs. Because each person is connected to the social being via the gimbals of consciousness that dissociates them from reality through a medium of personal values and parameters of identity. Thus you fight against global warming even as you fight for airport expansion, if you are an airport manager or a politician, never feeling the contradiction, always feeling as if your logic rides on an even keel. You say we are increasing flights as fast as we can, but reducing pollution because technology is getting cleaner ! Why not just outlaw flying ? Because the needs of the superorganism will not permit it. But the politician sees this need in terms of economics, which is really an integral aspect of superorganic physiology, being just one conceptual ring of the programmes isolating gimbals, ensuring all manner of contradictory ideas can be held in the one head, without ever creating a sense of irregularity in the consciousness of the person concerned. Such a conceptual model of society reminds us of the way the ancients portrayed the heavens as a series of discrete, concentric spheres, wherein the universe was centred upon ourselves. So, as we can see from Ziman, nothing has changed there then. The final paragraph taken is a sickeningly nasty bit of academic acid. He mentions the relation of science to matters of great concern, and absentmindedly lets the earlier theme of race and intelligence stand as the indicator of such important issues. This is errant trash, no one in the seventies gave a toss about such things. This facet of racism was a throwback to the early nineteenth century at best, and even then it was a diabolical perversion of reason that never had any relevance to science, having been associated with science from the outset as an abuse of science, just like Darwinism and the idea of competition as a prime factor driving the evolution of species. The two perversions being combined in later decades to bear fruit in eugenics and Nazism, which gave such sterling service to Judaism in the fight for control over science. First we need the problem, then the reaction, and finally the affirmation of authority born of finding a solution. All of which comes from the same source, Judaism. Having made this gross construction Ziman proceeds to use it to affirm that science must know its place, and leave all that experience has shown must be off-limits to science, well and truly alone. Which, in other words, sounds like a cry of triumph for the academics, raised in the immediate aftermath of the Deep Cleansing which had put paid to science, once and for all. Wednesday, 13 June 2012 I am writing here as an Englishman, I suppose things were different in other parts of the world, what with South African apartheid and struggles ongoing in America to do with segregation and such like. But race oriented science did not exist in Britain by the 1970s to my knowledge. Hence he cannot make these attacks on science on this basis, although writing these remarks upon my own work makes me think I need to return to Ziman to see what his justification was for writing thus. But Ill leave that to others, the mans general approach warrants no deeper analysis. Thursday, 14 June 2012 The other thing we need to note with regard to Ziman that I do not recall being said, concerns the fact that he shows us an academia happy to call science into disrepute where it suits the establishment, when doing disreputable science looking for

genetically based racial differences. He effectively says that all science is inherently corrupt. But where it really matters, where this factor is screaming at the world, year on year, century on century, in relation to religion, not a sausage, not the least murmur of such a thought, until we open our mouths. So, what we can take from this Ziman stuff, is that when it suits the priesthood to defame science to its very core, the need is not wanting. This tells us something, it tells us the usual shit, that the whole damn show is rotten, as we always say it is. Except of course this is our emotive view. Our scientific view is that this rottenness is the flow of linguistic force running through the channels of the linguistic programme that is the nervous tissue of the Jewish superorganism. ___ The really important thing to understand about the Ickian principle linking real, occult power, to major social problems that demand a reaction, is that this behavioural loop is a natural and inevitable feature of human superorganic physiology. A naturally occurring dynamic within human superorganic physiology that occurs as a result of the way humans coalesce into discrete enclaves of identity, which compete with each for the same vital social resources. As the structure of the human fauna becomes increasingly refined through the ongoing process inherent in this natural dynamic of social integration, the relationship between ultimate authority and spontaneous problems requiring solutions becomes a formalised constituent of the superorganic physiology itself. This is what we all see in political terms when a recurrent expression of this feature, as it applies to our particular superorganism, makes itself known in the form of anti-Semitism for example. Since discovering that humans are a superorganic species of mammal we have indicated that we are all Jews, and everything that happens occurs in the service of Jewish occult power. For this reason we see the functional nature of anti-Semitism, the rise of Nazism and the world wars, in physiological terms to do with preserving Jewish identity. This sounds like an evil thing to say given the terrible abuse heaped upon Jews just for being Jewish, and we would be labelled conspiracy theorists for saying it, because such a rebuttal is the linguistic defence mechanism serving as a reactant to the problem posed by this kind of real knowledge based upon human biological nature. Remember, linguistic force creates all social structure, it creates Jewish power by fabricating a social master identity, and it induces reactions to problems that concentrate social energy on that master identity. Then it protects any true understanding of the meaning of these superorganic phenomenon by using more linguistic mechanisms, such as conspiracy theory accusations, as and when required. It is in other words, all about language. So that human language is a programme dictating and controlling all human thought and behaviour, and that control is what imparts the meaning to language that we sentient bricks relate to. Which tells us that meaning does not exist in relation to words as discrete unitsalthough that is not how we see itthe true meaning of words exists in the conceptual constructions fashioned from the verbal units. The linguistic programme is therefore made up of units of information that create a message driving sentient brick organization. This indicates that there is no such thing as a word, in that words are meaningless units of larger meaningful edifices of collective consciousness. This may be likened to the idea of asking someone what the meaning of a solitary house brick is, to wit an answer is impossible to give, since such a brick is without context. Place a brick in a structure like a bridge or a house, and in conjunction with many other bricks it becomes meaningful, structurally meaningful, as its meaning is then derived from the structure it is part of. Likewise ask a person what the meaning of the word evil is, and although a specific meaning can be given, if a study is made of the replies many various people give, this meaning will be found to be lost, since a police officer might say a criminal and a criminal might say a police officer, for example. They cannot both be right, but they have absolute

authority as individuals to determine what words signify for them, according to the principle that words carry discrete meanings. Words really only take on a forceful meaning when backed by collective authority which places them in a context, and even then the words continue to support bias, as they should, because that is what linguistic force is supposed to do in order to deposit social structure from discrete sentient bricks. If the above discussion of the nature of the linguistic programme at the base level of its construction where meaning is found to disappear under close examination seems peculiar and hard to follow, so it should. Putting anything under the microscope to penetrate its fine structure is bound to make the full form disappear. When it comes to that which we do not see or know is there in the first place, the superorganic being we are part of that is, the effect is simply to make us contemptuous of what such a procedure sets before us, unless we are scientists, that is. The whole idea that language is a force that creates all social structure by generating a linguistic programme dictating the consciousness and behaviour of all people coming under its influence, must eventually lead us to the point where we recognise that what we think of language as being, cannot be real. We, after all, are the objects of the programmes contrivance, the manipulation of which objects allows linguistic force to build social architecture. Hence it can make no sense for us to be conscious of the programme as a programme, in any sense whatever. Do we know that our religion is, as in functions as, for example, a slave identity programme ? Like heckers we do. By enslaving us the resulting form acquires power, making us powerful by association. So we actually experience the enslaving process inducting us into a superorganic form, as a mode of personal empowerment, when it is refined. Bear in mind that we evolved to be so used, as sentient bricks we must find a place within a social architecture. The process can often reveal its real nature and appear as something truly brutal and horrific, but even then we experience it in terms of our own sense of personal power, the lack of it in this case, because we are fixated upon our self. That is the nature of our consciousness, as it must be with all life forms. Routine slave making in the ancient world, and negro enslavement in recent history, both offer examples of the normal, healthy, vital construction of superorganic fabric by means of slave induction. In these cases the method is crude but effective, whereas Judaism provides a slave induction method geared up to the proper use of human physiologys corporate nature, offering sentient bricks preloaded with an impetus to receive a social identity programme. This latter being an example of soft enslavement. Soft because we do not feel its grip as an act of enslavement, because its claws take possession of us from within. The two, hard and soft, being pretty much the subject of Aesops fable about the struggle between the wind and the sun to control a stray man. This fable therefore offers a political insight born of the biological nature of humans. Can it make any difference to the operation of the programme that we do not know what it wants us to do ? Certainly, not. No more than gravity requires a boulder to know that when it breaks loose from the mountain, it must shift downwards, and not up ! The linguistic programme is the expression of a force, linguistic force that emerges from the physiology of the human animal. Just as the descent of the boulder derives from the surface structure of the planet, created in response to the primary force of gravity that formed the planet in the first place. These assertions are obviously implied by the idea that the human animal is a superorganism, and in the era of the idea of the social organism everyone knew of these implications concerning the nature of ourselves. Works from the Period show the topic was debated openly. Denying the reality of an external consciousness, that is a directing programme located beyond the consciousness of anyone, was one way in which our individuality was defended, as it was stated categorically that there can only be a mind, a

will, a consciousness and such like, within the living body of the person, such that any collective consciousness there is, can only exist within living individuals. The last book I read, Vincents Social Mind, 1897, refers to this fact repeatedly, indicating that the debate was alive, but, for him, resolved in favour of the individual as being the only true object of existence in relation to consciousness. What alternative did science have ? They could hardly go the other way and reveal the absolute truth ; that there was no such thing as an individual, and what we think of as consciousness is, in so far as it is unique to humans, the surface manifestation of a linguistic (biological) programme, operating units of superorganic being, best thought of as sentient bricks. Keep in mind that we only choose to give these social bricks the accolade of sentience because they have a structure which makes them amenable to being programmed with an architectural plan, such that these bricks are self assembling. The term sentient, as used in the phrase sentient brick, is not intended to suggest that we are bricks possessed with an unimaginable power for self awareness, or self direction. That is an idea so facile as to be beyond comprehension within the conceptual world of a scientist, except when seen as part of a programme directing mindless sentient bricks, of course ! And we may think here of the previous quote from Holmes dealing with the subject of biological forms, which affirms that living things are of their nature self assembling, as we have just explained applies equally to human superorganisms, or societies, as our programming calls them. The whole approach of the nineteenth century academics to this issue of a real seat of consciousness was flawed from the outset, being dictated by the linguistic programme which made people think that consciousness was something real ! Can you believe that ? Tossers. We have learnt that there is no such thing as meaning, at all, there is only functional direction, which the objects of linguistic force experience as meaning. If you are going to take an intuitive word like consciousness and try to apply it in the understanding of a strictly scientific model of reality, you are bound to cause ructions between the model and its interpretation. The first thing that must be done is to gain an understanding of what consciousness is in terms of the model. The notion of a social mind or collective consciousness or will, only compounds the problem by making the idea of consciousness derived from personal experience, which is an illusion anyway, apply at a level where we all know it can make no immediate sense. The answer is not to then insist that the social mode does not exist in reality, however forcefully we are driven to think it does, but rather to realise that it is consciousness that does not exist amongst ourselves, no matter how much it appears to. And that is difficult. The resolution lies in understanding that all organic forms need a schematic to create them. Social mind, or collective consciousness, is that schematic. We recognise this and adjust our social theory accordingly, but then we are atheist scientists, so for us nothing is sacred. For us this adjustment is easy. We are all familiar with the idea of a species genome, and its variegated expression within the individual. A genome is a species schematic. The schematic of organic form is not found in any functional attribute of any organism, how can it be ? It cannot. Because schematics programme the formation of structure, if they were themselves functional as part of a structure, they would need to be included in the structures schematic. Such reasoning is akin to the idea of classes in mathematics, that so fascinated Bertrand Russell, wherein he sought to ask questions about whether some classes were included in a class of themselves, or not. Is a genome part of the structure of an organism ? Yes, obviously. But not in the sense of a functional structure, but rather in the sense of a more abstract function. Thus, if we ask if a language is part of a message, the answer is obviously yes, but given that the message can be relayed in another language, the answer becomes equally obviously no. And from such considerations the idea of classes, or categories arise. Clearly there is an issue to be considered here, but ultimately it comes down

to our mode of understanding reality. The difficulty, such as it is, must arise because of the nature of representation, it being a product of language. This issue disappears when we understand that language has no meaning, it is only a functional programme directing action, the meaning, such as it is, only appears to usas the means by which we become sensitive to the informational impetus directed toward the object of superorganic being. This is why meaning is not synonymous with truth, an error of conflation we almost make spontaneously. And it is this lack of synchronicity between meaning and truth that makes forming the White Lie the basic objective of language, whereby establishing meaning becomes the personification of Truth. And from this initial duplicity inherent in language, we find that if we try to establish truth for real we get into all sorts of trouble, as vested interests come to the rescue of the White Lie by asserting that there is no such thing as truth, and so on. Lets think of the architects plan for a building. The plan is a schematic for a structure, the plan is not the building, though the building is the plan made real. We cannot locate the architects plan in any part of the building, it can only be found in the whole form, but each brick carries part of the informational load of the plan. And so it is in the case of the superorganism. The linguistic programme creating the form of the superorganism exists as a plan, an architects drawing, a schematic, and each person carries part of the informational load of that plan. But the plan cannot be located in the living, biological form of the superorganism, anymore than a genome can be located in the substance of a person, except in the form of an informational package located in the nucleus of most of the cells of the body. Likewise the linguistic programme exists, like the genome, contained in the religious creed giving the superorganism its form, in our case this is Judaism, from which all religions now take their design, or obtain their licence to exist. So the likes of Vincent were looking for something in such a way that they could never hope to see it, and that mode of examination was, and is still, dictated by the linguistic programme that pervades our world as a genome pervades a body, dictating everything that happens, everywhere, all the time. It all comes down to the objective of linguistic expression as a natural phenomenon. Here we come to our old friend, the alternative ways of looking at human life as either being about the individual or the superorganism. It can only be one, it cannot be both, and this discussion of language resting upon the nature of meaning brings this point home most aptly, as it indicates that the force of linguistic meaning is either focused on each and every individual as an end in themselves, or it is centred upon the being of a superorganism. It cannot be both simultaneously. It can only be one or the other. In this sense the linguistic programme is like the architects drawing which give the bricks that a house is built of, their contextual meaning. Such a design cannot be applied individually to each brick, one at a time, it can only apply to the whole building. The design of a human superorganism is the product of evolution, so its glorious form and resulting wonder, as magnificent as they are, are only of the same order as any other universal structure, such as a solar system. If we want to be able to appreciate these simple scientific facts we must adjust our sense of reality and recognise that the way language is used in life is anything but meaningful in any rigorous sense, and, on the contrary, language is all about manipulation toward an object of social control. The same is true of other information scripts such as DNA, which is why species evolve from one another. Because the basic elements of meaning in the DNA code produce forms of any conceivable kind, practically, according to circumstances. In human social life language does exactly the same thing, only we are hard pressed to see this because of our comparatively infinitesimal position within the ongoing flux of linguistic force. Sloshing about in my bath just now, getting ready for some ale this Saturday evening, it came to me why I was jabbering on about classes and Russell this morning. I read about this stuff a few weeks ago in a book called The Man Who Loved Only Numbers : The Story of

Paul Erdos and the Search for Mathematical Truth, Paul Hoffman, 1999, I think. I decided this book would be unlikely ever to feed me anything I would use in my work, and it went to the book bank. So much for that thought. Ah well, maybe it will turn up at one of the local charity shops and I can buy it back ! If I had kept it I would of scanned the relevant passage and tried to link the exact rendition of its discussion more precisely with the above argument, as it is whats donell have to do. I just checked Amazon to see if this book was available for a look inside, but no, though you can get a copy for the price of the postage, cost three quid, so I could always buy a copy. When reading the passage I did try to think how this discussion of classes could ever be related to physical reality, assuming as I was, that maths ought to relate to reality. But I could not conjure up that kind of idea starting from the mathematical proposition. Thinking about this question now, about the class of information generating a schematic for a biological form needing to be circumscribed from the form it creates, I was wondering whether this can be related to the fact that the cells of the brain, the neurons, are unique for being without a nucleus containing the genetic material carrying the bodys schematic, because they form the organ which establishes the informational link to the schematic of the superorganism. Just an appealing thought, purely intuitive, probably mad, but hey, there must be some reason why physiology has developed this kind of distinctive form. If I were right though, this development of special cells carrying socially significant information would reach right back to the early origin of brains, and indicate more exactly the reason why superorganic form was latent in any basic body plan, such as that of the mammalian life engine. The important idea coming out of this question of classes containing themselves, and the inevitable logical impossibility of this realised by Russell, in certain cases, is that we find in this mathematical argument a basic proof of the conflict between religion and science, explaining why these two forms of knowledge cannot exist simultaneously : because they are two distinct classes of the same thing, which therefore cannot overlap. Once we have this principle underpinning the creation of living form in hand, it appears we have the principle underpinning evolution itself. For the idea that information creating living form appears in two distinct classes which cannot overlap, offers a mechanical principle behind the process of evolution, whereby life is obliged to evolve in a predetermined way that builds hierarchical form from these two classes of informationthe strictly informational, or schematic science, and the strictly functional or organic religionin such a way as to keep their products separate. According to this idea the linguistic force creating mammalian superorganic being must generate a linguistic programme that does likewise, keeping these two essential classes of information apart, resulting in the domains of religion and science, built of a physiological compromise seen in the physiology of the superorganism. A compromise which pretends to offer both kinds of knowledge, but in reality only offers one uniform creative message, that is not knowledge at all, because there is no such thing as knowledge, there is only the message which creates the superorganism we are part of. The whole course of atheist science reasoning seems to come down to a denial of everything we know. This is the consequence of reducing language to a biological phenomenon wherein all meaning disappears, leaving only function behind. As nearly unthinkable as this is, we can think of other such consequences of a true scientific vision of reality. The electromagnetic system contains within it a very narrow wavelength that we experience as light, with all that goes with this bandwidth in terms of colour and our wonderful power of sight. Once we have understood that our perception of colour and such like is a fiction of sorts, born of our organic being, we are on the path to seeing knowledge in a similar way, as a spectrum of information which we perceive in bandwidths that ultimately vanish into nonexistence once we really know what language is. Once we have wrestled with

the insanity of religion, staring us in the face, but inescapable, our resolution of the problem, making religion part of a superorganic schematic, breaks through to all knowledge, and we end up reducing the most solid and rational science, to a like kind of physiological function. We just keep denying everything, it is what the modern ancients, of the nineteenth century, must of experienced when faced with true science, that caused them to fret so much about materialism and its corrosion of values and meaning. Dont get me wrong, I love it ! The fact that we now know colour is not real, but a product of our existence, does not stop us seeing colour, or retract from the pleasure this brings. Similarly, knowing what knowledge is only enhances the joy of knowledge, for me, and it can only improve my thoughts about religion ; though nothing can stop me hating religion with a passion, and desiring its annihilation. Nice meditation for an Easter Sunday morning, do you think ? If He is risen again today, let him cop a load othat.

PART 3

New Atheism Old Sociology

Saturday, 30 June 2012 A quick introduction to this newly created section is in order. This section was written as the last part of this work, appearing after what is now part four, The Science of Linguistic Force, to the end, as found when I returned to read this work as per this current effort. It would appear something made me cut into the work to such an extent that I created a third of the whole work before finding my way back to where I had cut in. This is something I would do. However, reading it now revealed this disjunction, and it has cocked everything up, requiring a cut and paste job to allow this part to be retained in a coherent fashion, hopefully. I mention this because I am not going to reread this work, but rather I am going to codge it together and pretend nothing has ever happened, except for my revelation here, which is intended to forestall any glaring hiccups in the continuity of material that this messing about might of caused that I will not have the opportunity to discover myself.

Chapter 9

Atheisms Values

Back to the subject of atheisms corrosive effect on linguistic conditioning with regard to values, that we had in our sights earlier on, see Others, page ninety eight onwards. We have a conceptual understanding of what purpose is in reality and where it derives from, but this leaves the question of our personal, intimate sense of purpose, that we need to feel in order to live, because when people say atheism destroys purpose they are not making an academic observation, this is a very real issue. When we think about how we experience a sense of value in life, and we recognise that all that gives us meaning is in reality false and hence meaningless, as when atheism denies God, this leaves us with a boiled down remnant of these purposeful occasions, wherein our sense of value derives simply from the interaction between ourselves and an other. This is all that our sense of purpose is, and all it needs to be : a sharing with others. So that meaning is a vibration in the linguistic flux animating a biomass of interconnected humans. And it is for this reason that we can form social orders on the basis of terrible ideas, of the kind all religions are composed of, because meaning is simply a functional parameter of superorganic physiology, even though we think of meaning as something very different indeed, very special, denoting something real and true, so that if we call something good then it is really is good, not just functionally valid at a given time and place. While preparing the book Neglected Factors by Henry Bernard, 1911, for posting tomorrow, I found this : And does not the fullest life of the individual unit involve, essentially, harmonious relations with his fellow-men ? There is a story, told by Lecky, of a leading Indian official who, on being congratulated on the pleasure he must feel at having brought to its conclusion a problem which had tasked all his energies for many years, replied : As for the pleasure I feel, it is nothing to what goes through me when I hear the feet of that child pattering along the corridor ! It is such simple things as theseour loves, our friendships, the eager exchange of views and sentiments with companions, every one differing from the other, this one humorous, another serious, another always fascinating because of the strange elevation of his thoughts, another, again, equally so because of his whimsicalityit is these that constitute the true, full life of the human unit. These are the threads that weave the richest life for Man. Outside of this ordinary intercourse, there is that which is less close and personal. We all listen in spellbound attention to one who has the gift of oratory or of story-telling, to another who expresses deep emotions in exquisite sound, or to those who charm us with their skill in rendering the musical creations of rare genius. We gather in crowds to see the works of great painters. We listen with eagerness to the messages brought to us by those who are searching into the mysteries of the cosmos which science is little by little unravelling. These are the things which contribute to the full life of human

beings, and all without exception are variations of one and the same thing : intercourse with our fellow-creatures. (Bernard, p. 474) Which shows that Bernard, no doubt driven by similar reasons to ourselves, felt a need to discover what motivates us in life, and found exactly the same thing as we find too, when looking at life from a purely scientific point of view.

I Harris Harris End of Faith arrived today, Tuesday, 29 December 2009, and I just took a look at it, and immediately hit upon this delightful observation : The Burden of Paradise Our world is fast succumbing to the activities of men and women who would stake the future of our species on beliefs that should not survive an elementary education. That so many of us are still dying on account of ancient myths is as bewildering as it is horrible, and our own attachment to these myths, whether moderate or extreme, has kept us silent in the face of developments that could ultimately destroy us. Indeed, religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it was at any time in the past. (Harris, pp. 15 16.) We are, sadly, so mature adventurers along this road that no sooner have we swooned over the sentiments of words such as these, than our experience with such statements allows us to see straight through the charade they represent, as our intelligence penetrates the deception like a hot sun shifting a low mist. We saw how Jane Harrison, working within the age of rationalism, in her Rationalism and Religious Reaction, made rationalism into a dogma not to be questioned, even as she stood before the world and claimed to denounce mindless dogma ! And here we see Harris performing exactly the same duty. It matters not one jot whether these people are sucked hook, line and sinker into the depths of their own stupidity, such that they think their beliefs are of value, because they are not. What matters is that these people from the past and the present, are, each in their own time, the warriors fighting for science, against religion, and doing it uselessly, by pouring forth a cloud of obfuscation, protecting religion by taking up the void where science should go. I have only read these few sentences above, but we can be damn sure that if we read the whole of this book, we would get no answers. Just like the Gatekeeper Dawkins, we can be sure that Harris will keep up the refrain of decrying the obvious obscenity of religion, but nowhere will he tell us why ! We can see this in what is quoted above, dying on account of ancient myths is as bewildering as it is horrible, indicates that this man knows nothing, he can moan like the best of whingers, but he wallows in bewilderment, and cries out at the horror of it. The passage is followed by a nice list of conflicts from recent times, illustrating the point made in the above passage. He delightfully indicates that the surface of the world is divided in regions on the basis of religious conflict, you would think this insight might tell the man something, but as a philosopher, with no relevant scientific training, there is no chance of this. He is an American academic philosopher studying neuroscience, the poor fool

has no chance, he may as well dig a whole and arrange for some device to fill the pit with soil after he jumps into it, as seek knowledge via these avenues. This then, is our first peek at the so called new atheism, it is, as we knew all along it would be, just another front for the fascist theocracy. The system causes these defences to be produced continuously, by pretending we are all free to seek knowledge and expound upon our discoveries, while nothing could be further from the truth. Individuals do not need to know they are part of the problem, because they do not exist. The physiology of the superorganism takes care of all the arrangements, all the person has to do is to be a good little lackey and follow the rewards, so the road they take will be the road dictated by the being they are a part of. Interestingly enough, when I looked at the book as soon as I had unpacked it earlier today, I did catch sight of a declaration that all that any of us know, is by courtesy of someone else. This is good, should we see what this most important insight was relating to, and how it was used ? On page seventy three is a subheading What Should We Believe ?, which indicates that we derive our knowledge from appointed authorities, and then he proceeds to justify this in terms of survival, i.e. Darwinism ! What follows, from fifty seconds of reading, is a typically Dawkinesque Gatekeeper wail about the stupidity of religion and the supremacy of rationality. So what, idiot. Tell us why ? Yesterday I posted volume one of Worms Philosophy of Social Science on Scribd, and in my introduction I said I, uniquely amongst people, begin by asserting openly, that religion is insane, and not to be considered alongside other types of reasoning, but that is exactly what Harris is in effect doing here, so that while he rants on about religions insanity, even stating that religion is insane openly on page seventy two. It is as if he wanted a drink and someone gave him a broken glass to drink out of and he spent the next five hours of the party talking endlessly about how it was that the broken glass would not hold wine, while constantly breaking off from his tirade against the broken vessel to take up the usefulness of the glass that was whole, but never ending his whine, to take some wine from a sound glass. How is it that these whiners are produced endlessly by academia, generation after generation, but never do we get a stalwart of the same atheist position who does not whine but who explains, coming from this academic source ? Because academia exists to turnout such cultivated protagonists of the One message, ensuring that the refined White Lie is all we ever get to hear, no matter what side of any argument we stand upon to listen to the voices of authority, of which Harris is just another example. Curiously, he even says that religious freedom is no different than any other intellectual freedom, see page seventy seven, and on page seventy five he asks if science is true ! Reading this man is like dipping into the scribblings of a child struggling to make sense of a world full of contradictions. Harris is baffled because he just does not get it, he does not get the One message imperative ; he does not understand what humans are ; he does not realise he is interred within a living structure which exists to create this deception. It is his obvious success as an academic philosopher that has made him so blind, ignorant and stupid, and he does not realise this, for certain ! On page ninety two he mentions anti-Semitism, and as when he noted that global territories were divided on the basis of religious antagonism, which should of hinted at the idea of linguistic force creating superorganic exoskeleton, he has here another opportunity to see the same structural implications of language generating identity bandwidths, that induce complexity of structure under the unity of organic identity. Instead he just falls mindlessly into line with the moronic ignorance of his fellow countrymen, and treats Anti-Semitism as something which is inexplicable and terrible. The man is a total jerk. But the reason we have his work, and others like it, is that America is a crushed, degraded slave state of Israel, and many Americans feel the pain of this imposition, but have

no means to understand it. So that front men like Harris come forth to give voice to their anguish, and that is all this lament is aboutif we take it seriously that is, by taking it at face value, rather than suspecting it to be a deliberate imposition of priestcraft providing a platitude for the disaffectedit is just part of the ongoing Jewish slave identity programme, it tells us nothing, and it is not meant to. And look who he has backing his work, Stringer, the animal rights freak from years ago. With friends like that, who needs enemies ? Unless of course your just interested in being part of a priesthood, in which case, no one could be better suited to the post of ally. I was leafing through a mid nineteenth century piece of atheistic work of sorts the other day, when I caught a discussion of Biblical stories, notably the Flood, which treated the story of Noahs Ark as if it deserved some kind of real consideration. This was in Phases of Faith by Francis Newman, third edition, 1853, pages seventy four to five . It seemed incredibly puerile to take such mythology seriously, something we would not see today, but its general mode of argument is otherwise identical to all that we do see today, especially when we pick up a work like The End of Faith by Harris. The damned titles even seem the same, now I juxtapose them ! As we are always pointing out, courtesy of the great twentieth century philosopher of power, Adolf Hitler, there can only be one message, though it may appear in a myriad of forms. We generally use this insight to explain how we all come to be Jews when we call ourselves by an infinite variety of other names, and we also use this same insight to identify the central mechanism of the Jewish slave identity programme, which is the idea that individuals exist as ends in themselves. But here we see that we can discern the same mechanism of control at work, whereby, while the content of the argument shifts over time, giving an appearance of change, in actual fact the method, that is the logic, remains exactly the same. In both Newman and Harris we find the same tedious, repetitive diatribe, lamenting the absurdity of contemporary beliefs, but what we do not find is any solution to the issue of such absurdity as the eternally persistent shape of social knowledge. Last year, today being 01/01/2010, the BBC screened a programme on its news channel about the gold hoard found in Staffordshire last autumn. The hoard was seventh century, fourteen hundred years old, it was from the Dark Ages, and the pundits anticipated that it would shed a lot of light on this time. Obviously it would focus peoples attention. But the programme already had some very interesting things to say for atheist science. We know that the Romans were the slaves of the Jews, and the Romans had derived their collective sense of purpose from wreaking havoc across the European continent and reducing all societies to a state of disarray, and, most importantly, infecting the biomass with the Jewish slave identity of Christianity. This programme pointed out that the kingdom of Mercia was the central hub of the British Isles, and it was governed by a war crazy mob of warriors, who were Christian ! Amongst the gold artifacts were two crosses, and one piece of gold bore some Latin script, a quote from the Bible ! Here then we see the Jews hard at work carrying out the next phase of the plan to rule the world, at the stage immediately following the withdrawal of their main military phalange, the Romans. We see how war driven Christian freaks were the key to the master races plan, just as they still are today, as seen with Christian freak warmongers like our last great prime minister, Tony Blair, who will do anything to serve his masters, the Jews. Yes this gold find is most interesting, but it tells us nothing we do not already know about these creatures called humans, the colonial apes. We have reached the point where we have one society across the globe, and it is time to come of age. The Jews are the master race because they tap into the force of human

corporate nature, which derives from the force of language, which is seated in our evolved linguistic physiology, which came into being in order to exploit the latent potential of mammalian physiology, to produce a superorganic form.

II Continental sociologists of the organicist era

Waxweiler I just got a very fine book indeed, today being Saturday, 02 January 2010, called The Functional Sociology of mile Waxweiler, by Henry Frost, 1960 ; mentioned incidentally above, on page one hundred and eighty two, now below on page 335, following a major reorganization of material. This book opens with the most delightful discussion of the issue lying between sociology and biology, and why sociologists are so opposed to biology as a foundation to their science. I think this is the first real discussion of this issue I have ever found. Naturally Frost does not have the faintest idea what the real issue is, namely the war between religion and science, but as he is seeking to promote the value of Waxweiler as an important sociologist, he cannot help but adopt a favourable attitude toward the relationship of biology to sociology. Interestingly, he begins by naming Durkheim as the leading antagonist of biology applied to sociology, which is exactly the position we have adopted previously on the basis of our own examination of the subject. We however recognised the deeper significance of Durkheims influence, whereby he began by writing a dismissal of Lilienfelds sociology and then went onto to establish himself as the first functionalist sociologist by utilising all the logic of organicist thinking, but then viewing organicism from the sacred Jewish idea of the individual as an end in themselves. This served the absolute theocracy, so it adopted Durkheim and made him the great sociologist of the age, and instituted him as the backstop from which modern sociology began. Saturday, 30 June 2012 These adoptions of the intellectual elite based upon their favourable orientation towards the needs of the theocracy, occur all the time. They are not consciously selected by an administrative elite, but rather these placements are engineered, so to speak, by the induction of those with influence into the Jewish slave mantra, in the normal ongoing process of superorganic organization by linguistic force. So that the elite is always sifted in an osmotic like process, through the social structure, towards positions of social power, according to their internal programming ; and as they have been selected, so they select ! The process takes decades, even centuries, all told. And this is how we come to live in an absolute theocracy, where there is no free access to knowledge, and hence no freedom of thought, and no freedom of expression ; within what we know to be the greatest society ever to of existed, as defined by its free development of knowledge, related to its freedom of thought and expression. Only the immense power of nature working over great lengths of time can produce an effect like this, where what we know by experience, is so utterly different in reality. This illusion is a sign of immense underlying processes at work. Starting from page nine Frost gives us a useful consideration of just what sociology must be. Continuing on page ten we find that sociology identifies its real object as a super individual entity called society which can be viewed as an immense mechanism, organism or mind (p. 10), that is subject to a continual dynamic resulting in change. He keeps saying

that organicism draws the analogy between society and organism (Ibid.) And, if we are thinking of Waxweiler we may note that he says here that Waxweiler rejects organicism, so that his biological sociology is of another kind, which no doubt Frost describes. He keeps labouring the point about sociologys indebtedness to the established sciences for their contribution of an analogical argument to get the ball rolling, so to speak. But I do not get this idea, it is strange, and I have never come across such a suggestion before. The fact is that if sociology is a science, then its object is society as a natural phenomenon, and within that context the relationships between social science and its fellow disciplines is one of absolute continuity, involving no analogy of any kind. As far as I am concerned an analogy is a descriptive device, an aid to our communication, it is not, and never could be, a scientific device, as such. So the man is talking shit, as usual with these damned priests. We are not concerned with organicism as a profession of society as an analogy of an organism, we are interested in the profession of society as an organism, a superorganism created by nature, without any input on the part of individuals, of any kind. It is truly amazing to see this perverse representation of organicism as the science of analogical reasoning, so badly made possible by Spencer, which the sick degenerates throughout academia have continued to harp on about ever since, completely ignoring the real organicist logic that saw society as literally a natural phenomenon, belonging squarely within the realms of biological science. But the discussion is fascinating, since it is bang on subject, and it is a rare debate, despite its great significance in the history of knowledge manipulation and control, well, not despite, of course, rather because of.

III Durkheimian duplicity Frost increases our understanding of the part Durkheim played in destroying true sociology by indicating precisely what form Durkheims denunciation of biology took : A sharp distinction is drawn by Durkheim between animal and human social life, the latter supposedly exhibiting a peculiar social fact existing wholly apart from the individuals concerned and therefore independent of any sort of biological datum. We may add that he makes a psychological analogy which yields a view of society as a super-individual group-mind characterized by its exteriority to and constraining effect upon the individual. Briefly, he holds that the group exhibits new phenomena which have no equivalent in the individual, this assertion being proved by the further analogy that life does not reside in each of the atoms which constitute living matter. Rabauds answer to this analogical argument and in general to these two extreme positions is simply that biology is more than anatomy since it studies organisms from all points of view and particularly from those concerning the rapports which they maintain with one another. Rabauds position is essentially identical with that of Waxweiler, a fact which is attested by his having been one of the numerous reviewers of the Esquisse dune Sociologie who fully endorsed the significantly new viewpoint of that work. Now Wiese himself rejects organicism and therefore must recognize biology to be more than is implied in this pseudo-social-anatomy ; he likewise opposes Durkheims extreme realism in so far as the individual is ruled out of the picture ; however, he does retain his tireless quest for a specific social fact which shall set off sociology from any and every other science as an independent discipline.

(Frost, p. 14) Rather confusingly given our position on Durkheim and the sanctity of the individual, Frost indicates that Durkheim dismisses the individual as an end in themselves, and hence denies biology a role in social life ! Bugger me, the contortions are endless. The real problem is that I do not recall finding any statement by Durkheim dealing directly with these issues, though I am sure such statements exist, it would be useful if Frost indicated the source he uses to define Durkheims position as given above, but as we can see there are no clues to this most important point. I continued the quote in order to take in the final remark on Durkheim, where the phrase extreme realism is used, What on earth does that mean ? It is indeed true that Durkheim turned to psychology rather than biology, which is something we always say serves to make the individual an end in themselves, by definition. Yet here we find this same move being used by Durkheim as the means of denying the individual any true existence of their own, by promulgating the idea of a social mind. This sounds good, we heartily approve of this reasoning, but where does this jerk-off, Durkheim, think this bloody mind comes from, thin air ? We root the phenomenon of a social consciousness in the power of speech, for that is the only possible source it can have, and thus we make our individual physiological form the basis of social consciousness, which therefore creates the mammalian superorganism that makes our kind a colonial ape. Why doesnt Durkheim do this ? Obviously this is a most unsatisfactory way of tackling Durkheims views, but I am not sure how else we are to get a handle on these subjects, nothing of his that I have looked at comes to mind as dealing with this topic specifically. We could take digital copies of his work and search them for key phrases that might direct us toward relevant portions of his work. But we know that Durkheim was a foremost enemy of the science of sociology, so in the end, we cannot be inspired to seek out what he says. Still, it does not look good when an amateur like myself blares out dismissals of a famous sociologist and specifies the difficulties in terms of this rejection of human corporate nature, in favour of individuality as an end in itself, only to find a professional academic stating the exact opposite. The truth is that I am writing from memory when I talk about Durkheim at this moment, not having bothered with him for ages, and I am using a basic formula when I say he rejected biology by turning to psychology, and therefore making the individual an end in themselves. I cannot see how you can use psychology to both deny the existence of the individual, and at the same time reject the biological foundations of psychology ! I mean that is just stark raving madness. Frost says that Durkheim identifies a peculiar social fact existing wholly apart from the individuals concerned and therefore independent of any sort of biological datum. Immediately I read this my mind leapt toward the thought of language, but we see no mention of it here. This is extraordinary, so that we then get this stupidity left hanging in the air : he makes a psychological analogy which yields a view of society as a superindividual group-mind characterized by its exteriority to and constraining effect upon the individual. Again, we say language ! Language man, language, what is wrong with these people ? Now I look in detail at what appears to be an interesting passage, I wonder whether we have not already found out Frost as a typical worthless sociologist. This is nonetheless a

superb piece of work because it is an examination of one of the early biologically oriented sociologists, written in English, a unique piece of work in this respect, as far as I know. IV A continental sociologist of the immediate post organicist era Systematic Sociology by Leopold Wiese, 1932, arrived from America today, Friday, 15 January 2010, this is a 1974 reprint edition that only cost 8, so I thought Id have it so that I could get a sense of this man that Frost associates with Waxweiler, since we cant actually get anything by Waxweiler himself, in English. My first impression is of a book that is useful to atheist science because it seems to be an overtly transitional work between precleansing science and post cleansing sociology. The introductory part is all about justifying the difficulties of sociologys scientific pretensions. At one point Wiese talks about the absurdity of the idea of a science of society as an all embracing science of human life, despite the obvious fact that all of human life is part of society. His reason being, that if this approach were taken then the extensive panorama of disciplines dealing with different aspects of human life, would be subsumed into sociology such that economics, history, philosophy, political science, statistics, demography, jurisprudence, and ethics., would reinforce a new name, but provide no new knowledge. (see pp. 8 9) What is wrong with Wieses argument ? If you come at it head-on, as he would have you receive it, then it is difficult to see what is wrong with it. But if we assume it is wrong because it is anathema to science, and a perfect blind for religion to hide behind, then we must try and come at this idea from behind, as it were, to discover its inherent flaw. Each of the distinct academic disciplines named by Wiese no doubt exists in its own right, some being very much a part of sociology, such as political science and history, while statistics is a mathematical tool especially useful in sociology, but of general applicability throughout the whole gamut of scientific disciplines. Lets secure our position by assuming the correct atheist posture, which tells us that humans are a superorganic species of mammal, so that society is the manifestation of superorganic physiology, and all aspects of society are therefore aspects of this physiology. Now then, at the end of the day, all that Wiese is really doing when he singles out each discipline and insists it is wrong to consolidate them into one overall natural aspect of existence, such as society, is applying the core essence of Jewish identity programming to each discipline, which is thereby perceived as if it were a person possessing an inherent individuality of its own, giving it an integrity unto itself, which precluded it from being a part of that which it belonged to. As we begin to get a grip on what this man is saying, we soon find it looks gross and contemptible. How can economics, history and political science, be other than aspects of sociology ? That is like trying to argue that sociology is something other than biology ! Even though sociology is entirely produced by life. Only an out and out lunatic, or a complete criminal, would say such things as this leading German scientist said, that he undoubtedly rightly says, is so much in keeping with contemporary American sociological thought. Science, as in organicism, could not compete with this onslaught of knowledge perversion coming from every quarter of the academic structure, backed up as it was by massive military action aimed at destroying the endemic biomass, and infusing an alien portion of the Jewish slave biomass into the biomass of the free world. It is this kind of work that allows us to really get in touch with how religion smothers all knowledge, making science impossible to do.

I just flipped Wieses book open to see what I could see, and straightaway I hit upon a superbly idiotic fragment : Music, which is only one of many possible examples, has become an activity practiced and perpetuated for its own sake, and it has thus reached the stage when it is ready to be taken over by a collectivity as a value to be preserved beyond the life span of the human beings who created itit has become an institution. (Wiese, p. 567) This argument is so crass as to be incredible that anyone would dare concoct it in pretence of doing science. There is some stuff before this sentence, setting up the logic whereby music is supposed to be created spontaneously by an individual for no other reason than its pleasing stimulus to that person, in the specific setting in which they find themselves. It is perfectly obvious what is happening here, we are being duped into thinking that our social activities are self made, by us, as individuals, so that they are not a product of our evolved capacity for social activity, but rather, our social activities are a fluke product of that capacity, which, nonetheless, once fluked into existence, suddenly become vital because the fluke crystallises into a social structure, an institution, which we can then, by implication, no longer exist without ! This argument is too sick for words. We may as well be reading the work of modern creationists seeking to unseat the fraudulent science of evolution, as part of the elaboration of the religious ploy of Darwinism of course, not in order to liberate science from the grip of religious oppression. The founding principle of sociology as a true science, tells us that there is no such thing as an individual. People like Wiese, in their tens of thousands, were devoting their lives as paid professionals of the academic institutions of the world, to subverting this fact, and this is why we find such mindless shit being elaborated, at great length, and with much complexity, in their disgusting works, which laid the foundations for the modern sociology we find being touted by miscreant institutions such as the Open University. When we say this, we emphasise a crucial difference between the two approaches. On the one hand we have a scientific model that delivers certainty, on the other we have a mythology that ensures confusion to all eternity. The mark of science is that it delivers models that guarantee certainty, from the beginning. At the beginning of his work, where he seeks to lay the foundation for his twisted argument, Wiese scoffs at those who say sociology just cannot settle on any fixed idea of what it is all about : Discussions of sociology and its place among the sciences occasionally begin with complaints or accusations to the effect that no unanimity concerning the object of the discipline exists, and that uniform answers are not given to obviously basic questions such as : What is sociology ? What is society ? The most telling reply to these charges is this : Definition of the most general and basic concepts of a science belongs not at the beginning but at the end of analysis ; it is the difficult culmination for which systematic exposition of a long train of thought properly prepares the earnest investigator. When the question, What is society ? is adequately answered, there is no more to say. (Wiese, p. 1) This response is pure artifice, the art of the lying politician who has an agenda to promote and is not going to allow any argument to defeat them. Wieses agenda is religion, religion rules our world and all that religion requires is that the status quo be maintained, and

here we see precisely how this is done, by keeping the ball in the air. The ball in this case is society, so the object of the priest is to ensure that no one is ever permitted to say what society is, and we have a very good demonstration of how focused these transitional sociologists were on this problem, being the first professional academics to occupy the void where science had been until the Great Cleansing of 1914 18 wiped all science from the face of the earth. The strategy here adopts the art of the philosopher, which plays with the meaning of words, to make them mean anything that suits their purpose. Firstly Wiese has carefully selected the questions that he wants to make nonsense of, and these are not necessarily the questions that science would want to pose for itself if it was seeking to establish a true sociology. The word sociology is attributed to Comte, from the 1830s, and what he meant by it was the study of society. The idea that this definition of sociology would of had people running around in turmoil asking what society is, is insane, it is not possible for anyone not to know precisely what society is just like that, but as we all live in society, we do know what society is, sufficiently to know that the word sociology defined as the study of society, permits of no confusion about its meaning. If then a scientist asks what society is, they do so from the position that they already know what society is as a physical entity, obviously, so that what they are asking is for a deeper understanding of what is known. A few days ago Tahiti suffered the worst earthquake in two centuries, some 50,000 people are feared dead. So can we ask, What is an earthquake ? Of course not, we all know what an earthquake is. But our broadcasters soon had maps on screen showing the fault lines delineating tectonic plates in the area, and as such they were showing us what an earthquake is in reality, something no one could of known before the last century. So the first thing we need to appreciate is that a question such as What is society ?, is not just a linguistic message with its own nature and reality, like a material object, it is a fragment of information existing within a social context. Wiese is making use of this question, which he postulated for the purpose, as if it were an object existing in its own right. This is how the priest always works, because the art of the priest is Message control, and the control of knowledge is the art of Message control. Where message control at a deeper level, is the control of linguistic force, where linguistic force is a natural force emerging from linguistic physiology to create social structure, which is the physiology of the human animal, the superorganism that we call society. Comte actually told us what society was therefore when he created the name for the science of its study, as he freely uses the phrase social organism in his masterpiece Positive Philosophy. Small wonder that as a truth teller this man has been denigrated horribly by the intellectual establishment, while as lie makers men like Darwin and Durkheim have been set upon pedestals and worshipped as if they were gods in human form. I always like to take quotes from the work of others when I proclaim to speak for such others. A common feature of miscreant priestly works is that they hardly ever give references, instead they invariably do just as Wiese does in the above, they indicate that a widespread state of affairs pertains amongst people, but then fail to tell us who these poor idiots are, or even to give us any indication of precise examples. This is always a good sign of a miscreant intellectual at work. However, elsewhere in this essay we have indicated that priests tend to work in conflicting states of harmony in order to set up a gatekeeper mechanism excluding any real opponent. Our two party political system based on Labour versus Conservative is the simplest example of two identical priestly orders working on the opposite sides of an artificial divide, in order to create a conflicting state of harmony which ensures that power will always be held by the fascist hands of Jewish theocracy. So we should not get suckered by the mere appearance of contrary examples in a work such as Wieses, since such examples are bound to be working from the same false pivot of observation, meaning that opposites are in reality identical in their objective aim. Thus, as

Dawkins is adamant that humans alone on earth are free to breach the laws of nature and so create their world as they see fit, his rabid atheism is identical in its outcome as a service to religion, as the most sublime devotion to Christ could ever hope to be. Only Dawkins atheism is infinitely more precious to the church because it helps undermine opposition, without which the church followers would be overwhelmed. The paragraph leading on directly from the above quote, declares that sociology is not the only science that fails to give fundamental definitions to its own subject matter, and we note below that when talking about viruses an academic pundit on a TV show indicated that biologists, as professors dealing in the knowledge of life, were nonetheless totally incapable of saying what life is ! Wiese was therefore justified in making this accusation, but, as we have just been saying, the reason this is so is because science cannot exist in any shape or form as an independent occupation, one beholding only to itself, within a society where religion exists. Biologists are forced to pervert their talents in order to allow sociology to exist in the form in which it has been manufactured by the theocracy, where all knowledge must remain within bounds that are safe for religion to be in contact with.

V A miscreant definition of sociology Having said that it was not possible for sociology to state what the basic nature of the subject is, we find that Wiese does in fact do just this, only he does it to suit his own miscreant ends, defining sociology as : the science of interhuman relations as such. (p. 115). It is difficult to know what this means straight off the bat, presumably a more extensive explanation for this odd definition exists in the earlier part of the work. But it seems to mean that sociology studies the interaction between individuals existing as ends in themselves, where we take the as such condition to equate to a definition of individuals as ends in themselves It is obvious that concocting such a twisted definition in total contradiction to science, would suit the aims of the professional sociologists working to build up, justify, and establish a new artificial sociology, in the immediate aftermath of the Great Cleansing when all efforts were focused upon making the transition away from science, and towards a scientific mythology of human life. But the paragraph that contains this definition has some superbly scientific statements within it : Nothing could be more erroneous than to assume from the way this system [ of systematic sociology] is constructed that we assume that in the beginning of human evolution there were only isolated human beings, that these then came into relation with each other, and that in the course of time there finally arose a series of social structures such as family, sib, tribe, state, etc. On the contrary, we attempt to show that, from both the historical and logical points of view, human beings, social relations, and social structures are simultaneous, that each is a necessary condition of all the others. (Wiese, p. 115) It is not possible for anyone to make a more perfectly scientific sociological statement than this, anyone making this statement must be an organicist who understands that humans are a superorganism, for that is what the above quote says. But we could say the same thing about the simple statement that humans are animals, for if humans are animals then the only possible way in which this can be so, is if humans are a superorganism. Yet everyone

recognises that humans are animals, while no one recognises that humans are a superorganism. So that such brilliance and scientific perfection is utterly meaningless in itself, it is not what people say that counts, it is what they do that matters, and talking the talk is not walking the walk, as they say. Unless these basic facts are taken to their basic conclusions, they mean nothing. This sort of verbal contortion is typical of religious mythology, where for example, we find Christians basing their ideas of humanity upon the principle that humans are made in Gods image, and then, when they find humans not made in the likeness of their own obscure cultural and racial nuance, they take the view that all humans with the exception of Christians, are animals and not human ! It is a way of having your cake and eating it, something the priest does all the time without the least compunction. Sunday, 01 July 2012 I must of had in mind the European discovery of pre-civilized tribal races when I spoke thus of the way Christians regard newly discovered peoples as animals, I suppose. Wiese proceeds to speak of society as if it were an organic being. He talks about taking sections of it for examination, like a geological section, which is a fine way to think about the matter, as long as we understand that society is a physiological entity. But then he begins to exude a profusion of complicated spiel that makes it tricky to follow his logic, until it erupts in the essential point he seeking to achieve, which involves starting off by talking science, but then turning the logic of his reasoning inside out by means of linguistic artifice, so that he ends by talking gibberish in conformity to religious ideals. His object is to argue that sociology must focus on the present, not the past. His reason is that taking a sample at any point in time will show us exactly the same thing, so that it makes sense to look only at the present ! This logic is diametrically opposed to scientific method, which works by taking our consciousness to places beyond our immediate perception, thereby revealing otherwise unseen continuity. This freak exerts himself to separate sociological logic as far from scientific logic as possible. Naturally he has the encouragement and support of all the powers that be, so he produces a magnificent work which is translated into other languages and made a tomb of wisdom to be studied in the universities, while all the scientific works from before the Great Cleansing are quietly let go, being left to sink into oblivion as time rolls by. Wiese concludes his work with a brief history of sociology which looks interesting. Here we find another favoured definition of sociology, which is as equally lame as the one we record above, We shall here adopt the statement formulated by Tnnies, and say with him : General sociology is, on the whole, the theory of human living-together. (p. 661) What crap is this ? Sociology is about interhuman relations and living-together, this is utter garbage. These are the words of an inarticulate priest struggling to reduce intelligent thought to something splodgey and pathetic, that a simple mind can smile at and feel good about. Why all the emphasis on humanness, how can a science of sociology be exclusively about human society ? The idea is too vile to be comprehensible, human social life must be tied to social life as found in all life, otherwise its study cannot possibly be scientific. But in describing various attitudes towards the origin of sociology, as a modern science presumably, we have this : Another point of departure, however, is taken by Sombart. He regards as the creators of the natural theory of human society every thinker of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in France and England who, in opposition to the old (more or less theological) natural law, viewed human society, together with its culture, as a part of nature. He names, for example, Cumberland, Temple, Petty, Shaftsbury, Mandeville, Adam Smith, and others. The work of these men was marked by a new, naturalistic

conception of social life which has characterised Western sociology ever since their time. (Wiese, pp. 662 3) I do not see how anyone can adopt an alternative opinion to the principle behind Sombarts argument. Though precisely who facilitated the naturalistic view of humankind, is irrelevant to the overall question in hand, which concerns the nature of sociology. If sociology is a science, and it is a science or else it is nothing, then it must of been ushered in by a process of the kind suggested in Sombarts reasoning. I cannot disentangle the reference to Sombart and find where this may be found, but half an hour spent looking for some of the works by those Sombart identifies, shows them to be figures from the late seventeenth to mid eighteenth century, writing early speculative works of the kind I have not considered before, and I guess they would make true early indicators of a shift away from traditional moralistic reasoning and towards modern scientific detachment. Richard Cumberland wrote a work called A Treatise of the Laws of Nature, 1672, which is not on the usual free book site, but a general search of the net produced a copy from the Liberty Fund resource, which I have not visited in ages. Very nice. Still, I am not sure about bandying about words like science and natural in connection with these early works. The people of this time may of wanted to characterise their works thus, but to do so today is only to aid the confusion that still rules in our world as regards the meaning of these two aforementioned words. It cannot be until we come to Comte and the clear affirmation of the idea of the social organism, that a real science of society can be deemed to of arrived, albeit that an immense effort on the part of the theocracy has now crushed this emergence, and reversed all that the early forerunners of science had achieved before the modern era reasserted a new kind of covert religious oppression, by turning science into religion, by insinuating sterile science where true science should be. A tried and tested technique used to great effect by the ancients, as with Ptolemys astronomy, that works just as well as Darwins biology.

VI From overt to covert theocracy Cumberland was a professional theologian, unsurprisingly, as 1672 was still firmly within the age of overt absolute theocracy. His object in seeking to make out a naturalistic science of human ethics was, according to the blurb introducing the work, to combat Hobbes scientific treatise denying principles of natural law as they applied to ethics. So that Cumberland wanted to say that science proved that altruism was natural, in other words he wanted to use science to validate Christian slave mythology. In effect then, what we really have in these early so called emergent naturalistic sociological treatises, is the first signs of the conversion of theocracy from an overt condition, into that of a covert authority controlling knowledge by various means of sublimation, which in its ultimate political form has led to a social structure that we now call a democracy. This gives us some idea of the time period, and the method used to convert the oppressive religious control of knowledge, into the subliminal religious control of knowledge that we have today. In the process a new form of theologian was created, the scientist. In Cumberlands day the theologian was obliged to make themselves into a scientist, so that as the decades passed and we entered the truly scientific age of the nineteenth century, the challenge was for the scientific part of the theologian to bud off from this transitional cellular unit and become independently recognised by the establishment culture, as a distinct kind of cell within the

superorganic physiology. In order for this budding to take place, the institutions of theocratic order specialising in knowledge control, had to undergo a complimentary development such that the rigidly theocratic universities of Oxford and Cambridge, had to relax their vicious suppression of free thought, and the whole academic structure then had to diversify and disperse its hubs of control throughout the burgeoning exoskeletal structure, exactly as we see it did during the course of the nineteenth century, and on into the next. It is this method of evolutionary transformation that allowed the human superorganism bearing the agnomen of Judaism, to transform itself from an absolute theocracy upfront, into an absolute theocracy in abeyance. And it is, accordingly, in total opposition to this process of gradual evolution, that atheist science insists, that for science to exist at all, there must be a complete break with the past, so that any connection with religion must be severed, and all religion must be cut loose, and left to die. Only then, can scientists exist in any sense whatever. Cumberland was not recognising the war of religion against science, and seeking to take up arms on behalf of science, so it is obscene to suggest that he was scientific in his approach, nothing could be further from the truth. And this process of gradual separation can be traced right through the course of the nineteenth century, right up to the point where actual budding takes place, where a newly constituted organ of knowledge control starts pumping forth a new type of cellular priest, religious in all but name, being known by the new religious status of scientist, a term extending the new mode of absolute theocracy, called democracy. These intermediate conditions are acknowledged by Lubbock when he says that religion and science cannot be in contradiction to one another, Religion and Science cannot in reality be at variance (p. ix, Pre-Historic Times, 1865.) And we see the critical moment of resolution occurring in 1859, when Darwin cut the umbilical chord existing between religion and science by laying the foundations for a sterile science of life, wholly independent of religion, and able to stand on its own two feet, as it has done ever increasingly since that time. Such that today no scientist would think for one moment of commenting upon religion in the course of writing a scientific treatise that did not directly address religion. But of course, as we have been saying all along, Darwin established a false horizon of science, focused upon the individual and their genetic fabric, ignoring the meaning of the genetic fabric, which is information, a none physical attribute of life, that is the code which delivers living structure by directing the flow of energy through living matter. The point being that genetics is not the sole medium of living structure, but rather, information is. So that all Darwin did was to severe science from religion. He did not set science free, far from it, as all history since demonstrates, and as our present lamentably degenerate intellectual condition tells us every day. In order to be scientific, we must first be overtly, emphatically, and uncompromisingly atheist in our approach to any work that we do, for as long as religion persists.

Chapter 10

Denigrating Sociology
The next section of importance in Wiese appears soon after the previous quote, because, in order to include the bit I really want I must take an extended chunk, which is not such a problem because there are some savoury bits within the mix : Brinkmann sees the beginning of sociology in the political literature of Western Europe in the period from Hobbes to Adam Smith and Rousseau, and especially in the lasting opposition of the intellect to the powers of society which gained expression in that literature. It seems to us, however, that this view is valid only for the sociological theories of politics, and that it was precisely because of the fact that thinkers like Hobbes, Mandeville, and Ferguson focussed all too exclusively upon political matters that they were barred from closer view of the basic questions of general sociology. Paul Barth, in his The Philosophy of History as Sociology, differs from the investigators who favor the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and has pointed out that sociology in all essential respects goes back to Plato, a claim which Sombart will not allow. But Heraclitus and the Sophists before Plato, and Aristotle, the Stoics, and the Epicureans after Plato, raised numerous problems of social life, particularly those concerning the origin and function of the state. The word politeia implies not only the state in the modern sense, but the civil society as well. The method followed in these discussions, however, especially in Plato, is patently unsociological, if by that term is connoted a particular way of regarding and judging facts. On this point Small correctly says :
As a sample of dialectics, the Republic is the foremost exhibit of what sociology is not. One section of the sociologists rate everybody as a sociologist who has thought about social relations. This paper represents the view that those only are sociologists who practice a method which is in diametrical contrast with dialectic. Plato did not regard the Republic as a treatise on political science or sociology, but as an inquiry in moral philosophy. The Platonic method was an attempt to establish truth by arriving at consistency between concepts or propositions. The scientific method is an attempt to discover truths by observing uniformities of cause and effect in the objective world.

Now this exceedingly serious objectionthat philosophers like Plato strove to create truth by fitting preconceived ideas into a consistent whole, not to discover truth through the observation of the objective world, and that they therefore are not sociologists but philosophersis also applicable to the theological thinkers of the Christian Middle Ages (like Augustine and Aquinas), of many theorists of the natural law and contract schools, and of many contemporary philosophers who interest themselves in problems of society. But if the theory of the just state, the divine state, speculations as to the state of nature in the period preceding the social order (e.g., Hobbes, homo homini lupus), the old argument between the Stoics and the Epicureans as to whether or not mans social traits are innate, the controversy as to

relations between environment and inner dispositions, and similar dialectic disputes provide the initial orientation in the formulation of sociological problems, they will usually lead into error because they insure the persistence of ineradicable prejudices and antitheses. No advice is to be recommended so highly to the modern sociologist as that which tells him to forget forthwith all the traditional social philosophy except where it recognizes the radical distinction between the ethico-political and the sociological formulation of problems. Spann regards Kant and Fichte as the founders of the modern theory of society. Of course, there were many lines of transition from the German philosophy of the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth century to the later theories, but if one thinker from the ranks of the German philosophers is to be regarded as especially influential (in both the favorable and the derogatory sense), then it is Hegel who must be placed in the front rank, and not Kant or Fichte. To Below, the members of Romantic school appear pre-eminent as promoters of sociological knowledge, since they did not trace historical phenomena to the conscious actions of individual men, but pointed to unconscious forces and objective powers as their sources. Especially essential in this connection was their theory of folk-souls arising from law, language, and art. (Wiese, pp. 663 4) We sit here and knock out a commentary on these various academics of past and present, often in the most dismissive and nasty manner, and when we read a section of work such as the above, we can but feel stupid and vulnerable for our arrogance and presumption. The degree of knowledge and comprehension shown when setting out the history we see here is a delight. But we have to remember that we have discovered the true solution to why science is wholly unable to answer the most basic questions about the most important subjects of interest to all people, who have any inclination to be interested in anything other than themselves. What we have discovered is that the whole purpose of our collective search for knowledge is to produce a White Lie. So the brilliance, learning, art and eloquence of all public figures, is always devoted to the most base, vile and evil objective that any people could ever hope to find, as far as a desire for true knowledge goes, of the kind we are told Aristotle favoured, for example, and of the kind we certainly live for. Something we often hear discussed today is the cleverness of the people who are currently the most reviled in our society, the paedophile. These people are famous for exploiting children within their own family settings, such that parents and friends are often heard describing how they had never suspected these terrible people of the least degree of malice. Professional commentators invariably enter the discussion by explaining that these people are masters of deception, implying that they have to be in order to get what they want, which is access to children. I often like to apply the primary term used by these professionals, which is grooming, to talk about the way Tony Blair was discovered while studying at Oxford, paving the way for him to become a leading Jesus freak working to destroy socialism from within, to hand power over to the church covertly. To me all delinquents, that is powerful leaders, wealthy people, famous people of all kinds, all celebrities, everyone famous, people whom we adore and love as a society, epitomise the paedophiles art of deception. If this were not so how could they get what they want in a world that is relentless in is examination of anyone who comes into public view, and searing against any who show a jink in their armour of perfection ? 02/07/2012 10:53 On The Wright Stuff, Channel Five, right now, they are discussing whether Tony Blair should make a comeback !! I hate this man with a passion. The panel are singing his praises as if it were Jesus Christ himself they were talking about, and the first

caller is in favour too. I can listen to no more of this shit. Still, if the Germans could have Hitler back, we can be sure they would turn somersaults of delight at the thought, thats folk for you. They love an evil bastard. There is a comedian on the panel from the Young Ones, who I vaguely liked, a socialist type, who dismissed the Iraq war by saying any leader would of done the same as Blair in committing this war crime, because in those days we were bound to America. What dorks these people are, they understand nothing, and care to understand even less, all they want, is what they want, which is to be happy. Perfect for a debating panel feeding the masses their mindlessness. It is a question of what our skills are being used for that determines how those skills are presented, if we are using our skills to access kids for sex, that is bad ; if we are using the same skills to serve Judaism by committing mass murder in the name of freedom, that is good. The idea that one person in a billion could call themselves a Jew, Christian, Muslim and so on, is unthinkable, only the most sick, depraved and vile person could subscribe to these terrible identities. Yet in reality, finding more than one person in a million who would have the faintest idea why they should not subscribe to a religion, would be nye on impossible if reality is to be our test of the matter. As we wish to be that one in a million person, who does see why we should not recognise a religion, we must speak our part for ourselves, but understand that in terms of abnormality, we are the freaks of nature. For some horrendous reason, people like Wiese are fully able to present themselves as sublime intellectuals, handling every idea that comes along beautifully, in a way that is so beguiling it is excruciating to see it when we know what the reality is behind what they are saying, their purpose being all about making knowledge serve political power. We have to reach for the monsters in society, people like paedophiles who are famous for the very gifts that define our priests that present themselves as intellectuals and academics in the public forum, if we are to be able to explain why when we read fine pieces of work like that contained in the passage above, we invariably berate them in the most aggressive and dismissive terms. We can talk properly when we want to, but street slang befits what we feel when we deal with these people much of the time, and we see no reason why we should not to use the most foul, ignorant language accordingly, to make the point that it aint what you say that matters, nor how you say it, it is what you mean, what you intend, and what you are really all about, that counts. Obviously the real difference between a paedophile and a priest, is that one seeks what he wants in opposition to the law, while the other seeks what they want in collusion with the law. As such one moves against the arrow of linguistic force, while the other moves with the arrow of linguistic force. The arrow of linguistic force effectively represents the force of human nature, as created by Nature. This is why the whole of academia is corrupt in terms of truth, but perfectly valid in terms of our animal nature, and hence the sick depravity of the professional academic is, in the reality of social life, an honourable and good thing, as far as we are aware from our position of infinitesimally minute consciousness relative to these social phenomena. But of course for all we know, the criminal acting against the laws of man, may be under the delusion that they are doing the right thing too, and it is just this ability to self deceive that makes the criminal mentality so important in a Jewish slave constituted superorganic physiology, for the extensive presence of such egotistic people ensures that there will always be a huge mass of people desiring to serve power, in order to serve themselves, whatever power may ask of them. Which brings us round once more to the conclusion that the professional academic is, at heart, none other than the depraved paedophile in another guise, this time in a guise that happens to suit the theocracy, and hence proliferates with public approbation.

I Value of criminals When we talk about the value placed on criminality in a Jewish slave society, we have in mind the worship of crime as personified in popular culture, especially the movies. Here the core mechanism appears to stimulate an impulse to desire freedom from our degrading slave status, as typified by our slave duties in the work place. Thus crime is made glamorous by invoking a sense of successful rebellion from oppressive authority, combined with the acquisition of sudden, easy, incredible wealth. We find the same stimulation inherent in the institution of national lotteries, only here the opportunity for wealth is made personal, by engineering a legal simulation of what can ordinarily only be achieved by crime or political overlordship. This use of crime is not about some kind of personal feeling, it is about the control of the masses by their masters, and it is a most important facet of the slave programme we are exposed to. Talking of the movies, and Jewish propaganda in general aimed at controlling the biomass, there has been a movie appearing on our screens this last week, today being 19/01/2010, called The Freedom Writers. It is a slimy looking piece of work, but being forced to watch it the other night, for a few minutes, I discovered what it was all about. The movie is based on the Anne Frank diary, which, to my amazement, and disgust, I gather the Jews have now made compulsory reading for all slave school children under their direct authority, via democratic Christian national government organisations, that is. This movie demonstrates what a magnificent gift the holocaust has been for the Jews, as they milk it for all it is worth. Not just in order to fix absolute taboos preventing science from studying anything to do with humanity, but in a far more proactive manner too, to crush any possibility of anyone tolerating any freedom of expression, such as our own, that might escape the grip of this taboo, for, when so aggressively programmed by our masters, courtesy of Miss Frank, how can future generations do anything but cringe at the least attempt to reveal the true nature of Judaism, such as atheist science offers ? In this movie, Frank is made the voice of the oppressed through her diary, which was undoubtedly written by a young female living under the most horrendous conditions, there is no question of fraud in the origin of her diary, of course ! It is a question of what these phenomena of terror mean on the broader plane of absolute knowledge, such as can only come from atheist science. Interestingly the women who helped the Franks, and preserved Annes diary, died last week, so a brief summary was given of the circumstances leading to the writing of the diary, its preservation and publication. The father survived the war and was given the diary as a keepsake of his daughter by this women who died last week, and he reproduced portions to send to friends, who then urged him to publish it. I must say, thinking about how carefully this tale was told, one feels a strenuous effort being exerted to ensure that everyone understands that this whole process, whereby the world has been given this magnificent piece of literature, was one of sheer chance, and in no way should anyone think to make accusations, as it is all too easy to imagine some wouldgiven this is the Jews we are talking aboutto the effect that somehow, in some conspiratorial fashion, that the Jews are so notorious for, this whole show is just another blasted propaganda ruse ! And now, since this magnificent piece of literature is long established, well, lets make merry and squeeze the blood out of it, in our ongoing war against humanity. So think the Jews today, evidently, whatever circumstances happened to make this work come into existence, and then see the light of day. No, sorry you Jewish chosen, there is no escape, you are having your cake and eating it, as ever, because you are the master race and you can get away with anything. But, as they say, you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the

people all of the time, but........ The fact is, that no matter where the diary came from, it is now just another blasted propaganda ruse, as indeed the whole holocaust event has long since become, having been long ago identified as an industry of Judaism. The setting for this particularly nasty, cynical piece of Jewish propaganda, seems to be an inner city school playing host to the inevitable underprivileged, segregated block of losers and misfit delinquents, consisting of a group of classically degraded youths, drawn from the more recent class of Mexican immigrants plus negro descendant stocks of various hues, all pegged for a life of misery. Until that is, through the guidance of a gorgeous, white, middle-class, saintly virginal-teacher, they find a voice evoked by the cry of anguish coming from the Anne Frank Diary, inspiring them to emulate her way of escape, through the writing of diaries of their own. This is classically sick, condescending Christian slave shit. First the priests fuck us over, then they help us back to our feet on their termsstomach churning stuff. What is interesting though, from a scientific point of view, is that this Jewess is made into a Christ saviour like figure for oppressed races in America ; races note, that is interesting. The conflation of religion, and especially the question of Judaism, with race, is central to the control of the white biomass by the Jews today, and over the course of modern times. We even have laws forbidding us to hate Islam, as part of legislation against expressing hatred for races, thereby enacting laws to suppress the promotion of indigenous British culture, which of course must be suppressed if Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and the like are to be inducted into the main Christian slave biomass of our society, thereby eradicating the true British secular, atheist culture. The idea that the situation endured by Anne Frank bears any comparison to the conditions endured by people living in America today, is nothing short of insane. Clearly the creators of this movie were striving to think of some way in which they could forge a link between the diary and modern youth in the first world, in order to exploit modern injustice, due entirely to Judaism as the parasitic culture of the world seen in its broadest possible senseto bolster Jewish power. So all in all, a very nasty piece of work this movie is, typical of the society we are enduring at this present moment in the age old growth of the Jewish global superorganism. As ever, everything can only move in one direction, no matter what it is, even the holocaust, it always moves toward supporting Judaism, which is why Judaism has been around for millennia and achieved goals set millennia ago, making Judaism by far and away the most powerful culture on earth. Talking of anti-Semitism, an item just arrived from America which is a right load of religious trash, and a waste of 10. The Conspiracy to Destroy all Existing Governments and all Religions, by William Carr, 1998, first publication not given, represents the Jewish conspiracy as a devil worshipping variant called Luciferianism. It is a mere pamphlet containing nothing but religious gibberish, aimed at the typically American Christian idiot. Ah well, cant win em all. I did just spot a volume called The Chosen Race from the Caucasus, 1992, which looks worth buying. But you never can tell with these overtly antiSemitic texts, more often than not they are just blinds acting as gatekeeper elements of the One Message, preventing any real material detrimental to our masters getting through.

II Labour of love and hate And so, to the passage in hand, taken at the beginning of this chapter. Since taking this quote from Wiese above, which we have yet to discuss, I have read on a few pages, and as much as I hate what this man is saying, I love the way that he says it, because it gives us a nice historical overview of sociology at a particularly important time for us to have such a re-

entrenchment of the subject to study. Obviously we have made the war between religion and science paramount, so much so that we call our philosophy atheist science, in opposition to the religious science that passes for science in our society, but no sign of this distinction occurs in Wieses overview of sociology. And it is this absence of query regarding the blindingly obvious question of the conflict of real knowledge with traditional knowledge, that shouts out from the pages of a brief, but broad overview such as this one by Wiese. Today we can find a work like Human by Nature specifically written to discuss the impasse between sociology as practiced, and biology as a natural foundation for sociology, as revived in the sociobiology debate instigated by Wilson in 1975. Such a work does not invoke the war between religion and science, but it does recognise an absolute barrier associated with political conditions, which is tantamount to the same thing as the war of religion against science. Wiese shows us that there has been a relentless struggle to classify sociology, that has taken so complex a form as to of provoked a number of attempts to categorise the modes in which this struggle has manifest itself, to which Wieses own work adds a further attempt at categorization, as it seeks to impose a further resolution upon the situation. I like the broad sweep of the overview, it is most helpful. I suppose, without having studied the work at all closely, and without checking now, that there is some sort of attempt to make sense of the array of approaches. The profusion can be seen as an expression of individuality, as Wiese seems to render it. But really, while it is obvious what we are going to say it is, that it is all about the control of knowledge to suppress the one critical area of knowledge that cannot be allowed to exist in scientific form, the fact is, if any of these analysts of sociological science in the making, had any sincerity about them, they would be bound to draw themselves back from the overall picture, which, lets face it continues apace to this day, as sociology remains a branch of academia that dare not call itself a science, and continues to lament its indeterminate nature. Then they would of said to themselves, Why all the conflict, confusion, and tussle this way, and that ? And they would of recognised the fundamental difficulty in producing a science of society, without invalidating the ideologies which claim to justify the politics of power that rule us in one shape or another, and most especially in the form of religion. This issue never so much as peeps into view. And this glaring omission tells us, not just something, but everything. I have to say that I have been taken by surprise at finding this history lodged at the back of this book, it looks to be about fifty five pages long, and there is almost enough material to constitute a little history in its own right. Wiese mentions other histories of sociology from around this time, one by the American sociologist Albion Small for example, published in 1924. I cannot get a free copy of this book, but it is in any case not a book, but rather a collection of essays, and besides, the fact is Wieses history is clearly far broader than Smalls. We would obviously like a history that tells history in the way we tell it, where we indicate that the production of modern sociology has been a matter of a centuries long manipulation across the whole fabric of society, ensuring the retention of Judaism as the master identity of a human superorganism some thousands of years in the making. We are not going to get this, but any history that inadvertently covers the range of ideas in such a manner as to do the donkey work for us, leaving us to join up the dots which the blind authors miss due to their religiously blinkered vision, is as good as we can hope for, and this section looks as good as we have any right to hope for in this respect. We would have to call this history of sociology delivered by Wiese in the inter-cleansing decades, The History of the Finding of the White Lie for the Scientific Age, which is a bit cack-handed, prompting an alternative The History of How a Would-be Scientific Age, Found its White Lie, and Hence Wasnt, resonating with How Religion Survived the Coming of the Scientific Age, which such a history must indeed compliment, when properly interpreted.

III I reason, therefore I am not What of this quote then ? We must say something about it after going to the bother of copying it. So the first point I like is the idea that early modern thinkers set up the dynamic opposition of individual consciousness to collective forces, which has been significant ever since. Obviously we would have to see the relevant work to discover the justification for this observation, but the idea is interesting because this is indeed the very essence of the conflict between religious sociology as we have it ruling our world today, and true sociology which must see humans as superorganisms composed of individuals who do not exist in any sense whatever, as conscious beings. Where consciousness means knowing what you are, and why you do what you do, and think what you think. From our atheist science point of view however, this idea matches our idea that from the very beginning all efforts to understand society have tended to be a form of seeking the white lie, which vindicates the idea of the individual. And for this reason we would say that men like Hobbes and Rousseau have been represented as great intellects, even though, in terms of science, their contribution to ideas means less than nothing, as usual with great philosophers. We come to the especially desired section when Small is quoted and discussed. Such that Wiese identifies people thinking about social matters in terms of self orienting bias, where sociology proper is supposed to ignore all such personal influences and derive its material solely from an observation of social realities. This is very much in keeping with what we would desire. We can imagine that if there had been a school of atheist scientists an utterly unthinkable thingthen Wiese would of said that such people were included in the class of folk who set up a dualism serving their own bias imperatives. On the face of it this may seem a valid observation. But the fact is that we live in society, and our society has an overwhelming pressure of bias built into its fabric, so a true science of society has to assume a position expressly in opposition to this weight of social authority, at the very least, just in order to obtain a neutral position from which to begin making scientific observations. Thus when we say scientists must be overt atheists before they even begin to be anything else, we are in effect say that scientists must adopt atheism as the sole neutral position, because we live in a world loaded with the bias of theism, which scientists must begin by denying. In this sense atheism is not claiming something, atheism is claim nothing, but it is claiming nothing, as an emphatic and positive position. Theoretically at least, a person could adopt the position of an atheist and then find that science discovers God, but this is absurd. In effect we are recapitulating the puerile foundation of Descartes scientific philosophy based on the search for a starting position that negated all assumption, and began by assuming only that which was certain, hence I think therefore I am. Monday, 02 July 2012 In actual fact the act of reasoning, which can only be done courtesy of language, proves that we do not exist. Voiced in these terms the true revelation would therefore of been : I think therefore I am not. But that would not of gone down well at any time, past or present, who cares what is true, we want something catchy as a product of our profound scientific reasoning, something that pleases us ! Not some depressing facts. Wieses quote concludes with an especially delightful statement, thus : To Below, the members of the Romantic school appear pre-eminent as promoters of sociological knowledge, since they did not trace historical phenomena to the conscious actions of individual men, but pointed to unconscious forces and

objective powers as their sources. Especially essential in this connection was their theory of folk-souls arising from law, language, and art. Below was a German, so that for us obtaining his work is impossible, which is extremely exasperating given what Wiese says this fellow German had to say. These arguments deny the existence of the individual and imply a naturally occurring social entity, plus they approximate to the critical ideas we have formulated concerning an organic identity associated with the corporate social body, arising from areas commensurate with the idea of linguistic force, namely law, language, and art. Here we see something that could serve as the precursor of Comtes social organism idea. The idea of the social organism has long been a most important topic in my pursuit of the idea of human nature in the first scientific age, I have never found any hint about this phrases existence prior to Comte, and I assume he created this term along with others, such as the name sociology itself. This hint from Below, courtesy of Wiese, is the best ever hint as to a direction we might head in to try and discover the influences that may of fostered an outlook that would induce Comte to adopt this model of a social organism fully formed, without feeling any need to discuss the phrase, and justify it. Mind I cannot pretend to of examined Comtes work so fully as to be sure he provides no discussion, apart from anything else the only rendition of his Positive Philosophy in English has been in a condensed form. But this matter has attracted my attention in past years, and remains of great interest to me. In saying this we should emphasise that it is the express idea of the social organism we are curious about. The ancient world had already dropped on the notion of society as a body like that of a man. The transition from man-like body to social organism and then superorganism, is logically sequential, expressing the same impression. But man-like idea is simplistic, while the social organism is intermediate between the former and the superorganism model, which finally offers a name that can be considered potentially scientific. Monday, 02 July 2012 Just a wee note, because if I am thrown by what I have said, otherwise are likely to be too. Without digging Wieses book out, which would be easiest, maybeI get sick of staring into the bookshelves wondering where on earth some item may be lurkingI just looked for books by Below for sale, and he seems to be of Wieses time, so I must be referring to the historical material he provided as a possible source of pre Comtian ideas of the social organism.

IV Delightful delusion Continuing with Wiese we take another extremely important passage : According to the conception to be presented in the following pages, the evolution of sociology hitherto has been a very gradual process of self-limitation. It has fulfilled and is fulfilling itself through a steady contraction of the far-flung boundaries of its original domain, through greater precision in the formulation of its problems, and through the development of a more and more independent method. Simultaneously, such changes mean severance from social philosophy, from doctrines of general culture, from ethics, and from the other special social sciences in neighbouring fields. But since this movement toward freedom and independence has taken place only in the relatively immediate present, it may be said to be a

demonstrable proposition that all sociology in Germany before Tnnies and Simmel, in France before Tarde, in America before Small and Giddings, may be referred to the preliminary period of its history. In fact, we assert that sociology as a clearly defined, independent social science is only today coming into existence. The first efforts to reach this standpoint, however, began a century ago. We shall therefore distinguish first of all a long preliminary period in the history of the science. We place in this era antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the succeeding period down to the close of the eighteenth century. Then comes the first stage of sociology proper. At this time (nineteenth century) it is characterized as a universal science, and seeks to make good its claims as an independent discipline by choosing the question : What is society ? as its basic and essential problem. This very question, however, blocked the path to fruitful knowledge, since in answering it too many questions had to be dealt with which were not sociological even though they were closely related to general social science or social philosophy. Finally, there follows a second stage, covering the period from the late nineteenth century to the present, in which sociology slowly ripens into an independent and closely delimited science, although the boundary between the two stages is vague, depending as it does on the importance attributed to one or another writer. (Wiese, p. 666) This is a mass delusion that everyone had been striving to achieve for generations, and we can feel the exuberant joy coming off the page, celebrating the fact that at last society had a sociology that it could live with. What we see here then is an open declaration of severance from all that went before, announced bang in the middle of the two great acts of cleansing, the first of which eliminated a swathe of the biomass carrying the old scientific ideas, and the second fixing a barrier in place ensuring that no one in the post Second World War era, could ever reach back to the old scientific ideas that had been erased from society, the eradication of which Wiese is celebrating here by declaring the final arrival of a true science of sociology, practically in the immediate aftermath of the Great Cleansing. This position of self delusion is what everyone had been striving for decades, it is nice to find so blatant a sigh of relief that finally science had reached a safe point, where it no longer had to seek true knowledge, but instead could relax upon an island of absurdity from which no true knowledge about the nature of society could ever be accessed. Wieses work is therefore all about this new none science of society. When, some four decades later, Wilson published Sociobiology, we in effect have a man falling off a cliff, according to our little analogy, back into a sea of true ideas from which he had to be rescued. A catastrophic event that has caused a ceaseless effort to build defences against the surrounding sea of knowledge, constructed under the name created by Wilson, that of sociobiology. Tuesday, 03 July 2012 Upon reading the above I had a vision of termites rushing to the nest wall to make urgent repairs. This stimulated the idea that it is this feverish and never ending behaviour of ours in relation to the production of ideas, that equates to the frenetic activity of ants and termites upon finding their nests under attack. Nice. The sentence highlighted in italics is the most perfect demonstration of the arrogant exertion of academia mounted against the free pursuit of science. As if it can possibly make sense for anyone to declare that all that had gone before was to be ditched. This is an outrage, and the proof of its criminality is the result : the total loss of any scientific dimension to the understanding of humans on earth, with the compete loss of sociology as a subject worthy of respect, able to tell us anything about society whatsoever. In other words this is just regular religious oppression, unabashed, unashamed, downright evil. And the fact that this state of affairs can persist across our society without the slightest opposition from

anyone, shows that our society is in no sense the free world it is portrayed as. But ultimately, what it demonstrates for us true scientists, is the real nature of our kind. We are mindless insect like mammals, so ignorant as to be beyond comprehension how any animal can be as stupid and intellectually pathetic as humans. For the apparent intellectual powers of humans, make for the expectation of intellectual power in reality, but there is none, we are so stupid because we are so intellectually empowered. Thus our stupidity vastly outclasses the stupidity of any other creature we know of. Tuesday, 03 July 2012 This is about the fact that we do not exist, that we do not possess language, but rather language possesses us. So that we are not made to be clever, we are made to be programmed. That is all there is to it. I really only wanted this gem of a paragraph to be discussed just now, but the next paragraph appears in the same page and came along with the text scanned, and it is interesting the way Wiese segments the process whereby a false science of sociology had finally been drawn away from the sincere efforts of people to understand society genuinely. I am curious to know precisely what reason he might have for saying that asking what society is, makes a true science of society impossible ! This sounds ludicrous. But for us there is a telling thought in this proposition, as explained previously above. The profusion of explanations about how to answer this question creates the problem apparently, but then we must ask what the nature of that profusion was, Why such a profusion of answers ? We say that we must have an avowedly atheist science in order to ensure that the relentless effort to corrupt knowledge cannot be engineered by priests, who will always aim to become part of any movement and make it bend to their religious needs. If theists and philosophers who wanted to make society out to be some kind of ethical or moral structure were the source of profusion making the question What is society ? impossible to deal with, then these people did their job well, by swamping science. What religion proves, is that knowledge requires an institution to develop and preserve it. The mindless shit that is Judaism, in all its forms, is preserved by the religious institutions its creates on the back of engendering a unified biomass delivering political power. If science is to exist it too must have institutions dedicated to its preservation, and these institutions must be avowedly atheist, in the same way that religious institutions must be religious. So if we are on the right track in following the argument presented by Wiese, concerning the difficulty over seeking to know just what society is, then we have taken the matter further, whereby we do not give up this necessary scientific question, but instead we recognise what preliminary requirements are needed to allow an answer to this question to be formulated, and made the basis of a science of sociology. Tuesday, 03 July 2012 We cannot just allow anyone to make a contribution to science willy-nilly. All contributors must obey the preliminary requirements of making any scientific statement, to do with making nature the ultimate authority, which by definition means they must be atheists, since this follows from putting nature above any supposed divinity. The particular need to bring atheism into the question of society arises because religion is part of this subject, so that we must be clear from the outset that as sociologists we seek to destroy religion, just as science destroys all pre-formulated ideas in the act of establishing itself on the basis of natures authority. We could derive a new definition of science from this fact, to do with science producing knowledge based upon the authority of nature, something which absolutely did not exist in principle before the concept of science came into existence. And of course this science does not really exist now precisely because the validity of this definition is not realised, as based upon this real meaning of science derived from natures authority, and this is because the idea of God as ultimate authority

continues to interfere in the process of attaining this perfect science, based upon the principle of a detached, none human point of authority. Wiese meanwhile, shows us that the corruption of science by a free-for-all that allows anyone to work in academia and publish books with pretentions to be scientific, acting under the protection of the theocracy, affording a licence to negate the foundation stone of sociology by dismissing the question What is society ? altogether, and to proceed to address the subject in a manner that suits the confusion which academia has allowed to rule by treating society as if it is nothing more or less than the sum total of individual interactions originating at the level of the individual, and reaching a summation expressing individuality only, and nothing more. All of which leaves the true nature of society unimagined, such that the intuitive formulation of society as a gathering in the name of God, is left free and easy to continue as if the coming of science had never seen the light of day. Which, as far as sociology, and hence religion is concerned, it hasnt ! The first rule of science is that : things are what they are. The converse expression of which is, that things are : not to be taken as what they appear to be. Wieses closing sentence suggests that the subject matter of science is determined by the ideas that people put forth in pretence of doing science. The idea that a science is defined by distinguishing the nuances existing between different specialists is absurd, the difficulties of defining a science should be addressed at the micro level where we identify linguistic force as a product of biological evolution, not at the macro level where that force manifests itself in human behaviour. It is all very well for a man like Wiese to declare that the old sociology, such as organicism, is dead now that the military have trashed society and murdered millions of people, wiping the institutions of science not directly under the jackboot of Judaism, from the planet. But the truth is that no one ever dismissed organicism by dint of scientific argument, this true science of sociology was erased in the Great Cleansing, as part of an ongoing process of eradication which, as Wiese indicates, had been going on since the beginning of the nineteenth century. The idea that human society might be treated as separate from the rest of nature is utterly disgusting. The first thing any scientists would want to do when faced with the challenge of understanding human society in the light of the success introduced by the new methods of scientific inquiry emerging several centuries ago, is to try and place human social existence within the continuum of life. And that is precisely what people did do. That is what made sociology what it was at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when Comte made sociology the pinnacle of the life sciences and characterised society accordingly, as a social organism. The struggle that Wiese is at pains to continue, is the effort of the theocracy to get a grip of this application of science to the most relevant facet of human existence. Accordingly we find no organic imperatives associated with Wieses sociology, and consequently we find his work prevails after the First World War, and is promoted by the now sterilised institutions of knowledge. Wiese is dealing with the process of cleansing, as ever, because while the modern covert theocracy always deals with reality as we see it, it always adopts a bias foundation for its point of observation, and so perverts all that is seen to its own ends. What we get from Wiese then, is the evidence that a transformation took place that did involve the total eradication of all science that had gone before, that had any bearings on the nature of human existence. This is the best we can hope for in the post scientific age, since it is inconceivable that anyone would ever write a true account of these developments. The closest we get to this desire for truth is seen in the kind of work produced by the seventies sociologist Andreski, but we have examined his reasoning elsewhere and found it gatekeeperish, and ultimately useless as a true insight into the nature of modern, post scientific sociology.

Between cleansings Today when I got home from detention, Thursday, 21 January 2010, I had a book just arrived from America to examine. The Trend of the Race by Samuel Holmes, 1921, is a work of its time, as it opens by identifying itself with eugenics. I bought this copy for just 12 after taking a digital copy which looked promising. With a copy in my hands I quickly had a useful impression of a work from the inter cleansing period that Wieses work comes from, which contrasts radically with Wiese. Wiese foretells the future of sociology, and Holmes forms part of the true sociological science about to be snuffed out by the Nazis, thus saving the Jewish master race from annihilation by the relentless progress of scientific knowledge. The persistence of ideas like those of Holmes show the relation between organicist science and the Nazi agenda that finally capped off organicist science. We can see how the permeation of twisted representations of science could generate twisted politics, which ends by suppressing true science that religious freaks had been straining to suppress, so that it is the perversion of science by priests that achieves the destruction of science, by making science produce a perverted ideological mantra that causes chaos, leading to social cleansing that removes the problem threatening the religious establishment. This whole process of linguistic flux management, is directed by the physiology of the superorganism in a manner that all individuals are oblivious to, merely playing their part in the process by obeying the dictates of their own specific loci within the living physiology. So there is no conspiracy here, it is an information flux, such as scientists are showing an interest in when they produce works like that by Ricard discussed below.

A wish comes true, or does it ? It is Sunday, 03 January 2010. I have just been shoving the frozen layer of thick snow from my windscreen and bonnet in order to put a frost blanket on the car, so I can make my way back to the detention centre tomorrow, misery ! In the meantime, I have just got around to examining a book that arrived a week ago, this is a POD item that was only six quid, ordered after seeing the PDF version taken from the internet. In the last piece of my work posted to Scribd, The Colonial Ape, I was talking about how Darwinism had many detractors about the time when Bernard was working, and I found a volume on the net, by Kellogg I think, which discussed the anti-Darwinian movement. I said this work was like a typical piece of atheism discussed by a theist, and that it would not be possible for an anti-Darwinian to publish a direct attack on Darwinism, it simply would not be allowed. Obviously I should not make such sweeping statements if I wish to obtain credibility from any audience my utterances may attract. I have no means of knowing what is out there other than by random searching, aiding a more rigorous search of works I find in bibliographies and such like. What is on my mind when I make broad claims of an impossible kind such as this, is an element of challenge, it is an attempt to get someone to prove me wrong. Also, if I say that I alone of all the world have seen the truth, or such like boasts, I want to be proven wrong. I want to hear that someone other than me has seen that humans are a superorganic species of mammal, and the Jewish identity is the identity of the global superorganism. I want someone to tell me that others have written extensive works along these lines previously. But I feel sure they have not, so I spit in the face of the world, and challenge the world to spit back, in the form of proof that I am wrong. Well, At the Deathbed of Darwinism by E. Dennert, 1904, we do in fact seem to have something close to

that which I desired when I said, in the light of Kelloggs piece, that no one would denounce Darwinism in any published treatise. This is not a full blown treatise like Kelloggs was, it is a series of papers brought together to give s very slim volume. It begins with an introduction, which is all I have glanced at, and here we have a flavour of the work. Which makes all the general kind of criticisms of Darwin that we could desire, saying that My object in these pages is to show that Darwinism will soon be a thing of the past, a matter of history, which was a gross error of judgement, obviously ! But two pages further into the introduction, and we find our man indicating a vague sense of disgust at the idea that Darwinism has the power to harm Christianity, with Dennert telling us we need have no fear on that score, and evolution as an idea in no way conflicts with divine revelation ! So that screws that then. No matter what this twat says we know, his argument will ultimately be a grotesque obscenity serving only to deny the truth while protecting the absolute theocracy of the Jews, within which the Christians are a slave foundation of global power, gradually giving way to the Islamic slave wing of Jewish absolutism. Well, you have to look if you are to see, we have looked, we have seen, and all is shit.

Chapter 11

The Nature of Information

CHAP. IV.
OF THE RELATION BETWEEN ANTS.

Of

those insects that live solitary, their generation, their private habits, the metamorphoses they undergo, and their mode of living under each variety of change, their artifices in attacking their enemies, and the art with which they construct their habitations, forms their whole history. But the history of insects, living in extensive societies, is not limited to any remarkable proceedings, or to the display of any particular talent ; it offers us a series of links depending upon common utility, equality or superiority of rank, and the part each individual is called upon to perform in the society of which it is a member. These several links denote a bond of union between the different members, that could not be preserved without the intervention of language. Under this term I include, whatever means they possess of expressing their desires, their wants, and even their ideas, if we may be allowed to give this term to the impulse of instinct. It would be difficult to explain in any other manner, that centering of all wills to one purpose, or that species of harmony which so universally reigns in their institutions. (Natural History of Ants, Huber, 1820, pp. 142 3.) Once we have defined life as information, it is inevitable that the nature of information should become a matter of interest. We may help the attempt to think about this subject by reminding ourselves that we initially favoured the idea that information had a key role in life, because of our desire to make human society one with organic nature. By making information the essence of life we can easily see how the genetic code and human speech, and its spin offs, represent one uniform representation of information appearing in different bandwidths, so to speak, depending upon the living structures their creative force relates to. I am prompted to raise the subject now because of an item acquired this week. I just came across a passage in this short essay, The Absurdity of any Mind-Body Relation, by Charles Myers, 1932, that actually attempts to discern the difference between life and nonlife in a way that may offer a conceptual vehicle for our thoughts, in an attempt to explore the nature of information itself. It has always been obvious to me, when asserting the idea that information is the essence of life, that the word information, standing upon its own as an element in a philosophical piece, remains nothing but a word, unless it can be made to represent something named thereby, that is considered tangible. For that reason I have always asserted that information tracks energy, and it is from this attribute of information that information

systems, such as linguistic physiology, acquire their ability to create living structure. As I claim in respect to language, which I call a natural force that creates all social structure. It is therefore unhelpful to crudely state that information is energy, this just swaps one imponderable for another. If information is distinct from energy, which latter factor of existence appears in both living and nonliving matter in equal conformity, then information must be made to possess some unique attributes in relation to the material phenomenon of energy in living matter, that does not apply in nonliving matter, and hence we say that information tracks energy. Wednesday, 04 July 2012 Tracking energy makes information sound almost like a mental attribute of matter, the foundation of consciousness, dynamic, selective. Which is not surprising if we are trying to pin down the nature of information as an aspect of material existence. It is almost as if information is the very thing that people unwittingly give a name to when they invoke the idea of a universal creative being, God. We adopted this tracking description from the idea that the information handling capacity of life, is both sensory and communicatory. The sensory capacity of life is more basic, it is seen in the most basic life forms, and requires a comparatively minimal living structure to perform. But sensory capacity implies a communicative capacity, since all that sensory capacity means relative to communicative capacity, is that an external stimuli has been recognised and internalised. The internalisation of sensation is a conversion of sensation into a communication, if only in the sense of an internal transmission of the sensation to the inner structures where the resulting information can inform action. In the final analysis, information is all about energy. But the coming into existence of information simultaneously with lifesince life and information are synonymous, being one and the same thing in essenceinvolves the development of material structures that can internalise stimuli : these structures being what we call life ! Any structure that can internalise stimuli is therefore alive ! Once we have the idea that humans are superorganisms this even applies to human artifacts, since they constitute part of the exoskeletal fabric of a living animal, a superorganism. The internalisation of stimuli, according to our definition of life as information, whereby information creates living structure, refers to : the development of structures directing a flow of energy towards their own creation, resulting in integrated structures that internalise energy flow to form an integrated, unified, life engine. This life engine then expends energy according to the imperatives inherent in its own information make up. By means of information then, a life form becomes a hub of energy, drawing energy towards itself in a self creating process, then expending energy as a fulfilment of that creative process. So that here the complete package of life, the information-energy-structure complex, is incorporated into one coherent dynamic explanatory model. This is our ultimate definition of life, beyond which no one can go, other than by identifying the molecular structures that display the qualities described here. At all times when theorising speculatively like this, we are basing our logic upon the understanding of a fundamental contrast existing implicitly between living and none living matter. Wednesday, 04 July 2012 We have used the following analogy elsewhere, but just to help the imagination along we will mention it here. When we talk about structures directing a flow of energy that is self creating, this is akin to what we see in a landscape where the terrain directs the flow of energy, as carried in water, to create its own structures, as in river valleys and such like. The idea here is simple enough, it is just a question of putting it across in the unfamiliar context of living form, relative to information and energy flow. What, we may wonder, is comparative to water as a carrier of creative energy in a landscape, in the living system ?

Life requires a specific type of energy source, one that gives off energy in a form that can fuel chemical processes. In point of fact, the creation of a landscape also requires the same type of energy source, one that is free flowing that is. So that we may suppose that any creative dimension of existence must have an associated flow of free energy fuelling it. What is the free flowing energy source driving lifes existence then ? Life forms are engines running on the free flowing supply of fuel emitted from atomic and molecular processes, hence life is a bio-molecular domain of existence. The sun is generally taken to be the basis of life, although alternative initial sources of life energy do exist, the geothermal being one known alternative. Thus the basic equivalent of water in a geographical context to that of the living context, would be a supply of energetic atomic and molecular particles fuelling organic processes, I suppose. As with the landscape scenario however, once initiated, the resulting living structure become self creating, because as life engines consuming energy, life forms draw life fuelling energy towards themselves in an accumulative process that develops lifes energy consuming capacity as a universal dimension, as a landscape of universal existence so to speak, as a dimension, or structural level of existence perhaps, just as a river system develops its form according to the flow of water it captures, and thus evolves over time. Once living form has been initiated structurally, life forms take on a self developing dynamic, they proliferate and diversify. The life dimension inflates as the rain of energy that initiated lifes creation pours through the portal of existence, that is life. So that having come into existence as a biochemical engine of life, life draws energy towards itself, acting as a sink hole for the freely available energy of life to gravitate towards, and accumulate within, forming a sea of life in the universe. More properly a sea on life on a planet, and a twitch of life in the universe. So that in humanity, life has now attained the dizzy heights of one twitch looking for another. The inflationary ingress of energy fuels the development of energy drawing structure, so the engines of life develop, as life evolves. Bio-molecular structures equate to pathways of energy flow, and as they develop their capacity to direct energy they act like as channels of communication directing the flow of energy towards the structure that internalises freely available life energy, incorporating that energy into itself. Life evidently formalised this structural relationship to energy by turning bio-molecular structure into a code for structures that capture the energy flowing into organic structures. These energy capturing biochemical structures are genes, which form a structural net for capturing the flow of life energy by channelling free flowing life energy towards a coherent material form, a life form. A genome is therefore a channel through which life captured energy flows, so that sunlight acts like water creating a landscape relative to this genetic terrain. Genetic information is the landscape composed of organic matter, solar energy is the rain carving a landscape into this organic substrate, and life is the landscape. Information is the route travelled by the flow of energy, just as a river provides the information of water flow in a geological landscape. Nonliving matter which has attained a level of organic complexity in suitable surroundings, constitutes a blank slate upon which the raw energy of universal existence can then write a script. That is what the product of stellar fusion does when it energises organic compounds in a free liquid, aquatic environment. This is why genetic code comes into existence as an information programme delivering a material form that is life. All our efforts to picture this process are informed by our desire to normalize human existence within the universe at large. Our description is therefore conceptual, but we hope it is nonetheless valid in scientific terms, for all that. With the coming of language this genetic terrain is extended onto a new creative level of existence, where a new mode of free flowing energy is organised by a new form of information directing the resultant flow of energy through a new form of structure. This is a social, or superorganic structure, wherein

individual animals become reduced to part of a structure that energy flows through, by following what is now a linguistic pattern, as opposed to a genetic or molecular pattern. It is therefore the activity of these newly evolved types of animals, empowered by language, that constitute the newly released medium of free flowing energy, which is available for the creation of a new level, or order, of structural existence. Humans are therefore a new order of universal existence, but they are still part of the universe, and accountable to the forces and laws applying to all material expressions of universal existence. Yesterday, 03/07/2012, a copy of Hubers work on ants arrived, a nice little purchase of a first edition at such a modest price, just 28 posted. Perusing which last night, threw up the fine passage quoted above, where we can see the innocence of uncorrupted science as it first manifested itself before the need for a White Lie in this area of thought had fully arisen, such that we find the biological nature of language identified in insects, not only without compunction, but with a sense of exhilaration at the beauty of the idea. This is how science should be, but isnt, because the force of language flows strongly in another direction, towards the creation of a superorganism, not diffusely, towards the vain fancies of individual dilettantes.

I Science finds God ! Wednesday, 04 July 2012 Well not God exactly, but a particle thereof, the God Particle that is. Announced today, is the discovery of the Higgs-Boson particle, the existence of which was predicted by the Scottish physicist Peter Higgs, forty six years ago ; he wept with joy at the conference, exclaiming how wonderful it was that this confirmation was achieved in his lifetime. And well he might, considering the unbelievable, six billion dollar bit of kit, the Hadron Collider, that it took to perform the atom smashing experiment identifying this particle. The Higgs-Boson gives mass to otherwise mass-less particles, and is therefore responsible the matter from which form arises. The idea is, that the first particles arising after the Big Bang were effectively photons, particles travelling at the speed of light, without mass. Then the Higgs field took effect, causing these photons to clump together, thereby acquiring mass, from which primary particles the elements of ordinary matter eventually arose. No one called these first particles photons, but I cannot see what else they can be so I am assuming this is correct. When I heard this news earlier today, my first thought was how well this description of a uniformity being projected onto a higher level of complexity by the application of a free flow of energy, as in the Higgs field, accorded with what I had been writing above just this morning. Whether or not I have grasped this abstruse subject properly, I am sure I have understood and applied the conceptual logic of these processes perfectly. The universe is evidently all about consistency, that is what makes science possible. In philosophical terms this makes monism the only valid philosophy of reality. And this means that even our everyday world must be a product of the basic dynamics of universal existence. And that idea is what we are seeking to introduce into sociology when we talk about things like linguistic force serving as a creative expression of the force of information that creates all life. There is no particle like the Higgs-Boson associated with the shift from nonliving to living orders of existence, it is a case of regular molecular materials acting as the building blocks of a new level of structural existence, just as animals come to act as the new building blocks of a similarly new higher level of material organization, when linguistic force comes

into existence from the previous level of information that is genetic. Nice one guys, a major moment in history, I had best get off for a beer to celebrate. The Channel Four News slot described this discovery as the missing link in our understanding of how the universe was made. First the Higgs-Boson was imagined, then a machine was built to prove its reality. This shows that major ideas must first be conceived before they can be discovered, continental drift is another good example of this process of scientific discovery. My own idea of Linguistic Force as the natural biological force creating every fragment of social form, has the same scientific potential to my mind. Or maybe the Jews are right, and we should all just stick to the Bible !

II Life nonlife Turning to Myers whom we mentioned at the beginning of the chapter concerning his The Absurdity of any Mind-Body Relation, by Charles Myers, 1932, we find a few interesting ruminations relating to the ruminations of ours in the preceding chapter. The lecture given by Myers was in honour of L. T. Hobhouse, so that Myers made his talk relate to Hobhouses own ideas, and accordingly he says this of Hobhouses views on the nature of life and mind : Once again I find myself in close agreement with Hobhouses standpoint. For Hobhouse believed that what he termed a Central Mind, which courses through the universe, must have operated long before life and individual minds made their appearance and is responsible for the order, direction, and wholeness of the universe. Life, according to Hobhouse, arose not from dead elements, but from pre-material elements which also gave rise to inanimate matter. For him, therefore, all life contains a germ of mind. (Myers, pp. 15 16) These dudes really were all tangled up in knots, but by seeking to untie knots that are indeed excruciatingly difficult to get a spike into, to split the tangled threads apart, they have inspired me to write this passage which I feel may be one twist closer to an untangled thread of reason about this tricky subject. Turning back a page, we find Myers makes a general observation about the nature of energy on page fourteen : Mass and energy have now become interchangeable terms for the mathematical physicist. A material particle is regarded by him as but a very condensed and localized quantityan organized, finely grained centre of energy or activity. Sometimes the physicist explains material phenomena in terms of a corpuscular, sometimes he finds it easier to explain them in terms of an undulatory hypothesis. In either case, stuff and substance are not the physicists ultimate realities ; the true nature of things is to be found in processin happenings, events, or acts in a space-time continuum. (Myers, p. 14 15) This sets the scene for some of our thoughts above, but it is between this remark and the previous one that we find the more telling attempts at discerning the true nature of the problem, where Myers says this :

But although both mind and living matter and lifeless matter consist merely in activity, what I am here endeavouring to urge is (a) that living matter differs from dead and lifeless matter not merely in certain differences of mechanical activity, but owing to the possession by the living individual of directive activities inherent in the organism, whereas in the lifeless world directive activity is external to matter ; and (b) that the common characteristics of all matter (substance, colour, &c.) depend on individual conscious experience due to the interaction between the mechanical activities of matter and the directive activities of living nervous matter. (Myers, p. 15) The interesting bit here is tricky to be clear about as he says in the lifeless world directive activity is external to matter and contrasts this, eventually, with an observation concerning the directive activities of living nervous matter. This passage gets us in a mix-up because Myers is insistent upon the qualification of individuality being plonked right in the middle of a definition of directive action occurring in life. This grates on our nerves because individuality is anathema to science and key to sustaining religion in opposition to science, so we must cut this word out of his statements, which he keeps repeating. But what catches the minds eye when reading the above paragraph is the attempt to argue that directiveness, which Myers argues must exist in all existence, hence the absurdity of trying to separate mind from body by saying they relate to one another when in fact they are identical to one anothera view that is most welcome to usthat is manifest in nonliving matter, is external to matter, i.e. such as gravity one must suppose, as he does not say, whereas in living matter the directive impulse of the universe has become internalised. In saying this it must be immediately obvious how we have already utilised this logic to interpret how the distinguishing feature of living matter, that is information, came into existence by internalising external stimuli to give life an image of that which is outside of itself. Life can be defined thus as : forms that make images of existence. Images are always a form of information. Having said that, it is clear that the prompt taken from Myers has been used to develop an already highly sophisticated model that merely wanted tweaking, such that our finished model of life, including a description of the origin and nature of information, which is the essence of life, takes on a most perfect form thanks to this little nudge from long dead people. People who were still immersed in pre-cleansing ideas, but still failing to make the necessary leap towards insights at one with reality, even though they were toying with the subject matter in a way suited to the problem. A way that denied the absurd dualism forced upon science by religion, a way that was fully cognizant of the monistic view, even if it yet wanted to resist it because of difficulties created by the abuse of monism. Sunday, 08 July 2012 In short, what this tricky passage is saying, is that the general directive aspect of universal existence, gives rise to a form of matter that can invert this directive universal force by making the point of origin of this force part of itself, that is, by internalising the creative force of the universe, by centering it on itself, allowing itself to become a foci of creativity projecting the directive force back from its own centre, hence the inversion of force, thus making itself a centre of being, thus bringing the miraculous form of matter into existence that is life. Yes, for once I feel a real sense of having a simple concept of what life is : the internalisation of the creative force of the universe. It makes perfect sense ! Doesnt it ? Where, by internalisation within a structure, that structure becomes a micro universe itself, as in a foci of creative energy. Expressing creativity is what we otherwise call behaviour, and it includes the higher behaviour we so admire, and call sentience or consciousness. And what this behaviour boils down to is the handling of

information, where information is the tracking and directing of energy flows in relation to life. A neat aspect of this model of lifes nature as an inversion of universal force making life forms centres of creativity, is this notion of projecting creative force from points within the universal entity, because this dynamic of projecting appears in our idea of linguistic force being created by the evolution of linguistic physiology. From whence linguistic force is automatically projected by human behaviour into the common environment, thus forming social space, and by means of an ever increasing accumulation of the pressure of linguistic force expressed in the form of social authority, a condensing social structure accumulates. So that a living superorganism is formed from the point source of directive energy appearing in the mirror of universal creativity, that his human life.

III. COLLECTIVE MENTAL ORGANISM. ARTS and crafts are the creations of human instinct or practical intellect ; sciences and abstract methods are the outbirths of human reason. What, then, are the sciences which constitute the collective mind, which experiential mind is formed by the gradual evolution of the human understanding, as a mirror which reflects the phenomena of the universe with or without distorting the appearances, with or without perceiving and registering the laws which govern such phenomena, with or without understanding the purpose of such facts and laws, in the creation, as a manifestation of the determinative will of an omnipotent and almighty Creator ? (Doherty, p. 228) Finally it stopped raining, and even got sunny for a couple of hours this afternoon, Wednesday, 11 July 2012, so I read a bit more of Organic Philosophy, including the passage above. It is an odd bit, but it uses the idea of our mental images forming a mirror of reality that can be either true or distorted, so I thought it would be nice to chuck in ere, as a curious affirmation of our own peculiar reasoning on these matter. We have suggested that life is an inverted expression of universal creativity, a reflection of creative force from matter back out towards the point of origin of all energy, which is the surrounding universe, and this reversal of creative flow is what makes life special, bringing information into being as an organized expression of energy, that in turn organizes the flow of energy. Put like this we have a familiar universal scenario, with foci of matter and energy coming and going as centres of creativity within the universe, as in the case of stellar evolution. It is the basis of our Atheist Science that we try to envisage the creative force of nature flowing through humans by our identification of human corporate nature, so that human creativity is rendered a state of conformity with universal creative processes, conceptually at least. This makes our creative intelligence a product of an inversion of universal creativity, reflecting universal creative force back out from material structure as if life were a kind of prism for creative energy. Such an idea has the advantage of suggesting a physical basis for our fixation on a dualistic nature to existence, which dogs our intellectual ideas of reality and leads to the dualism of systems of thought, giving us the material and spiritual, the religious and scientific. Moving further along these lines, we may suggest that the trick with linguistic force, would appear to be a double reflection, whereby a further level of internalisation takes place, a new refraction of energy through structure, arising from the reduction of individuals to components of an individual. This new level of internalisation arises from the creation of linguistic force, and it produces language based consciousness. The reason we say this is

because of the White Lie that humans live by in the process of creating the superorganism, where the basis of the white lie is the inversion of true dynamics, to make the sense of human self willed creativity appear real to us, so that we can operate as sentient bricks of a higher organic being to which we belong. Thus in the above reasoning about life as an inversion of universal creative force, we find a scientific basis for human consciousness based on language, producing, what in effect is mindless stupidity seeking the inside of the superorganism whilst being blind to the total existence superorganism itself, as a real entity, thus only knowing this reality in the illusory form created by linguistic expression, as in religion. Which makes you wonder if the universe is a series of concentric creative energy inversions, the kind of thing that seems to be invoked when people talk about parallel universes and such like. Another point to inject here, is the suitability of this reasoning for our ideas on the Jews as master race, whereby a culture arises from linguistic force to become a foci of creativity that reflects itself back upon the outer human environment, giving rise to the human superorganism made in the name of the foci of directive universal energy manifested in human linguistic force, and named Judaism. This occurs in an ever increasingly intensified form, until the whole potential of the environment to fuel this superorganic, or social process, is consumed. The thing to get hold of, is the way a passive force in made proactive. After all, it is an ongoing feature of cosmic order that foci of existence become points of origin for creative development, as when stars go supernova and spew form complex elements made in the furnace of their own form, which then enable the material products to exist that are necessary for this last development, that we are so interested in, to take place, the rise of life. Because of the extreme bias of humanitys own point of view fixated upon itself, we have been forced to reverse the idea that humans are conscious beings that create at will, reducing humans to part of a universal process. But in trying to work from nonlife to life, we need to invoke the sense of material form becoming after a fashion self willed, though in the end, the fact is that we do only have in mind the understanding of a universal process, that by definition can only ever be based upon forces and their laws of interaction with matter. The above reasoning would explain why we have felt disposed to invoke the idea of information as a creative force, the life force. Because it is the building of organic forms that make an image of existence, that allows them to channel energy into themselves and thus take on active creative powers, which makes the creative force of the universe become focused in objects of the universe that have the quality of life. Thinking thus reminds us of the popular science fiction theme whereby machines are made so sophisticated by people that they become self aware, as with the military defence network Skynet in the Terminator movies. In effect we are describing a process whereby the creative facet of the universe that science reveals, has made this outcome apply to itself, creating material forms that have become so sophisticated that that they have become self aware, or more appropriately to our reasoning here, they have become foci of creative universal force, rendered thus in a new form, as information. The use of this idea in fiction is however simplistic and politicised, hence the warfare scenario where the machines turn on their creators, so this is not science or philosophy, it is art. Added to which, we should suspect our own reasoning when it comes to these matters of art reflecting reality, for it could just be that language is playing tricks with us and making reality an illusion backed up by art, in other words our scientific interpretation may be more of a linguistic expression, than any representation of reality. ___

So where does this new insight leave us, now we know where our reasoning about the origin of information as a force derives from ? How does this new conception of life including the definition of information, leave us ? I feel it leaves us well, I feel the idea we have discerned and spelt out above feels good. We have taken the basic parameters of material existence as fully comprehended by the most potent scientific disciplines, and found a simple conceptual model to describe how life comes into being from nonlife by shifting from external dynamics to internal dynamics. This is in keeping with general ideas of creativity, which always involve the cyclical transformation of matter along hierarchical levels of organisation that tend to shift through cycles of chaotic disorder, and back to periods of development. As when cosmologists talk about the manner in which celestial bodies build and decay, such as dust clouds turning into stellar objects that manufacture elements before decaying via supermassive explosions into dust clouds of higher degrees of complexity, capable of then creating further rounds of building, this time with more complex levels of potential creativity. The story is all about energy relative to matter, but the coming of life involves the existence of nonliving complex molecules capable of acting like miniature universes, where molecular cosmology can be triggered so as to cause biochemical structures to acquire the ability to sense external sources of potential energy that cause them to increase in complexity, such that we find life begins at the molecular level where the transmission of energy through molecular structures in ways that build new types of molecular arrangements, can eventually give rise to a stable genetic code based upon carbon bonded complex molecules. And so we have the basis of life as we know it with the establishment of the Bible of life, the earths living gene code. Bearing in mind I am not a scientist, my description is loose, but seems to flow in accordance with what I hear described by science in general, and in keeping with our desire to place humans entirely within nature. So we are saying that life comes into being as molecules evolve that can absorb energy in such as way as to fuel the construction of new carbon compounds, with an increasingly empowered ability to absorb potential life energy. According to this model living matter is no different to nonliving matter, relative to the fundamental quality of energy as described in the passage on how matter and energy are equivalent. The difference is that living matter has developed complexity under special conditions, as found on earth, the living planet, that allows it to absorb energy proactively, by the device of building molecular accumulators, or life forms. The pathways delivering the energy to the structures that become these molecular accumulators, or life forms, are delineated by the flow of information, which directs the flow of energy through the structures it is part of. Ultimately our reasoning comes full circle, as we reach the point where a molecular accumulator has developed with a structure able to project information beyond the discrete physical life unit, the individual, causing this unit to become subject to the flow of energy reaching beyond itself, via the medium of language, so that the resulting sentient bricks are obliged to build social structure, or superorganic physiology. And finally this delivery of energy into patterns of superorganic form comes to be replicated in ever more sophisticated ways, a Bible is born in a familiar form, and Jews transmit their identity to the now global superorganism. Bingo ! Cracked it, what more could we want to know ? Can we go to the pub now ? Well no actually, because six inches of snow fell yesterday and although I dragged my sorry arse to the detention centre they said the weather forecast means they do not want us students, ha! I like that, and as the snow is now falling again, yippee ! Except I cannot go the pub either. But, what joy, no more detention this week !

III I have a dream Having written a bit above, about the importance of destruction to the Jewish master race that all humanity exists to serve, we are pleased to find that this natural, if not very nice cyclical process empowering Judaism, is fundamental to the whole process of universal creation. Religion is in the habit of sucking up to our most pathetic and disgusting human quality of soppiness, and making out that a beneficent God has created the universe in an act of total goodness. Science however is obliged to tell the truth, and just as life involves death, and of its nature it produces molecular accumulators that are docile in their feeding habits compared to others that are voracious, so we have seen that not only life, but universal processes themselves involve creative phases feeding of destructive phases. Hence it is only right that having identified the true nature of human animals as that of superorganic mammals, we should find a cycle of growth and decimation specific to such a grand accumulator of energy as a superorganism is. And within that cycle Judaism is the key information element about which the cycle has been made to turn. If we were examining any other natural cycle than that of our own existence, we would be fascinated by the beauty of the revelations given us by science, and the key element in the process that allowed rebirth to take place after devastation would be viewed as a very special thing. In religion only the special elements of the process are allowed to be associated with the Jews, while the negative aspects inevitable in any creative cycle are directed upon a hate figure, the Devil, in abstract, Hitler in life, for example. But as atheist scientists we are pleased to be able to reveal the truth. We maintain that science always opens up the possibility of extending choice, even as it sets limits upon the possible, but of course the choice can only be made by the Jews as foci of human energy, and they always choose annihilation, because they are the key about which recreation always takes place, that is the secret of what they call their chosen status, so that destruction is the true basis of their power. There is nothing humanity can do about this, not even our revelations, even should they be delivered to the world, can do anything to alter this fact, because nothing can overpower the Jews, after all, their power comes from the centre of the universe, from the heart of creation. If anything can move us forward beyond Judaism however, it is knowledge ; and it is my secret fantasy that it might, but I wouldnt want anyone to know that. So we may say that the flow of energy into a system allowing increasing structural complexity to take place causes information to come into existence, in conjunction with living matter which becomes life ; which becomes humanity, the personification of information in its most pure form. Such that energy and information become one through the existence of humans. But for that to happen we must break the umbilical chord with our material self, as we are still created by the free flowing directive of information within matter. It is our unique attribute to of been made the vehicle by means of which energy is enabled to pass through matter as information in the form of life, to produce something that is still life, but in the shape of the human superorganism. We have laboured under the belief that this living phenomenon was not of life, but of some sacred essence. We were deluded, society is of a natural form, but its form is that of the essence of life, which is information. Currently we have a superorganic form made on the basis of information flowing through living matter, that we call social structure, but which is simply a material extension of ourselves. With the coming of science we have found the key to pure information, i.e. truth. Which means we now have the key to directing universal energy freely, according to its own laws of creation, placing the power of what we call God, in our hands. But we can only

access that power by relinquishing our primitive dependence upon our living form, as delivered by information moving mindlessly through our living being. In other words, true knowledge, as alone provided by science, can shift us onto a whole new plain of existence, according to these optimistic philosophical musings, which have the impress of science fantasy about them, I know. But, it seems to me that if energy imbued information into matter by allowing matter to create itself, under special conditions, in such a way as to increase complexity beyond the wonder of all inanimate existence, then why should some animal form not be a window onto a further unimaginable extension of the process, in this most astounding home of ours, this universe ? I do not want to be fanciful, the writers of fiction have certainly covered that ground sufficiently. But imagine if we lived in a world where all that we say is true, and is accepted as being real, after all, it is you know. There would be no religion, and hence no need for continual cycles of remaking to retain social integrity about a core identity. There would be no need for war or catastrophe of any kind. No need for maximal exploitation of resources in-between devastations either. We would attain a state of perfect self understanding in which ideas about striving for a better future would have no meaning, we would simply seek ever higher expressions of true knowledge, or perfect information. In that desire lies the power of universal energy, of God indeed, in so far as some may like to conceive of God as a universal creator, even though we must declare that this allusion to God is but a distraction, because God as presently conceived, is but the reality of the superorganism. This direction in our discussion veers from sci-fi to the utopian, two not dissimilar things, but we no more which to provoke fantasies along one such line of thought than the other. The above idea of freedom is unrealisable because we cannot shake off the animal nature of our molecular accumulator status, focused upon our Jewish identity. But if we could, it could only take us to one place, and that would be this ideal world, this utopia. There could be nothing else for us if we lived according to the scientific knowledge revealed by atheist science. It would not be a utopia according to the ideas of most people alive today. We would not find the everyday motivations we are trained to enjoy now, of any interest, because the world would be so different, so that we would not seek this new order, and our masters do not want it, so we are screwed, and we must just await the next crash. But that is what we live for ; the accumulator accumulates, discharges, and accumulates again, that is universal energy as manifested in our present human form. Wouldnt you like to be in an all knowing utopia ? No ? Well, just a thought, thats what happens when I cant go the pub, I think. Never mind, lets settle for a coffee. There would still be pubs in utopia you know, obviously ! Which is more than can be said for this world, the way its going now. So we have our model of life taking shape by an inversion of the relationship of energy to matter, whereby new structure is generated by complex matter that uses energy to drive internal structural complexity. This we suppose is an inversion of the process whereby matter is ordinarily acted upon by energy. Lets think about an approximate comparison between this life process and what we know to be the process of material evolution in none living matter. Higher grades of elements are manufactured in the stellar nuclear furnace of supernovae. The two processes are fundamentally the same, in that both concern the application of energy to the evolution of material complexity. If this is so then, in what sense do we discern a contrast between non living and living matter denoting a change in the nature of matter itself ? At the level of elemental creation energy under the action of various forces induces levels of increasing complexity that lie inherent in the subatomic fabric of matter. The regularity and order of this process leads to our mechanistic view of the universe which is supposed to be so much in contrast to the infinite variation of the living domain. If we want

to think in terms of an external direction applying to nonliving matter, we may do so by seeking the induction of complexity as being driven by an application of external factors to do with forces of nature. Discussing this question in this manner should make us realise right away that matter is just matter, it must be part a universal continuum, just as we try to force the concept of a continuum upon human society as an extension of life, in order to include humans within the ambit of nature. In respect to ourselves we have devised a model of this uniformity by making linguistic force a natural force that creates social structure, and by saying that this natural force emerges from the linguistic physiology evolved in the normal genetic process of evolution that all accept as proven. Using this model to help us think about what brings life out of non life, we can say that the special kinds of non living matter, the complex organic molecules or carbon compounds, whatever, must equate to the linguistic physiology of ourselves, whereby these complex non living molecules are deemed to have evolved a complex structure which acts as mediating form transmitting energy in a manner that creates novel structures, which have the special attribute of drawing more energy towards the process of augmentation, thus giving an incentive to new modes of complexity that increase this influx of augmenting structural energy, until a pattern is established that equates to our previous recognition of information coming into being. And so, we are now saying that, just as with the evolution of creatures able to create vast social structures, so it was with matter that could create life forms, engines of evolutionary change had to be established as a first base in the process, by being part of an ongoing process of cosmic evolution, that continually sets up new enclaves of opportunity for new expressions of material existence to take place. Just as human society comes from a very normal and everyday process of evolving an ability to communicate, so the ability of life to exist comes from the wholly normal and everyday process of universal dynamics generating environmental conditions in which life can come from chemistry. There is an inversion of the dynamic in the shift from genetic evolution evolving a mode of information generation, and the resulting creation of matter external to the animal as a consequence of this new machinery, such that a complete break seems to exist between life and human existence, which enables our priests to exploit this gift to white lie making, in accordance with our nature, to assert that we are the creators of ourselves, a self evidently insane, criminal notion, criminal in terms of scientific knowledge. But this process of generating levels of complexity is seen everywhere, and it seems to come from this method whereby cosmic processes advance, create, advance, create, and so on, producing hierarchical levels of complexity that are each separated in some significant way from lower levels of complex structure. This appears even in the physicists model of the nuclear domain. And this makes sense too, because otherwise we would be forced to imagine increasing hierarchical complexity occurring seamlessly. And how would that work ? For complexity to advance in significant material ways, there must be periods of discontinuity between levels of complexity. Why ? Because increasing levels of complexity rely upon increasing engines of energy transmission lying at their core. And this is what we see revealed in our discussion just now, it is all about new key features of existence coming into being, and then unleashing their potential, whether it is the potential of molecular engines inherent in complex organic molecules, or physiological engines of complex linguistic communication, as in our own bodily forms. And for anyone who has read my Colonial Ape and caught the gist of the argument based on Bernards conception of cyclical phases of evolutionary advancement, denoted by the appearance of colonial forms of organism acting as the engines of change from which

potential is released, the continuity of our thoughts here with this last work to be posted to Scribd, will be clearly seen.

IV Buzzing Family, are families murder or what ! That said, they do have their uses. Yesterday, 07/07/2012, a book I have long been aware of, but have failed to buy a copy of because I have felt it was too expensive or did not look novel enough, finally arrived, this after talking to one of my sisters for the first time since Dad popped his clogs half a dozen years ago, and discussing a visit. During which conversation, she told me she keeps bees. The Buzz about Bees : Biology of a Superorganism by Jrgen Tautz, 2008, is a book that I ought to of bought years ago. It is an infuriating piece of work, for the usual reason. It offers a superb scientific account of its subject, exactly as Ptolemy did of his subject in the ancient world, when basing his astronomy on the idea that the earth was at the centre of the universe, and consequently parcelling up exquisite knowledge in a bag of shit. And so we come to the present, and Tautz touting shit to us in a beautiful package, that any lover of wisdom and science is bound to swallow with glee, little knowing that thereby they are pouring poison into their minds, and labouring to learn lies. Bloody, fin Darwinism, arrrrgh !! It corrupts everything it touches. Getting to look at this book just now, as Murray launches his bid to win Wimbledon for Britain, or Scotland maybe, for the first time since Fred Perry in 1936, I see it has lots of interesting material therein, of a quite unique kind. But of course he adheres religiously to the dogma which denies humans a place in nature. Thus he talks freely about the reality of the superorganism, and in many ways he seems to set about discussing this reality far more directly and fully than we find in Wilsons book The Superorganism, of 2009, which is obviously dedicated to understanding the phenomenon of the superorganic life form. Chapter one affirms a very important principle of genuine science by way of the title The Inevitable Honeybees, which to us sounds like the principle of force driving the evolution of life, the force of information that is. Needless to say, this is not what this intellectual turd has in mind, instead of thinking for himself, he simply floats limply upon what has gone before, mindlessness having been pumped into his brain during the process of his scientific education :

Honeybees must have evolved under suitable conditions. The development and dispersion of life on our planet has been taking place according to unchanging principles since its very beginning, an estimated four and a half thousand million years ago. Following a set of basically simple rules and easily understood recipes, an organismic world of breathtaking diversity and incredible complexity has unfolded. The driving force for the dynamics of this explosion of life is the will to survive, in which survival is to reproduce faster than the competitor. Reproduction, from an abstract point of view, means making copies of oneself. When using the term copy, one really implies clone. For only in this sense in the world of the living can the hereditary material produce true copies of itself. Nucleic acids, macromolecules that are assembled from a large number of links to form a chain,

have prevailed as the only hereditary material. Each link in this chain consists of four different organic bases, a sugar and a phosphoric acid. Should any of these bases be freely available in the environment, and close to an existing chain, it will bind specifically with only one of the other base types, known as its complement. When all the bases in the chain are bound, each with its specific complement, a negative replica of the original is the result. Separated from the original template, this negative will produce a perfect copy of the original chain when complementary bases bind to it. Following the development of these types of molecules on earth, and their dominance over possible (but to us unknown) alternatives, an exciting perpetualism arose : copies of copies constructed an unbroken line of hereditary material over thousands of millions of years, extending to the organisms living today. (Tautz, p. 29.) That is quite a nice, succinct description of evolution, almost as good as ours. The only thing setting us apart is that where the above quote is utter bullshit, being a sickly regurgitation of old Darwinian drivel, our scientific description of evolution is based strictly on the idea of force creating form, rather than this ludicrous notion of behaviour creating form, reduced here to the nth level of life that is molecular biology ! Can you believe the gall of these imposters ? Instead of discovering a basis for science and working their way up, they impose a political vision of evolution based upon human social life as understood in everyday competitive terms, and work their way from this notion down to the bottom !! Ha! Bloody outrageous. Then, of all the Nazi cheek, the publishers of this book insert an especially fascistic demand for copyright to be respected absolutely. So that after exerting their oppressive power to impose this rubbish in scientific disguise upon the prone and helpless world, they threaten any would be lone and powerless commentator with the law, should a single part be reproduced without permission. Working your way down from insight to process is indeed the method we used to inform our reasoning on the nature of evolution, but we have always been completely open about this, saying that from our insight into human biological nature we realised that language must be an extension of genetic information. Accordingly, using the idea of linguistic force, we work our way back from human social life to the origin of life, by extending the logic implicit in the idea of human corporate nature having evolved to form a living, human superorganism. Darwin on the other hand purported to of discovered the basis of lifes existence in the natural world, without any reference to human nature or life style. Even though, funnily enough, this basis happened to be identical with the essence of social life as we know it, being an exact analogue of the struggle of human individuals to fit into a ruthless, rigid and utterly unjust social hierarchy. So we are not particularly attacking the principle of working from a macro observation towards an insight into the micro world, but rather we are saying that these people do not lay bare the true nature of their formula, but rather they jiggle it about to suit their purpose of preserving religion by making science conform to political principles that are part of the corporate form that includes religious identity. Of course neither Tautz nor anyone else, Darwin nor Tautzs publishers, no one, has the faintest clue that they are doing anything malign. All are cellular units serving the order of superorganic physiology as it exists following several millennia of social evolution, originating from the foci of priestly identity that is Judaism. But as individuals we cannot help but express our anger and frustration at these oppressive conditions, whatever their nature is. We are rebel bees.

Later in this chapter he comes out with this exquisite piece of reasoning :

The Superorganism
Honeybees, as they appear today with a history of about 30 million years, were almost inevitable. They had to happen at some stage. The details of their body form could have differed ; they did not have to look like our present-day honeybees, but there is no competitive alternative to the basic organization of the honeybee colony superorganism. Honeybees could nevertheless happen only because they brought the necessary conditions with them. To theoretically propose the appearance of a superorganism is one matter, to actually find it is something else. Superorganisms of notable significance in the natural world are found, with the exception of the taxonomically separate termites, only in the hymenopterans and more specifically the ants, honeybees, bumblebees, and wasps. The answer to what the required conditions are for the appearance of a superorganism will be described in Chapter 9. For now, we will interest ourselves in the present, and put off our consideration of the past for later. In the honeybee colony superorganism, we have a highly complex system, but like more simple systems, it is merely the vehicle for the genome. Even in this refined packaging, the genome pursues the same goal as that of molecules in the primeval soup, namely, that their proliferation be more successful than that of the competitor. Molecules are, of course, not actually pursuing a goal. But if one observes the flow of the evolutionary process, elements that survive behave as though they have actively followed the goal to repeatedly copy themselves. This expression is a description of the process, but we simplify the concept by using anthropomorphic terms such as . . . the molecules strive toward . . ., or . . . they want. . ., or . . . they have a goal . . .. (Ibid., p. 34) Having written what I just have about Tautz, his publishers, Darwin and all, I cannot help smiling at this caveat inserted by Tautz concerning the manner in which he has described molecular behaviour in anthropomorphic terms, which he now takes back for claritys sake. Too true our kid, and as you say of molecules, we say of you. None of you are really pursuing the goal of preserving religion from science by subverting science, but if we observe the flow of intellectual expression across post Enlightenment centuries, we find that all attempts at producing a true science of existence that supplants religion have fallen by the wayside, so that only those so called scientific ideas have survived that are sterile and safe for religion to coexistence with. Tautzs ideas adhere to the religious dogma of Darwinism, thus circumventing any need on his part to engage in an ongoing struggle to make science safe for religion, he just follows the formula established in the mid nineteenth century when this question reached its zenith. Here then ideas are the equivalent packages of information operating within the social domain, to the molecular packages Tautz speaks of above, operating in the physical environment, and struggling to attain a dominant, exclusive expression appearing as, that is fixed in, a structural form. Only those ideas that win in the struggle for social survival remain as the years pass by, so that dominant ideas act as if the sentient brick molecular packages that produced them were pursuing a goal, and since that goal is the preservation of religion, even though their creators were scientists, they do as we say they do, they follow a set goal whether they know it or not, just as the molecules in the original soup of life did. Where Darwinism is concerned we may speak of the alternative

ideas that, as Tautz says when speaking of genetic formulas, we have no knowledge of today, because having won out, Darwinism is the only linguistic formula for generating scientific knowledge that has come down to us. The comparison is not quite precise, since I am currently reading volume four of Dohertys Organic Philosophy, for exampleor I would be if this eternal damn rain would ever stopwhich is a very rare, and wholly unknown work, coming from precisely that alternative mode of reasoning based upon the idea of the social organism that we use in our own way today, and was obviously a competitor of Darwinism, now to all intents and purposes, lost to science. You would think this idea would especially suit the task Tautz has in hand, dealing with the biology of a superorganism, but no, there are no alternative genomes of knowledge available in our world today, only Darwinism is permitted to inform the macro ideology put out by scientists. There are several points to pick up in the above quote. The notion of inevitability is the exquisite bit, matching as it does our own reasoning perfectly, except that whereas our reasons are scientific and rational, his are insane madness, just following established dogma by rote, mindlessly, while he adds his own creative description of a specific subject to enrich the obscenity provided by the high priests that all academics follow slavishly, as per their training during their induction into the priesthood. That a mammalian superorganism was inevitable arises from the principle that the evolution of mammalian form represented the ascent of life up an energy gradient of biological evolution, from which position all the earth became comparatively bereft of life, leaving all niches open to the exploitation of this new supercharged life engine. This explains the seemingly incredible adoption of an aquatic lifestyle by land living animals so thoroughly adapted to land as the four legged deer-like forerunners of whales, apparently were. There is some validity in pausing to consider why superorganisms are not found in all forms of animal kind, as indicated in the above quote. It really requires a proper, professional scientist rather than a philosopher scientist to answer this in precise terms. All we can do is to offer some speculative thoughts on the reason for this. My ears always prick up whenever I hear of a social form of animal mentioned on nature programmes, and they are surprisingly frequent occurrences. There was the shrimp that lived on the Great Barrier Reef, a shrimp of all things ! However, this creature only formed small hierarchical social orders, that cannot be accorded the status of a true superorganism. The same can be said of the only mammal acknowledged to be colony forming, some kind of earth dwelling rodent I forget the name of. Other animals have not stuck in my head either, but these examples will do to make the point that a shift towards social delineation in species, where individuals become specialist units in a social order, is more common than Tautzs discussion indicates. These are not full blown social forms, but they indicate a latent potential resident in many life forms. Added to which, speaking of corals, these are true superorganisms formed at a lower order of organic being than insects. And then there are the bacteria, what about the colonies which, over the course of some three billion years, made the oxygen rich atmosphere that allowed life to move beyond their own cellular form ? And what about sponges ? So that Tautzs circumscription of a superorganism is too narrow for the discussion he presumes to present. Why fully fledged social forms seem to be restricted to creatures like ants, bees and humans, is more likely to have to do with the special conditions that allow this social potential to be drawn from a life engine ; combined with the consequences of such a path being followed, since a true superorganism tends to be a dominant, overwhelming influence, upon the niches it occupies, which in the case of mammals has reduced the whole planet to one uniform niche. This latter condition has the sound of a logical culmination of the evolutionary process, suggesting that life on earth is likely to attain a pinnacle with our kind, which, when we are no more, will then tend to deflate towards a lower level of organic equilibrium. That said,

given what has come to pass since the age of the dinosaurs, who knows what may arise in a few million, or few hundred million years, when all that remains of us are the fossilised exoskeletal remnants of houses and trucks eroding out of mountain sides. So while Tautz affirms the inevitability of the superorganism, he contrives some weird explanation for it, which includes this escape from logical inevitability, by asserting a prerequisite set of conditions carried by the bees themselves ! I checked chapter nine immediately I read this and could see no reference to these conditions, it will require actual reading to see what is going on here, but dont hold your breath in expectation of anything meaningful here. The last paragraph above was included because it shows how the living descendant of Darwin as enemy of science, continues to serve the same end of providing primary pseudo scientific ideas allowing people like Tautz to work as scientists, while avoiding doing any real science beyond that confined to material or structural details, while always deriving their principles or essences from previously sanctioned dogma, allowed by the Jewish theocracy whose jackboot we all live under. So what we have here, is the logic of Dawkins selfish gene, extended to the superorganism. We tackle this aspect of biology by invoking a new expression of codified replication arising from the evolution of linguistic physiology, that introduces the linguistic force, which is responsible creating all social form. The other point of interest, is the way he takes the trouble to explain how he uses anthropocentric terminology, what we call political language, which says things that are not really true, but which allow him to speak of his ideas in a familiar manner. We say this is necessary because linguistic force creates a programme that forces us to think we are humans, individuals existing as ends in ourselves, so that we have to communicate in this political mode, and then offer the correction of depersonalizing the meaning that this personal mode imbues into language that we would like to be impersonal and hence unbiased by any values, other than that of being true to reality as observed by scientific methods. Oh yes, and so of course, the bit where he says that only this, that and the other bugs, make the greatest organic forms on earth, it being his idea to make superorganisms into the highest form of life, not mine, though I agree with it : The creation of the social form of the honeybee colony, as the most complex and highest level of organization yet achieved in the world of living organisms (Ibid., p. 235.) is where I made a note to one side, And humans ! Isnt it funny how all these people want to make humans out to be so special, the ultimate, unique, until it suits them to do otherwise, and then they say the exact opposite. You would think that at this point it would be justified to say and so we come to humans, a true mammalian expression of this highest form of life, from whence the miraculous nature of our world comes into line with a natural view of existence. But no such luck, because we have no science in this world, only religion.

V Religion is Information, not Knowledge It follows from what we are saying above that information, as an internalised identification of energy paths directing the flow of energy inward, by inducing the structural elaboration of organic matter, is a strictly organic, functional attribute of the universal system of existence. This accords perfectly with all we have attempted to say about the nature of

religion in contrast with science. Religion, we have argued, trumps science by its mere existence, because religion is itself a feature of existence, and not a commentary upon existence. Science on the other hand is useless as a replacement for religion because science is abstract, and as such science is inert information, it carries no bias, and can therefore impart no structure at the level of organisation for which linguistic physiology evolved to deliver organic structure, or any molecular accumulator capacity, in the shape of social structure. We hereby bring our eternal interest into view, as atheist scientists, in relation to the ideas inspired by Myers efforts, that interest being the war of religion against science. As ever, however, we see nothing of this in Myers account of the problem. He introduces the conflict between religion and science in an unspoken manner, by using words like spirituality and materialism in opposition to one another relative to the question of the nature of mind relative to matter. But he never comes out and says the obvious, that we live in an absolute theocracy, in which free access to knowledge is not allowed, so that freedom of thought is impossible and freedom of expression likewise thwarted at its roots. No one has spoken thus since Darwin decoupled science from religion by publishing his monstrous piece of trash, The Origin of Species. And realising that religion is information, whereas science is knowledge, we get a further idea of just how our coming of age as a species, by making science the basis of our existence, might push us through a portal of universal significance, making us truly something new on earth, as we sought to tease out above when suggesting that we might access the power at the heart of the universe itself by shifting away from organic information, to linguistic information, by cutting the umbilical chord from which pure information has evolved from biological information, that chord being functional knowledge, epitomised by religion.

Chapter 12

Jews Lead the Way, Treacherously, for Atheism

Thursday, 12 July 2012 I have only recently confirmed what the surname led me to suspect, that the person of interest below, was Jewish. It is not distinctive of Jews, that what they preach is treacherous, because a pillar of our reasoning is that everything anyone preaches, is treacherous. Besides which, all Christians are by definition Jews. Nonetheless, it is a nagging fact that Jews proper, often take up leading roles in society concerned with the delivery of controversial messages, exactly where ructions with the Jewish slave identity are liable to occur. These Jews are bold, radical, and often they become major leaders in the relevant field, and always their message is viciously oriented towards the power they pretend to oppose, by being especially cleverly corrupted towards that end, making Jews the supreme Gatekeepers of the Jewish theocracy ; which makes perfect sense. So here we have an example for the era of free science, when atheism was a major challenge to Jewish authority, and what do we find ? We find that a Jew takes pride of place the atheist movements propaganda machine, and becomes a leading voice of organized, public atheism. What wisdom does he impart ? Corrupt wisdom serving religion, of course. To save you thinking for yourselves, we may specify Marx, Durkheim and Freud, as leading examples of the type of Jew having a major influence over our ideas at the time in question, to a horrendously detrimental effect that undermined the revolutionary movements of the day, by taking over their impetus and running it into the sands of time. Thus protecting Jewish power from that of the host biomass which was breaking loose from their Jewish slave programming, as expressed in the radical schools of thought associated with the above named Jews. Curiously enough the Jews, exactly as we always find with government, manage to make use of the abuse they heap upon us for their own purposes, writing books on the great Jews and what they have done for humanity, for example, by way of a rebuff to antiSemitism. I have a basic item of that kind called Famous Jewish Lives, By John Gilbert, 1970, and plenty of other such propaganda volumes exist, we may be sure. Authority is always untouchable. When it comes to White Lie making then, the Jews have a gift for it. A recent acquisition, Hitlers Gift by Medawar and Pike, 2000, makes the point about the role of Jewish intellectuals in Germany and how they enriched the nations that gave them succour. In Britain today we often find Jews in the position of popular message givers, as scientists, historians, philosophers, and even atheists ! But in a world revealed to be one grand White Lie, in terms of knowledge, it stands to reasoning that boasting about your role in intellectual life is revealed to be a further twist in the spiral of White Lies. ___

Last night, 07/01/2010, trapped indoors by the coldest weather since the last ice age, I filched a book from a bookcase and flipped it open. This brought an interesting heading to my eye, What is Religion ? I turned to the beginning of the chapter and took a look. In all probability this heading will of caught my attention before, I could hardly have a book I had not taken a glance at. But ones focus changes from time to time, depending upon what areas of interest your mind is focused upon. I could not recall looking at this chapter before, but this question is one I find myself very much in the thick of at the moment. No one, apart from myself, has ever provided anything approximating to a sane answer to this question, because everyone obeys the dictates of the One message, and makes the individual an end in themselves, or, as in the case of Kidd, the idea of the individual is projected onto a high plain and the organic principle of function is simply not seen. Kidd treated Christianity as an end in itself, whereas the end must always be the superorganism, and it makes no sense to say that Christianity is an integral identity to itself, associated with a discrete superorganism, for heavens sake, Christianitys text is an extension of the Jewish text ! How does that leave Christianity as an integral identity associated with an integral superorganism ! Idiotic. Yes this religion deems itself distinct, born of Judaism, but that is not so, and it is not the job of an academic in a free society to affirm religious creed. Cohen is no different to anyone else therefore, but the question he poses is nice, and he is a famous atheist writer. Chapman Cohen seems to of been quite prolific, and a couple of his items have been made available on the net, but not Primitive Survivals in Modern Thought, 1935, so I will make my own copy of the passage I want to talk about : It has already been pointed out that when religion meets us in human society, it is there as essentially a belief in the existence of supernatural beings. That is the common basis of all religion. Religions may differ in a variety of beliefs and customs, but the point of general agreement is reached in the belief in the supernatural. Gods differ in their shape, their power, even in their duration, but in these respects they differ as men differ from each other. Gods are made in the image of men and they have the character of their creators. Gods are the thought-children of the race, and their vitality depends upon the clarity and the strength of the thought-forms that give them birth. When men cease to believe in the gods, the gods cease to exist. But where, as in early society the gods are most evident and most active, where everything is dependent upon gaining the good-will of the gods, and where offending them may jeopardise the health of the tribe, or ruin the harvest, or bring about defeat in battle, there is precisely the same justification for punishing the unbeliever as there is for punishing people who so act that they are exposing individuals or communities to disaster. To sap belief in the gods, or to affront them is equal to a man scattering disease germs in Fleet Street. In such circumstances the unbeliever is a social pariah. He is marked as standing apart from his fellows on the most vital of all questions. He is as obnoxious as a pro-German was in 1915, and as unpopular as was a leper in a medieval village. Disbelief in the gods of other peoples may be expressed, doubt as to their greatness is perhaps expected, but to question the gods of your own tribe is something that simply is not done. It is at this stage of social development that there is created the feeling that the man who does not obey the gods, the man who offends them by questioning their decrees, or even their existence, is a social danger. He finds himself cut off from the company of others, or he is punished as one punishes a criminal, and for exactly the same reasonhe is a standing threat to social security. The lawyers of the times of Elizabeth and James who laid it down that blasphemy was of the nature of treason

were stating a greater anthropological truth than they knew. They were dealing with a phase of social solidarity that goes back to the very dawn of associated human life. At a further stage of social development, opposition to one god is made in the name of another, and the deposed god may be reduced to the level of an evil spirit, or he may be abolished altogether. And for a very long time the rejection of one god continues to be made in the name of, or in the interests of, another, the Mohammedan god in favour of the Christian one, the Roman Catholic deity in favour of the Protestant God, the Presbyterian deity in favour of the Baptist deity, and so forth. But to be without a God altogether ; that is the terrible thing ! To say, I do not believe in your God, with the implication that one still has some sort of a God for presentation when required, or to say, I do not believe in your religion, again with the implication that, for public purposes at least, one still has a religion, saves ones face. But to say plainly and deliberately, I do not believe in a God of any kind, I have no religion of any kind to say this in the simplest possible language, and without the slightest equivocation, implies a degree of mental clarity and moral courage, of which but a minority of people are capable. It is to be able to stand alone ; and how many can do that ? Where all the foxes have tails, how many can bear to be without some spinal elongation ? It singles one out for dishonourable mention, and as the subject of a social boycott that most men and women will risk everything to avert. Genuine independence is still something that one must pay for, and there are not many who care to indulge in that extravagance. It is this dislike of being different from the herd in the matter in which unity was most important to our ancestors, and for so many thousands of generations, that finds expression in the desire to be credited with some kind of a religion. The Chesterfieldian unbeliever who is of the religion of those avowedly sensible men, who do not say what their religion is, discovers that he is out to reform religion, to purify religion, to rationalize religion, to do almost anything rather than to make the plain statement that he is without religion himself, is as much an example of a survival from a pre-scientific age, as our rudimentary hair covering is of survival from ape-like ancestors. I do not believe that it is the rightful work of the disbeliever in religion to purify religion, or to make it rational. If that is the proper aim, then there are scores of churches that one may join, and so help the parson to get on with his job. Besides you cannot make religion commendable to the properly educated reason. You may make religion a little less definite in its form, and for those who admire the clarity of a London fog that is something. You may make religion a little less openly troublesome, but you cannot make it fundamentally useful. You can express religious ideas a little differently, borrowing the language of science and philosophy to do so, but you cannot alter the real character of religious beliefs. You may even adopt the theory, now advanced by some religious anthropologists, that primitive ideas of God are in fundamental agreement with those of the advanced religionist. I can agree with that, only I would read it the other way round, and say that the most advanced ideas of God are in fundamental agreement with those of the savage. And although the two statements look identical, the religionist is too artful to have it expressed in that form. So I say that the work of the true reformer is not to rationalize religion, but to end it. I say that his real task is not even to attempt to prove that he is fundamentally at one with his religious neighbour, but to show that he is in complete and fundamental disagreement with him. I do not think that it is a good policy or a wise policy for the Freethinker to work for a time when Christians and Freethinkers may

settle down comfortably together. I believe that his real task should be to work for a time when there are no Christians to settle down with. Our work is not to make religion rational, but to make it impossible. The best way to do this is for the Freethinker to stand on his own feet. The measure of the real respect that the Freethinker will get from the religious world, will ultimately depend upon the amount of respect he has for himself. If the other foxes will wear tails, there is no reason whatever why a man who is born without one, or who has lost the one he had, should acquire an ornament that adds nothing whatever to his dignity. Of course, as I have said, this involves a mans learning to stand alone. At the best it will mean that he must be content with the company of a few ; but in this matter one has to decide whether one wishes to be in front or to be with the crowd. The certain thing is that one cannot be in front with the crowd. Above all, if we really believe in the value of truth-speaking, and in the importance of marrying language to exact thought, we must see that our terminology is as free as possible from misleading connotations. There is plenty of liberal thinking about to-day ; our growing need is for exact thinking ; and when we have achieved this, the courage to express it without hesitation and without ambiguity. (Cohen, pp. 40 44) Friday, 13 July 2012 What a load of tiresome, verbose drivel, saying nothing. He might at least of said Jews instead of Christians, when he speaks of a world to come that is free of believers, since we now know that he was at least born a Jew, and never was a Christian, and therefore has no right to speak thus of Christians just because he was an Englishman. Another point to pick up on that was almost certainly not dealt with below when I first wrote this piece, is the way he talks about the alienation brought upon an individual who seeks to destroy religion. This type of reactionary oppression is no longer present in modern society, like so many other such mores, like being born a bastard or being an arse bandit, this one against atheism has faded away. Even so, the description of a deeply alienated person, comfortable with being alienated, fits me to a T, and being able to take on religion in the way that I have, on a personal level, where I have discovered that all authority is a sham, has surely been a product of my innately alienated lifestyle, from childhood onwards. A point worth noting as it somehow says something about this aptitude for alienation still being relevant, even though it is no longer due to any overt pressure. This plays into the idea that we now live in a covert absolute theocracy, so that it is only when a deeply alienated individual happens to make religion their core objection to the social order that they object in principle because it supports religion and much else of a like authoritarian kind. So alienation is still important to atheism, only it needs to take on a different dynamic in order to make its relevance felt now, because we now live in a world that appears to cater to the atheist, so that only someone with a deeper, self propelling atheism, will see this ; and then with great difficulty, believe me. In fact it was the modern Jewish atheist that did a Channel Four documentary on atheism in which he constantly praised religionists while relentlessly lambasting atheist for being card carrying atheists, meaning tiresome whingers, since they already had all they could possibly want, the freedom to be atheists, now that we were no longer being burnt at the stake. ___ These are the last few pages of the chapter called What is religion ? From our point of view there is no relationship between the question asked and the contents of the chapter. The gist of the thing is Cohens objection to the way atheists try to appease theists, and we

see in the above that he concludes by saying that the objective of atheists should not be to accommodate religion, or to rationalize it, but to eradicate it. This sentiment is a delight to behold. But of course Cohen adheres strictly to the dictates of the One message by making it a requirement of atheists that individuals should become independent thinkers in their own right. So in a manner of speaking he is insisting that atheists do accommodate theists by forcing them to give up their religion, and so become atheists like themselves ; which is not an accommodation of religion, but it is an approach to the problem that makes the need for each person to change their mind essential, when in reality the individuals mind is of no relevance to the nature of religion, and what matters is knowing what religion actually is, and why religion exists, but in scientific, that is naturalistic terms. To know this you need to know that the human individual does not exist, because the human animal is a superorganism, and clearly Cohens argument is detrimental to this knowledge for it is built upon the idea of the individual as a supreme authority standing alone against society at large. There is nothing wrong with an atheist taking this approach, it is a natural outcome of living in an absolute theocracy where you simply have no means of understanding who and what you are, so that you misapprehend completely the nature of your own thoughts and ideas. But what is special about this particular piece of text that makes it worth studying briefly, is the title chosen by its author. What religion is ?, is just the question that an atheist who has freed themselves of the oppression of the One message, should be asking. So we see that Cohen has asked the right question, but he has asked it from within the confines of the One message, and hence totally failed to even begin to give a meaningful answer to his question. This said, the answer given is full of pertinent material of exactly the kind that anyone who has freed themselves of the oppression of the One message should be able to discuss freely. Cohen is emphatic, in the first place, that religion is really all about only one thing, an identification of the supernatural. We immediately make sense of this in terms of the unwitting recognition of the superorganism, which is what religion is all about, as the means by which linguistic force creates the superorganism by imparting awareness and identification in the sentient brick unit. This is a subtle piece of knowledge that tells why us it is that just because a person recognises the supernatural theme, is no reason why this should lead them to see reality, because the idea of the supernatural is a blind image. Then we find Cohen overcome with thoughts about how people are oppressed by some kind of collective mindset, he talks about this from various angles, he mentions how social authorities recognise that atheism is an attack on the very life of society, and he talks about how anyone calling themselves an atheist inevitably alienates themselves from the main social body, committing an act of self harm of a kind that few people would be able to bear. We saw from the early nineteenth century poem by Shelley reproduced in The Colonial Ape, a good representation of how people formerly reviled atheists with official sanction. In the light of all this it is odd that we now live in a world where atheism is tolerated, it would be inexplicable if we did not have our idea of How Religion Survived coming from our previous work, which shows that a new strategy was forced upon the theocracy by the coming of the scientific age, obliging it to turn itself inside out, instead of being an overt theocracy, it became a covert theocracy. This was achieved by promulgating the idea of a democracy based upon freedom and equality. But as regards these critical areas of conflict, namely that of science and atheism, here a special trick was required, that of decoupling. We are familiar with the idea of decoupling in science, since we have examined the way Darwinism achieved this end by claiming to show that all life had evolved according to certain natural mechanisms, while forming ideas about these mechanisms in such a way that humans could not be included in this naturalistic scheme. This required ensuring that Darwinism was based on the core principle of the One message, the principle that says that the individual exists as

an end in themselves, this is the core principle upon which Judaism itself is founded. It is the principle upon which law is based, and it is from this principle that the illusion of a democracy has been created. Darwinism separated science from religion and thereby set atheism free too, as long as atheism made Darwinism its lord and master, and so it was. Hence all atheism has also always adhered strictly to the core principle of the One message, and there is no better example of this, than that which we find in the above quote. And yet, as we have said, Cohen still wants to talk about the place of the individual in the social biomass and the need for the individual to be an ultra individual if they would be an atheist. This argument seems almost to disempower the atheist, since what can it achieve to obtain a position of total isolation, where we know everything ? Indeed, we approached some such idea when we talked about the manner in which anyone could operate the machinery of the state above, such that being a genius was not the issue in terms of getting on in life, what mattered was attitude, and if you had the wrong attitude, that is if you are an atheist, then you are doomed to be an outcast from any significant place in society. And we find this idea latent in Cohens discussion, but this idiot speaks of it as good, and does not deal with the real issues as to why we must be outcasts if we honour the truth. Thus the man tells us nothing, he merely abuses us. He is a false leader, a false teacher, he is a priest, a Gatekeeper. He does not need to know he is a miscreant, he only needs to be a blind man, especially arrogant, leading the blind, a man like Darwin or Dawkins.

I Seduction It is Friday, 08 January 2010, and a book just arrived from America, The Psychic Life of Micro-Organisms by Alfred Binet, 1889. By the look of it, with its discussion of colonial organisms composed of thousands of micro-organisms, I may well of been prompted to order this after reading Bernards Neglected Factors. I took a digital copy from the net but a cheap nineteenth century copy was available, so I bought it. This volume is published by Open Court Publishing and there is an advert at the back which I thought worth reproducing here, the copy I have taken from the net is a second edition of 1910 and does not have the advert.

Here we have a fine example of why we must never allow ourselves to be seduced by society, if we would do science. This is a lovely example of how the religious freaks sought to corrupt science by being as conciliatory as possible to the scientific attitude, and this accords with the attitude coming from the opposite direction, from science/atheism towards protecting religion, treated by Cohen in his chapter entitled What is Religion ? So that we have religious freaks fighting for religion without compromise, we have religious freaks fighting for religion with compromise, while we have atheists fighting for religion through compromise, and we have extremist atheists like Cohen fighting for religion through the most refined expression of religions core philosophy, which relies on the idea of individuals as an end in themselves, their fulfilment being the source of, and purpose of knowledge. We need to keep an absolute distinction between ourselves and the religious freak. In order to do that we must refuse to debate with the organs of religion, in all its forms, both the absolutist religious freak and the most attenuated religious freak, as found in the ultra atheism of Cohen or Dawkins. To help us achieve this act of segregation from the freak mentality and its corrosive effects, we have created atheist science, which makes a total rejection of religion a precondition of sciences existence, and which recognises that as long as any religion exists on earth, anywhere, then science cannot of even begun to exist. We welcome interaction with all who agree with this principle and objective, and shun all interaction with any who are not committed to the pursuit of religions total eradication, by any legal means possible, and to this end, seek the legal means to eradicate religion from society. This is a war, make no mistake, the freak never does. We live in an absolute theocracy, where everyone all around us are our enemies, our closest loved ones, our partners, our parents, our children, all are the enemies of truth and reason, they cannot help themselves. We have therefore to treat all people as our enemies, but obviously when it comes to our close ones, this does not really apply, we accept them as they are, they accept us, we all learn to get on with our family in respect to such differences. But this tolerance cannot be extended to strangers. We might be deceived into thinking we must allow others to comment on our ideas, but the whole gist of a work like How Religion Survived is telling us that this principle of tolerance is the thin end of the wedge that allows the miscreants to rule the world, to corrupt all knowledge to their perverted freak ideas, and thus to create the problem that atheist science is all about solving. To help us be clear about what we are talking about we must think in terms of warfare between religion and science, and we must think of all who are not in accord with the principles of atheist science as we have just stated them, as criminals, outsiders, people who ideally would not exist, and people whom we must treat as outsiders if we are to have freedom of thought and science. Saturday, 14 July 2012 I am enjoying myself here, in the foregoing, perhaps too much. An hour or so ago I was standing in the garden mulling over the way religion created knowledge because it was forced to, in order to create religion, and this is why we have the real knowledge that we do. The point being, that if you want to raise the spectre of certain mythical ideas you will inevitably stimulate challenges, and so you must first push the limits of the known and take control of factual knowledge in order to understand where you may reach into the unknown, for mythical ideas upon which to base social power. This process of knowledge control is what the nineteenth century search for science was all about, in that most tricky department for religion concerning the nature of life, thus bringing forth Darwinism, discovering where and how religion could extend science into a mythical form that was safe, Darwinism being the answer. Religious apologists have often made a similar observation by way of rebuking those who assert religion is the enemy of science, saying that Christianity has often been an aid to scientific development. What these arguments are I do not know, I have no book on this topic, and I do not care too much, it will all be distortions. But, viewed dispassionately, linguistic force creates knowledge of all forms to serve the

superorganism, and it makes perfect sense that modern science only exists because elaborate text based religion exists. We need to keep such things in mind when indulging our hatred of religion. ___ It use to be that the Freaks who rule us burned atheists at the stake, along with their books. They can no longer do this so instead they have taken over both science and atheism, sterilising science by imposing lunatic ideas such as those of Darwin, which tell us nothing while allowing religion to remain immune to scientific explanation. In our Freak society laws are passed as they might be in a society where the absence of religion was normal, and where once laws have defined criminal behaviour we do not tolerate debate about the issue. Criminals are not invited to the party, if this were not the case, criminals would pervert the argument to their own end, so it is necessary to exclude those who have a bias reason to pervert the law we live by. The same applies to the pursuit of science, and this is why scientists must be atheists. We could ask for no more proof than the world in which we live, ruled by religion as it is, and bereft of science, as it is. It seems that science is all around, but this is an illusion stemming from the principle of subversion, allowing a covert theocracy to rule us. Every programme we see on TV, whether it be the Christmas lectures from 2009, or some old documentary with the ubiquitous David Attenborough narrating the story of life, Darwinism is imbued into the message, and Darwinism is religion, not science. Once we know this we see that religion is everywhere and science nowhere. As we say, we have only one way to combat this terrible evil, and that is to shut ourselves off from the world and to live in a parallel social flux of our own.

II Internet control Saturday, 09 January 2010, I just ran a search for open court on the Internet Archive and got just under 1,500 hits ! This is an impractical number to deal with, I have skipped the volumes of items advertised in the above image and I have just grabbed a few titles from what follows, there are some lovely sounding titles too, such as The Revolt from Dualism and The Evolution of General Ideas. Given the condemnation we have just made of this publishing house on the basis of its professed aim of making science subservient to religion, as revealed in the above advert, what are we to make of the exceptional effort that has gone into providing this fulsome collection of its output in the most up-to-date media ? The internet that is. The control of knowledge has always been at the heart of Judaism, and there is no reason to think this devious and nasty attribute is going to relax with the coming of the greatest information resource of all time, quite the opposite. It is a tough call to make however, to discern a bias from the output of Googles influence, and that of others providing material for the Archive, but evidence like that which we are considering now, is suggestive, especially given that many of the rare organicist works that I have, or would like to have, are not appearing in the Archive. Of course there does not have to be any open conspiracy involved in a selection process such as we remark on here, it can be due entirely to unwitting bias, which runs through the whole system of our slave society, enslaved to the absolute theocracy of Judaism as it is, and lets face it, How many people know we are the slaves of Judaism ?

I got as far as page sixteen, taking items all the way, and the search engine stopped working, Ill try again some time. (Never did, 14/07/2012.) Running through the documents I have taken, the first I come upon that looks interesting is by Paul Carus, the main figure in the Open Court organisation. The Religion of Science, 1893, sounded like it was going to be a description of how people deluded themselves about the power of science, thus reducing science to another form of religion. There have been books written along these lines, I think I may have one from the same period, but in fact this is a book which expounds the nonsense advertised in the image copied above. He says We must learn to know that Science is but another name for Revelation. (Preface, p. 4) And he wants, as the ad above indicates, to introduce the warmth of religious enthusiasm into science, and the uncompromising rigour of scientific reasoning into religion. What we have here is exactly the same mental twist as we see in atheist works where the opening, unspoken assumption, is that religion is a way of knowing about reality, that is intuitive, and as such inferior to the new, modern, scientific method, and for this reason, and this reason alone, religion must be changed. But this is not the case, as we say in atheist science, religion is real, is what it is, and religion has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a desire for knowledge about anything. Below I have just started discussing The Six Ways of Atheism, and talking about the question of new ideas, concluding that there are not, and cannot ever be, new ideas. The problem is finding the earlier expressions of what appear to be new ideas. As far as my insights are concerned there are a couple of blindingly obvious new ideas, that derive from the insight that humans are a superorganic species of mammal, that I would of expected the organicist period to of thrown up before the Great Cleansing of 1914 18, one, that the Jews are the master race, and two, that religion is real, leading to the general scientific principle that what exists is real, even when it concerns human beings, and must be taken as being valid, as opposed to being treated as if it should not exist. The point being that the logic displayed in the ideas of Carus, and all intellectuals I have ever seen, is that what we find in the case of humans might be some kind of perversion of what it should be, i.e. certain things are unnatural ! This is of course a fundamentally religious idea, that men may be evil, and that there is a natural order that is good or right. We have discussed this perennial problem elsewhere, which always leads me to talk about the French Jewish miscreant sociologist, Durkheim, who is acclaimed as a great intellectual, and the first functionalist. I have never read any of his work, though I have a couple of his books, but I doubt that he develops as part of his Rules of Sociological Method, 1895, the general principle that all aspects of human existence are natural, I suppose I could have a look. But what for ?

III What religion is So, according to the principle that all is as it should be, so that everything is what it is, it follows that religion is what it is. Religion is not what it is said to be, by anyone, it is, what it is. If religion is not what it is said to be, by anyone, then how can we know what it is ? Our scientific method tells us to treat things as aspects of physical reality, so we apply this principle to religion. According to this principle, religion is whatever physical examination shows religion to be. We saw above that Cohen believed that religion is the belief in the

supernatural. He said this because the evidence of observation indicated that this belief characterised all religious belief that had ever been encountered or known, and it was this single element of religious belief that religion could not exist without. The Positivist religion of Comte was largely condemned because it failed to provide some essential ingredient of religion, and it may well be that this belief in the supernatural was absent, since the whole idea of Positivism as a religion, was that it amounted to an organisation whose worship was inspired by science. However, taking a far more scientific approach to the issue of what science is, we have determined, as stated elsewhere, in How Religion Survived (if I remember rightly), that religion is identity, pure and simple. We have asserted this because we have determined that the human animal is a superorganism and religion is the medium of superorganic being that brings about the existence of the superorganism, by giving an identity to the individuals that incorporates them into the superorganic fabric created by linguistic force. So that the associated factors of identity, which are called culture, constitute the linguistic programme directing individuals how to act in order to take part in the physiological being of the superorganism. Thus we make human biological nature our key to understanding every aspect of human existence, according to a strictly naturalistic model. We call that nature corporate, based on the idea that individual physiology evolved to bring a living organism into being at the level of social organization, in the shape of a superorganism, where individuals are then viewed as the sentient bricks of superorganic architecture. Clearly our approach totally negates the existence of the individual person, in complete contradiction to the approach we see imbued into Carus drivel about religion as knowledge of reality, whereby science is but a more refined mode of religious thinking ! Bloody degenerate, lunatic. This is the kind of sick minded psychopath we see Onfray cursing below, as he endeavours to guard against anyone seeing through the work of these overtly malicious people, by pretending to offer some real kind of criticism. Which of course the man does nothing of the sort, if he did then his work would not be published in French in the first place, let alone translated into English ! What we need to remember when we read this kind of work by a man like Carus who would harmonise religion and science, is that if science exists, then religion must be dead. Arguing this point was the first post I placed on Scribd. Clearly science examines things as if they are natural, and in so doing it must remove any hidden codes from human values, otherwise it is not science, because science reveals the real. Religion cannot reveal the real, if it did then it would be science, and there is nothing remotely similar between religion and science. Any attempt at harmonisation of this kind, is simply an attempt to preserve the power of religion, where an accommodation suits religion because religion owns society, and possession is all that matters in terms of the function of religion as a medium of identity creating superorganic physiology. So as long as science can be accommodated to religion, that is fine, it means that in terms of the ownership of society, nothing changes. But it also means the sterilisation of science, as we see with the imposition of Darwinism upon science by the theocracy. Now I have opened Science and Faith by Paul Topinard, 1899. This is fascinating, it offers a scientific model justifying the dualistic science of today on the basis that man as a primitive being was living in an animal state where the individual was absolute, that is an end in themselves, driven by an ego, this matter being the subject of anthropology. Now man has become social, the subject of sociology, but, all the problems of society are due to the fact that man was a lone wolf, who became social. We see this theme churned out by intellectuals all the time these days, they love to say we evolved to be hunters and now the closest we get

to hunting is trying to bag a bargain in the January sales, and other similar flippant, shallow notions of our primitive self surfacing still. So they want to know how this lone wolf was turned into a sheep ! I swear, these people are out and out nutters, it makes you sick to read their degenerate trash. But it is good to find this evidence of white lie making, because it shows what the Open Court was all about. This was a major effort on the part of academia to wrestle with the problem of science, to try and find some way to destroy science totally, just leaving a ghost image behind to serve as a blind, behind which it would be business as usual for our Jewish overlords. It turns out from a search of my book catalogue that I already have a copy of Topinards book, I thought the author sounded familiar, and the title is just the kind of thing to of attracted my attention.

IV Human nature identified, almost Prompted by my statement above that books describing science as a religion have been written, I took The Creed of Science by William Graham, 1881, from the shelf to see if this was in that category. It does basically run religion and science together into one continuum of enlightenment, and is an unusual and interesting book. I would like to take us to chapter two :
ON MAN AND HIS DEVELOPMENT.

1. We now approach the central and most important question of allWhat is man himself ?a question in appearance sufficiently simple, and one, moreover, discussed from the dawn of speculation, but which, nevertheless, science holds to have been only rightly conceived and approached, and only truly answered in all its fulness and significance, for the first time in our day and generation. The inquiry concerning the nature of man is evidently of fundamental importance, as all moralists, from the revival of independent moral speculation under Hobbes, two centuries ago, up to our own days, have fully perceived. On the answer to the question. What is man ? clearly depends the answer to the three great questions of Kant, What can we know ? What should we do ? What may we hope ? Nay, even the further question. What can we do ? the great question of moral freedom, the ancient and still agitated question whether our actions are the product of a secret material mechanism which ultimately sways our wills, or whether and how far man is the master of destiny and the ruler of circumstance, is evidently involved in the fundamental and all-comprehending one, What is man himself ? (Graham, p. 55) This is the greatest affirmation of the core principle of atheist science I have ever seen, it makes the nature of humans, central to all questions, a nature whose existence is denied by modern scientific contrivance. And he does seem to have a natural nature, that is a biological nature, in mind, as opposed to a political, or morally defined nature ; though whether what he says reflects this good start we shall see. It is especially delightful to see this last remark concerning the question of whether some secret material mechanism operates us a robotic units, and to think that he regards this question as ancient and eternal. I cannot think of anyone ever raising this question before, anywhere. The answer is of course

not that any material mechanism operates our machinery of life, but that the information factor of linguistic force does so, as it does for all life, since the nature of life is information. So the answer to this question is a categorical yes, a subliminal force does control every last detail of every last element of every human action, ever to occur. The observation that a new dispensation of knowledge was deemed to have arrived at that very moment of time during which he lived, after millennia of advanced social life where the question of human nature had been at the forefront of efforts to understand existence, is highly significant. Most especially because this coming of a new age of knowledge, scientific knowledge, is precisely when we find its epitome imposed upon the world in relation to the question of human nature, though not directly so, since Darwinism was a covert act of treachery against knowledge, ensuring that this new age was but a continuance of the old, in a new guise. This vision of a new dispensation of knowledge is what made a new mythology befitting the character of this age necessary, and at the same time, once that new myth of evolution had been conjured up, the establishment of this new age of knowledge finally answering all hitherto intractable questions bar one, the Human Question, became the pedestal upon which this myth could be placed out of reach of any ordinary mortal. Here we have the basis of the great man theory that Graham eventually relies upon to undermine science, making the divines relevance known in the work of the new breed of priests, created for the new age of science. Graham is a delight to come across, but, even though he gets even better, he is still, in the end, an inevitable disappointment : Finally, man is the pre-eminently social animal, more essentially so than the bee, the ant, or any other ; and to this fact of his nature, more than even to the special excellences of his hand and head, is to be attributed his great and successful career, and his completely outstripping all competing species in the struggle for existence. For without the social union, his other advantages would have been of little service ; without it, indeed, they would have been but little developed ; but by the social union, which makes division of labour possible, inventions and improvements are made, science and art become possible, and language, itself a necessary pre-requisite of society, becomes further perfected from the exigency of further social needs. Man is a social animal, partly because his immediate animal progenitors were such in some low degree, but more because he speedily learned by painful experience the absolute necessity of union, for life itself on the one hand, and on the other, the great and ever-increasing advantages resulting from the union itself. Moreover, he found his pleasure as well as his profit in social life, being naturally of a sociable disposition, in spite of Hobbess saying to the contrary. From being a social animal, man at length advanced till he became a moral being ; that is, a being that not only seeks, as every individual created thing must seek, the conservation of its own existence, but which also, in order that others may be free to do the same and in order that society with its great advantages may be possible for all, manifests a regard for the rights of others as well as his own, and recognizes the necessity of obeying rules framed in the interest of all,rules which limit the naturally excessive egotism of each to the fair amount which is compatible with that of all the rest. And man became a moral being all the sooner and more easily because he found within himself the germs of sympathy, as well as the undoubted fact of sociability attracting him to the company of his fellows ; which two factors of sympathy and sociability at length between them begat the moral fact now known as benevolence,something resembling a genuine regard for all the members of the tribe, and a consequent heartier disposition, not only to work more zealously with them for the common good and against the common dangers, but even to voluntarily restrict individual selfishness, and sometimes to surrender cheerfully some of his own share

of satisfactions to the requirements of others ; in which last case we have the beginnings of the self-sacrificing virtues. Such man was in the past ; in such ways and by such means he has been developed ; and such as he was he still essentially is, according to the scientific account of him. He is both less and greater than his theological portrait had represented him : not so happy, but much happier. Not so happy, because, though the race is to have an immortality and a great to-morrow, the individual will have none ; there being no exceptional felicity reserved for him hereafter, any more than for the lower animals from whom he has been raised. Much happier, because there is a prosperous and progressive career marked out for the individual as for the species here on the earth ; because his homely nurse, the earth, has filled her lap with pleasures of her own to give him ; because he may know assuredly that his nature has not degraded from a higher, but developed from a far lower level. He is not essentially vile and fallen, but neither is he on the other hand, Science assures himlest he should boasta being capable of any continued lofty heroism or transcendent excellence, or on the whole capable of more than very moderate and average virtues. Speaking generally, man is a being with an inherited leaning to both good and evil, to neither excessively, though, from pressure of circumstance, somewhat more given to the latter ; not much, however, and the degree may be exaggerated, because there is of necessity much more attention called to his vices, which must be frequently punished, than to his virtues, which mostly pass without notice or external reward. However this be, there is to be set against the existing evil the scientific promise of its future diminution, the assurance of a slow tendency to improvement. There is a slow, though admittedly a very slow, change in the relative proportions of the tendencies that make respectively for virtue and vice, and this alteration of the existing ratio is in favour of virtue, in the direction of the good. A reduction of evil, both physical and moral, is discoverable through the course of history, and a similar and still great reduction (as before remarked) is promised in the future, when man shall have more completely harmonized his nature with his physical and social environment. Thus, then, our species has not fallen from a perfect or paradisaical state ; on the contrary, it has raised itself by its own efforts, by the favour of Nature, by the fact of natural selection, from a state low and terrible and precarious to its present comparatively enviable position. Man commenced his career with no very exceptional advantages ; indeed, like our present self-made manhis nearest type and true representativehe commenced upon almost nothing ; and the accumulated intellectual, emotional, and moral capital now possessed by the species is mainly an inherited bequest, the result of the patience, the persistent labour and energy, the unwearied ant-like industry of a thousand generationsa result which natural selection has aided to produce, and which inheritance has handed on. Far from having fallen or retrograded, man has advanced very far indeed ; his nature has been widened and deepened on all sides, and a yet further and more glorious development of his nature will take place. What he has done is but a promise of what he will do. What he is, is but as the statue in the rough compared to the finished man of the far future. But human nature, though widened and deepened with the process of the suns, is not in any sense of the word infinite, as certain metaphysicians would have us believe. Mans mental, like his bodily constitution, is on all sides bounded and limited. Thought, emotion, volition, are all finite and conditioned ; are subject to laws of regular and ascertained sequence ; fall into the universal chain of cause and effect, as psychology and physiology teach. What, indeed, may be the ultimate or First Cause of the mental as of other phenomena. Science is unable to saya First Cause, even if comprehensible, not being within the scope of her inquiries, and her only notion of causation being constantly recurring sequencebut so far as Science traces or follows the phenomena, so far as they are accessible to her most

improved methods of search, they are in the last resort caused by states of the bodily organism, in particular by molecular changes in the brain and nervous system. These are the invariable antecedents, the cause or conditions of consciousness in Humes and Mills sense of the word cause. Without these no thought or consciousness is possible ; with these they begin, and with these end. Here is the final fact, beyond which Science cannot go, finding no firm foothold for the further speculations in which the metaphysicians are wont to indulge. Further inquiry or attempted explanation she prefers to leave to men of this class, who, however, she observes succeed but badly in their attempts to emancipate mind from its constant connection, from birth to death, with phenomenal matter, which connection she notes as the ultimate fact in this department of knowledge. 3. Such are the universal and essential characteristics of our common human nature, as they manifest themselves to modem scientific inquiry. But now we must further observe, by way of supplement, or comment, that while human nature has its universal and necessary elements which appear in every individual, thereby producing that general sameness which makes it a fit subject for science, there are also the greatest possible differences amongst the human atoms, according as a greater or less degree or a different combination of the common elements enter into the mental and moral composition of each individual. Humanity is no homogeneous mass. The individuals composing it differ in intellectual, moral, and social qualities, in religious and aesthetic emotions, even more than they do in physical form and features. There is no identity of nature and no general equality amongst men, even confining the attention to the same society, or nation, or class. While the majority are average men, viewing human nature in its totality and from the point of view of science and of psychology, very many fall below, a considerable number rise above this general level line of humanity, and a select few rise to such exceptional and commanding heights that their fellow-men regard them as beings of a different nature from themselves, and history reserves for them the title of great. Into a few the common elements of our nature have entered in such pre-eminent degree and large amount, and they have thence been enabled to produce results so great and extraordinary for the rest of menresults so impossible of achievement or even of conception by the others, that they, with a sort of noble superstition, in former times credited these superior spirits with a divine nature, and reverenced their memory as of gods ; and even still, with a lingering trace of this old heroworship, with a survival of the old ennobling reverence, great men are called men of genius a unique, indefinable thing, which marks off its possessor from the rest of mankind as of a different and higher nature. These spirits, specially touched to finer issues, seem even yet compact of finer clay and tempered with more ethereal fire than has gone to the composition of the generality ; and if we remember the services which these select ones have rendered to humanity, in widening its range, in lifting it higher, in multiplying its power, in giving to it new and permanent realms of truth and beauty, in giving to it in their lives examples of its glorious possibilities of effort or achievement in virtue, we shall, in spite of the levelling doctrine of science and evolution, be inclined to deal tenderly with the still lingering and generous superstition that credits great men with being something peculiarly divine. In a sense so they still are, so they were, and so they must ever be. In reality, great men are but the highest summits of that humanity which we all share ; nevertheless, they have shown us what heights there are in humanity, from whence a grander horizon opens. They have shown us how we may climb nearer to those heights. In a certain sense they have been the true creators. They have increased and deepened human nature. They have shown us the truth and beauty we could not have seen save through their eyes. They have created the truth and beauty. They have given us the power we could not have had without their help ; and if they have not created this power, they have given us the control over it. Great men have been the means of developing mankind far more directly and

essentially than natural selection, assisted by heredity and adaptation, as even Darwin admits. It was by means of the superior and original minds that the adaptation of the rest to their environment was brought about. The evolution of human societies and civilizations, the evolution of the arts, institutions, religions, philosophies, literatures, laws, has been accomplished by a series of loftier minds, the individuals of which took up successively and improved upon the thoughts and ideas of their predecessors, beginning with the first creative mind ; and without such minds no fresh initiative or improvement, no originality or advance, no new creation or fresh suggestion appears. There is substantial truth in the view of a great writer that the history of what man has accomplished in this world is at bottom the history of the great men who have worked there. Herbert Spencer, it is true, lightly esteems the theory, and asks in replyWhence comes the great man ? What makes him possible ? The great man, he tells us, must be made by his society before he can unmake or improve it. And this view is also, to a certain extent, true ; but not in the most important or essential sense. For society makes only so much of the great man as goes to the composition of the average man, leaving an overplus which is not to be put to the credit of society or previous human acquisition, but which is a gift from Naturefrom the Unknown. It makes all of the great man except his special genius, which is afterwards to improve society ; all of Shakespeare except his extraordinary imagination and insight, by which he has for ever enriched the world. Even if we revert to the earliest stages of development, we can see that before natural selection got anything worth selecting in the most primitive societies, the creative spirit, the superior man, had first to appear. Before primitive man could make any decided step in advance, or could separate himself conspicuously from his lower animal relations, some inventive individual had to conceive and construct the first rude flint weapon, which gave men so great advantage in the combat with wild beasts or with their fellows ; some prehistoric Prometheus first stole the secret of fire from Nature, and showed to the others its uses ; some one discovered the fruitful corn amongst the common grasses, and taught the rest to plant it ; to some one the idea first occurred that the skin of a slain beast, if deftly transferred and arranged, would warm himself as it did its original owner. Again, and later, some one invented spoken speech, some one before Cadmus invented the use of letters, some one before Tubalcain taught how to temper and shape the metals. But in all these and many other cases, the first seeds of fruitful thought or invention appeared in one mind ; the subsequent important improvements have likewise come from one. And this has been true of the history of the arts of war as of peace ; from the inventor of the bow, the spear, and the plough, to the inventor of the printing press and the steam-engine. If we come to the historical stages of the course of evolution, we shall see the truth of this exemplified in still more important matters. We still see that all discovery, advance, and improvement depend on great men, and find their limits and arrest with the nonappearance of these. Civilizations became what they were by a series of great men ; without these, they either would not have been at all, or their courses would have been wholly different. But in the absence of the particular great men, would not others have taken their placesother Columbuses, other Newtons ? Possibly, in some cases ; in others not ; but even had others appeared in all, then these would have been the initiating spirits. So that the course of history and evolution would still have moved under the initiative and guidance of individuals. 4. Our civilization and culture is what great men, as distinct from natural selection, have made it ; what inventors and discoverers, what philosophers, founders of religions and lawgivers, what artists and poets, what even statesmen and conquerors, have made it ; much more than what evolution, unaided by these, though with the full benefit of natural selection, heredity, and adaptation, has made it. (Ibid., pp. 59 68.)

This is a fair chunk we have taken, but the general theme is as good as it gets, and there are a number of delightful inclusions in the whole passage, such as the references to social insects by way of comparison with humans, and the reference to humans as atoms of social form. The focus on human nature as social is perfect, only there is no follow up to this critical insight, as we descend into a rigmarole based upon the individual as the supreme entity, so that Graham escapes a close shave with perfect truth by using the idea of the exceptional individual to save the principle of the individual as the true end of existence. Which is infuriating, especially considering that at one point he veers towards the idea that the individual does not exist as an end in themselves. But after delivering this swift impression, perhaps we should actually read what we have taken and see if there is anything more telling to be found herein. We begin then with a delightful statement as to the primacy of human social nature, to which all the other qualities, notably those of dexterity and intelligence, are subservient. But the logic utilising this insight is worthless, as he uses an individual based logic to make sense of what follows from this first idea. Instead of thinking that humans are social because they have certain physiological traits derived from evolution, just as birds fly because they have wings. Thus having made human nature pre-eminently social, he proceeds to make the product of this biological nature one of applied intelligence, such that humans can be deemed self-made. It is as we always find it, very disappointing. So we find that because he is social, man learns that obeying rules is practical, so that humanity progresses and becomes an increasingly refined ethical being. Instead of seeing the rules as a manifestation of social nature, which would explain why our refined ethical behaviour is always so vile, evil and disgusting, as per Muslim suicide bombers in our own day ; something he evidently manages not to see, though we must wonder how that is possible. Rules are about coercion towards mass conformity, not the rational application of individual reason. We only obey rules because we must, and the ethical side of this equation only shows how robotic we can be in this respect, a proclivity built into us by way of our linguistic physiology that makes us programmable by a core authority, namely the linguistic identity programme produced by linguistic force and preserved within the social fabric created by the influence of this authority, which in summation renders us social. The next paragraph dealing with the mundane versus divine nature of humans, is teasing out an idea of the individual being comparatively subservient to the social entity, and so we begin to see the makings of a realisation that in reality the individual does not exist. The idea of a diminution of evil is pure bias. What this really refers to is the ever increasing induction of everyone under the rule of one common identity, that of Judaism, which, as a Christian slave of Judaism, and in keeping with the culture he is part of, Graham confuses with increasing cultural refinement, this is his slave programming speaking. I would hardly call two world wars, Nazis gas chambers, and a largely Jewish created atomic bomb used over Japan, twice, a reduction of evil ! Even compared to the earlier travesties of Christian powers, such as the Inquisition, African slavery, or the ethnic cleansing of continental peoples on a near global scale. A confusion of terms gives us a mixed picture, we have self-made and ant-like working towards a better future through an inherited accumulation aided by nature, natural selection, and goodwill and intelligence, so that he pretty well has the lot here. Once again then, the idea of a human nature falls out of the picture as the individual takes over the job of nature. And of course he chose to assert that the self-made man was the specimen type of the species, expressly affirming that the human animal is the individual, the idea of the social organism does not enter the picture, yet it was a prevalent idea at this time and he must of been fully aware of it, and hence he chose to reject it despite this idea being the obvious one to use in the light of the idea that humans are by nature social.

And so we come to this great man rigmarole. There is a query here, that is bound to be puzzling without any helpful scientific insights allowing us to delve deeper into the relevant processes of knowledge formation. It is true that there are people of immense genius, and even a distinct range of intelligent people more gifted than most. But it is also true, that on the whole, even the ordinary person is very intelligent, they may not have creative genius, but once shown what the genius knows, they can match it, which is what you would expect of an animal evolved to be a robot. A couple of days ago I was bombing up the M62 motorway, thick with traffic hurtling along at high speed, and it caused me to wonder at the ability of all of us to be in charge of our own vehicles under such testing circumstances. I did not get where I was going, it would seem there was not quite the full amount of control needed, the damned road was blocked solid due to an accident and I got fed up and turned back towards home. Why are we not all made the same in intellectual ability ? You could as well ask why we are not all beautiful, strong, heterosexual, and so on. The superorganism needs a range of sentient bricks, if we were all geniuses we would probably make poor slave robots, being too independent of mind. When Graham gets to the detail of genius at an anonymous level, concerning the knack of flint knapping or fire making, he helps us introduce our explanation for genius as a facet of superorganic physiology related to the efficient operation of linguistic force. So that everything that he attributes to exceptional individuals, is really all about the ever increasing accumulation of linguistic force in social form, especially that of culture and knowledge, the intensity of which, over time, becomes so great that the gifted ones coming under this intensified influence reach heights that do indeed astound, even themselves, causing them to speak of standing upon the shoulders of giants who preceded them, but it is still just the same old linguistic force beaming away, laying down social form, year in, year out. The superorganism is an accumulator of linguistic force, appearing in the shape of knowledge and structure, which is reflected in the power of modern societies. It does seem amazing that he thought that speech was invented in the same way as some specific craft. This is very odd, and it is an important consideration when it comes to understanding the failure of people during the age of the social organism, to take full advantage of the significance of this true idea of human nature. Even today people fail to understand that language is not something people do, but something that people have done to them. We are the objects of a linguistic force, not the users of the free gift of a linguistic faculty. Graham comes to a critical point when he recognises that the appearance of vital genius has nothing to do with the specific individual, that geniuses are always going to be there, they are in other words a facet of human nature. Thus the individual is irrelevant, except that he chooses to ignore this inevitable logic, and simply says the exact opposite ! Incredible, so the irrelevance of the individual, he says, means that it is the individual who is necessary in matters of genius ! Because there always will be some identifiable genius. Too much. This shows how the individual could not be let go. And his last comment under section four, is really alluding to the power brokers that make society develop along specific lines due to the influence of linguistic force in the realms of identity, as in specific linguistic identity programmes like Judaism. This is not greatness at all, this is hierarchy and structure, the product of linguistic force imbued into sentient bricks. Monday, 16 July 2012 A copy of Sociological Papers 1906, volume three, arrived form America today, and in it is a lengthy piece on Individuology, the idea that sociology should be based on the individual. It also has a chapter on the relation between biology and sociology, but where the former is all about the individual, the later most definitely will not be about the social organism as a true scientific reality.

Chapter 13

Over-Folding the Lie : Atheisms Self-Treachery

Aside from Binets piece two other books made it through the snow yesterday, two fruits of my search for works on atheism that I talked about a couple weeks ago, above. I have just taken a peak at them to see if I can gauge their character from a quick glance. Reading through the first part of the very lengthy contents pages of Onfrays In Defence of Atheism, translated from the French and first published in 2005, I thought we had a real gem on our hands in this piece. Trying to get into the spirit of the work through the preface was not on, it was drivel, it seemed to be a religious text ; that is French sentimentality for you I suppose. Reaching into the first pages of the offering soon sorted the matter out. Here is a little taste that I found scrumptious : Human credulity is beyond imagining. Mans refusal to see the obvious, his longing for a better deal even if it is based on pure fiction, his determination to remain blind have no limits. Far better to swallow fables, fictions, myths, or fairy tales than to see reality in all its naked cruelty, forcing him to accept the obvious tragedy of existence. Homo sapiens wards off death by abolishing it. To avoid solving the problem, he wishes it away. Only mortals have to worry about deaths inevitability. The nave and foolish believer knows that he is immortal, that he will survive the carnage of Judgment Day. (Onfray, p. 2) The words were nice to chew on, so to speak, but by now you do not need me to point out the problems, you could have a go at scribbling some thoughts on what is wrong here, and then come back and see what I have said if you like. Get it right and you can award yourself an A+, A for atheist, get it wrong and you may as well piss-off to church. Thats correct, its drift is based on the logic of personal existence, as ever, where the individual is taken at face value, as an end in themselves. This whining text mirrors Dawkins refrain exactly, all moaning, no explaining. The repercussions of this pathetic outlook take on a more monstrous form in the sections either side of this short paragraph. Onfray is at great pains to excuse the pathetic individual, he is all about attacking the sick degenerate that causes the helpless freak to be a dupe, made stupid by the priest, so that the priest can exploit his victim. So really, all we have here is the same old same old. This New Atheism we discovered the other week, is anything but new, it is the same old sick religious atheism as ever. Saying which reminds me of one of the headings in the contents pages that I thought looked rather nice, namely Christian Atheism. I usually call Humanism Christian atheism, so I wonder what this Frog has to say on the matter ; I cant be arsed looking after what I have just seen, we know it will be shit. I realize that I knew no better than these tossers like Onfray and Dawkins, before I knew better. I too wondered why people were congenital boneheads, I too cursed the priests. But I did not write books pretending to know what the reality was, before I knew what the reality was and I had something definite, positive, and different to say !! By acting

in such an arrogant shithead manner, people like Onfray make atheism into just another religion, where, as with Christianity, an endless production line of moaning drivel is churned out, expounding upon the preciously held opinion of the atheist. This is just what the theocracy wants, and yet here, on the opening page of this miscreants book, we find this bragging self assessment : I experience the feeling that always arises deep within me when I am confronted with the symptoms of indoctrination and deception : compassion for the sufferer, coupled with burning anger toward those who perpetrate the deception. No hatred for the man on his knees, but a fierce resolve never to collude with those who urge him to adopt this humiliating posture and keep him there. (Onfray, p. 1) Ueerrh! Fucked it already cocker, on page two. You just have colluded with those you denounce, and in the most depraved and degenerate manner possible, as a Gatekeeper. Stymieing true atheism, you set yourself up as a know-it-all about something, about which you evidently know nothing ! He who speaks before he knows, fills the void where silence should be, waiting in anticipation of the correct answer. Filling this void is the role of the Gatekeeper in an absolute theocracy that has adopted a cloaked, covert form. There is, as ever, no need to imagine a conspiracy here, just unwittingness. It is the power and effectiveness of the Jewish master race in farming us so efficiently, that causes people like this man to be so blind to their own stupidity, even as they denounce the stupidity of others. This is the over folded white lie. Special facilities are put on by the state to train people to be such unwitting dupes. Universities invite people to study in their hallowed corridors, and if their victims seem particularly pliable and able to absorb what they are taught, learning mindlessly, without asking any meaningful questions, living by the old adage, Never look a gift horse in the mouth., then the candidate is promoted to professor, and publishing houses are at their beck and call. This is what we find demonstrated by this sea of atheist trash washing-up on our internet search platforms at the moment. This is interesting to those who know how to read the meaning of these things, but it is, as Onfray says, deeply saddening to see such people consumed with stupidity, and intent upon puffing out their chests and crowing about themselves, as they invite others to join them in their total humiliation, and degeneracy. We have used the phrase over folded before, it is drawn from the manner in which the human brain cortex is overflowed in order to increase the surface area of the most human information handling area of the brain. The White Lie is the information flux generated by linguistic force and preserved in the structure of the superorganism. This structure takes on a complex form and where we see this deep seated duplicity within the structures of knowledge control, such that religious authority is underpinned by a vicious assault on religious authority, we clearly have something akin to a layering of information managing structure, an over folding of the information managing anatomy of the superorganism.

I Atheism is not a belief, nor any kind of faith or religion We cursed the BBCs Sunday morning religious propaganda show in The Colonial Ape, after they broadcast a piece asking if atheism was an intolerant religious creed. Work such as that by Onfray justifies this unjustifiable question, and as such shows us how the

priests work society, taking up all possible positions and passing the parcel of obscene logic between themselves, always appearing to be open and accessible to all, while in fact being nothing of the sort. These people are so degenerate, like the soulless conman who knows all the angles when he dupes some poor defenceless old git, so that we find Onfray trying to disarm us by forcefully asserting his credentials, telling us how much he hates the conmanpriest, before going into the softer part of his vile argument, in pretence of being an atheist thinker of whom we should take notice. Like all professional conmen, the intellectual conartist studies the true image of the social mask he wants to wear, and in this case, discerns the telling drift of the argument presented by all real atheists. Then he mimics these core elements of the true atheist message, but delivers it within an intellectual paste that carries all the vitriol of atheism, but is informed by the logic of religion. As such the public voice of atheism appointed by the theocracy serves only to deceive the lay atheist, who has not got the time to spend unravelling these questions for themselves, and can only skim the surface of the works that come their way. As a result the duped masses of disenchanted people, or those most motivated to bother, follow an argument that is going nowhere, as it exists only to keep the game of struggling for the control of knowledge alive and kicking, by exhausting the energy of those who hate religion, but can find no escape, while those who love religion carry on business as usual, running the world, and screwing everyone in the process. Even so, we still do not mean to accuse Onfray or his fellow Gatekeepers of deliberate dishonesty. Humans evolved to be sentient bricks programmed by the superorganic being, and the unwitting, clever dupe, is the single most important type of brick in the building. We might say that the Gatekeeper type is the standard oblong shape, found everywhere, they fit together to form a wall of solid, immovable ignorance, without which the sophisticated architecture of superorganic being could never be constructed. It may seem that according to the sentient brick analogy, the duped masses ought to be likened to the standard brick, but they are not so sophisticated as this, they are more like the amorphous concrete poured out to form foundations or pillars, elements essential to the construction, but not the parts that are generally meant to be seen. We should remind ourselves therefore, that atheism is not a religion of any sort. Atheism is a view of existence commensurate with science, where science is understood to be the means by which we know reality. Atheism is not religion, atheism is science, in that atheism as a view of existence is synonymous with the idea that reality is its own authority, and there is no other possible source of knowledge than reality, as known by means of the scientific method of examining reality directly. Thus religion comes within the ambit of science, and as such religion can only be known truly, by an atheist, who alone can say what religion really is. We, as atheist scientists, have performed the task of stating what religion is, we have said that religion is identity. Identity is all that religion is ; identity is the sum total of what religion is. Religion contributes one thing only to existence, for humans, and that contribution is identity. The eradication of religion would destroy only one thing in human existence, and that one thing is identity. Got that ! Tuesday, 17 July 2012 Stating something does not make it so, and many will deny the validity of this assertion, saying that atheism is not a proven position, and as such denying Gods existence can only be a belief, hence we get convolutions pandering to this nonsense, as words like agnostic are conjured up by the priesthood. But we live in a world ruled by religion, where even science is religion, and we say that as long as religion exists there can be no science, and it is under these circumstances that the position of atheism is made fraught with difficulties. So that our assertion above is as good as we can get under these oppressive conditions. We are in effect stating what real atheism is, while accepting that under the rule of an absolute theocracy such as we endure, the atheism we experience is marked by the flaws of belief because it is only a reflection of such beliefs, and the likes of Onfray help

make this impression of atheism rock solid. What we need is a positive atheism that proves its arguments, and this is what we provide. Interestingly enough, the BBC propaganda slot today, Sunday, 10 January 2010, was discussing immigration when I turned the TV on, the question asked if immigration was destroying British values, and a Christian freak was saying that we should only allow Christian immigrants to come into Britain. As we can see, this line of reasoning reduces all questions to a matter of identity. Of course, the idea that religion is identity, from an atheist perspective, makes no sense whatsoever without the recognition that the human organism is a superorganism, since an atheist, by definition, would have no identity if religion is identity. All atheists I have ever come across are therefore deficient in their reasoning, believing themselves to be individuals, such that atheism is reduced to being all about achieving individual liberation from an all pervasive state of ignorance. This error is the fundamental error of atheism throughout all history, until now, as we have corrected this error by unifying atheism and science, by recognising what the human animal is, and hence what religion is.

II Institutionalized bias neutrality When you think about bias neutrality, think about wet dryness, the phrase is meant to invoke the idea of an impossible state, indicating a deception in other words. This evening there have been two religious propaganda slots of very different kinds on the BBC network. The first was on BBC 3, I think, may of been four, and potentially very interesting but, unsurprisingly, only moderately interesting in fact. This was The Lost Libraries of Timbuktu. Anything about old literature and lost libraries is going to get my juices flowing, but it was no surprise to find the main substance of the texts was the drivel of Islamic prophets ; I had heard about this subject not long ago, mentioned on some other show. This programme is part of an Africa season, unearthing ancient African history, trying to put Africa on an intellectual par with Europe. Before you know it there will be Australian movie makers presenting accounts of ancient aboriginal civilisation ! Its all part of our masters programme of fitting the alien wedge it has been relentlessly driven into the indigenous biomass, into a more perfect accommodation between the two elements of the inevitably fragmented English biomass. This accommodation is essential at some point if we are to become a fully fledged Islamic slave nation, as we most definitely are destined to be. The Timbuktu show was full of eulogies to Islamic scholarship, giving the impression that Islam was something other than an abomination, in terms of modern European culture. I was waiting for the presenter to start introducing us to something other than religious garbage, and there were snippets, there was some interesting material concerning Arabic script used to render other African languages. But although she did say that the texts covered every conceivable subject, she never once mentioned any other subject in terms such as we would find when people discuss ancient Greek or Roman works, or even European medieval literature. So, as with the programme screened the other night, about the African alternatives to Egypt as a dominant ancient civilization, the presentation was at pains to take an interesting history and make it something that it obviously was not. I was fascinated by the suggestion that a lost civilisation lay to the south of Timbuktu, and we spent a few minutes with an American archaeologist who was going to begin some digs. But what they had to show was sparse, and aside from suggesting a date of two millennia ago, there was no substance to what they had to say.

Tuesday, 17 July 2012 On the subject of Timbuktu it seems worth mentioning an item in the news a work or two ago which is rather tragic. Due to a civil war in the region a political vacuum has arisen centred upon this famous city, which has been filled by the inevitable Al Qaeda affiliated Muslim military groups They were shown demolishing centuries old mausoleums said to house the citys saints. A door on a fourteenth century mosque that was said never to open before the final day of existence, had been smashed to bits. A man responsible for this some of this vandalism said he did it to show that they need no other faith than faith in God. This is what we saw in Afghanistan over a decade ago with the dynamiting of Hindu, or some such statues, hundreds of years old. This is of course due to the key Islamic mantra emphasising the Jewish slave ideology against making false gods, taken to an extreme by Islam, which allows no images of living forms, hence the wonderful geometric creations of this culture. It is sad for the people of Timbuktu to have their precious heritage trashed like this, but thats religion for you. Muslims have had the same effect in our society, and they do not even rule it, yet. We have been denied the freedom to view the images of Mohammed that led to publishers in Norway, or was it Sweden ?, or Denmark ?, being murdered, because our new kind of Jewish masters consider them blasphemous. ___ Later, on BBC 1, there was some crap about Sikhism. I cant remember the title, but when I dipped into it I saw rows of bored brats flapping boards in front of their faces with symbols written on them, and the upbeat commentator was explaining how the children are taught to learn the Sikh scriptures by rote. It was a revolting sight, one we are more use to seeing in relation to primitive Islamic indoctrination programmes. That something so primitive and depraved can be shown as if it is something nice, is sickening to see. This is how our masters make us into slaves, and they have the nerve to parade their evil before our faces ! This kind of mindless ignorance is the holy grail of control methods that our masters desire us to succumb to. And lets not be cocky about this, when we look at Muslims and Sikhs, these are deeply primitive people coming from extremely alien lands, but America is on an exact par with these countries in terms of these religious indoctrination methodsand it showsso there is every reason to think that before too long, with a determined effort such as we see going on all the time now, we Europeans will soon be reduced to the same base level of subhuman, insect like ignorance, as these aliens enjoy already, bringing to a complete end a long and noble history that has seen us drag ourselves up from the swamp of religious ignorance, only to be kicked back in at the very moment we are about to stand proud and to know ourselves as free beings, worthy of the name Human.

III Keeping the lie pure Which brings us to The Six Ways of Atheism, by Berg, 2009. I do not think this title could of appealed to me when I ordered it, it sounds too contrived, too clever, smug, in a mystical vein. But it was cheap, and a 2009 publication, so I presumably thought what the heck, lets have a ganders. I love it on the first page of the introduction where this man speaks like me, in an outrageously self-admiring way, Some of the arguments are really as far as I know absolutely and completely original to myself. Juvenile cringe making or what ! He is a graduate of the University of Cambridge, England. we are told, so that while this ought to mean he has some reason for believing his ideas are new, if no one has been able to find

otherwise, we know how corrupt this university is, and how totally committed to the preservation of religion it is, like Oxford, at all cost. Being a graduate of Cambridge is hardly a qualification for being a rebel intent on the destruction of civilization as we know it, which is the minimum requirement for being a true advocate of unbridled atheism. As to the arguments themselves, I havent looked, I cant quite get my brain in the mood. The trouble with this kind of atheism, is that it takes its cues from religion, which is very Cambridge-like, but generally speaking it is just the kind of thing we say we should not do, as it tends to have the opposite effect to that which we atheist scientists exist to promote. As we have just said above, we do not want to converse with religious freaks, that just invites them to presume to discuss science, and then we, and science, is screwed. The reason for showing any interest at all in such a treatise, is that is offers us New Logical Disproofs of the Existence of God, and I am curious to see what they might be, and as I said, it was cheap, and recent. It seems to me that one of the fundamental wisdoms of philosophy is that there is, as the saying goes : nothing new under the sun. I posted a copy of Lilienfelds Defence, 1898, in which he notes there is nothing new in philosophy, in order to put his organicist ideas that are novel to the contemporary world into perspective. The real problem for a thinker with an idea originating with themselves, is discovering the earlier observations of a like kind. This is where professional academics come into their own, or can do. In organicism this is important because the idea that humans are a superorganic species has existed for as long as intellectual thought. The difference is the way the idea presents itself in a modern setting, under the influence of science. What can there be that Berg has discovered that no one has ever thought of before ? It is hard to imagine that such a thing is possible. Science is not the product of new ideas, it is the product of new discoveries concerning material existence. If Berg has something completely new to say, we would expect his novelty to be derived from new discoveries about existence, of a definite and material kind. In my own case, when I discovered that humans were a superorganic species of mammal, the nagging question soon became : Who has thought of this before me ? It took me two years, as I have it in my memory, to find the first clue leading me to the age of the social organism, when all the world knew that humans were a superorganism. So there is a lesson in this experience about the discovery of new ideas. In principle it is highly unlikely that any radically new idea can be discovered unless it has been lost, or deliberately eradicated. No good idea ought ever to be lost in our world, but the deliberate eradication of true knowledge is the basis upon which our society is built, this is what White Lie making is, and this does lead to the notion, as Onfray puts it in his lament over the stupidity of people, that we live in a world full of lunatics, even while we live in a world massively empowered by true knowledge, so that our defining quality seems to be that of a schizophrenic person split into two contradictory halves. ___ Taking a quick glance at Binets Psychic Life of Micro-Organisms last night, I found a most intriguing little work had come into my possession. The way Binet introduces his subject is so much in harmony with Bernards exceptional way of viewing the world, it gives us a sense of the world in which Bernard lived. A world which had to be erased to prevent genuinely scientific works like that which Bernard produced, as in Neglected Factors, from being created, and thereby providing genuine, conclusive ideas about the nature of existence, threatening the end of the Jewish hegemony. In Binets work we find the logic of unity across the universe informing his outlook, the same being present in Bernards work, and reborn in our atheist science. In Binets projection of psychology back to the very origins of life, we find a further empathy with

arguments that appeared in Neglected Factors about the origins of life. Binet says this recognition of psychological activity at the most primitive levels of life denoted a feature of existence that was specific to life, this he identifies as vitalism. This idea seems to be an alternative way of recognising what we recognise when we say that the essence of life is information, and we provided some reasoning upon what information is above, and why information comes into being along with life. Information and psychology are undoubtedly interchangeable concepts, like matter and sensation, one is the thing, the other is the knowing of it. We have long argued that linguistic force creates social structure, and that linguistic force existed long before language, and in Binets work we can see that our linguistic force is merely the latest manifestation of the vitalist force of information, driving the formation of all living form. It is very rare to come across a work that calls itself vitalist, as can be seen even here, Binet has to begin by defending his adherence to this vitalist footing. To me the term vitalism is familiar from long ago as something to be despised, like religion, the product of the fanciful type of mystic who likes to interfere in science. But now we know better, now we know about organicism and the Great Cleansing, and the ensuing perversion of science and its subversion by academia, we are able to appreciate the possible value of these banished works, when we are lucky enough to come across them. In order to fully evaluate the vitalist idea as presented by Binet, I would need to read his introduction properly, and make my usual notes. What he says certainly looks worth the effort, when I get a chance. He says that the detractors against vitalism were mechanists, who argued that all life processes were reducible to physico-chemical dynamics, akin to those found in inanimate matter. It is from this scenario that we can understand how a person like myself would have been accepting of the modern accounts of vitalism, which describe it as a mystical notion contradicted by science. All of this would be well and good, if science were a genuinely independent branch of study, as Russell wrongly assumes it is, according to our argument above. So now we find some validity in vitalism which makes us look again at the materialist mantra, with suspicion, wondering how this most extreme scientific view, that of materialism, has been subverted to serve religion, against science ! On first considerations, we must assume that as scientists proposed a unique feature of life called vitalism, so the covert religious freaks embedded within the scientific institutions, had to subvert this obvious idea in order to prevent a scientific model being devised that would include humans within its remit. It seems that materialism was used as a means of thwarting a true science of life, by disallowing any uniquely living attribute from being recognised by science. This makes sense because the priests want any uniqueness in life to be focused upon humans, which it cannot be if the uniqueness of life is discovered to be a feature of all life. Above we seek to elaborate a model whereby life comes into being from none life via the mechanistic evolution of a molecular physiology, which has the special attribute of accumulating more energy than its preceding structural form. In the process a biochemical code emerges which delivers these hyper-energised forms of complex molecules, which are the intermediaries between none living and living forms. In this manner the genetic code comes into existence, which, to this day, turns none living substance into life. It is difficult to imagine such a process without a practical demonstration, and our ideas are theoretical. But we reach towards these conceptual models on the basis of what we know is the case regarding our own human existence, where we focus upon ideas to do with linguistic force creating superorganic physiology, where linguistic force is derived from the linguistic physiology of our individual form. So that genetics created a physiology able to produce a new mode of information, in the shape of a life engine directing a flow of energy toward a new level of organic structure, towards a social structure that is. With this principle in place, which we

know is correct because we can see it plainly before our eyes, we apply the principles of this evolutionary development in reverse, and find we have no problem translating the process right back to the origins of life from none living matter, from physico-chemical dynamics to vitalism, in fact. So vitalism, which , from Binet we may take to mean the essence of life or the nature of life, is not something new in the universe, produced magically from the ether. Vitalism is a new phenomenon arising from a lower order of complexity obtaining a new, higher degree of complexity, via a natural process of development lying within its own lower level of complexity. This is akin to our long established notion of life engines evolving against an energy gradient, existing in the form of a latent potential energy source. Where we conceive of the coming of a life engine in terms of the ascent of a life form up an energy gradient, where, upon reaching a degree of structural perfection relative to the source of latent potential energy, the newly perfected engine of life is then effectively lying within a universal void, being the only form capable of exploiting a source of energy which its own form has made accessible, such as the energy of mammalian form. So that relatively speaking it is the only life form in existence, meaning that it can then descend the universal energy gradient of the global ecosystem, replacing most of the former life engines, introducing a new age of life, the age of mammals for example. This model matches the logic of Bernards colonial model precisely, except where he is specific about the life forms nature, saying it is colonial, we offer an abstract model. This difference is because Bernard was a practical scientist working in a world in which science was free, whereas, a century on, we are philosophers working within a world where science does not exist. Tuesday, 17 July 2012 Continuing to read Doherty today I found a nice passage discussing the role of vital force in life : There are more than sixty known kinds of atoms having chemical properties which cannot be converted one into another, and therefore might be deemed so many distinct species of chemical souls, or spontaneities, but all belong to one general kind of physical force, having four general modes of motion, convertible one with another namely, photological, thermological, electrological, and barological modes of motion. There are thousands of organic vital units, vegetal, animal, and human, which may be deemed so many organic souls or distinct species of vital units, not convertible one with another by human ingenuity, though all belong to one general kind of vital force, subject to one or more modes of vitalitynamely, physiological vitality in plants, psychological in animals, noological and pneumatological in man. And just as physical force is one in all modes of action and degrees of velocity, so vital force is one in all modes of action and degrees of intensity, localized in different types of organism, as physical force is localized in different types of physical and chemical atoms or substances. Physical force is nevertheless diversified in special modes of action for definite usesnamely, those of light, heat, electricity, magnetism, and gravitation. Vital force is also diversified in special modes and degrees of vitalitynamely, vegetal, zoophytal, animal, and human or divine. These degrees of vitality are all united in the human body. The tissues have a vegetal degree of life only, such as the hair of the head, which may be cut without feeling during the conscious state ; and all the tissues may be mutilated without feeling during the unconscious or the anaesthetic state of the soul in the body. (Organic Philosophy, vol. 4, pp. 283 4.) He is a most peculiar fellow our Mr Doherty, as you can see ! However he is a boon to our cause here, where he makes the point that one force exists in nonliving forms, and one

force exists in living forms, and that in both cases this one force can be expressed in diverse modes. We are not affirming this idea completely, just using it for now. It serves our purpose to think along these lines given that we have mooted the idea of a force of information being synonymous with life, which in humans, and other superorganisms perhaps, is expressed as a linguistic force, because it communicates between otherwise discrete individual organic units. Doherty gives us a means by which we may add to this model of a unified force differentiating as it engenders an ever increasing complexity in the potential of life, such that the mode of the uniform force relates to the structures the force gives rise to on a scale of ascending complexity, where plants, animals, and humans represent three known distinct structural types, each having a distinct expression of the information force of life. I like this idea. Hence linguistic force comes into being as the animal mode of genetic information creates linguistic physiology by evolving humans from mammalian animal form. Yesterday I had the good fortune to receive The Passions of the Soul by Fourier, from America, both volumes for just eight quid ! Superb, I could not tell when I ordered them if it was one volume or two, so this is a real bonus, and so cheap ; they are 1968 reprints of the original 1851 publication. These books are very important to a study of Dohertys Organic Philosophy because his ideas are very idiosyncratic, and it is only by reading his lengthy introduction to these volumes, which he translated from the French, that we get to know where his idiosyncrasy came from. The next obvious question is where the hell Fourier got it from ? Fouriers work looks like a challenging read, it is so peculiar, I would say he makes Dohertys idiosyncrasy look pedestrian, but I am not sure that is true, both are right raving bonkers. But, in this pair we have the only true full-blown organicist model of human life ever to of been produced in English, since it appears we must see in Dohertys unique work, a good deal of Fouriers original creativity, acknowledged by Doherty. One thing that is particularly nice about this perhaps, is that this link to Fourier demonstrates that the sociological organicism that blossomed during the nineteenth century, only to be eradicated in the twentieth, had very definite roots in early nineteenth century European culture, probably reaching back into the eighteenth century too. The work of Comte has so far been the only definite hint of this, and the question was always whether Comte was the point of origin for organicism, but with Fourier evidently producing a whole philosophy of social life along these lines, this looks not to be the case, the makings of the organicist movement must of been in the air. We have already unearthed an organicist connection between Comte and his one time master Saint-Simon, but discovering much in the way of sociological organicism here is tricky without proper academic facilities. Fourier offers the only major work evoking an organicist idea at this time, which becomes apparent thanks to Dohertys development of Fouriers basic view of existence, along far more definite sociologically focused organicist lines. Fouriers use of the biological analogy between society and the body seems more basic, a facet of his other complex and curious ideas of order in the universe, whereas Doherty goes hell for leather on this analogy, and makes it the be all and end all of his reasoning, but still with many attributes drawn from Fouriers more general model of unity and order, so that we find Fouriers idea of spherical unity included in Dohertys model, to give one specific example by way of illustration. The significance of sociological organicism being a spontaneous product of the first flush of freely produced scientific reasoning applied to humans, is that this fits in so well with our idea that sociological organism is true science born of free expression, soon suppressed by methodical efforts on the part of the establishment using all parts of the social structure, and later erased from society by social cleansing mechanisms, which concluded the process of linguistic force management through structural control, by making this idea strictly taboo. The coherence of this description from beginning to end provides a rather beautiful account

of how the living human animal manages the force of information that creates its form at the level of social organization. We need this early phase of the story in order to complete the picture and make sense of the whole scientific explanation provided by Atheist science, telling which has given rise to the series of works unfolding this story, There is no God, How Religion Survived, Corporate Ape, Master Race, and our current Seeking the White Lie. All these titles pick up a theme in this story and merge together to form, hopefully, one consistent whole, expressing the logical consequences of the moment of inspiration that says humans are a species of superorganic mammal. A discovery

18/07/2012 11:49 Messing about on EBay I took a shot at these Chinese coins going cheap, and got them for a few quid. Not having a clue what I had got, I ran a search using the description given : Qing Dynasty coins. First reaction was disappointment as I saw they were late, although this period reaches back a few centuries. Next thing I had this : CHINA, coins of the Qing dynasty, 1644-1911 AD. Dynastic political development seems always to follow a pattern described by the 13th century writer Ibn Khaldun in his Muqaddimah. Basically, they (the dynasties) start out charismatic and populist and end up effete in walled compounds with other people doing their work for them. New powers arise in the boondocks and blow the old one away. This pattern repeats monotonously in human history, quite visible and conscious in the Chinese context, where the rebels, until this last batch, always claimed to be bringing back the good old days. The non-Chinese Manchus, whose state began in the 16th century, claimed that their invasion of China in the 17th was in support of the legitimate Ming claimant, they were just the muscle needed to restore law and order. The means by which we draw knowledge into ourselves is quite astounding. So I was off on the trail of Mr Khaldun. I soon had a PDF copy of A Selection from the Prolegomena of his main work, published in 1905, and some purchases lined up for his books. Wait a minute, would you believe it, the damn thing is in Arabic. What does this mean ? lets try again. Says the language is English, but it isnt. Ill have to buy a copy. Done. Ordered a 1969 copy of a 1950 translation of this Prolegomena, which I hope is a translation. This is the first Muslim scholar to capture my interest, as we can see a certain logic informing the above description of historical processes that befits our organicist outlook. His

actual work looks more tricky to obtain, price being an issue, and it is one of those works that appear in various formats, making it awkward to know just what is being bought, we will have to see what this introductory item tells us. I have to say, that now these damned Muslims are an integral part of our being, it is nice to find something that can be related to our Western tradition of advancing knowledge, coming from this source, at last. Friday, 20 July 2012 Arrived, and it is in English. An Arab Philosophy of History : Selections from the Prolegomena of Ibn Khaldun by Charles Issawi, 1969, first published 1950. First impressions are pleasing, I jumped to the computer to see about full volumes but they are pricy and, feeling reckless about my spending of late, I held off buying the only single copy of the three volume set that was available. Some modern, cheap, paperback abridgements were dominating the search, but I do not like abridgements, shit if you are going to examine an author why would you want anything less than the full text of whatever it is you intend to check out ? He says, as he sets to to say something about this fellow based upon a skimpy volume of selections from a prolegomena. What can you do ? This is what I have, and since I am not planning on getting anything more, this will have to do. A quick examination indicates the reason for this man being described as the founder of sociology, in a modern sense. So I am looking for pointers to his attitude. Obviously I want to see him talk about humans as superorganisms, where the individual does not exist. Which, surprise surprise, he does not do. But for sure, all the strands of modern sociological thought are there, religion, unity, authority, language, power, structure, everything. He does indeed seem to encapsulate the modern themes of sociology. Not only that, but he also seems to have the same approximate attitude. He freely compares humans to animals, and finds humans unique. At the same time he says that humans are obliged to live socially, and cannot live without society. But, just like the moderns, he makes an intuitive leap from the logic of this statement which makes our social nature biological, animal, to the idea that given this imperative, we consciously work at being social, where our animal nature makes the task a real challenge ! Idiot, how could anyone be that stupid ? OK, so everyone alive today is that stupid, but that is no excuse, that is like saying people were entitled to believe in witches five centuries ago, where it would be unforgiveable today. No, there was never a time when it was acceptable for people to believe in witches, on the basis of individual reason being compromised by a state of general ignorance. We were stupid then, and we are stupid now, the whole point of our individual capacity for intelligence is to make us collectively stupid. In other words, like a machine, a computer, we are made with a capacity for intelligence in order that we can run a programme, not to act intelligently in some self serving manner that makes intelligence exist for intelligences sake. When it comes to language he is as backward as we are today, Know then that languages are skills, similar to crafts. (p. 149) He has a very considerable regard for solidarity as the basis of society, which is delightful : Social solidarity is found only in groups related by blood ties or by other ties which fulfil the same functions. This is because blood ties have a force binding on most men (p. 103) Vast and powerful Empires are founded on religion. This is because dominion can only be secured by victory, and victory goes to the side which shows most solidarity and unity of purpose. (p. 131)

A religion reinforces the power which a state has already acquired from its solidarity and numbers. This is because, as we mentioned earlier, a religious fervour can efface the competitiveness and envy felt by members of the group towards each other (Ibid.) No religious movement can succeed unless based on solidarity. This is because, as we said before, the masses can only be moved to action in virtue of some solidarity (p. 133) This is all very nice. This last one even looks blasphemous, as it indicates that it is the power of identity, of unification, not any inherent truth, that makes religion ; which is of course correct. These assertions evince an idea of corporate being, and, although there is no sign of his knowing it, as indeed no one knows it to this today, the crux of the matter in all these situations, is the existence of a common identity, that is what blood ties provide on a genetic basis, and it is what religion provides on a grander scale, on a linguistic basis. This is why Jews created two slave identities in their own image, because they were the master race ruling the ancient world, and they knew this extension of identity was the thing that would fulfil the promise of their creed, which was, and is, a programme for creating a global superorganism, a written form of genome expressing the force of information acting in the shape of language. Khaldun had no idea of these underlying organic factors, anymore than modern intellectuals do, as we can see from Turner discussed below, indeed he is on a complete par with our contemporary academics, which only goes to prove that there is no science now, as there was no science then.

IV A novel mode of early Dawkinesque atheism I received a book called Essays of an Atheist by Woolsey Teller, 1945, last week, I must of fished it from the flood of books on atheism that I have come across recently, as described above. I have also bought another book by this man that has an intriguing title, The Atheism of Astronomy, 1938, but it has yet to arrive. As ever, we find no real friend of atheist science here, as far as my fleeting scan indicates thus far. But I flipped the page open today and found this : Fundamentalism, both Catholic and Protestant, still exerts an enormous pressure on public and press. It is a bold editor or a careless politician who will utter a peep against entrenched Christianity. In spite of cultural progress, the rabble rules. Legislation is frequently enacted in deference to the mob. In some states of the Union it is illegal to teach the evolution of man in our public schools. The conflict between religion and science is as deadly today as ever before. Tell the average group of Christians that they are descended from an ape, and see how far you get ; they will deny their animal ancestry with more vehemence than if they are told they are descended from barbarians, or that their grandparents were horsethieves. No one knows this better than our American paleontologist, Dr. W. K. Gregory. Imagine the effect, says he, of telling one-hundred-percent Americans that they are not the descendants of the god-like Adam but are sons and daughters of

Dryopithecus, or of some nearly allied genus of anthropoid apes that lived in the Miocene age,and that before that they had long tails and ate grubs and beetles ! Every Catholic today is taught by his Church to believe that evolution is false. In its article on Adam, the Catholic Encyclopaedia (Vol. 1, Rev. ed., 1936) teaches that the first man was created in an adult state. This is good biblical doctrine and in conflict with science. (Essays of an Atheist, Teller, p. 119) And : Dr. Gregory commands an influential and honoured position in the world of science. All the greater, therefore, is his obligation to make clear the attitude of science in relation to Christianity. Surely, as an Honorary Associate of the Rationalist Press Association of England, he is conversant with the literature of rationalism and of the tremendous part it has played in the long-drawn-out struggle between science and religion. He cannot, by any conceivable intent, wish to palliate, much less conceal, the debasing influence that Christianity has exerted in its befuddlement of the world and its enslavement of mankind. Yet his disposition, here and there, to defend the indefensible, or to look the other way while the battle is on, is hardly in accordance with his own standards of scientific precision. Dr. John W. Draper (whose book Dr. Gregory feels is tragically out of date) fully realized the struggle that is before usa struggle that must enlist the very finest fibre of intellectual soldiery. And no one, by natural endowment, belongs more fully to that army than Dr. Gregory himself. As to the issue of the coming conflict, wrote Dr. Draper, can any one doubt ? Whatever is resting on fiction and fraud will be overthrown. Institutions that organize impostures and spread delusions must show what right they have to exist. Faith must render an account of herself to Reason. Mysteries must give place to facts. Religion must relinquish that imperious, that domineering position which she has so long maintained against Science. There must be absolute freedom of thought. These are the words of one whose intellectual vision permitted him to see the conflict as a wholea conflict that is still with us, and which, by the spread of culture, can end only in the demolition of Christianity. Years ago, writing in the Fortnightly Review, Viscount Morley stated the outcome with singular precision. You have so debilitated the minds of men and women that many a generation must come and go before Europe can throw off the yoke of your superstition. But we promise you they shall be years of strenuous battle . . . The great ship of your church, once so stout and fair, has become a skeleton ship ; it is a phantom hulk with warped planks and sere canvas ; and you who work it are not more than the ghosts of dead men ; and at the hour when you seem to have reached the bay, down your ship will sink like lead or stone to the deepest bottom. (Ibid., pp. 121 122) At first sight this Americans bold proclamation of war is superb, it is all we could ask for. But we are old, old hands at this game. Anyway the truth is that these hopeful cries of a future free from religion, are as lame as they could possibly be, the exact opposite of what is anticipated has come to pass. A growing theme in these works of ours, as we examine the sea of atheist works, is the theme of subversion. We have spelt out the mechanism of covert theocracy, which relies upon an inversion of the logic of theocracy, where, instead of the total

suppression of all that is in conflict with the religious mantra, the opposite position is adopted, where anyone is allowed to say anything. At first sight this smacks of openness and freedom, little do we suspect the cynical evil of the minds who calculate all things, and who know that in a world where any can say anything, only those with total and absolute power, will be able to say anything that has any meaning, in terms its effect on how society works. And we can see the consequences of this devious logic rippling through the above quotes, where Teller moans about the ongoing war of religion against science, something we are so delighted to find in a book of this late age, something we have called for before. As with Onfray, so with Teller, we get the rant, but that is all we get. For a start, he makes Draper a leading figure in the war of science against religion, this in respect to Drapers work The History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, 1874. But when I examined this work a few years ago I found it to be nothing more than a eulogy to religion, beginning by openly declaring the authors warm feelings for religion. And it is no surprise that no modern equivalent had been produced by 1945, and none has yet appeared either, not that it would make any difference, because they would all praise religion first, otherwise they would not be published. So with these wonderful quotes we have nothing new, it is just more atheist junk keeping the disaffected feeling as though they are part of the society they are alienated from. This habitual mode of deception in atheism has been ongoing for a long time now, perhaps far longer than we yet realise, given the numerous works dealing with atheism from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, that we found in EEBO resource spoken of in my previous postings to Scribd. The rest of Tellers book is far more suspect, but it is very nice to find this mask of fine atheist sentiment that we have quoted, the idea of an ongoing war we most certainly approve of, even if we must withhold our blessing from the work it appears in. With time this sham atheist growth will be eradicated by force, having served its purpose of containment under covert conditions of knowledge control, presumably when our nation becomes an overt theocracy again, most probably under an Islamic authority, certainly we are all striving with all our might to bring this outcome about, but we must resign ourselves to a long process, it will take centuries before the Muslims are in total control of Britain, but we doing all that we can to ensure this will occur as smoothly as possible, as soon as possible. We do not know this is what we are doing, but our Jewish slave programme is forcing us there, whether we know it or not, and this programme has been running for millennia without a hitch, so we can be sure it will keep running, and it will reach its well known end, the coming of the Jewish world society. Thursday, 19 July 2012 Last night BBC 1 had a show called British Islam, which the blurb informed us was about three people who became Muslims at a time when it was considered an act of treachery to become a Muslim. So, what, that would toddy then ? See the creeping effect, like the tectonic plates, imperceptibly moving, moving, moving, and before you know it, hey presto, the lessons appear in a new form, How Britain became a Muslim Nation, or The Unknown History of Europe before Islam. The BBC probably have the movies in stock, put by for the year 3000 AD, they must be spending our money on something and it certainly is not on making programmes, all we ever get is repeats, I am just waiting for them to start repeating the news because they cant be bothered paying for it to be reported, and lets face it, would we really notice the difference ? Thinking of Draper, he has obviously been of interest because of his important piece on the central theme of our atheist science, which is all about the war of religion against science, and I did manage to buy his two volume work on The Intellectual Development of Europe, 1864, it was cheap enough, but in a very fragile condition. Still this is not a work to read, life is not long enough for that, but it was interesting to see how Draper handled the

subject, I think what first put me onto this work was a remark from someone, intended as a criticism, to the effect that in it he treated humans as if they were a social organism ! Which is perfect. Checking volume one we see that he says these volumes are intended to treat of the human animal in his social capacity, as his earlier work had dealt with humans as individual entities. This is a staggeringly superb approach to take to the study of humans, unimaginable today. This treatment did not come across so powerfully when looking at the book in reality, but, from memory, I think I liked the basic approach. This is the kind of work that the first scientists interested in humans in their modern condition, were trying to turn out in the nineteenth century. It was these naturalistic accounts that the likes of Darwin and an infinite number of other miscreant subversives have had to combat, and have combated with total success. The ability to achieve this kind of control of science is purely a result of the academic and media infrastructure, interlaced with the legislative power of the state, infiltrated as it is by people who, first and foremost, have a total and uncompromising commitment to religion, which means Christianity, which means Judaism. Reading the above quotes from Teller it is interesting to see the manner in which he denounces Christian antagonism towards science. By way of Gregory, Teller says that Christians baulk at the notion of being descended from apes. But, in the light of what we now know courtesy of atheist science, the idea that we are evolved from apes is indeed to be scorned, since this is a red herring, at best, and a downright perversion of science, more likely. Just what we would expect of Darwin. The fact is that humans are neither evolved, nor descended from apes ; humans are evolved to fulfil the latent potential of mammalian physiology, which is a life engine that ascended a global energy gradient, whereby mammalian forms exploiting all basic ecosystems had to be produced as the life engine of mammalian physiology descended the global energy gradient to produce mammals of all kinds, including that of a superorganism. The fact that the superorganic form of mammal happened to emerge via the anthropoid line, is of little importance in itself, it is of interest, but it is not the key point in understanding what humans are as natural entities. What a true science of man would of presented to the Christian is the idea that humans were a superorganic species of mammal, evolved according to natural principles that cause an organism to come into being at the level of social organisation. Whereby the human individual does not exist as an end in themselves, but rather as a unit of a higher being, resulting in the complex social physiology which causes us to live in civilisations as we know them. Now, how could Christians find fault with such a scientific model ? They could not. Indeed, when I have been confronted with Jehovahs Witnesses on my doorstep and taken it upon myself to say that we do not exist as ends in ourselves, they have agreed with me, the conclusion to our short debate occurring when they asked me Why, if we live in order to serve this thing, this thing should not be called God ? Naturally I was disgusted by this suggestion, since it showed a total lack of interest in the point I was making, and a fixed determination to preserve Judaism. However, at the same time, these religious freaks were affirming that the science of human corporate nature based upon the idea that the human animal is a superorganism, is in perfect harmony with the very essence of Christian belief. It is obvious that two centuries ago the priests ruling the overt absolute theocracy we live in today, now in covert mode, would have been perfectly well aware of these logical consequences of science as it was emerging at the time, and this is why they fostered the sham science of Darwinism in such a way as to produce a perfect model for the purpose of inverting absolute theocracy, into a covert absolute theocracy mode. And we can see how spitting Darwinism in the face of Christians helps keep Christians firmly in their place, as they see nothing to persuade them to relinquish their attachment to Christianity to a new model of life based on science. Reasoning thus, we see that Darwinism served the theocracy

on both fronts, it subverted science in such a way as to satisfy atheists without telling them anything, and at the same time it alienated Christians from science and ensured they would be corralled in their religious enclave, and not bleed out into a new school of philosophy based on the knowledge of science, which would of destroyed the slave identity of Christianity which is the true essence of Christianity, which makes it essential that this religious obscenity is preserved while science is suppressed by any means possible. Looking at the second quote taken from Teller, we find some contorted reasoning, according to our interpretation. Earlier last year I took a specific interest in the Rationalist Press Associations works after developing a clear sense of how atheism had served theocracy in Britain. The fact is that all works produced by all so called Freethinkers in the English language, wherever produced, throughout all time, are in perfect conformity with the One message of Judaism. Which sticks to the idea that individuals are the final arbiters of all things, especially of knowledge, and as such despite arising in the era shortly before the impact of the Great Cleansing, no one ever twigged to the idea that religion might be treated as if it was real, no one ever favoured the idea of the social organism, no one ever saw that Christians were the slaves of Judaism. No atheist work of any kind ever written, before those of my own, are in way out of synchronisation with the absolute oppression of the Jewish theocracy. Once we have seen our way beyond the One message of Judaism, which makes the individual the end in themselves, created by biological evolution, then we see that all public knowledge is a fraud, a perversion, a subversion, whether by way of malice or unwitting stupidity and arrogance, to put it in individual terms. This explains why religion continues to plague us today, after centuries of works denouncing religion, and centuries of staggering advances in scientific knowledge. The reason is the duplicity of social authority which makes it its business to control knowledge, above all else. We saw an interesting focus on this issue in the work mentions above by Topinard on Science and Faith, where he sought to argue that biological evolution made the human individual an end in themselves, while some unknown factors of social evolution had reduced this end-in-themselves status allowing advanced society to come into being, in total contradiction to our biological evolution, his objective being to suggest how this impossible occurrence had occurred !! What garbage. We have to take notice of what these people say because these degenerates rule our intellectual world, it is because of these people that we are in the total mess we are, where science can tell us nothing and we must endure endless drivel pumped out by the intellectual world, telling us how we come to be who we are. I saw an advert for an upcoming programme on TV last night, 11th Jan 2010, about how the planet has made us what we are. I think it said the way we had access to water shaped the way our civilizations developed. These people own the infrastructure of knowledge fabrication, where they stand upon the false pivot of observation that says the individual is an end in themselves, and interpret all that they see according to this false prism of knowledge. The only important thing to know is that human nature is corporate, meaning that individual physiology formed to bring a superorganism into existence at the level of social organization. So it is our corporate nature that drives the organization of the human biomass towards a civilized form, which obviously requires a sophisticated water supply of some sort, in most circumstances, so that variations in how the inevitable end is met are bound to be determined by location. This way of looking at things is simply an extension of the idea presented in a book called Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, 1997, which argued that the leading civilizations arose where the native animal species were suitably predisposed to be domesticated to support particular forms of civilization. The book was made into a documentary a couple of years ago. I thought the book looked great when I found a copy a few years back, and I have seen it praised to the high heavens, but the fact is that it is based

on the false pivot of human individuality as an end in itself, which is quite simply wrong. Clearly the priests believe they have found a new theme that works as a convincing and inspiring model for the ignorant slavish masses, so they are now recapitulating it like a ragged fairy story told in a thousand different disguises, until it wears thin, and then they will await the next piece of inspired junk science to come along and licence a further round of junk propaganda. And all the while Judaism will go on exploiting the biomass of the earth, wreaking havoc and farming us, causing war and destroying us, and advancing relentlessly towards an ever more perfect state of global domination.

V Darwinian white lie firmly established When I got home from the detention centre today, Tuesday, 12 January 2010, Evolutionary Ecology of Social and Sexual Systems, by Duffy and Thiel, 2007, was waiting for me. I have had no time to look at it, but I still managed to find a remarkably apposite reference to this influence of environment on social evolution, which resonated with what I had been writing earlier today, concerning the corruption of science : The role of ecology in social evolution has been dominated by the ecological constraints model, which asserts that cooperation evolves in habitats that are especially valuable, such that independent breeding via dispersal is relatively difficult. (Duffy and Thiel, p. 447) Wow, this is where Wilsons sociobiology has brought us, absolutely nowhere. Darwinism has managed to force itself on this most recent major movement toward a unification of sociology with biology, a movement that is already thirty five years ancient. The book is published by Oxford, so we know it is bound to be junk knowledge. Still a title like this is a must buy, when it only cost 13. Apart from anything else, just by discussing this subject of social evolution these priests cannot help letting oodles of gorgeous knowledge slip through their hands, whereby we can absorb it and put it to use according to a genuine scientific idea of the nature of life. Accordingly I noticed something about a comparison between insect societies and crustacea, the latter being the central subject of this work. What we want to see however, is the same kind of arguments that we would of seen in the preGreat Cleansing era, where people would of been keen to compare social insects with humans. Part two of this work is called Communication, so they have recognised the centrality of this factor in the production of a social organism, and this is good, but we can be sure that they will not be working towards a unifying theory of communication such as we provide, where information is seen as the defining feature of living matter, whereby a linguistic force is seen as the natural force responsible for all social structure in the universe, including that found in mammalian superorganisms, of which humans are the only example known. If we turn to page two hundred and seventy nine we find the subheading Evolution of Spiny Lobster Sociality. The ensuing gibberish witters on about making comparisons between social and asocial species of lobsters, and using a variety of techniques to assess genetic relationships. On page two hundred and eighty one we get some kind of conclusions about what this method might say about the relationship of ecological factors to the evolution of social nature in lobsters. The grotesque thing about all this stuff is that it provides an excruciating example of what we have talked about above, where we say that the whole point

of our society is to produce the perfect White Lie, and that our society expends vast amounts of resources upon this effort. In any other branch of science the practitioners would look for common factors concerned in the production of their objects of interest, and indeed, these ecologists have such a fixed datum, it is Darwinism, and they stick to it like limpets on a rock face. But here the subject is sociality, so we want a datum for describing sociality as a general aspect of reality. These people have a datum for this too, it is Darwinism ! But Darwinism does not address sociality, the whole point of Darwinism is that it cannot address sociality because it makes genetics the sole means of effecting any kind of biological evolution, and in this model natural selection based upon the individual as the pivot of change, is the key. What these ecologists are really striving to do, unbeknownst to them obviously, is to find someway of forcing Darwinism to include social evolution by making the environment, which is the interface that the individual is supposed to be tested by in the process of natural selection, somehow impose constraints that cause individuality to succumb to sociality. Didnt we just discover this theme in the work of Topinard ? This is truly sick. These hard working, brilliant scientists, are straining themselves, thousands of them, with immense resources at their disposal, proving point by point, by studying individual species one at a time, that social evolution can take place within a Darwinian model, and all to ensure that a true scientific model of life cannot exist, and thereby embrace humans, and thus destroy the Jewish master race. And these scientists have no more idea what they are doing when they behave according to this social programme, than the bleeding lobsters do that they study. Never was there a more perfect example of the humorous notion of the mice ordering the earth to be made as an experiment so that humans could be experimented upon by the mice, as Douglas Adams articulated in his Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy books. Here the lobsters have not set out to study the ape life, but the ape life think they are conducting experiments on lobsters, when all they are doing is conducting experiments in order to make sure that science cannot exist, which is sort of close to what Adams scenario with the mice was getting at : the unwitting sense of brilliant human endeavour as being nothing more than humans being humans, as lobsters are lobsters, and mice are mice. So that these clever humans think they are doing something which is sort of abstracted from their humanness, as given by nature, but nothing could further from the truth, by carrying on the way they are, they are ensuring that just the opposite will be the case. This futile exercise in seeking scientific knowledge is the inevitable consequence of universities being subverted elements of an absolute theocracy, causing all that work within them to do one thing, and one thing only, to fashion the White Lie. The fact of the matter is, if people are going to study sociality, then why are they not classed as Sociologists ? This is a glaring contradiction forced upon academia over the course of more than a century of knowledge subversion. Can we imagine sociologists studying the origin of sociality in lobsters ? Absolutely not. Which means that academia is totally unabashed about severing sociology away from all other scientific endeavours and making it apply exclusively to humans, and then being content with the fact that people endlessly criticise sociology for failing to be a true science, it being more like the equally suspect historical arts of present and past times. Thus, like history of old, modern sociology has been well and truly fashioned into a political subject, and science meanwhile has been excluded, absolutely, from any influence over sociology. By examining a rare volume such as this one on crustacea as model organisms, concerning itself with the evolution of sociality, we get to see how a crippled science spontaneously seeks to remedy the impact of seeking to exist within the confines of an absolute theocracy, by pretending to be an independent authority existing in its own right. But science cannot exist in a world where religion exists, and this deformed and twisted

science shown in all its glory in the book in question, is the result of the perversion of science by religion, as enabled, most crucially, by Darwin. If we think about sociality as compared to society, we find a subtle difference where sociality is made manifest as a behaviour, whereas society is something beyond behaviour, something new in the universe. The snag faced by the theocracy, in so far as it may be successful in its deception and oppression, is that while animals like lobsters may be social without living in societies, there are creatures that are social, and do live in quite distinct, undeniable societies, these being the classic insect groups of ants, bees, termites and wasps. We have of course been lucky enough to find at least one work addressing these issues directly, Human by Nature, discussed in The Colonial Ape, which admits that Hitler set up a taboo to protect Judaism, and as a result the state has forced all academic institutions to employ only professors of sociology who fanatically refuse to allow science to be involved in sociology. So this is hardly an unknown problem, but it is most curious to see how it has impacted upon science, forcing weird contortions as scientists try to address the obvious questions begging to be addressed, and find themselves forced to emerge into the academic domain through the most absurd and ridiculous outlets, instead of growing straight up from solid foundations into the light of day.

VI Open University stuff Today, Wednesday, 13 January 2010, I dropped on a book in an Oxfam shop called The Deluge : British Society and the First World War, by Arthur Marwick, 1978, first published 1965. The general idea is that this war eradicated an older generation and ushered in a new one, which is perfectly in tune with the title atheist science is obliged to give to this war, The Great Cleansing. So I had to buy the book, but it was only when I examined the title page and other introductory matter properly at home, that I noticed this was an Open University text, and as such as bias as bias can be. I utterly despise the OU. This title naturally reminded me of Woolfs After the Deluge so I looked to see if there was any sign of it being referred to, and while Woolf does not appear in the index, his book is named in the bibliography. Reading the first page or two of the preface is interesting in the light of our own way of discussing the nature of this war, in terms of the need for the Jewish theocracy to smash the biomass of Europe that had become so distanced from its Jewish slave identity by the rise of science, because Marwick gives a very concise summary of the causes of this war, which obviously has no sense whatever of the real purpose and value of this conflict as a major act of social cleansing. Without recognising that the human organism is a superorganism, and that anything less than the unified superorganism is a meaningless entity, no one can have anything valid to say about a global event such as the Great Cleansing of 1914 18. It looks as if this book is going to be a celebration of the Cleansing, surprise surprise ! He speaks of the sense of dismay at the loss of the old world as expressed in the anguished period of the 20s, when people still ached over the pain of the war. I imagine the writing of Woolf would be just the kind of lament for the loss of a great age of freedom and quality of life, that this high priest of modern intellectual corruption had in mind. Still, whatever angle a historian is taking, it is bound to be a good book to have to hand when it is so focused on such a crucial topic for those of us who want to understand how the war of religion against science was developed, and put into action.

I have to admit however, that I may owe my blossoming into a philosopher, as I see it, to the OU, and so one must give credit where credit is due. Thursday, 19 July 2012 I hate the OU because of all the universities, this is the most abject handmaiden of political propaganda in intellectual form. This is inevitable because of the nature of the institution, being directly funded by the government with a view to educating the least educated portion of the populace, as adults, thus requiring an especially sick form of intellectual programme to feed to the unsophisticated dupes that benefit from this institution. That said, as a doley bum I was able to access the courses for free at a time when I found myself in a position to study as an independent adult. I hated the material I was fed over the coming years, but the first subject I took came within the remit of philosophy, and this obliged me to examine philosophical ideas, such as those by Mill, and I only ever used my access to this universitys courses to kick-start, and then stimulate my thinking. I wonder if this stimulation is what prompted me to come up with the inspired idea that humans were superorganisms, when faced with an issue in my ongoing life ? I cannot say, but it is reasonable to suppose that the OU might of helped me here, so that, as we always say, the people who pump out this crap knowledge can help where they least intend to, and we must grasp what opportunities we may as they come along. We know what we want, we want true knowledge, we want the freedom that having true knowledge is synonymous with, so we search, and by searching for ourselves, we will know when we find it. I did.

VII And still more ! Thursday, 19 July 2012 It never stops. You know we were talking about the usefulness of family a week or so back, causing me to buy a book on bees, thats right. Well, this bee book led me to order a book on a subject I was very excited to see being dealt with by a scientist, The Extended Organism : The Physiology of Animal-Built Structures by J. Scott Turner, 2000. It arrived yesterday and I just took a peek. Guess what, you are never going to believe this, thats right, its yet another load of religious crap disguised as science, well, who would of expected that ! And it comes out of the great American home of shit science, Harvard, where good old Wilson hails from, and sociobiology. As we insult these travesties of truth and reason, they insult us. They do not get the opportunity very often because they rarely come within range of true science, where we reside all the time, but this bugger is right beside us, and this obliges him to make sure he pours scorn on us ; still, better to have the shit kicked out you than to be ignored, eh! At least, when the shit is only of the metaphorical variety. He opens his account nicely enough by saying that he wants to go where no one has gone before, by considering the structures built by animals as being part of their living selves. We soon see that things are bound to go badly however, when he praises Dawkins as a leading forerunner of the main idea, with his Extended Phenotype, upon which the title is presumably based, in deep homage we must suppose. But where it really gets bad, is precisely where it really should get good, which makes sense, honestly, it does ; think about it. Remember that everything is inverted in the upsidedown world of public knowledge, if you enter this land walking upright, as we do. The last chapter is called The Soul of the Superorganism, and here Turner acknowledges the religious taboo forcing scientists to avoid applying science to sociology :

In taking up the idea of the superorganism, I will be treading onto controversial ground, because it challenges strongly held notions that the living world is composed of discrete organisms. The superorganism idea has had many ups and downs in its history, for a variety of reasons. Sometimes there are just more interesting and powerful ways to think about sociality, and sometimes the superorganism as a model has been associated with thoughts, particularly about humans and their societies, deemed to be impure or politically distasteful. Nevertheless, no matter how assiduously the scholars of the day try to smother it, the superorganism seems, a la Mr. Micawber, to keep turning up. Indeed, the 1990s has seen a renaissance of the idea, most notably in the earth sciences, where it has reappeared in the form of the Gaia hypothesis, James Lovelocks and Lynn Marguliss remarkable conception of the Earth as a single living entity, a superorganism. (Turner, p. 180) Of course he does not acknowledge it as a religious taboo protecting our masters covertly. Instead his mode of expression regarding the impact of this taboo makes we organicists responsible for the obligation scientists are under to tread carefully here. But one thing this miscreant priest does not do, is talk about the status of human built structures as an extension of the organism ! Incredible, what does this idiot think we all want to know ? Infuriatingly, he concludes by dragging in the most pathetic garbage, and it is exactly what I get spat back in my face time and time again by all and sundry, when I refer to humans as superorganisms, it is the damn Gaia hypothesis, the idea that the planet is a superorganism. I read a remark in Doherty yesterday stating that it was premature, in 1874, to ask if cosmic objects, like the sun, were life forms ! My notes fumed at this insanity, but we see a similar sentiment reproduced here in a consideration of this disgusting notion of the planet as a superorganism. These fools do not care how they drag knowledge into the gutter, as long as they do. Why would anyone want to suggest that the planet is a superorganism ? It is a spiritual idea, and as a spiritual idea, OK, if that is what you want. But here where we could of had a serious rejection of the idea that humans are superorganisms, if Turner had one to give, when all we get are insults and dissimulation. We often like to point out that despite the devotion of the worlds energy to the suppression of truth, it just cannot be suppressed, and it is a real delight to see this goon acknowledge this fact for us. But before he gets to this, he offers us three odd thoughts. Firstly he says, that the idea of the superorganism is tricky because it challenges strongly held thoughts maintaining that the living world is composed of discrete organisms. Then he says organicism has repeatedly moved in and out of favour for a variety of reasons, indicating that primarily the simple fact is, that there are better ways to account for social life. And thirdly, he unwittingly alludes to the mechanism of taboo suppressing this true scientific view of society, by political and religious means. But the man comes across as a complete jerk with regard to these important matters, when he correctly says that the superorganism has resurfaced in the 1990s because of the idea that the earth is a superorganism. No, it resurfaced because of Wilsons sociobiology, Gaia has nothing to do with anything, except it steals the word for its pseudo scientific religious mythology. I for one have never so much as glanced at this Gaia stuff, and never would I, I would as soon attend a church service ; I may of taken a peek a decade or so ago. But this is why Turner has used Gaia as his example of the interest being shown in the superorganic of late, because it is meaningless drivel that alludes to nothing scientific, it is popular because it is religious in nature, and religion always flatters our egos. Come to that, it is not only religious, but more to the point is that it projects the Jewish slave mantra of Christianity onto the biosphere of the planet, by seeking to make

all life of one being, which is what the slave identities of Christianity and Islam seek to do for humanity in order to bring all people under the Jewish hegemony, in keeping with the dictates of human biological corporate nature. Still there is no question that this is an important book for us to be aware of. So we want to know : 1) What are these strongly held ideas on individualism ? 2) What are these better ways to account for social life !! 3) Why does an irrepressible idea prompt unacceptable moral and political reactions ? 4) Why is this idea irrepressible ? We do not want to know these things for ourselves you understand, we already know. But, given the above, this is what we would like this man to give some thought to, having shown his ability to identify these four questions, we would like him to demonstrate an understanding of their significance. As it is he evidently presumes that as a scientist all he does is proven, so he need not take account of that which is speculative. But therein lies a fatal flaw, his Achilles heel. He clearly has no thought for such matters, he just gets on with his job and follows the programme as laid down in the course of his indoctrination, in common with everyone else he works with, and knows, and indoctrinates in his capacity as a professor. Impure, distasteful, do you think he might say There you go ! if he saw the upshot of our reasoning, declaring the Jews to be the master race ? Oh yes. Would he pause to ask if this is true or not ? Oh no. No need, the taboo takes care of that. We say that Turner sits on the high horse of scientific method and treats all comers with disdain who do not come from the same position of unquestionable authority. But this Achilles heel in his position, is Darwinism, because running through every least thought he has, is the idea that natural selection is correct, is science, is inviolable. This is the trick played by Darwinism. But Darwinism is nothing, it tells us nothing, and what is more, it cannot be correct, because it does not include humans within its embrace, as can clearly be seen by the fact that although humans are the species of artifice par excellence, they do not appear in this book on species that create extensions of themselves. 1) The strongly held ideas on individualism alluded to here, are a direct reaction against the science that tells us there is no such thing as an individual, because this science, sociological organicism, is the key to self knowledge that would destroy the human superorganism made by linguistic force on the basis of identity programming, which makes Judaism the master of us all. You could gather a fair collection of books on this topic of the individual, and its opposite theme too. So that ideas making the individual the defining status of living forms, are fundamentally religious in orientation, not scientific, they preserve a mental attitude that is essential to religion, because they leave a void where religion can exist safely untouched by science. In that void religion places God, where otherwise the Superorganism would go. People owe everything to the superorganism, and by substituting God for the superorganism, the priests are able to maintain the idea that people owe everything to God. This is a linguistic model created by nature, it is consistent, and it is functional, but it is not science. And of course, we should point out that this man is himself a perfect demonstration of the fact that there is no such thing as an individual, for he just drops right into place as a

sentient brick, obeying the dictates of the linguistic programme delivering the social architecture. He does not exist as an end in himself, so that the ideas he presents in his book are not his ideas at all. 2) As we can see, humans are not included in this mans work, so there are no scientific models of social life that include our species, and yet he does not appear to see any problem with this gaping omission. He presumably happily defers to sociology, and presumes to have no remit over the animal we are, because, in other words, to him we are not animals ! The models he is referring to all take Darwinism as their touchstone of reality, their starting point, such as kin selection, and it is for this reason alone that he is saying they are better. 3) This is the old war of religion against truth, it has been known as long as history has been recorded, we just saw Teller expatiating upon it above, and even though the New Atheists of the present day are Gatekeepers working unwittingly for religion, their hue and cry demonstrates that the issue is as alive as ever it was. 4) The whole purpose of Atheist Science is to answer this question by showing that we are ruled by a priesthood that exists by means of knowledge control, so that all knowledge production is ultimately to be understood as a process of White Lie making. The act of dam building, is an act of containment, by definition it holds back an ever present force, in this case linguistic force, and leaks are bound to pose an ever present danger to the casement that it is this mans job to help maintain. He does not pause to wonder at the perennial emergence of this idea, whether it might mean something. He just accepts that humans are peculiar creatures, flawed in their nature, and this is an example of the unfortunate blemish of illogicality that taints their otherwise potentially perfect reasoning. Humans are perfect, they have no flaws, no blemishes, nature only knows perfection. Our mental frailties are perfectly functional, as this idiot has fully demonstrated. Saturday, 21 July 2012 Reading Doherty today I came upon a section where he stretched the, then modern ideas on evolution, to further his far-out religious ideas, putting me in mind of the criticism we made of Turner above, where we said that he was determined to bend everything to fit his preconceived dogma of Darwin. On page three hundred and thirty two we find a discussion of celestial humanitys coming into existence, and making their way down to earth by means of a process Doherty ascribes to some philosophers, who invoke the idea of heterogenesis, in which anthropoid apes gave birth to human beings. He means this literally, as in one day a chimpanzee found itself dropping a fully formed human baby on the mat ! In this extended discussion human origins Doherty several times asserts the indisputable fact, drawn from experience, of celestial, spiritual humanity, that consists of the souls of the dead and unborn. So that with this solid fact of reality coming before all, he proceeds to draw on every known idea to explain reality ! And as fantastic as Dohertys ideas are to science, the blind application of spirituality to his reasoning which then proceeds materialistically, is an exact match to that mode of reasoning we find Turner applying with his assumption that Natural Selection is fact, and all must be put through that prism of reasoning in any attempt at a scientific understanding of life. Such a glaring example of how knowledge manufacture works in a routinely perverse manner, as Doherty provides, is perfect for our understanding of how modern science is created today. This perversion of science is perfectly deliberate, not on Turners part, or any other individuals part, but on the superorganisms part, as enacted by way of the structure of its being, its anatomy, which evolved over millennia to control linguistic force in this way of the White Lie. Were

Turners book on the extended body of an animal true to reality, rather than being true to dogmatic Darwinism, this is what it would be discussing. The key thing about Darwinism is that by fixing on the genetic process, by invoking the principle of natural selection as the essence of evolution, it makes the individual the unit of evolution, as the object of natural selection. Hence the domination of individualism in scientific views on the nature of society, noted by Turner. Darwinism and the science we have, forms a closed circle that begins and ends with the authority of Darwin, not the authority of reality that science should always represent. If it were otherwise then Judaism would of been eradicated in Darwins day. It may be a matter of some curiosity, having raised the subject, how Doherty comes to regard the existence of detached human souls as absolutely real. In the course of this volume four that I am reading, there have been some passing remarks shedding some light on the matter, I seem to recall. Basically he dismisses the fact that some people do not know that spirits exist, by talking about the different abilities of individuals, so that some people are not sensitive to the spiritual, though we all have the potential to be so. Thus the evidence of those who are, including himself presumably, is proof enough. This is of course anathema to science, proof should be demonstrable. And in saying this, we can again refer to Natural Selection as the core of modern scientific mythology in the service of Judaism. Natural selection is a theory of evolution which presumes to explain the nature of the process of evolution, and scientists of every kind religiously avow the truth of this principle. But the fact is that none of them have any proof whatsoever, even though men like E. O. Wilson and Dawkins assert that this process is proven. The core of this issue is a linguistic sleight-of-hand, whereby Natural Selection taken literally, alludes to the genetic process, which is an indisputable fact, while simultaneously this phrase is more importantly taken to describe the essence of that process, its reasoning, its force, it nature and consequences, and this logical extension of this mechanisms meaning is not proven at all, and is a wholly different kettle of fish. Which is why men like Dawkins extrapolate from this mechanistic principle to the meaning of the process by writing books like The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype, or, as with Turner, The Extended Organism. Works like these are extrapolations from a correctly identified materialistic principle, that is henceforth manipulated by a dedicated academic priesthood in a contrived linguistic fashion, providing the creed which flows from the materialistic fact. This creed being no proof of any kind, anymore than Dohertys extrapolation from human spiritual experiences to the existence of souls is real. Just because life evolves by means of genetic variation does not mean that the selective process is as Darwin described, one of a testing material matrix matching the variable material mechanism, whereby the environment acts as a sieve filtering out failed forms. It comes down to the question of our old friend the pivot of observation, adjusted for a none social context where the pivot of individualism becomes the pivot of materialism, and the pivot of corporate being becomes the pivot of information or force. Did the finches on the Galapagos adopt their vampire habits because a genetic fluke created an individual whose instincts prompted this behaviour, which proved to be beneficial and hence created a tribe of vampire finches, or did the force of life drive behavioural experimentation to develop under the intensified pressure of a confined environment, where the boobys blood constituting a latent source of potential life energy that the finches were driven towards accessing, where, in doing so, they opened a portal for life information to pass through, thereby unfolding a new genetic variation of the finch form, a life form that was one of a limited set of life templates from which the force of information had to work ? This portrays a fractal geometry of life, with life descending into life, as potential life energy acts like a pool into which life forms plunge, and in doing so, become transformed into ever changing expressions of that force of life information which they are expressions of. At rock

bottom, Darwins idea is crass, anthropomorphic, and above all, safe for Judaism. While ours is subtle, beautiful, explains everything perfectly, and is thus fatal to Judaism. Sunday, 22 July 2012 Continuing with Doherty we find more indications of how his mentality is ordered. Page 352 has a line about Jesus mission being a link between the spiritual and material world The chief medium of alliance between spiritual and natural worlds. So that his belief in Jesus is a proof of the reality of spiritual phenomena. But on page 359 he deals directly with the subject, posing the question What, then, is the test of such internal evidence of spiritual truth ? His answer is less than satisfactory : Is it not the conscience of each individual, in connection with some degree of spiritual understanding ? As we delve into the upcoming part we find that our interpretation of spiritual is information, and so that we find some mode of agreeing with much of his reasoning. We also find an amazing section on the Jews coming up here, but that is so good it needs taking in full, and notes taken recorded. Something to look forward to later on. Boy, summer has arrived at last !

Chapter 14

Why do Viruses Kill ?

Last night, 13th Jan 2010, there was a Horizon programme of the above name, that I watched right through, viruses being a long standing source of interest to me. There were a number of interesting bits in this show. The virus presents something of a mystery and one scientist said that if people ask him whether viruses are alive or dead he would answer Yes. Which we may find invalid, but he said it was a genuine answer in that viruses could be dormant as if dead, but when suitable conditions arise they become alive. From an atheist science point of view, this way of viewing the matter would not apply however, because our criteria for life is the presence of information, where information can be taken to mean the power of self replication. A virus is a package of DNA, i.e. information, in a crusty coating, so to speak. So that a virus is a package of information even when it is dormant, and hence even when most dead, according to our definition of life, a virus is still as alive as alive can be. In the same sense that a clay tablet bearing cuneiform marks is still readable text, even when it is lying buried for millennia, away from any eyes that may read it. A recent breakthrough in the understanding of viruses was described, whereby someone created a virus from manufactured components. He described how he had realised that the polio virus was simply a series of interlinked chemical components, so that if he could make up the same arrangement then he would be able to create a polio virus. The virus was composed of a type of DNA, namely RNA, so he ordered the units of RNA from a commercial laboratory and then he strung them together in the same sequence found in the polio virus. Next, he extracted the juice from some human cells and put his synthetic virus into it, and sure enough the virus he had engineered came alive and started replicating itself. In terms of virology this was a radical new insight because it showed that viruses did not need cells in order to replicate themselves, all they needed was the fluid substance contained in the cytoplasm. The point being that viruses have been thought to commandeer the cell machinery and then cause it to manufacture viruses. But the organelles and mitochondria of the cell fabric were discarded in the above experiment, so that the cell machinery no longer existed, indicating that the power of replication was inherent in the biochemical arrangement of the virus in its own right, and it merely needed a suitable environment, a latent source of potential energy that is, to allow its own molecular machinery, or molecular engine, to kick in. We might imagine that viruses evolved to exploit biochemical soups existing freely in the early planetary environment, then, following the logic of last nights programme, we might further suppose that somehow it was the directives of viruses seeking energy within this open environment that caused the early life forms that led to modern life forms, to come into being in the shape of cells, because this served the ends of the virus by containing a concentrated packet of the energy rich soup. Leaping from this primordial setting to the

present, we come to the crux of the matter by noting that it was by the same principle of information management within structures created for the purpose, that the Jews caused the whole human biomass to degrade into one monoculture of state structures, because this suits Judaism by allowing Jews to thrive in every place on earth where humans exist. The principle is identical in both cases, it involves the evolution of an information package constituting a life engine, that can drive biomass of a related kind to produce structure that incorporates the pre-existing life engine driving the process. On this basis the virus would be the earliest form of colonial life in Bernards model of colonial evolution, raising life from the level of viral existence to that of cellular existence. Although I think Bernard had a precellular form in place in his model, his protomitomic network. Monday, 23 July 2012 The section on the Jews in Doherty that I read yesterday, to be discussed in full at the end of this work, had the Jews performing precisely this kind of structural management role in society, after delegating the role of identity extension to the newly evolved Christian subidentity social life-engine. Thus as viruses made cells, Jews made national states, both for exactly the same reason of concentration of energy, over which their machinery of power had control. This is a biological explanation for the rise of the Jewish master race as a covert energy of power within human superorganisms. It may be said that neither the viruses nor the Jews have control over the resulting forms, but try telling yourself that when a cold sore erupts on your lips year in year out, all your life. And likewise, just look how the machinery of Christian and Islamic society revolves around the core of Jewish identity, as per the propaganda about the holocaust and the rise of multicultural fascism forcing us to accept aliens by destroying our own atheist culture, and the war on terror generated by the Muslim hatred of Jews, as much as anything. The programme had its own agenda, and was therefore not oriented towards examining the experiment in terms that would be of especial interest to us, so they did not carry this example forward by using it to explain how we might understand the nature of the transition from none life to life. Another feature of the documentary visited Yellowstone Park where viruses found in the hot springs proved to be more ancient than the bacteria and eukaryote lines of early life, so they gave these viruses some new name indicating their archaic status. The scientists in this scene suggested these viruses might be very early in lifes history, but unfortunately he did not expand on this interesting theme. Even so there was much of interest in this discussion of the relation of viruses to the rest of life, whereby viruses were said to of preceded life as we know it, such that evolution had been driven by what we might call the viral life engine, as viruses tried to shape life to suits its needs. All of this makes perfect sense from our position that defines life as information, since viruses represent a pure package of information that would be a most appropriate initial boot up mechanism for more complex life forms. The idea of a programme being contained in the viral information, which directs the genetic programme an organism consists of came up, much to my delight, that is my kind of talk, and it made me think of Judaism acting like a viral programme infecting a cultural biomass, causing its social machinery to work for the sake of Judaism, where, according to this model, we would see Christianity and Islam as variations on the original Jewish viral programme. That information goes to structure via an engine, is the nub of the model of life as we have discussed it above. According to this model viruses, viewed as concentrated packets of information, constitute engines, and Judaism does likewise at the cultural level of human existence, where information is generated by linguistic physiology to produce a social force creating the superorganic form.

I A friendly adage in unfriendly hands Last night, 17/01/2010, between the final of the Masters snooker and a Bond movie I caught the last minute or two of a documentary on BBC 4 called Aristotles Lagoon. In his closing summary the presenter, Armand Leroi, said that Aristotle had said that complex living things could not just put themselves together, they had to have something in addition, they needed information ! He also mumbled something about all our new ideas not being new at all, as all things had been thought of before, a principle that we have noted from time to time is a primary insight for any mature philosopher. So that although no scientists, of any kind, alive and working today, can comprehend the suggestion that information has some special relationship to life, let alone that information is fundamental to life, or, even more, as we have it, that information is life, we see that apart from atheist science, ancient science of 2,300 years ago, had deduced what we atheist scientists know to be a fact. Tuesday, 24 July 2012 It is also true that no scientist alive today can comprehend the idea that humans are animals. The point about this kind of extraordinary statement being, that although people mouth the words, they do not show us the actions that would show us that they know what the words indicate they know. So that, saying humans are animals, is no indication that a person knows that humans are animals, if they proceed to show us that they think humans are some kind of divinity, living free from the impress of natural laws, as Dawkins, for example, indicates in his work, and as all scientists do likewise. Leroi told us that Aristotle made the search for perfect truth dependant upon examining nature as the highest standard of authority, and in so doing he anticipated the modern world, which eventually found its way from the dingy past, into the green pastures of modern science ! Ha, twat !! Boy, the difference it makes when you know the truth, it is startling. In the past, hearing this conclusion I would of had a warm glow inside, as I admired both the speaker and the eulogy to the ideal I subscribe to that he was giving. Now I here the exact same words and I nearly vomit in disgust, I think of all the exact same examples of incredulity and downright corruption I have unearthed recently, like that of Russell discussed above, where people simply speak as if we lived in a free world, where science is free to think and say anything it likes. What an idiot I have been, talk about being suckered ! Today, Wednesday, 20 January 2010, my credit card bill arrived and showed some slack between my spending and my limit, which I immediately set about tightening up. This item about chosen people from the Caucasus struck me as something to buy when I found it the other day. Someone had posted a brief review on Amazon that I read, it lambasted the book, and quite rightly on the basis of the reasons given. However, the subtitle is about the Jews as major players in slavery and genocide, and anyone who wants to spout material of this kind in a recent work, that might present arguments I have not heard, has to be heard, however much of a nutter the author might be. After all, the most famous people of our society, in the light of atheist science, are made to look pathetic themselves, and there is no way for any sincere scientist or intellectual of any kind to even begin to argue with the primary principles elucidated by us in our atheist science. Clearly, the first imperative for all intellectuals is the total rejection of all religion, as something to be taken as knowledge that is capable of being classified as any kind of truth. I have therefore ordered a copy of this, probably useless book, so we will see soon enough what, if anything, can be derived from this odd sounding work. Friday, 20 July 2012 Not a lot.

II How Religion Made Us The night before last, 19/1/2010, BBC 2 screened the first episode of a documentary called How the Earth Made Us, which proved to be a nice programme. The general idea was to show how civilisation had tended to arise in areas close to major fault lines of the kind that demarcate plate boundaries. The reason being that these fault lines were places where concentrations of metals associated with the rise of trading empires and their associated civilisations occurred. In addition, in desert areas, this geology offered opportunities to access underground water resources. Having set out the attractions, the obvious downside was discussed, which less than a week after Haiti, which was mentioned, we hardly need telling about. As I walked to the detention centre this morning it occurred to me that I could use the argument made in this documentary to explain how atheist science could help people. The presenter visited Istanbul because sitting between Europe and the East had left this mature city in the position of a classic tectonic town, benefiting, but periodically paying the price. Standing in a street lined with old buildings we heard that the next significant earthquake was likely to destroy twenty five percent of Istanbuls buildings. The presenter said this did not need to happen, because we now knew how to reinforce buildings against the worst possible earthquakes. Listening to this man I was incredulous, what we can do, and what we can do, are two completely different things. As he himself said, the cost is prohibitive, and this is the third world we are talking about, even though our masters are determined to drag Turkey into the European Union. The gist of this programme was that human life styles had been dictated by natural circumstances which modern science had only recently unveiled. The result is that our massive global society is dispersed according to patterns of increased energy that carry positive and negative consequences, neither of which were ever known to anyone, except by way of immediate consequences. And herein lies the subtlety of the message I would like to apply to my own work. The idea that religion is central to society and gives us all the benefits most precious to us in terms of motivation and order, while at the same time inducing periodic fractures along precisely the lines of order established by religious identity, is not something anyone would find it easy to dispute. In this sense the geology of the planet can be likened to the religious dynamics of social life, taken at its broadest reach. So it is my contention that with the coming of atheist science which recognises religion as a real facet of nature, and treats it accordingly, we can now understand the underpinnings of religious dynamics in their totality, and thus explain all consequences of religion accordingly. Clearly then, we have made a direct comparison between the argument presented on TV the other night, and the central argument presented in atheist science. The reason for making this comparison is that our society is happy to listen to an argument coming from the physical sciences which no longer conflict with Biblical theology, where it counts, but this most assuredly does not apply to the science of life, with which we are concerned. There is no major insight to be derived from this comparison, but our object is to make the comparison in such a way as to indicate points of similarity that validate atheist science as science. In both cases we are talking about modern science revealing underlying forces of nature that have determined how we live today. In both cases this science has shown why we live as we do, because of the focus of energy according to natural lines of force acting upon us at a level beyond our normal powers of perception or knowing, in the first case planetary

and the second biological, applying on the macro scale. Atheist science recognises that religion is the personification of human corporate nature, manifest most perfectly in Judaism. In recognising this positive aspect, atheist science also has the power to understand the nature of the negative consequences of being driven to associate via linguistic force expressed through religion. And finally, while pointing these pros and cons out, we are, like the geologists, wandering through the soon to be smashed streets of a great city, empowered to describe what will happen, and to suggest that if we could live in a free society where science was free to exist, then we might be able to offer suggestions as to how we could enjoy the benefits of uniform global identities, without suffering the consequences. The proviso being, that unlike geology, biology is still under the constraints of religious oppression. So that only eccentric individuals are free to produce a philosophy of life to fill the void where a true biology should be, and hence, as things are at present, we do not have an official science of biology to explain what religion is, and how it can be ameliorated so as to remove the mindless horrors of life that come along with the mindless joys.

III Information 21/01/2010, I have just collected a copy of a book on information in biological systems from the library, Emergent Collective Properties, Networks and Information in Biology, Jacques Ricard, 2006. Our definition of life as information has made the subject of information of interest. From a confrontation with two young professional biologists in my local pub late one evening a couple of years ago, I have it fixed in my mind that the idea that, firstly, biologists have no idea whatsoever what life is, and secondly, that this point of ignorance is something they are incredibly proud of. Pride in ignorance can be taken as a sign of prowess in intellectual matters, for it shows that you are a master of a deeply esoteric art that no one can penetrate. The opposite condition, no matter how sublime, would indicate mundanity, in that if one person knows every answer to the questions asked, then anyone can know the same if they are taught by the discoverer of this knowledge. Obviously we see some personal, egotistic matters at work here, but when I told these young biologists, at their request, that life was information, they were stumped, and made no reply. From that time on I have taken it into my head to say that biologists have no idea that information means anything to their subject. Since that time, I have been alert for anything confirming my accusation, and keen to examine anything that would provides any ideas about information coming from biologists. Looking at this book we find information plays a leading role in the discussion, exactly what we want. But we are looking for a very specific answer from biologists with regard to information, and this we find more difficult to discern. What we ideally want is a statement concerning the relationship between information and life, but we do not expect to find such a thing. Turning to the index the hope was to find information having its own entry, and we dont. But there are entries for information in relation to other issues, and chasing these entries up leads to some interesting material. This book will need some close scouring, it is full of highly complex material which is way beyond any but the most rarefied scientists, but this nitty-gritty is irrelevant to the potential of this work to serve our purposes as a means of teasing out something about what information is.

Chapter 15

Life

Today at the detention centre : Friday, 22 January 2010 Last day of the tenth week, mellowing out now, forgot to take a disc so couldnt do anything, skived off early. Got talking with a young man, he asked if I was a music writer or poet or something, I had the look of some such personthe pony tail you knowso I told him I was a philosopher. He asked if I had published anything and I said it was not possible to publish what I write. He gave the standard reply : we live in a democracy, if people do not like it, dont look at it. I tried to nudge him toward some kind of understanding, knowing the task was futile of course. I explained that I am an atheist philosopher and the things I say cannot be said. Obviously he would have no way to comprehend this. I said something about proving God did not exist, and he said that he did not think it was a matter of proving God did not exist, it was merely a question of being free not to believe if you did not want to. This is such an intelligent response, it shows the problem one is up against in terms of universal programming by the One message. I tried some more. I said universities did not exist in order to proliferate knowledge, but rather to suppress knowledge. Again he came back with the standard programming message, conspiracy ! I said it sounded like conspiracy but it was not. How on earth do you get a person passed this mental block ? It is nigh on impossible, which just goes to show how efficient the Jewish slave programming is. He asked if I had seen some movie whose name I did not recognise, then he described it as being about a man whose friends were all actors, and the penny dropped, it had been on telly a few times recently but it was too weird to watch much of. But this mans response to what I was saying was perfect, I said that life was rather like the portrayal in the movie and that many movies and books had been produced that dealt with the subject. When my interlocutor had given the standard response to my standard statement regarding the impossibility of publishing what I write in this society, I dragged up my usual evidence intended to try and give substance to my apparently stupid declaration. I told him that the BBC had removed my material from one of their web forums. He said send them an angry email, I said I did, and I tried to get back on the site to make my objection, but I was blocked. I said that when I tried to communicate with scientists they went ballistic, cursing and insulting me. He said it is terrible when people react like that, when people should tolerate the views of others. All of this is standard fair, I could of been talking to a robot rather than an intelligent young man. Most fascinating of all in the context of this conversation was another standard response, or lack of response in fact. Although I had effectively said that I knew how to prove God did not exist, and therefore I had the key to understanding all aspects of the meaning of life for humans, never a glimmer of curiosity did this man show about this question. How amazing is that ? He was bright, anticipatory of my meanings, and quick to respond to whatever I said with an appropriate answer. But all his answers were of the nature of a comfort, an affirmation of my right as an individual to have my ideas, and there was never the slightest hint of interest in what those ideas, the greatest ideas any human could ever have, evidently, according to me, might be.

But there it is, I get this all the time, and on the rare occasions when I have someone trapped, and they cannot get away, after some long barrage from me, they tell me plainly, no one wants to know what I have to say. Not because it is me of course, because I am telling them the bare truth about life, and we do not live by truth, we live by way of an elaborate conception, we live by way of the White Lie. This man was animated by the White Lie of the One Message, he was playing his part as a priest of the Message as perfectly as anyone could. And this is the ultimate explanation for the success of the One Message that programmes us and makes us slaves of Judaism, we are the co-conspirators in the making of the message. This man accuses me of promulgating a conspiratorial vision of life, which denies my argument, and of course he should do this, because he, on this understanding, is one of the conspirators. But, the crucial thing is, he has no idea whatsoever that he is one of the conspirators. At this point I reach a barrier in terms of reading the subconscious of others from their behaviour and words, beyond which I just cannot reach. What is in the mind of someone who manipulates a conversation in order to maintain control of the discussion, in keeping with their social interests ? This is something we all do in an overt and conscious manner up to a point, we are acting politically when we do this. But my curiosity concerns the situation regarding the issues raised by my philosophy of atheist science. The practiced academic may well know that they are defending a lie, when the promote Darwinism for example. When Dawkins pretends Darwin was a scientist and his ideas are proven ....... but I tell you, if Dawkins is putting it on, that is some act, give the a man Badger Award, or Brit Award, or just shove it up the bastards arse, for he is the best and no one will ever beat his performance. But this young man yesterday, he cannot of had the faintest idea of where his defence of the principles of British freedom really led, namely the defence of Jewish fascism. Dawkins will not exactly know this, but Dawkins may know that Darwinism cannot be true because it neatly stops where humans come into view. His concern with religion is vacuous, it tells us nothing, it merely whines about the stupidity of religion in the face of science, a science which in reality tells us nothing about religion. So he treats religion as if it is a mere irrelevance, nothing real. How could he do this to the length of writing books and all, and not see the glaring error of his own logic, which just happens to be precisely the error that the absolute theocracy he serves, needs ?

I Being a philosopher Of course this man had no idea what being a philosopher and writing philosophy involved. When he asked if I had anything published, my hesitation, as I did not want to tell him about Scribd postings, that is not what he had in mind by the question, and I did not want my material being examined by folk in the detention centre while I was present, it would not of been a productive experience, he went on to say, or do you just tuck it away, making a mannerism with his hands, the act of secreting what I wrote under something. I went on to say there were sites that a person could post material to nowadays, and he did not ask which, or what. The point I am making, is that his question seemed to suggest that he automatically conceived of what I was saying I was doing as a mere expression of personal feelings, such as one might express in the writing of music or even in a piece of literature. Certainly much philosophy can be of this personal nature, and is more commonly, it is not usual to find scientifically committed people like myself maturing into full blown philosophers in this scientific age, it makes no sense, why not just be a scientist ! Well, we know the answer to that question dont we ? It sounds pointless to spend years writing away without ever seeking

to share material with others, but as my objective is science there is a question of discovery for my own sake involved in my work, and there is always much to do in this regard. But I would like others to have the opportunity to know the truth, and for that reason I certainly wish to be published, and hence I have been very pleased to find Scribd. As I have said before however, I know my ideas are not for the present, so I really think of them as being written for future generations, just to let people know that we could know the truth today, potentially, but we couldnt for age old reasons, which ultimately rest on the nature of the animals we are. It is a well recognised political principle, at the heart of what it means to be British, and to be concerned with freedom within society, within a free society that is, that we owe our freedoms to the sacrifices made by those who have gone before. This is a principle we see perverted by the priests when they send us into a contrived internecine conflict between ourselves and our fellow believers in freedom, so that we can destroy our own most valuable elements and reduce ourselves to slavery to Judaism, from which heroic efforts had released us. But so what, that is the nature of war, he who wilts and cries over losses and defeat, loses, while he who picks himself up and raises the banner of freedom once again, lives. We live because we fight back against the miscreant Jew who destroys us everyway they can. So, the freedom to think that I have, is a gift from my forefathers, and I have always held a passionate sense of this idea, for as long as I can recall, a gift from my father I suppose, who believed in English virtues in a manner beyond reason, but in a manner worthy of irrational belief because the object of that irrationality was of sacred value, as it was the thing that freedom means, which is : the freedom to know the truth. Which comes down to the freedom to know who, and what we are. This is the very freedom that the Jew, the master parasite, not to put too fine a point on it, with their slave-making religious identity programme, takes away from us. So I seek to live up to the ideal of freedom as handed down to me by my English father, and in doing this, I hope to pass that supreme English ideal onto future generations. Dont let them fool you, seek the real thing, not the Damned Lie. This is as close to the individualistic ideal as we can get, the closest we can come to realising our individuality as ends in ourselves. But even so, there is a collective ideal present in this expression of individuality realised in the pursuit of perfect true knowledge, in that we then get to know what our lack of individuality is all about, and have an opportunity to make our inevitable sacrifices with the benefit of a true sense of what those sacrifices mean. This idea is capable of spawning a true philosophy of life in the traditional sense of an ethical philosophy, although I have never felt much interest in such things, I have nonetheless felt a sense of duty toward formulating some such philosophy in recompense for destroying all others that have gone before by promoting atheist science. Such a philosophy would not have values in the traditional sense, it would take its values form those inherent in nature. Religion has sought to deny ethical values in nature, to make values the prerogative of man, but this is a malicious device of the priest. Pure knowledge of nature is, in itself, an ethical, or moral value, because life is all, life is everything, the idea that nature can be immoral, or amoral, is frankly insane. Tuesday, 24 July 2012 Though of course we are coming up against the political invective of language here, which is designed to impart a subliminal bias to language that makes the individual an end in themselves, as an idea buried in our subconscious at all times, by virtue of the language we speak and the meaning we derive from it as we use it, or, as it uses us. To take the idea of a philosophy of atheist science, we need some sort of example of how nature gives us ethical values directly, via the book of atheist science. The first great problem we are faced with once God has been dethroned by science, is to place ourselves in

the universe. At Home in the Universe by Stuart Kauffman, 1995, is a title that suggests the idea we have in mind, though I never found anything suggestive in this book, and right now I cannot find it without making a more intensive search. But for me a proper ethics of life are influenced by realising that we live in a physical setting with a knowable spatial and temporal dimension. The world we are living in is driven by the Jewish slave ethic, as a maximal expression of raw human corporate nature. This ethic says : go forth. It is all about increase. In turn this ethic has blossomed into what we call progress. So much is this the case that we are now at the point where we have a global society, faced with all the challenges of any mature, large scale society, but now on a global scale. And still we live by the age old imperative to : go forth. No one has quite been able to grasp the idea that there is no more forth a going begging, and it is time to stop pushing. But our philosophy, based on science as it has been given since I was a child, has always been one of : be still. In other words develop utopia, and then keep it. Why would anyone want to do anything else ? The best account I have read that makes me feel a sense of the problem comes from The Jews and Modern Capitalism by Sombart, 1913. This book talks about a pre-Jewish phase of European life, where the ideal of being still, reigned supreme. No one thought of progress, they just thought of organized well being. There was no advertising, no lowering of quality in order to compete for trade among the lower orders, in effect this was a pre-capitalist economy ; I loved the sound of it. Just imagine, a world in which we are not farmed as cattle ! Incredible, how sweet life might be. I know it is not possible to imagine this, we have no idea that we are mere cattle in the hands of the priestfarmers, so how can we imagine what it would be like to be free, when we already know we are free ! But, even so, just imagine, a world in which we are not cattle, where there are no detention centres for recalcitrant slaves, a world where everyone is paid the same whether they work or not, where nothing is done if just one person objects, no forests burned down, no roads built, no houses built, nothing, if just one person in a million, says no. Heaven ! No more mindless exploitation where the sole concern is money, where the sweat of the masses is drained to fill a central reservoir that exists to empower the Jews, the master race. I believe that nature tells us that the highest expression of human corporate nature, needs this be still imperative at its heart, because it tells us that we live in a universe which sets limits upon us that cannot be breached, that we must therefore live within. Our masters, the Jews, have taken possession of us in accordance with the dictates of our mechanical, biological nature, and driven us against this intellectual ethic derived from nature, so that now we see progress threatening our destruction. What kind of progress delivers annihilation I would like to know ! This is the sort of idea I would want to work into a scientific model of life based on ethics dictated by the book of nature, as known by science.

II An Atheist Science motto to live by I tried to earth my philosophical interest in religion with a real life context. I said that just before Christmas the new member of parliament for my area had been selected because she was a Christian. He said that was not right, and should not happen. I said they did not do this officially, they did it by manipulating the system. Then I tried to emphasise the greater significance of the point I was making by starting to say that this is what they do all the time, and this is why we find Christians dominating parliament. However, at this moment someone else entered the rest area and, hearing the gist of what I was saying, joined in by raising the

current affairs item concerning the airline employee who had been forbidden to wear a crucifix at work. I said I hate all religion, and he said that he did too, but it was still a matter of freedom of expression. He was really making an objection to Islamic privileges in our society, something all us white boys and girls rant on about when we get together. I said no one had the right to be religious, and he disagreed, saying as long as he could think what he wanted, that was the golden rule, and the other fellow concurred with this, naturally, this is the foundation of our British values concerning freedom. The motto for today then folks is : all is not as it seems. The principle of freedom of thought for individuals is based upon the idea of everyone being an end in themselves, it can be thought of as the mechanism of division, as indicated in the saying Divide and conquer. The trouble is, this freedom for all based on the authority of the individual, means that if a medium of social formation exists that directs people to conform to a pattern, such as religions do, then the result is a series of enclaves of religious identity which form power blocks constituting facets of the superorganisms exoskeleton. Where all such enclaves are made to one pattern in the end, which is Judaism, as there can only be one pattern, since what we are talking about here, is identity. This formation of power blocks on the basis of freedom for all as individuals, seen as existing as end in themselves, is so obvious, for all that it is contradictory, that when we describe it like this you would think it could not fool a six year old idiot. Yet it fools us all, no matter how clever and well educated we are. The reason for this gullibility was displayed by my colleagues in unemployment today, since they gave a perfect demonstration of the absolute principle of self existence, of self being, of the presumed status of the individual as an end in themselves. I too was a subscriber to this slave mechanism, formerly. The problem is that this ideal is an ideal to which we must all subscribe, irresistibly, how can we do otherwise ? And so it is that the absolute theocracy that owns us, programmes us, and farms us as domesticated cattle, exists to ensure that this ideal is manifest in reality, so that what I was really attempting to do from the moment I allowed myself to confide in this young man that I was a philosopher today, was to destroy this entire illusion which he had all the answers to, and which I could not push over without bringing him to my house, daily, for the next five years, and elaborately leading him through all the books I have and all the ideas I have formulated to prove that in fact, all is not as it seems ! And after five years of concentrated effort, you can bet he would of said, but of course that is not what I think !! As if it matters a toss what anyone thinks !!!

III Life on a loop Last night I watched a documentary called Aristotles Lagoon, already mentioned above. I hate the way the increase in TV channels has simply resulted in an endless repetition of programmes on a loop. Broadcasters who know all about how to present shit as sugar, say this gives us a chance to see things we have missed, as if the crap they produce is ever worth watching the first time. However, as indicated above, the tail end of this programme did catch my imagination so that I was pleased to catch it from the beginning of the loop last night. It was of course essentially religious garbage masquerading as science, but it was a nice topic and I was able to comb some particles of value from the mix. I had intended to find where I had talked about this show above and insert these remarks, but as this morning threw up another topic I find we can keep the relevance going here. Firstly, I now know that the presenter of this show on Aristotle was a biologist, a professional scientist. This was a BBC propaganda production, so we know it is going to be

a sophisticated piece of deviant work as good as anything Darwin ever knocked up. This presenter told us he was an atheist, but not in so many words, God forbid that anyone would actually call themselves by the A word on the BBC. However when it came to talking about how we understood the nature of existence today, he said that the Bible was a perfect way of understanding reality, on a par with science ! Can you believe this ? Alright, he did not use these precise words, what he actually said was that today we have two ways of understanding the nature of life, religious, as in creation, and science, as in evolution. By evolution of course, he meant Darwinism. He continuously juxtaposed Aristotle alongside Darwin, as if Darwin was a scientist ! He told us all about how brilliant Aristotle was, and how scientific he was, then, when we came to the culmination of Aristotles work we found out that the man went off the deep end, subscribing to a model of nature that flew in the face of all that he had been doing as a scientist examining nature, as he basically concluded that God created everything. As with Darwin then, so it was with Aristotle, both men devoted their lives to science and became the voice of science, and both men ended in facile stupidity which destroyed any possibility of making science the means of knowing reality, and instead ensured the persistence of religion. But this idiot did not see this, he thought, apparently, that science and religion could both be maintained as possible ways of seeing the world at one and the same time, in the same society. In effect, this whole show was a subtle ruse to proclaim that science and religion were both in harmony in the world today, still continuing the work of men like Carpenter from Darwins time, as discussed in The Colonial Ape, and Stephen Gould in our own time, so that we have notable scientists within each generation devoting themselves to the argument that we could do science, without compromising religion. What utter shit. So this show was, in reality, a very nasty piece of work. But, apart from me, who knows it ? It did its job, as this fake science always does, because we live in an absolute theocracy where the total control of knowledge is so perfect, no one knows anything is amiss. When the men I was talking to today speak up for freedom of religious speech, they are of course just repeating a programme written to their brains, delivering the idea that all they require in order to be free, is to be free to think what they choose think at any time, they have no idea how devious and nasty the long game of theocratic control has been. They have no idea that they do not exist, that nature has made them to be robots, and religion ensures they will be. They hate Muslims being here, but they have no comprehension of why they are here. They would not wish to be in a war, but they have no idea that when we go to war it is always to ensure we remain enslaved to Judaism, irrespective of what we think we think for ourselves. They just do not get it, they live in a bubble of linguistic flux from which they cannot escape, and beyond which they cannot see. The priest presenting last nights rerun is no better off than these men at the detention centre, he is a professor, but that only means that his blindness is even more entrenched than the blindness of the rest of us hapless dupes. To me the way these biologists display their atheism is in the manner of a boast, rather than an intellectual stance. There is no emphasis upon atheism, they simply indicate that they do not believe in God, as if this was the natural corollary of being a biologist, because being a biologist means being a Darwinian, and being a Darwinian means being an atheist. But because there is no depth to their atheism, there is no significance to their expression of this outlook. And indeed, this hollow declaration matches perfectly the function of Darwinism within an absolute theocracy which banishes all science by means of subversion. The fact that biologists appear to adopt the atheist stance so brazenly, yet vacuously, indicates the true nature of Darwinism as a ploy designed to create a sterile science that ultimately has no meaning, other than to allow technical science to exist, shorn of

any potential to synthesise ultimate knowledge. All that last nights programme was about then, was sustaining the White Lie.

IV Innate individualism The behaviour I encountered today, which is exactly the kind I always encounter when I expose individuals to my ideas, suggests that we evolved to think of ourselves as individuals, that the very nature of our intelligence is such as to make us bias towards sensing our own significance over that of others, or anything other than ourselves and our self interest. This topic is a fundamental question in philosophy where any attempt is made to understand social life. We just want to make this observation in the light of the real experience encountered when trying to communicate with others about the nature of reality. It may well of been in Wiese, discussed above, that I read that someone argued that the whole history of human advancement had been about the development of the idea of the individual. Then again I think I have said something already about how Wiese identifies one person with the idea that primitive people were absolute individualists, so that it is the induction of people into social cooperation that delineates the coming of civilisation from a sociological viewpoint, where individuality is reduced. These two views, that history is about individuality or about the reduction of individuality, are diametrically opposed, and if this description of Wiese is correctand it probably does describe the kind of stuff generally produced in the nineteenth centurythen Wieses contention that all sociology up until his own time was one big mess of confusion, is a fair one. Although we have already indicated how this mess was not necessary, all it did was to facilitate the subversion of science that allowed religion to persist, and it was the intrusion of the religious into the fields of sociology which created this problem. It does seem to me, when I confront individuals with my reasoning, as I did today, that they are displaying a highly sophisticated kind of individuality which, because we know it is the exact opposite of individuality, being the product of slave programming which human form evolved to facilitate, looks like a curious twist on the two alternate propositions we just identified. So it is as if the increasing development of the idea of the individual as a free agent is indeed to be associated with the evolution of supermassive complex superorganic physiology of the kind we call civilised. But the reason that this ever increasing emphasis upon self assertive individuality is the foundation of an ever increasing superorganic being, is that the descent into ever greater degrees of a sense of self is, in reality an ever increasing separation of the individual from their true corporate nature. Thus, a person living within a small hunter gather tribe would feel their organic bond with each member of the tribe intensely, and be utterly incapable of separating themselves from their fellows. This intense association with the fellow members of one unified superorganic being is precisely why other humans are not seen as human, but as something, another animal, to be destroyed freely, and eaten, even. The bond can never be reduced because it is an absolute condition, it is an expression of the nature of the human being. But as social structure evolves, it needs to incorporate more individuals in ever more complex arrangements, and in order to do this more space must exist between individuals. This is not three dimensional space we are thinking of, it is consciousness of space, and this is precisely what a strict sense of individuality is, it is a sense of strictly defined space, defined by the existence of the self. From that position all else follows, in terms of the possibility of evolving interconnected, but discrete complex structure.

We may go a little further in our ruminations on the nature and origin of the self as a concept. It is a matter of record that what is associated with the upper echelons of society, whether it be a Pharaohs burial rights in ancient Egypt or a fashion in modern Europe, over time these special attributes tend to filter down to society at large. It is clear that in the past the idea of the great individuals from history dominated popular ideas, and this personalised idea is seen to of filtered down to the masses in the form of democracy, and the notion of the individual as some sort of supreme authority in matters of knowledge, exactly as exemplified by my companions this morning, not withstanding how absurd their ideas about their self validating authority are. To them of course, I am no different than they are, I am a doley bum stuck in the same shithole as them, and if I have an opinion on something then so do they, if my opinion were any better than theirs then I would of published books, I might be rich, famous maybe, but for sure I would not be amongst them. These last thoughts are implicit, not explicit, but you can be sure that if I had got pushy about my ideas, rebukes would of been forthcoming that would of expressed such sentiments. This is how we are contained as conscious individuals, within the tight limits of our own mental imprinting, by our own physiological fabric, by the linguistic programming induced into this physiological fabric, and by the physiological structures that we exist within, that give the superorganism we are part of its bodily form. Last night, 21/01/2010, on Question Time on BBC 1, someone asked if the burka was a sign of a divided Britain, and if it should be banned. We might just note that the news yesterday included a piece about the threat of such a move in France. People on the panel expressed a dislike of the burka and a desire for its outlawing. A women in the audience spoke of how she found it intimidating. But when the ministers appearing from the government spoke, they adopted a line that was all about stomping on the arguments that had been heard. Part of that snuffing out was based on the absolute right of individuals to express themselves freely, totally ignoring the fact that this was not about a fashion statement, nor even a subculture, or a youth culture seeking individualistic or personal expression. This was about a device intended to focus social power, it had nothing whatsoever to do with individual choice or freedom of expression. But this did not stop these miscreant criminals from suppressing resistance to Jewish slave fascism, and doing it by calling upon our Achilles heel for help, namely our dumb fixation on the rights of the individual. Of course these bastards hold us in a Catch 22 by this device. For if we were to dismiss the idea of freedom in relation to the individual as an authority in their own right, these twats would not hesitate to reverse their logic and start saying, Fine, why didnt you say you dont want to live in a free society, no problem we will pass laws to copy what the Nazis did in Germany, now are you happy ? Given time and opportunity it is easy to argue our way out of such linguistic traps, but the social domain does not function at the level of a philosophical debate, it operates at the level of interacting messages carrying the impetus of structural force, so there are no subtleties, there are only crudities, one or the other dichotomies, freedom or slavery, and no in-between. Yet, as we have just seen when talking about the evolution of civilisation on the bases of an ever increasing sense of individuality, these movements are inherently contradictory, which means they both move in the same direction, that of an increasing distance between the power of individuality, and an ever increasing centralisation of power. This is so because the increase of individuality is simply an increase in the distance between the individuals sense of self, and their true nature. An individuals human nature can never change, but their sense of that nature can, and so it is the sense of individuality that changes over historical time, and that is all that changes. But because of the animals that we are, being mere sentient bricks evolved to form a superorganism at the level of social

organization, our sense of what is, is all that matters in terms our functioning in life. This sense of self is crystallised in our language, so that while we live in a world where the individual absolutely does not exist, we nonetheless think the individual reigns supreme, just because of the meaning imbued into the language we use, that we have an example of from a day at the detention centre, that the authorities call some kind of help scheme.

V Everything is a conspiracy What I might of said to my colleagues in detention, had the real world, been an ideal world, is When I was your age we did not have the Jobseekers Agreement, we had Unemployment Benefit. Why do you suppose they changed it ? The new system was carefully designed by teams of lawyers, this shows in the delivery, the way we are obliged to make declarations that create levers, or handles, by which the state can control our behaviour by law, enabling them to stop our benefits and so on. This whole process involved an intense effort by the best legal minds, to manipulate us. So, what do you suppose they did when they had finished crafting this new system ? Do you suppose that after devising all their little traps and tricks they produced a leaflet setting out exactly what they had done so that we would understand it as they did, revealing every detail of all their thoughts and objectives ? No, of course not. But if this is so, then this was a conspiracy, for all a conspiracy means is keeping things covert in order to engineer of hidden objective. And this is how the state operates in the process of law making all the time. Indeed, if you are interested enough to follow current affairs programmes you will find that politicians routinely declare their intention of manipulating the masses, to get them to do what they do not want to do, on all sorts of issues. We would never call this a conspiracy because the state is doing it, just as we would not call a soldier in Afghanistan shooting a Taliban murder, but the act of killing, aside from its sanction by the state, is not one wit different from what a criminal might do in the course of an armed robbery. I have just told you that the purpose of the universities is to control knowledge, to ensure the truth cannot be known, and you say I am a conspiracy theorist., I could of gone on. The fact is that society cannot exist without religion, not as we know it, and the state is the guardian of religion. The universities are the guardians of knowledge, and unbridled science threatens to bring about the end of religion. So it follows that the institutions charged with promoting science must manage the process in exactly the same way as politicians routinely manage social order, through a judicious use of secrecy. This leads to the situation that an astute loner may discover, as I have just described to you. You call it a conspiracy because I am making the accusation against our own social order, but I do not present it as a conspiracy, I present it as a natural consequence of the nature of the kind of social creatures we are, that obliges us to organise our lives as we do.

Chapter 16

Dawkins

I despise Dawkins so much because of his horrible position as the most dynamic promoter of the science of evolution and its complimentary atheist ideology, in a fraudulent manner, that I use his name in vain all the time, and rarely pause to examine his work. I just used his name thus while writing about my exchange of thoughts at the detention center yesterday, and having just expressed curiosity at how Dawkins can write about atheism in the way that he does without knowing he is being an agent of absolute theocracy, suppressing science and defending religion, it occurred to me to lift his God Delusion from the shelf and take a quick peek while my focus was on this question. Obviously we begin with the contents, which are a nightmare. Its all about religion taken at face value, there are no devastating titles that capture our enthusiasm, such as The War Between Religion and Science, or The Impossibility of Religion and Science Coexisting. And indeed, Dawkins would not subscribe to the idea inherent in these two most desirable headings, for he thinks religion and science do exist side by side. So we push on, seeing if it is possible to discover what Dawkins thinks on these matters, from the most cursory examination. We jump to chapter five, The Roots of Religion, and this is certainly pertinent to our quest. This is exactly the kind of question we answer in atheist science, by saying that God is the superorganism. So the roots of religion are the corporate nature of humans, whose individual physiology evolved to allow a superorganism to live at the level of social organization. But this is not what our Gatekeeper is about to say, for sure. I soon gave up on this chapter, it is practically unreadable, the man pumps Darwinism into his text like a butcher adding weight to his meat by injecting it with an emulsified protein. I just cant read it. It is so laborious, all about how Darwinism explains that life is a finely tuned machine built for efficiency, and religion is so wasteful. This is going nowhere and I dont care a fig for what the man is wittering on about. I want to know about the war between religion and science, so I turn to the index and look for science, and find nothing ; war, nothing ; conflict, Comte ! Comte ? What has Dawkins to say about Comte ? Heres something, its not much, but it is a telling statement on Dawkins view of the state of the war between religion and science, a war he implicitly denies exists, of course : The PAP [Permanent Agnosticism in Principle] style of agnosticism is appropriate for questions that can never be answered, no matter how much evidence we gather, because the very idea of evidence is not applicable. The question exists on a different plane, or in a different dimension, beyond the zones where evidence can reach. An example might be that philosophical chestnut, the question whether you see red as I do. Maybe your red is my green, or something completely different from any colour that I can imagine. Philosophers cite this question as one that can never be answered,

no matter what new evidence might one day become available. And some scientists and other intellectuals are convinced too eagerly in my view that the question of Gods existence belongs in the forever inaccessible PAP category. From this, as we shall see, they often make the illogical deduction that the hypothesis of Gods existence, and the hypothesis of his non-existence, have exactly equal probability of being right. The view that I shall defend is very different : agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP category. Either he exists or he doesnt. It is a scientific question ; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability. (God Delusion, p. 70) Alright, now we like this, if it was not for the fact that I know Dawkins general outlook I would be rather pleased by this reasoning. We always say that either God exists or he does not, so there is no reason why we should not expect science to answer the question. But there are some far more important follow ups to this observation than that which we get from Dawkins pen. He goes on to use pap in the true sense of the word, as we found him doing when stuffing his text with irrelevant Darwinian drivel, here he starts seeking to prove the principle that people may believe some things forever beyond the ken of man, only to be proven wrong by the unimaginable glories of science. Well screw that, who gives a shit ? How about telling us something more pertinent to actually proving that God does not exist, scientifically, you twat !

I What is God ? The observation that God either exists or does not, and there can be no grey area about this, and that since the question is a matter of the existence of something this means this is a question for science, means that the implications of this observation can be spelt out. Such that, for science, the question has to be, We know that belief in God exists as a normal functional aspect of an animals existence, without which this animal cannot exist, as far as we know, but we also know that God does not exist ? So therefore it follows that God must be something very real in the experience of this animal, which means the question for science is, What is God ? In effect this is what Dawkins sets out to tackle when we come to chapter five, but we can see from the way that we have handled the problem just now, that we separate belief in God from the scientific question about what God is in reality. In other words we are not conflating the idea of belief as a behaviour, with the idea of God as a manifestation of this behaviour. We are expressly recognising the idea of Gods existence as identifying something real, but at the same time something other than what the belief identifies it to be. The belief for us, is a misrepresentation of reality, but, at the same time, from what we have said, it follows that the belief is a functional misrepresentation. The next obvious question then, is whether the misrepresentation is itself a functional facet of the belief in God, Does human awareness of that which is God in reality, have to be manifest in an indirect form, as a misrepresentation, in order to be functional ? In which case this requirement of human nature would preclude the discovery of that which God is in reality, it would, in other words, preclude the possibility of science answering this question. Which conclusion is rather closer to answering the kind of discussion Dawkins has constructed in the above.

This last question is rather odd, it feels unnatural to ask if we might need to known about things incorrectly, in order for our knowledge of these things to have any value. However, since we have the benefit of always knowing what the solution to these exasperating mysteries is, we can understand why a rationalisation of the question raised by Dawkins should lead to such peculiar questions about how humans comprehend reality. The fact is that we, as individuals, do not exist as ends in ourselves, we are not human beings. Rather we are cellular units of a living human being, and as such there is an inversion of the reality we are trying to understand when we accrue ideas about the nature of this being, leading to the peculiar consequence that in order for our knowledge of this beings nature to be of service to us in life, we must know it indirectly, so that we can continue to feel a sense of our own self, allowing us to act in the most functional manner within our roles as cellular units of the superorganism to which we belong. Now, why do we not get some such stuff as this from Dawkins ? He has the makings of a proper insight into the nature of God, as he grasps the irrefutable principle that it must be possible for science to show what religion is as a facet of the human animals existence. But he has no idea what this God thing might be, he just knows it must be something. The way he tackles the problem however, leads us away from the main path of inquiry and out into the marshes, where we soon sink and drown in an effluvium of meaningless words. The fascinating thing for us in reading this section of The Gatekeepers leading atheist work, which is a piece in the war between science and religion, a piece of treachery in fact, is that at the very point where he elaborately denounces the agnostic stance in principle, as untenable, he, in that very act, like a man firing a bullet into the skull of a victim even as he screams aloud that killing is wrong, produces an argument which is itself inherently agnostic as regards the question whether or not God exists. All Dawkins has done here is to remove the in principle condition. Aside from that, he affirms an agnostic for now condition instead, as the only possible valid position for anyone, since the fact is, according to him, for the present science has no idea why people believe in God, we just know that belief must exist for some reason. And of course, as long as the miscreant excuse for science that this man touts like crazy, continues to drown our world in fake science, science never will solve the problem of what God is. And herein, with this little review of the great atheist of our times work, we see a masterly example of the Gatekeepers craft in full view. As we always say, all the priest cares about is the at present condition. As long as the debate goes on, as long as the ball of false knowledge is kept up in the air, then the absolute theocracy is home and dry, because the absolute Jewish theocracy is real, is here, and is now. As we always say, religion always trumps science, because for religion to be valid all it needs to do is to be there, religion is a biological function, if it exists then it is doing what it is supposed to do. Whereas this is not the case for science. Science is unnaturalwhich is why it does not exist it carries no bias load of linguistic force allowing it to create social structure by accumulating biomass to its ideas, since science has no variation, it is absolute, egalitarian, and free for all, once established. But this only applies if science is true, and when faced with the opposition of religion science can never be true. This brings us to a question that we see no obvious discussion of in Dawkins work, concerning the inherent conflict between religion and science, and whether it is possible for science and religion to coexist. There are references in the index to freedom of thought, but not as a subject for consideration. Dawkins is no philosopher, he is a scientist, of sorts, originally a computer programmer I believe, but that is no excuse for this oversight, for I am no scientist, I am a philosopher of science, and as such my philosophy is the most perfect science that I know of, ever to of existed. There is no reason why Dawkins should not of recognised these wider issues, except for the fact that he is not interested in science, he is

interested in supporting Darwinism as a religious creed, and that is all. His own biographical account of himself reveals this side to his thinking, how he came to believe in Darwin, in a programme called Beautiful Minds I think it was. I am pleased that I have taken a moment to spend some time thinking about something specific by Dawkins, because his name inevitably crops up regularly in what we write about, without us ever spending much time actually looking at his work, the above makes a slight correction to this lack on our part. But of course, the truth is that from an atheist science point of view, Dawkins falls into the category of a priest of the theocracy, so that his work boils down to nothing more than a religious diatribe appearing in the form of a scientific work, a deception in other words. So that, as with overtly religious works, and overtly religious works dealing with science and philosophy, while we must always be delighted to find such works to act as a sounding board for our contrary responses, we do not ordinarily want to examine such works at length, because they are simply not coming from the same scientific principle, based on nature, as we are ourselves. To speak thus of a work like Dawkins is radical, because he is a practicing scientist contemporary with ourselves, or academic at least, and we are taking on the whole of our world by dismissing him thus, and his work may be worth more detailed examination accordingly. But not now, this would only be the case if our work were recognised by the world at large, and warranted some closer examination of the problems to do with modern science, because others were interested in our arguments. As it is, we have better things to think about, talking of which, I was just wetting my appetite for some ruminations on the subject of information, as a scientific subject in itself.

II Unabashed What we do not find with Dawkins, is any self questioning, he is all about the presentation of an idea, which is presumed to be correct. In other words Darwins theory of natural selection is the key to understanding all things regarding the creation of life. But then, when it comes to understanding humans, Darwin craps out, he can tell us absolutely nothing. Is Dawkins in the least bit bothered by this ? Not one little bit, he is not phased at all, he just takes a leaf out of the Bible and declares humans beyond the reach of Darwinian explanation ! Can you believe the gall of the arrogant bastard ? When he talks about the roots of religion he immediately sets to talking about how Darwin accounts for all aspects of reality, and therefore must account for the human inclination to produce religion. But we saw how he earlier on declared the solution to the problem unknown, although knowable. So we have the makings of a general philosophical question here, thus : Darwinism is definitely the key to understanding all facets of living existence, there is no known feature of existence that Darwinism cannot account for, except religion. Why the breakdown at this point ? Well of course, there is hardly any aspect of life that Darwinism accounts for, so the whole premise is absurd. That is precisely why so many leading scientists were orienting themselves toward more all embracing theories of evolution, people like Bernard, up until the Great Cleansing. There are no competing theories of evolution now, simply because none are allowed to exist, and it took world wide warfare to establish this vital position for the Jewish order. None of this is considered by Dawkins, he is a fanatical Darwinist. There is nothing wrong with being fanatical about something when it is right, when it answers the questions presented to it that we have a right to assume come within its competence. But when a theory

of life totally fails to deal with humans, and leaves the arch enemy of science untouched as a mode of understanding all things and ruling our political world, then we must question the keys reality. Despite Dawkins intense interest in the persistence of religion, he is never caused to doubt his key. And this is especially suspect when there is a readily available alternative mode of understanding that would embrace humans within nature perfectly, leaving no sign of disharmony in the model of life. Dawkins knows about the idea that humans are superorganisms, and he rejects, he does not say why, he just doesnt like it. Well theres a good reason if ever I heard one, coming from the pen of a priest that is. Belief in the key come what may, is a classic sign of religious fanaticism, we saw a perfect example of its expression last week in Haiti, where the media paid attention to how the Haitians faith was bolstered by Gods expression of love in the cruel slaughtering of a couple of hundred thousand people, a sign of his plans for those who survived, so the survivors declared, so we were told. This obscene devotion to religion in the face of the very thing that ought to destroy belief in God, is always affirmed on television from the mouths of the victims who survive, we saw the same thing after the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York by Muslim slaves of Judaism, when relatives were shown praising God in the time soon after. Our masters are always quick to ensure the media shows that such incidents only reinforce faith in the Almighty who is responsible for all things that happen on earth. All in all, thinking of Dawkins as a phenomenon produced by the theocracy, it is vital that Darwinism and atheism be made one with each other, because the whole point of Darwinism is to serve as a fake science taking the place of a true science that would inevitably destroy religion. Darwinism, being fake, that is sterile science incapable of destroying religion, must be made to look like the real thing by producing biologists who are out and out atheists. And this peculiar result is what we get, biologists, like the ones I met in the pub a couple of years ago, or like the one presenting Aristotles Lagoon last week, are matter-of-fact atheists. They have no idea what atheism is, it is as if part of their training as biologists inducted into the Darwinian religion, includes a package that requires them to be atheists. In Dawkins we see a full blown Darwinian model of atheism, but the interesting thing is that this association between Darwinism and atheism, is exactly what would be required of a fake science of life, such as we know Darwinism is. Sunday, 24 January 2010. I just put the TV on while having my breakfast of tea and toast, and the Big Questions show on BBC 1 was debating Does the earthquake in Haiti prove God does not exist ? Very funny given what I have just been saying about this very topic. An awful lot of garbage was being spoken, as we would expect, but following some discussion about the way such a disaster has positive effects, by reminding us how to behave responsibly toward each other, one man, an atheist I assume, said that all humans are born with an impulse to do good, because of their collective being. I do not think I have recalled his exact phrase, which is annoying because it was perfect, but this tiny statement is in perfect accord with the atheist science view that human nature is corporate, and the human animal is a superorganism. As stated, his view does not go this far, as it makes the person out to be the human animal, which science shows is not the case, but the logic he employed assumed a human nature existed that had evolved to create social unity, and we need not be surprised if a person recognising this much simply on the basis of commonsense guided by science, has not gone as far as ourselves in unfolding the inevitable implications of this insight taken to its maximum extent.

III Atheism apes religion I am getting back into Dawkins now, so Ill just go with the flow. I am looking for the passage that shows Dawkins considering humans as superorganisms, and rejecting it out of hand. In the meantime I found a passage where he objects to being called a fundamentalist atheist, and he defines a fundamentalist thus : Fundamentalists know they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief. The truth of the holy book is an axiom, not the end product of a process of reasoning. (God Delusion, p. 319) We are of course accusing him of being a fundamentalist Darwinian, wherein The Origin of Species figures as the holy book that serves as an axiom not to be questioned. Dawkins says science has vindicated Darwinism, but this just is not true. The fact that he cannot prove God does not exist by showing what God is, itself proves that Darwinism is worthless as science, because this is the first thing that would go out of the window in the light of a true theory of lifes nature, which is what Darwins theory of evolution is tantamount to. But Dawkins is good, he is very good, he has the scientific patter off to perfection, we feel ourselves drawn to him constantly as we read his words. The chapter in which the above sentences appear, looks to be a direct examination of the war between religion and science, it is chapter eight Whats Wrong with Religion ? Why be so Hostile ? Reading on, speaking of the fundamentalism of scientists, he says this : We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. (Ibid., p. 320) Sounds good, but of course evolution is beyond dispute, and it seems mighty convenient that he suddenly fails to pump his text full of Darwinism just when we are questioning the validity of scientific faith in this so called science. If he had said this for example : We believe in Darwin because the evidence supports him, and we would abandon him overnight if new evidence arose to disprove Darwinism. How would that sound ? It is quite different isnt it ? Suddenly the great edifice of science is made to pivot upon the arguments of just one man who produced his ideas a long time ago. For Dawkins evolution is Darwin ; Darwin is evolution. But we see from the selective use he makes of these interchangeable terms, that he intuitively understands the frailty of his intellectual pivot, and uses it accordingly. The strong pivot of evolution is used one minute, and the weak pivot of Darwin is used the next, when a slack definition is best suited to the vagueness of the argument being presented. When Dawkins wants absolute clarity, as he does here, he does not refer to Darwin. Whereas, when he wants to sow confusion, as when discussing the roots of religion, then Darwins name comes flooding into the text, obscuring everything. Saturday, 30 June 2012 Imagine if physicists or astronomers used the name of Newton interchangeably with the term gravity in their discussions, their arguments would

lose consistency and become chaotic. Hence this is never done, because the last thing these scientists want is confusion. I just looked at the beginning of another chapter which sounded good, chapter six, The Roots of Morality : Why are we Good ? This just after hearing the simple statement on The Big Questions given above, and finding a load of waffle about what religious freaks think. I flipped a few pages on only to become bogged down in the same kind of gush as we noted had blocked our penetration of Dawkins reasoning at the beginning of his discussion of the roots of religion. Here we find him turning to the arts of the obscurantist philosophers, talking about games and dilemmas. This is of course drawn from ideas having to do with extending genetics into social life, via game theories that are supposed to reveal how group selection operates by posing logical dilemmas that individuals, note individuals, have to solve. This logic allows things like the prisoners dilemma to show how individuals are made to act cooperatively in order to get the best outcome from a tricky situation, where acting selfishly will not cut it. These ideas demonstrate the methods priests have developed to deal with altruism, a word coined by Comte incidentallyit is all about avoiding a true science of life. What we find with Dawkins, as with all scientists, obviously, is a total failure to realise that when we talk about the roots of a species behaviour, we are inevitably talking about one thing, and one thing only, their evolved physiology, created by their genes. You would think, given Dawkins stance on genetics, that he of all people would make this proviso clear at every opportunity when the subject of human roots arises, but oh no, never a dickybird about genetics then ! How odd. Not really.

IV War at last ! As we proceed onward into this chapter things get really good. This chapter takes on the form it ought to have, unfortunately Dawkins fails, for why I cannot imagine, to place his argument in the context of the ongoing, age old war of religion against science which means that as long as religion exists, science cannot ah yes, that was why, he wants to pretend that science does actually exist alongside religion, whats wrong with me ! But anyway, the material we come upon now is all about the war between religion and science, and the utter impossibility of religion and science existing at the same time, in the same society, whether Dawkins knows this or not. Here Dawkins unintentionally proves the reality of our amazing assertion that science does not exist today, at all, because here it is clear that the only reason Dawkins can do science and be a scientist is because he is able and willing to subscribe to what passes for science, while living with the reality of religion ruling our world, and seeing no conflict between religion and science, only a conflict between people. Dawkins total submission to the Darwinian fraud is all that makes him able to be a scientist and do science, if he were to see the fraud for what it is, he would immediately be disbarred from doing science and promoting atheist philosophy, except as a lone outcast like myself. The rest of this chapter, after talking about how a geologist had become a creationist, spirals far away from the war between religion and science, and takes on a general atheist critique of religion in society. This is all very well, and we especially like the point made regarding the way politicians try to separate Islamic terror from Islamic religion by simply talking of a war on terror (p. 344). But generally, what we would want from a man like

Dawkins, pretending as he does to be the champion of science against religion, is for him to deal with the questions this chapter purports to deal with, Whats Wrong with Religion ? Why be so Hostile ? specifically, in terms of the problem religion poses to the prosecution of genuine, full on science. Thursday, 26 July 2012 Though obviously, this issue was dealt with the day Darwin published his famous treatise on evolution, that was the whole point of Darwins lifelong effort, to separate the issue of religion and science, and as a Darwinian this fact is taken care as far as Dawkins is concerned. So the only issue now, for him, is the acceptance of evolution by the religious ; that is Dawkins game, forcing this idea of acceptance as part of the ongoing Darwinian sham. Darwin separated science and religion without harming religion, which is just what religion needed, and what true science could not provide, if it really existed, as can be seen from our Atheist Science. He does approach this question of the problem religion poses to doing science, as we have said, and he specifically states : As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. (Ibid., p. 321) Fundamentalist religion is hell-bent on ruining the scientific education of countless thousands of innocent, well-meaning, eager young minds. Non fundamentalist, sensible religion may not be doing that. But it is making the world safe for fundamentalism by teaching children, from their earliest years, that unquestioning faith is a virtue. (Ibid., p. 323) Ooh, did you get that ? He unwittingly spots an organicist mechanism, by recognising a hierarchical link between degrees of religious intensity. Of course it is our selective processing that has revealed this conjunction lying within his reasoning, Dawkins is evidently oblivious to the connection. His blind obsession with natural selection prevents him from making such links as this, because the connection between the moderate and the fanatical believer owes nothing, in itself, to the genomes of the individuals evolved. If he were a geologist trying to understand the existence of mountains, we could say he had just discovered that by climbing from a coastal plain into some nearby foothills, he could make his way to the mountain tops in the distance. According to this analogy, Dawkins as geologist, would still find himself sitting on the mountain tops wondering just how the lower slopes were connected to the upper slopes, but nonetheless knowing that in fact, by climbing the lower slopes, he had reached the upper slopes. So while we can listen to the geologists account and, like children at a pantomime shouting Hes behind you. to the unsuspecting dupe on the stage, we shout The mountains are sitting on the hills. Dawkins cannot see that the existence of a mass of moderate religious believers, in conjunction with a modicum of fanatical religious zealots, constitutes a physiological structure created by his beloved evolution, existing for a deeper scientific reason to do with exactly what the nature of religion is, because religion has its roots in human corporate nature which evolved to allow a superorganism to come into existence at the level of social organization, where religion constitutes the medium of organization coalescing about an identity, that facilitates the growth of a human superorganism about a fixed point of unity subsuming all social complexity unto itself.

V Dawkins structural identity It is blindingly obvious, but Dawkins the blind fanatical Darwinist, has no means of seeing past his blinkered mind. This is what makes him the perfect Gatekeeper for the absolute theocracy, that he serves like no other, such as a fanatical creationist can only dream of serving. And in saying this we may note that Dawkins is part of the structural hierarchy of religious identity that we have just described, where he is one of the highest elements within the structure, being one of the covert elements appearing to defy religious authority. Our solution solves all mysteries, and leaves no mysteries unresolved. If that is not a good candidate for a scientific theory then I would like to know what is, according to Dawkins it is a theory that tells us nothing. Dawkins cannot see that genes are but information, and they have built an organism which relays information between its whole forms, such that those forms are reduced to modular elements of a linguistic genome, so to speak, whereby religion has the nature of a medium of identity such that the individual believer is inducted into the social order created by the linguistic programme, or social genome. The existence of different degrees of identity intensity, and various forms of identity definition, make generating a profusion of the one identity into an array of many identities that are all the same even as they are all different, possible. Thursday, 26 July 2012 To my mind the fact that Dawkins originally set out as a computer scientist versed in programming, makes him the ideal person to of recognised the role of biological information appearing in linguistic form, organizing humans as objects of linguistic force serving the being of the human superorganism. But instead, the exact opposite result has arisen. He has become the saviour of linguistic programming as a biological force, by using his skills to make out that information is the basis of human individuality. He is like the computer hacker turned bad guy, where, instead of doing what a hacker should do, namely seeking to wreak havoc in the ruling structure of society, he becomes a tool of that ruling order, and uses his skills to thwart hackers. In the practical world of hacking these arrangements with the powers that be are notorious, but in the covert world of knowledge control, the equivalent arrangements are infused into the structure of knowledge manufacture. So that Dawkins did not begin his career by taking the role of an enemy of religion only to be converted, he just followed the pathways of intellectual programming that caused his mind to think along Darwinian lines, and up popped his brilliant account of the selfish gene and the meme, twisting science about a core of human identity bias that Dawkins had no idea he was in the grip of. These brilliant ideas are not a product of Dawkins genius. They are the robotic output of superorganic physiology serving the being of the superorganism that Dawkins is part of. As such, they make a fool out of Dawkins, or they would do if this Dawkins figure of independent being really existed, but as he does not the old adage rings true, what the eye does not see . . .

VI Arrogant priest The man boasts about his success in making an aged professor believe in a miracle of electron microscopy, the Golgi apparatus (p. 320), after years of being blinded by his own stupidity. Well, we can but hope that Dawkins will pick up on this critique of his work, and see the light too. But unfortunately, we are forced to think of Dawkins as a Gatekeeper, who,

like the religious fundamentalist, has a job to do which he is committed to, and that is the defence of religion against science, and nothing on this earth could shift Dawkins from this position, if this were not the case then this idiot would of found his way from his gross error long before now, and would not need our help to do so. We have good reason for suspecting a malevolent agenda on Dawkins part, as it is many years since I came across the idea of language as a programme delivering social structure in work produced by Dawkins. But did he attempt to make a consistent scientific idea from this, moving on from Darwin, letting Darwin go overnight, as he says he would do given the slightest reason ? No, of course he didnt, he just created (or possibly borrowed, I cannot recall) a new name for this linguistic unit of information, the meme, and went off at some tangent that negated the most valuable insight he could ever of had, in terms of solving the problem of why religion persists in an apparently scientific age. So this man has had plenty of opportunity to develop a true science of human nature that would deal with the stubborn problem of religion, which exercises him so much. Yet he fails to take any such opportunity, and this is because he is fundamentally opposed to the idea that humans are some kind of mammalian equivalent to the social insects. Why ? Why does he find this idea so unacceptable ? It worked for scientists up until the Great Cleansing, and it was never contradicted by any science, it was simply erased from science in the process of making a bullshit sociology. So why would a genuine scientist working today not see past the taboos and restrictions, and examine the idea with an open mind. Lets see if we have anything on this, I was just going to hunt down a couple of references supporting a couple of basic criticisms we make of Dawkins outlook above, this lack of open-mindedness being one of them. And lets not forget the appearance on a Sunday morning show a few years ago where Gloria Honeyford challenged Dawkins by saying that he could of course not prove that God did not exist, and Dawkins committed the greatest sin of a would be atheist by conceding this point, going on to belittle its significance by saying there were lots of things that could not be disproven, and thus fulfilling his professional role as the Gatekeeper by keeping the ball of religious possibility up in the air, and safe from direct attack by science. This despite what we find him saying above, about the possibility of science dealing with this matter at some point. So that he says one thing in his atheist books, but quite another when appearing on the BBC. Why did he not make out this argument against agnosticism when he had the Sunday morning audience at his mercy ? We could ask the same question of the Gatekeeper philosopher Bertrand Russel, all atheist and rampant in print, but when on the BBC radio channel with a broad audience, and challenged by a priest, he backs off at full speed and declares himself an agnostic, for this see his Why I am not a Christian ?

VII On Organicism Right, I have just been reading Dawkins on organicism, or as close to organicism as I imagine he ever gets. I put the book down and came to the keyboard when I hit page two hundred and five, where Dawkins says : Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them. Such trusting obedience is valuable for survival : the analogue of steering by the moon for a moth. But the flip side of trusting obedience is

slavish gullibility. The inevitable by-product is vulnerability to infection by mind viruses. (Ibid., p. 205) The first thing to point out here is that this argument flies in the face of the golden rule of all science, which has to be spelt out in the case of science dealing with humans, because it is just here that the rule is lost : everything is what it is. In this case Dawkins whole object is to argue that religion is most expressly not what it is. He sets up his logic by talking about the moths instinctive attraction to candle light not being what it is, wherein he contrives to make out that what the moths behaviour is, is an instinct toward selfimmolation (p. 201). What we have displayed here, is a rigid determination to adhere to establishment science, come hell or high water. Darwinism is science, natural selection is Darwinism, and things either fit the model, or things are not what they seem. This is too excruciating for words, but it does show us how critical it was for the theocracy to formulate a scientific model that could be treated as sacred, no matter how inept the science it generated proved to be. What Dawkins absolutely will not do, is dismiss Natural Selection. At the beginning of the passage we are interested in presently, he says :

GROUP

SELECTION

Some alleged ultimate explanations turn out to be or avowedly are group selection theories. Group selection is the controversial idea that Darwinian selection chooses among species or other groups of individuals. (Ibid., p. 198) This brazenly ignores the most obvious, anti-Darwinian idea, as expounded by Bernard, and favoured by ourselves in a different manner, that evolution is not driven by point by point selection, centred upon the individual as an end in themselves. But rather, evolution is driven by the dynamics of universal force creating all material structure, so that human form is the product of a process leading toward predictable outcomes, in our case a colonial form of mammal. He even goes on to say that Darwin steered well clear of any such idea, referring to the man as if he were God on earth, or Jesus the saviour of science ! (p. 199) Friday, 27 July 2012 It is a curious thing that towards the end of volume four of his Organic Philosophy Doherty asserts the same scientific principle as we do above, but as a vital tenet of Christian belief, insisting that things are as they are meant to be, and can be no other than they are. To think otherwise is to deny Divine omnipotence and good intentions. Ha, can you believe that ? Its weird how these freaks always emulate the perfection of true knowledge making, in their creation of false knowledge. They have the principles right enough, but they assume a nonsensical point of origina false pivot of observationfrom which to draw out all their ideas about the nature of what is. Modern scientist do the exact same thing in using Darwin as their point of Divinity, by forcing his creed of Natural Selection upon the interpretation of all things living. Thus we see that if the White Lie is the fruit of using a false pivot of observation, then religion is an expression of white lie making, so that white lie making is not just about other forms of knowledge made to conform to religion, such as science. In effect we are saying that all knowledge is One, all knowledge is Religion. Which unity makes sense given that knowledge is the linguistic genome of the superorganism. The Bible is the bedrock of the White Lie in our world, the lie the Jewish culture produced and bequeathed to the world to make the superorganism living today.

I have taken up The Passions of the Human Soul by Fourier, published in 1851 but written by 1822, as my next book to read. It was translated by Doherty, and we can see from his introduction that much of his own peculiar Organic Philosophy derives directly from Fouriers very strange ideas. But one thing we wrote above a couple of years ago chimes with a core principles of Fouriers reasoning, namely the principle of a universal force creating everything in existence, providing a central principle for his reasoning, that culminates in human existence, in the principle of social unity. So that we find scientific ideas in their essence established to perfection in the hands of religious lunatics living well over a century ago, while being completely absent from the refined ideas of modern, sophisticated, avidly atheist, scientifically minded professional academics of today. It really is too sad, and it shows that what Darwin did was to remove the essence of science which is its heart, and hence the travesty of science today which bestrides the world as a colossus of the walking dead. __ The one good thing we can see in the above quote on group selection is that science, despite the world wars and the relentless perversion of knowledge, is unable to shake off the organicist principle recognising that humans are, and can only be, superorganisms. We saw that Turner promoted this Darwinian method of dealing with social form in his Extended Organism, asking why the true answer keeps surfacing in spite of all the work done to provide a nice white lie to keep everyone happy. But what he does not realise is that under the theocratic dispensation ruling our slave world, knowledge acts like a giant iceberg with its greater bulk lying hidden. So that as true science is buried out of sight, a substitute must come between this truth and the main White Lie bursting out into the light of day for all to see. Group theory is the intermediate portion of the white lie directly substituting for the truth that cannot be put beyond peoples minds. So that although Turner does not realise it, this accepted explanation for social worlds is part of the undesirable idea of the superorganism constantly forcing its way into consciousness against the pressure of authoritarian suppression. Professional academics do not like this constant irritation coming from the social question, hence Dawkins says that the idea of applying Darwinism at the group level is controversial. But they just cannot get rid of the urge to apply biology to society because Darwinism is powerless to account for any aspect of life beyond the individual, as intended of course, while the individual is such an inconsequential feature of life, that was focused on by Darwin solely in order to protect religion from science. Dawkins is like a mad dog, he just will not let go of Darwin. Letting go of Darwin, is the first thing any would be scientist of today, has to do however. Things then, always are what they are. The moths fatal attraction to artificial light is an attraction to lunar light, and the human attraction to linguistic teaching, manifest in mindless obedience to any religious ideology they are exposed to as part of their cultural upbringing, is what it is, namely a bonding mechanism creating superorganic physiology, or social structure, to give it a lower level description. Dawkins description of the moths attraction to artificial light as suicidal was idiotic from the outset, being contrived to suit the political agenda he serves as a professional academic in the pay of the theocracy. And his description of childish obedience is likewise too stupid for words, and obviously contrived to serve an occult purpose, that of protecting Darwinism from science. What is the big deal, why is the negation of the individual such a problem for science ? Science should not care what humans are, science should just want to be what it is. So why not just let the idea of the superorganism take its rightful place as the explanation of what humans are, so that all other aspects of existence can fall into place and the conflicts

over religion can be incorporated into science ? The answer is obvious, the problem is for religion, so that Dawkins abject refusal to drop Darwin and adopt organicism can only be in order to protect religion, whether he knows it or not. And this latter point is the nub of the question. Using Dawkins own argument against him, whereby he makes blind obedience to an authority functional, but deleterious in certain circumstances, lets consider the nature of Dawkins as an abstraction of himself set in a social context. He is obedient to an authority, the authority of science, not the authority of nature, although he makes this out to be the case, but the authority of science vested in the institutions of academia is his touchstone. So that he identifies a foundation stone of necessary obedience existing in the child for the preservation of their personal life, which can become dysfunctional when the child makes the wilful choice to become part of society, as he finds their urge to be obedient perverted by religious ideas. So that what Dawkins is doing here at every minute twist of his mind, is forcing an individualistic principle upon every explanation given. The child is made real, but then the process producing the child is halted, and from that point on anything else that happens is prone to perversion because the child is an individual, and the individual is an end in themselves. So that what we have here is the religious principle of good and evil informing Dawkins interpretation of human behaviour, rather than a model delivering a functional interpretation of these seemingly contradictory behavioural dynamics. We have no problem with the idea of the child being evolved to show mindless obedience to an authority figure, but we want to work our way past the automatic stop Dawkins places on the processes creating this mindset, which Dawkins puts in place in mindless obedience to the authority figure of Darwin. We want to say the proclivity to mindless obedience so rightly noticed in the child continues in the adult, where ample figures of authority that individuals gift mindless obedience to, exist, from the figure of the law to that of the lawmaker, the monarch, the Pope, the . . ., well, the list is endless. Why stop at the functionality of mindlessness existing between child and adult, when adult life is so pervaded by mindless obedience to authority structures ? Clearly mindless obedience is a pervasive feature of human life, and within this context religion is seen to be perfectly normal and functional in its own right, albeit gross and obscene in terms of true knowledge of reality. Clearly mindless obedience has a far greater functional purpose in creating complex social structure than we find in the child, how could we drive our cars if we did not grant mindless obedience to the rules of the road. Oh, what, you think our obedience to the rules of the road is not mindless ? Really. So you have never seen a driver putting on their indicator when about to manoeuvre, even when there are no other drivers within a mile ? And, as the law requires, are we not paying homage to mindlessness when we obey a red light at a pedestrian crossing, even when there are no people seeking to use it ? Saturday, 28 July 2012 The fact is that our consciousness borne of our linguistic physiology is itself a state of mindless obedience. This is the ultimate meaning of the idea that linguistic force creates a linguistic programme that organizes sentient brick behaviour, to create a superorganic architecture wholly independently of any intention on the part of any individual. The obvious defence against these examples of ours, is that we are aware of what we are doing, and we know we are letting ourselves be mindless, for a purpose. So that in the end our mindlessness cancels out to leave the free willed end in itself that is the human person. But in truth, much the same applies to the religious affiliation of people. Most devoutly religious people who are in any position to question, will almost certainly be capable of acknowledging the mindlessness of their beliefs, but they have no qualms about holding them sacred because they feel the organic bond to these beliefs strongly enough to be conscious of the real value underlying their religious identity.

Saturday, 28 July 2012 We might even extend this argument to the field of science itself. One cannot help feeling that men like Dawkins, Turner or E. O. Wilson, know perfectly well that their intention above all else, is to preserve the individual as the authority in life. And this tendency to put politics above knowledge is blatant in sociology, where the academic openly denounces the application of biology to their subject as a matter of political principle. Talk about endemic corruption. To read Dawkins is to read the work of a crude critic of religion, whose crudity is deliberate because it is part of the charade of religious oppression, no other conclusion is possible. The people I know who speak of Dawkins in admiration, tend to be drawn from the middle classes, where Dawkins atheism which is not, is the religion for them. Indeed Dawkins atheism is that most horrible of things, it is religion ! We always say atheism is not religion, but Dawkins confounds this denial, yet of course we unmask this fraudster and show that his atheism is nothing of the sort, just like his science. But unlike Dawkins there is no audience for our work, who wants to know what we have to say ? No one. And so we are alone, we work for ourselves. Our work is unpublishable and all we can do is deposit some of it on the web, leaving it for an age still a long way off, when everyone will want to know what we know now, and they will be amused to see that millennia before their collective enlightenment, some did know, all there is to know. This is in keeping with what it means to be human, where we do not exist as end in ourselves, but we do exist as part of something vastly greater than ourselves, as part of a superorganism. This makes it possible for us to learn from our dead forebears, the great scientists of my grandparents time, and to work for the free times to come, in the far off future of a world beyond our imagination today. And what all this means, is that we can only know what we know courtesy of authority, there simply is no other way for people to know anything. Whether it be a religious belief or a scientific conviction, in the end we are beholding to the acknowledged collective pool of knowledge. This is for a reason. It is because we are superorganisms. But if we are in any sense bothered about this, then we will have to get an awful lot clever about understanding it than we currently are, and I just do not know how we might do this when we cannot escape the proviso of being dependant upon an authority for our knowledge. It is this very fact that allowed the theocracy to take control of the burgeoning science and produce a tolerable fraud, which, gross as it is, was nonetheless capable of being preserved down the generations, albeit in constant need of major support through period outbreaks of selfimmolation through warfare, and repeated infusions of more aliens even more deeply committed to mindlessness, to ensure the continuance of superorganic identity in the name of Judaism. It is not the knowledge itself that we cannot deal with, as we hope we prove, it is the warfare and ensuing decimation of our social fabric that our owners continuously inflict upon us, with our mindless assistance, against which we are powerless to defend ourselves as evil comes before us with a smiling face, and behoves us to love it ; so we do.

Chapter 17

The Existence of Religion is a Window onto our True Biological Nature

The whole point about the existence of religion is that, of itself, due to its very absurdity, yet power and importance, qualities that so exercise Dawkins, prove that humans are not ends in themselves, but rather, that we are organisms evolved for a social purpose. Indeed, the very same thing can be said about the mere fact that we are linguistically empowered to create knowledge, that is, elaborate patterns of complex information with which we interact accordingly, as we have said before elsewhere. Religion is simply the expression of linguistic physiology made manifest ; reduced to its basic biological form, religion is language, or linguistic force. Imagine Dawkins saying this, he would never go within a million miles of such a thought, it is unthinkable, for Dawkins, because it is unDarwinian ! That is how much of a scientist our man is, an all talk and no action scientist, in other words, a priest. Saturday, 28 July 2012 The real insult in this regard is that the man has been a leading figure in tackling just this question by creating the modern idea of the Meme, which is specifically intended to thwart the nagging problem over the programming nature of language, that is so obvious in our computer driven world ; computing being Dawkins original forte back in the 60s. Picking up Benjamin Kidds manner of reasoning in Social Evolution, 1894, religion is the necessary compliment to our rational ego, our self centre, that negates the self by commanding the very rationality that creates it, in a social context. In this way it becomes rational to be irrational by believing in absurd ideas imparting an all powerful collective unity over us all. Rationality is a power of the organism centred in the brain, where religion is the organizing pattern that realises the object for which the power of rationality evolved. The collective enterprise is the true objective of our reasoning power. Kidd recognised that religion negates our end in ourselves status, whereas, for all his interest in religion Dawkins fails to see the obvious implication that we are not ends in ourselves. This realisation would not contradict Darwinism, it shows that Darwinian evolution, in so far as it concerns the delivery of transformation via the rearrangement of the genes, indicates how individual physiology evolved to allow a superorganic form of mammal to come into being. But neither Darwin nor his apostle Dawkins, have the least interest in knowing how reality works, since Darwinism is all about finding some means of retaining the sanctity of the individual upon which slavery to Judaism depends. The role of these scientists is political, as it must be in an absolute theocracy, such as all human societies always are, and must forever be.

I Not to know everything, is not to know nothing It is of course completely irrelevant whether or not science proves Darwins theory of evolution is correct if that theory fails to answer the questions put to it, in exactly the same way that the fact that Newtons theory of gravitation was undoubtedly proven to be correct by science, while ultimately being shown to be inadequate in the light of further advances. It is from just this kind of historical perspective on the development of science, that we get the modern religious criticism that science can only ever be provisional, and to assert that science is correct in any absolute sense is itself an unscientific approach to knowledge. We have to understand when we are dealing with such contortions that we are invariably up against malevolent forces that want to sow confusion, so that as scientists, we must recognise the legitimate drift of such arguments, whilst at the same time knowing where to draw a line under them. Science may well be provisional in principle, but this does not preclude the possibility of absolute, and final knowledge of reality. Saying this reminds me of a clever friends dismissal of my hatred for his claim to of lived former lives, where his response was to say mysteriously, There are things we do not know. Indeed there are, but what of it, there are things we do know too, and those things preclude any possibility of nonsense like that of former lives or life after death. Saturday, 28 July 2012 As ever in Atheist Science, our modus operandi consists of proving that things do not exist by showing what things are. This method relies upon knowing that human nature is corporate for its positive point of interpretation, telling us the individual does not exist because the human animal is a superorganism. Without this point of view we can know nothing about ourselves for real, and the authorities ensure that this knowledge can never be freely known, thus allowing people to subscribe to nonsense that is politically empowering because it organizes social structure by allocating status on the basis of subscription to beliefs, linked to an array of identities that are attached to a resulting structural distribution of individuals.

II Any old crap, wont do We can bring such thoughts as these to our attempt to reveal the true malevolent nature of Dawkins so called science. Darwins science is quite possibly sound in the same sense that Newtons physics was sound ; and that is certainly saying an awful lot. But we would not expect our theocracy to dump just any old crap upon us by way of science, in the hope that this would be adequate for the job of substituting science. The people who manage this kind of job are not stupid, people like Dawkins in effect, as the wider management of society more than amply demonstrates. And we must understand that this aspect of social management that we bring under the agnomen of the White Lie, is just a facet of social management. Dont get all smart on me now, dont go saying that you thought we were supposed to be robots driven by a programme that organizes society . . . if you aint interested in learning everything, piss off and watch the Olympics or something pathetic like that, whatever keeps that jelly you call a brain delivering a hum of contentment from a point of authority that does please you, that you give up to willingly. They just reported, 28/07/2012 11:33, that twenty seven million people, that is half the total population as reported this week on the basis of last years census data, watched the opening ceremony last night. It never

crossed my mind, I am pig sick of hearing about the Olympics, who gives a shit ? Someone, obviously. Mind you it was quite something to see the movie character James Bond accompany the Queen to the opening ceremony, in a fictional portrayal of her arrival via parachute jump, Id liked to of seen see that live. As it was I was engrossed in transcribing a newspaper cutting found in my 1888 copy of Toussenels 1844 work Les Juifs Roi de lEpoque, which arrived from France on Thursday, after a prompt I found in Doherty last week. This cutting tells us that Toussenel was a keen follower of Fourier, which explains why Doherty had heard him speak of his hatred for the Jewish God. I had taken a copy of this work from the net in 2009, but never paid any attention to it until Doherty gave me nudge in this direction, and I am glad he did, even if it is causing me to spend more of what I do not have. One thing of interest about these games, for our organicist science, is the role of global brands in its promotion, MacDonalds for food, Adidas for clothes, Heineken for alcohol, and Pepsi for soft drinks, or something like that. These global corporations put many millions into the games and there has been some debate recently about the exclusive selling rights linked to the games venue, that this so called sponsorship has bought. Listening to this, it immediately occurred to me how this so called sporting project was acting as a vehicle for imposing a global culture upon the world, as part of the ongoing political project of cleansing the earth of all localised culture, and replacing it with one uniform, financially based culture, and religiously coloured, that is ever more adapted to serve the Jewish master race purposes based upon the control of business, exactly as Toussenel appears to of written about getting on for two centuries ago. Dawkins accepts the limitations on Darwins science implicitly, but he assumes that this shortfall in explanative power is due to factors other than any that might be inherent to Darwins science itself. This is where we entirely disagree. The faults with Darwins science are entirely commensurate with the faults in Newtons physics, the fault being a failure to grasp the deeper nature of the subject being tackled by the theory. But again, it is clear that in seeking to develop science we are not dealing with a uniform commitment to science, unrestrained by any other considerations, quite the opposite in fact, as we all know perfectly well. And yet it is our claim that the service Darwin did for religion, was to separate this idea that science was bound up with religion while at the same time producing a strictly proscribed theory of evolution, exactly as we find Dawkins incidentally admitting when he says that Darwin adhered strictly to the individual as the object of evolutionary processes. So that Dawkins, when speaking about the existence of God, acknowledges there is more to know, and says that filling this void in our knowledge of humanity is a job for science. But he will not entertain the notion that there is any other way to know anything about life, other than that of using the prism of natural selection as set out by Darwin, as the filter through which all ideas must be put as the test of their very possibility of being true to reality. Yet we have an alternative idea, and our idea allows religion to be made one with our human form, as social animals of the first order. But our model is not Darwinian at all, so for Dawkins it is not even to be considered. The fact that Newtonian physics was correct science, does not mean that it was not incomplete, and likewise, the fact that Darwinian science is correct science, insofar as its emphasis upon random selection identifies with an underlying genetic mechanism, does not mean that it is not incomplete either. The nature of the subjects dealt with by gravitational theory and evolutionary theory alike, are so far reaching that their completeness can be partial, yet still correct, in so far as anyone has ever thought to apply them. But we have to keep coming back to the fundamental problem as to whether science is free to pursue its own ends to their ultimate reaches, without

consideration. We cannot escape this proviso, notwithstanding that at the same time, it does not exist for Dawkins, even though, ostensibly, he is as bothered by the persistence of religion as we are. If we look at his reasons for objecting to the persistence of religion, we find that after the most superficial objections to the inherent conflict between religion and science, he spirals off into a general philosophical debate about what he considers to be the social evils of religion. This is simply a diatribe of modern Western liberalism set against traditional religious values, one we may agree with, coming from the same English culture, but which takes us altogether far away from our central concerns, being the same concerns that we have every right to expect Dawkins to be concerned with too, given the stance he presumes to take upon himself as an exponent of uncompromising atheism. We have answered this difficulty by finding that for Dawkins, Darwinism constitutes a proof of unfettered science. So what is a major issue for us, simply does not apply in Dawkins world. Yet how exasperatingly odd this seems for one so animated over religion, and so keen to present themselves as a radical atheist. In the end, all that we say just goes to show why we must condemn Dawkins as the Gatekeeper of the Theocracy. I do not see how we can take any other view, since the plain fact is, turned all about, we find Dawkins is just that, he stands as the public figure preventing the crucial connection between science and religion being made. He is pivotal in preserving the core objective of The Origin of Species, which was to create a mechanism that would do just what Dawkins does, namely keeping science and religion separate from one another. His aggressive atheism seems to do the exact opposite of this, but, as we have just been finding out, when delving into what he has to say. He in no way whatsoever, suggests that modern science is limited in its advance by religion. The closest he comes to the suggestion, is to say that religion has a general tendency to corrupt the potential of the public at large, to take advantage of the uninhibited prosecution of science that has given us Darwinism, that has the religious freaks up in arms against so called science. And so the circle closes, with science kept out, by science, but none know this, save ourselves.

III Humouring atheists Before leaving for the detention centre this morning, while taking a quick dump, I listened to a comedian with an upcoming show being interviewed about it on BBC 1. It sounded as if it were a comedy show about religion, presented by a self professed atheist. Last night one of the BBC channels screened a secular Christmas celebration show, I may of mentioned it before because I had heard about it. It sounded stupid to me, and I am deeply suspicious of all this playing up to atheism, as if trying to drawn atheism into the religious fold, making us part of the community, when atheism, by definition, should be seeking to exterminate this community culturally, and establish an entirely new one as different from todays society as todays society is different from that of the Native American Indians. We dont want to be part of this society of maggot minded degenerates ! I saw one joke told last night, where a person took their sick child to a doctor who said they would have to cut it open and see what was up. The parent asked if the doctor knew anything about children, and the doctor said Oh no, that would spoil the mystery. The audience laughed, and I smiled to myself. You get the drift. Because I did not catch the whole interview, I am not sure what this show is all about that was discussed this morning. It was put to the shows presenter that he had said he was an atheist, and he confirmed this. He said his humour was focused on the three Jewish

religions, and was designed to be none controversial, merely suggestive. The female host said to him that he must of read Dawkins work, and he said he had, that when he first read The God Delusion he loved it, but the second time he hated it, because it was so aggressive against religion. Dawkins latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth, he said is much better because it was all about how beautiful evolutionary theory was, so that we did not need religious explanations to fill a void in our ignorance, and as such it was a more positive, constructive work. He then started saying something about his views, and that he did not like the either or stand-off between religion and atheism, he thought that somewhere between these two extremes must lie a balance that was ideal. As we can see, the man is no atheist at all, he is only interested in preserving religious fascism, and a world in which no one is allowed free access to knowledge, freedom of thought, or freedom of expression. If this atheist were not a religious fascist then he would not be on our television screens of course. He then went on to express his hatred and contempt of atheists. He described how his secular friends hearing about his new ideas, were concerned about whether he was abandoning them, and he said that this is what he tends to find, that it is not religious people who react badly to his performances, but fellow atheists who fear he is turning into a religious freak. This reminds me of the Jewish atheist moviemaker who did the only show dedicated to atheism that I have ever seen, shown on Channel Four in the last couple of years. It rampaged against atheism and fawned over religion, the presenters favourite refrain being the insulting card carrying atheists whom this atheist despised, as he wondered what on earth was wrong with atheists now that we lived in a free world, why could they not just get on and enjoy their freedom and let others enjoy their freedom their own way. A truly sick piece of fascist propaganda if ever there was one.

IV The joys of antisemitism Last night, 28/01/2010, I caught the tail end of a Newsnight slot on BBC 2, with a government man saying that we could not exclude Jews .. excluding people on the basis of their religion was a death knell for democracy .. I would of liked to of known what this debate was about. There was some mention of names, presumably of Jews, who had worked closely with some senior figures, Gordon Brown included. The placement of Jews as advisors in the upper echelons of our government is something one occasionally glimpses, but no one ever makes a point of informing us of such influence since Adolf Hitler initiated a ban on our receiving such dangerously anti-Semitic information about our masters. I will have to look at the internet and see if the show is available there. OK, the show is available online, and I just watched the beginning of the relevant piece. It appears that two of the five members of the Iraq inquiry are Jews, which has provoked some comments, that our masters have warned Britain are anti-Semitic. One antiSemite called Oliver Miles wrote a piece in the Independent denouncing the fact that two Jewish historians, Gilbert and Freedman, were appointed to this committee because they are bound to support Israels view of the matter, rather than our British interests. He seems to forget that Britain is a fully paid up slave state of Israel and it is for the Israelis to say what laws we have, what wars we take part in, and to dictate the form that British propaganda fed to the British people should take. Oh, but of course, we are not supposed to know this, sorry. Anyway forty percent of the team overseeing the investigation of why the Jews forced Britain and America to go to war in Iraq in 2003 being Jewish, is pretty good, at least we were

allowed to have sixty percent none Jews, and they were probably Christians ! After all, what is the percentage of Jews in Britain ? One percent, less ? Masters are always bound to be in a tiny minority, that is how human superorganic physiology works. So there we are then, simple enough, nice to know that rampant anti-Semitism is alive and well in the media, and that people still feel free to point out the bleeding obvious, that it is an utter obscenity to allow Jews to exist anywhere on earth. Of course Christians are Jews, just as Muslims are. And of course the answer to the later part of the debate that I caught last night, where the Judophile denouncer of anti-Semitism equates Jews to all other religious identities, is precisely this : the Jews are unique and always have been, first in being stateless, and now in being possessed of the only religiously defined state ever to of been created. So the Jews always have command of a loyalty beyond the nation to which they belong. This characteristic is not an absolute distinction, but it is a constant and telling distinction, and as we now know from looking at the beginning of the piece, it is precisely this loyalty to an alien, Jewish object, always overriding any Jews motivation as a mere national of another place, that was being commented upon, and quite rightly too, albeit by a self professed Catholic ! The Catholic in turn emulates this same loyalty to an alien body by placing the Pope above any national figure, such as that of a monarch ; and the Muslim does likewise by making the Islamic slave identity the ultimate identity in its own right, not even recognising national boundaries as being of any consequence. These features of the Jewish slave identity programmes are not coincidental, they are important mechanisms of detachment from civil authority, which give the linguistic force an unrestrained horizon to head for in terms of physical reality, whereby the whole earth and all humanity become the natural property of the Jews. But obviously, for Catholics to make any criticism of Jews is a damned liberty, and probably a genuinely anti-Semitic act, in the true sense of the word. It is however certainly the foundation of the anti-Semitic impulse realised in the Nazis that was the saving grace of the Jews, and hence also of the Catholics, both of which forms of Jew are inevitably destroyed by science, the very science that Hitler destroyed for these Jewish people, and the very science we are trying to resurrect. This kind of questioning about the role of Jews in our society comes straight out of late nineteenth and early twentieth century life, and since Hitler put a stop to this kind of thing it has been practically unheard of. I was amazed to see this debate on Newsnight, and certainly the apologist for the Jews called upon the protection of greatest saviour of the Jews, Adolf Hitler, not by name, he is too sacred to a Jew to be named openly when being called upon to offer divine intervention, but by way of reference to the strictures of the Nazi regime, as placed upon the Jews back in the inter-cleansing period. I would say that the form of this Jew centred argument was exactly as it had always been. So that we see a focus of linguistic force directed by a hierarchy of identities, Catholic, British, state authority, and such like, at the core of which appears the Jew. In such a setting we can but think of Henry Fords great work from the 1920s, on the Jewish Question, which asked just what it was that allowed the Jews to have such a disproportionate influence on American affairs. And of course yesterday, 29/01/2010, was the day the greatest agent of Judaism in Britain, appeared before the Iraq inquiry to give us a reminder of his sublime inhumanity and unswerving dedication to the art of lying in the name of Judaism. Tony Blair we are talking about. People blame him, they seem to forget that they voted for this monster, they adored him, just as the German people adored Hitler, and they too got what they deserved, on the face of it at least. But the fact is that we do not exist. These are physiological dynamics playing out according to biological laws about which we know nothing, because we live in an absolute theocracy, a Jewish theocracy, which abides no freedom of knowledge whatsoever. So it is that as the centuries turn, the same old questions

come up, and the Jewish screw twists another slice out of humanity as it advances on its unstoppable way toward global domination, while we look on in horror, no more knowing what is happening than an insect scrambling about on a forest floor comprehends the meaning of vibrations coming their way as a bulldozer takes possession of virgin territory for humanity. Mind you, I probably voted for Blair myself, such is the nature of our so called democracy, What choice does a person have ? Under our system a turkey could not avoid voting for Christmas, and for the exact same reason we cant avoid voting for our Jewish masters, because we are nothing more than domesticated farm animals.

Chapter 18

Time for World War Three

My relentless spending on books continues, but today, Monday, 01 February 2010, my latest attempt to scoop some recent works dealing with religion from an atheist angle, has come up trumps. I do not think of Dennett as someone to value, the copy of his Darwins Dangerous Idea has sat on my shelf for a few years, and never inspired any interest. I take him to be a Darwinist. Anyway I had to have Breaking the Spell : Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Daniel Dennett, 2006, because its subtitle is perfect ! My expectations were restrained, but my usual rapid dipping led by hints from the contents page, have given me a first impression which is pretty appealing. There are inevitable problems, but after twenty minutes reading here, and reading there, I find myself echoing a comment Dennett makes about criticisms of the sociologists. By making the sound criticism that sociologists had failed to ask, Is religion the product of blind evolutionary instinct or rational choice ? (p. 181), he makes me think that at least he seems to want to ask the questions sociologists are forbidden to ask. I do not much care for the tenor of his writing on or about this page, apart from the fact that on both the previous page and the one following, we find the term super-organism making an appearance, first in relation to humans being rather like ant colonies or beehives. (p. 180) ; then in reference to ants, where we have, The distributed wisdom of the ant colony, which really is a sort of super-organism (p. 182). This is good, it is even exciting, just to see such terminology used in a modern piece of scientifically oriented philosophising, and one that is expressly seeking to unravel the mystery of what religion is, apparently. There is a point where he asks what religion is directly, and prepares to tell us his view, but I have not read it yet, I do not expect him to say anything meaningful. Already from my first dippings I feel, just because he is using this organicist terminology, however superficially, as part of his script, if not as part of his own reasoning, that he is closer, at least, to asking the question implicit in the title. By mentioning our insect cousins the question is at least going begging. Before we look, lets just state the correct answer. Religion is identity, pure and simple, end of story. Religion gives the human animal its identity, and in order for religion to do this it must give individuals, of which the human superorganism is composed, their identity. Religion is therefore nothing to do with the individual, their needs or otherwise, religion is simply about the biological identity of the human animal. Do we think Dennett might get that ? Do we think pigs might fly ? Do we ..... well, you get the idea. So lets see. I am not going to like this, I just know it. I dive into these books, and then when I want to return to something I havent the faintest idea where I have been. If I ever sit down to look at a newly arrived book without picking up a bookmark I curse myself, it happens often. The only good thing is that as I try to find something that caught my eye, I invariably land on something else of interest. But for now I see that our desired definition of religion first promised itself to us on page seven, it

then actually appears on page nine, for what it is worth, which is absolutely nothing. Boy, talk about waffle, I know this git is a professional philosopher, but struth ! Give us a break. All we can really say, is that Dennett has no intention whatsoever of defining religion. The fact that he makes such a song and dance of defining religion, and then drives us crazy as we try to wade through his longwinded prevarication, just goes to show firstly how important he knows the definition is, and secondly, just like a politician, how even more important it is to avoid giving an answer. I would not mind, but one of the things I just found myself reading while looking for this definition, is a discussion about how impossible it is to study religion in a neutral manner. Well, you sure proved that fella. But then, we can only say Speak for yourself. We manage to be unbiased and neutral about all things, without any difficulty at all. What is required is a desire to be honest, starting with being honest with oneself. The discussion of the scientific study of religion beginning with a consideration of its feasibility is nice. He says that because this is not possible, people either show deference or hostility, and this practically serves as a discussion of the principles we lay down for science, whereby we say that to be a scientist a person must first and foremost be an aggressive atheist, committed to the eradication of religion from the earth. There is so much here that I am not going to like. As I soak up a few more bits of his argument I see the inevitable emergence of the supreme fault, coming through stronger and stronger all the time. Everything is about the person. Yet this book is so concerned with the collective value of religion that until I spent five minutes extra examining it, I almost had the impression that this absolute condition concerning the individual might not apply, but it does, making any chance that anything of value will be said, hopeless. Can I find an illustration of the fault for us ? There are some superb bits, he goes on about the idea of religion as a linguistic programme, only he does not use our terminology of course, he talks about memes. But he does speak of them in the most delightful way, utilising Dawkins logic of the selfish-gene, so that a religious meme seeks to survive and thereby impregnate minds that it can thereby force to serve the programmes end. I absolutely love this. But as far as I can see so far, this reasoning is of the nature of a series of loose threads that dangle and fail to connect with one another. No sooner has he voiced such an outrageously organicist proposition, set to make our brain ooze juices of intellectual delight, than we find ourselves catapulted into some inane remark about what people want ! What the hell have these two lines of thought got in common ? He even has the exasperating stupidity to make a comparison between humans and ants responding to a linguistic programme, only to expressly deny that ants have language !! Who is this man, is he a complete and utter idiot ? We may think to ask what he thinks pheromones are if not a language ? But this is in fact an arse about face question. What we should be asking is just what this twat thinks language is ? This is the nub of the matter, What does Dennett think human language is ? I was hoping that he would deal with this question, it is the single most important question he could of asked in the context of this book, but there is no mention of language in the contents. Even so the subject does come up, and as we can see, he has some delightful thoughts on the matter. Obviously what is lacking is a base line. He does not ask what humans are, as animals ? So that he does not ask what human nature is ? And hence, despite being evidently familiar with the idea of the superorganism, he completely fails to directly ask the question whether or not humans might be such a creature ? When he has chances to cross the Rubicon of truth, from whence all answers could flow, he declines, as in the example just given, he denies the shared nature of ants as superorganisms, and humans. The man is the best letdown yet ; but, as I always like to say : a miss is as good as a mile. Instead of being somewhere, he is nowhere, he may as well be Gould or Dawkins, Darwin or Descartes, just another damn gatekeeper, this time with a more highly polished message. It is almost as if he is taking our

ideas into account, which bodes well, it shows we have them on the run. Must be time for world war three.

I Imperfect reasoning perfects our world What Dennett says around about the fragments quoted above is most exasperating, he talks about the failure of various people to show how religion can be made to serve a functional role. What he means is that Darwins natural selection is sacred, and given that all ideas about the nature of life must therefore pass through the prism of natural selection, then no one has been able to show how genetics evolved religion. But the answer is perfectly simple if we dismiss the sacred precondition of reasoning according to Darwin. Language is an extension of genetics that creates social structure, where genetics created language to perform this biological function. So that human society is made in precisely the same way that ant society is made. This does require realising that Darwins ideas are wholly absurd, that natural selection is a mechanism serving a creative dynamic, based upon a life force driving evolution in a definite direction related to the environment. Natural selection is not a force, as the damned charlatans, men like E. O. Wilson, have sought to demonstrate, thus substituting mechanism for force. This would be like representing the wheel on a cart as the force imparting motion, whereas the wheels are only the mechanism enabling a push to serve as a practical force, the two things being entirely distinct, though sufficiently related to one another to facilitate confusion when some miscreant priest seeks to direct linguistic force accordingly. So that natural selection is not the be all and all of evolution, it is merely a related mechanism facilitating the process, just as the shifting of electrons moving between atomic shells is not the determining factor in the creation of matter, but merely the mechanical lever shifting to and fro under the influence of a natural force that impacts upon electrons as objects of that force. As such genes are the rollers along which matter glides towards the living outcomes determined by the application of a universal creative force, that creates the human superorganism in the name of Judaism, as surely as it creates everything else. Page thirty, and the war between religion and science comes into view, and very nice it is to see it putting in an appearance. He refers to Gould, and rejects Goulds attempt to make peace in this war, but, he says that this attempt was laudable. No it wasnt ! It was out and out treachery. A more disgusting individual than Gould we could never hope to meet with, even Dawkins comes out smelling of sincerity when compared to Gould. Mind you, this raises a contrast that Dennett opens with, Dawkins is an English gatekeeper, Gould an American gatekeeper, and Dennett says he is expressly aiming his discussion at an American audience, which we can forgive, as he is a Yank himself. We cannot expect much from this work, but we have to look. And we have already found an ample reward in the mere mention of insect superorganisms in the same breath as human social life. I once saw some comments on a forum, years ago when I was trying to communicate with folk on the net, about how good Gould was, so I railed against this, and got a reply saying that he was a delightful writer. My brain withered at this reply. Who gives a toss how good his literary style is, all I care about is what he has to say, and what he had to say was the worst American excuse for creationist trash, coming from a supposed scientist, that you could ever hope to find. There are style considerations when seeking to communicate with people, of course, but if the parcel is empty, the quality of the wrapping is irrelevant. Indeed, to find a finely crafted

piece of work that talks shit, makes one think the whole point of the craftsmanship was precisely to achieve a welcome reception for contents of more harm than good, to the recipient seeking true knowledge of reality. This is a problem we must contend with all the time in science, living as we do in an absolute theocracy where science quite simply does not exist. Where all that passes for science must be taken as a sterile package, requiring the injection of reason that the philosophy of atheist science alone can provide, if science is to come to life. Of course since most people seek knowledge in order to find the White Lie, then Gould was indeed a magisterial author, a heaven sent blessing, and fully worthy of the acclaim he enjoyed as a reward for a life devoted to the perversion of science, and the dissemination of intellectual garbage.

II Veil of lies It is a pleasure to find a quote from Ernst Mayr beginning chapter two, it says humans are animals that are not to be thought of as animals, requiring a special science all of their own. I had a passage like this in a seventies sociology text book which I have wanted to use as a sign of the most grotesque abuse of science, many times, but for the life of me I cannot locate it. When it comes to precisely the topic we mention above, concerning Dennetts idiotic refusal to equate ant social life with human social life, without any discrimination between the two, we have in Mayrs idea, a justification. This is how the nodal points of the graph of social physiology make their connections to form a robust superorganism. Sorry, I began writing a piece on linguistic force last week and I am currently using Emergent Collective Properties, Networks and Information in Biology by Ricard, to tease out my discussion, and you just felt a bit of his mathematical lingo creeping into this piece. In other words, these damn priests link arms and form a web of highly convincing garbage, an impenetrable veil of lies. Following the quote from Mayr, Dennett begins his second chapter thus : There has been some confusion about whether the earthly manifestations of religion should count as a part of Nature. (Dennett, p. 29) This statement places Dennett firmly within the club of academia. This is a gentlemanly acceptance of the sincerity of others irrespective of what they say. He mentions elsewhere in the book that the attempt to be neutral in the study of religion causes resentment, because it provokes the reaction that it you are not for us you are against us. This reaction is indicative of a state of all out conflict, and it is reality, it sounds cruel and bloody-minded, but in a war no one has any choice but to adopt this stance, that is the nature of war. Hence we deliberately mandate that to be a scientist you must be an atheist actively dedicated to the total eradication of religion from existence, otherwise you are a mere technician, a mechanism without essence, with no heart, or no soul, as a religious freak would put it. We insist that religion and science cannot exist in the same society at the same time, as it happens, when talking about Gould, Dennett quotes him thus science and religion are two non-overlapping magisteria (p. 30) It is no wonder that Gould is one of my award winning hate figures. Goulds argument was that science is factual truth on all matters

while religion is the realm of morality and the meaning of life. (Ibid.) Dennetts reply is at least partially rational, mercifully : There may be some domain that is religions alone to command, some realm of human activity that science cant properly address and religion can, but that does not mean that science cannot or should not study this very fact. (Ibid.) I dont like this fine statement, it has the ring of a slime ball lawyer about it, or banker, why not, or better still, at this time, a former prime minister, worming his way out of a hole from which there is no possible escape, yet still the creature from the deep manages to effect one by the gift of lying that they perfected. The issue is that Goulds drivel has been so popular that we may imagine that its stupidity has been well criticised, I assume because I do not know. Here then we have the next stage of the defence, it makes a concession while retaining the ground it owns. From what I have seen of Dennett so far, this is him all the way through. His argument is oh so nice, but always perfectly in keeping with that which the theocracy has already established in the modern phase of the scientific age, where science is crushed and erased from the field of battle. We can expect nothing else coming out of America, and likewise, with so appealing a title, we could of anticipated a far more slick deception, and that slickness is what we appear to have here. If the man is not a philosopher committed to atheism as the basis of science then he is an enemy of science, if he is not with science in other words, then he is for religion, and there is no escaping this conclusion. What kind of rigmarole is it that this twat has just uttered ! What does it mean to say that there are areas of reality that religion alone can reveal, but if so, this is itself a reality, and therefore science must be able to study this fact ? What a painfully contrived load of gobbledegook. Our atheist science definition of science tells us that : science is the means by which we know reality. The theocracys definition of science makes science a method of interrogating reality, which places science at arms length from reality and leaves a gap within which any garbage can sit in secure comfort, and Dennett obviously feels at home there. What scientific method does however, is to produce a kind of result that shows us aspects of reality that we have been unable to see by nonscientific means. Science has been so effective in this respect that reality courtesy of science, has brought a universe before our minds eye that makes what we could see without the aid of science universally meaningless. It is for this reason that we say science should be thought of as the sole means of understanding reality. Accordingly, it follows that if there are aspects of reality, then our knowledge of them is by definition scientific. If therefore religion reveals reality, then religion is science. If science is always the associated with the scientific method, and it is, then religion uses the scientific method to reveal reality, or else it is not science. I know this is a logically closed loop, a device of no value ordinarily, but in this case it is made reasonable by the unreasonableness of religion treated as a possible medium of knowledge of reality. Dennetts ploy here is to achieve in reality, what Gould proclaims is possible in reality. Dennett is saying that religion can access real knowledge that science cannot, but science can still recognise this fact and study it, thus anticipating an understanding of why religion alone can access this knowledge. I mean, it is practically impossible to convert this statement into a sensible version, it is so plainly absurd. My mind just conjured up the image of a ducking stool, a device of a familiar kind from religious history, in that it invoked the principle that an innocent person would drown but a witch would be discovered by her survival ! Ha, bloody marvellous. Well, Dennetts machinations have the same temperament

of closed reason. Insane as his words are, here they are in print, maintaining the power of the absolute theocracy, silencing the power of reason. So the ball is kept up in the air, religion persists, and that is all that is required. That is what academia exists for, to control knowledge. Who gives a shit what words have to be uttered in the meantime, just keep talking. Dennetts lovely book is nothing more than a further instalment in a centuries long filibuster, the next twist in the eternal making of the White Lie of Judaism that is a crucial part of the One Message of superorganic being.

III The delusion of pathological behaviour If Dennett wanted to pursue his declared objective sincerely, of understanding religion as a natural phenomenon, then this would be the point at which to do so, by asking the fundamental question, What is language ? The point being, that if science were to seek to make sense of how religion gave access to aspects of reality that were beyond its own methods to access, then it would be bound to conclude that this could only be done if religion were some kind of medium between reality and the scientific analysis of reality. The simple way to look at the idea Dennett is struggling to handle here, is to say that if religion puts us in touch with something real, that science cannot access, then religion must be treated as a facet of reality, since it clearly would then be such, so that science would then have to study religion as a facet of reality. OK then. This is our next scientific premise. Religion is an aspect of reality. What does this mean in scientific terms ? As we always say, reality is always what it is, reality is never something open to interpretation. By this we mean that if humans engage in warfare, then warfare is real, it is not something perverse, an anomaly, an aberration to be understood as a form of pathology, it is real in its own right. In other words warfare is natural, healthy and functional, as surely as eating, sleeping and walking are natural, healthy activities, that animals are meant to engage in as part of being animals. So that when Dennett talks about understanding religion as a natural phenomenon, he also needs to be clear that he intends to be sure never to think of religion as an aberration, as being dysfunctional or unnatural. Therefore it follows, that religion is a biological imperative of human nature and form, even if you are a Darwinist this logic applies. And we may suppose it is from this realisation that Dennett comes up with all sorts of fabulous notions of how to account for religion in Darwinian terms, such as thinking of religion as a meme that seeks to perpetuate itself just as genes may be thought to do, according to Dawkins. What he needs here is to realise that if a religion is a meme, a linguistic package of information seeking a host in the form of an organism, then the best organic model of religion as a meme, is as a linguistic identity programme. This could be forced to comply with the idea of the individual as an end in themselves being thereby corralled into a collective unit, somewhat as Dennetts reasoning seems to head towards. I have not actually read it however, but the logical route to follow says that in fact humans evolved the capacity for language in order to produce just such an organizing linguistic identity programme, that would mean humans form a true superorganic mammal. As it is Dennetts use of the idea of a meme seeking to sustain its own existence parasitically, is just another form of the vital notion of pathology, essential to the defence of religion against science. As long as science thinks religion is pathological, it is implicitly denying that religion is a natural manifestation of human life and nature.

We suppose there are such things as pathology, we all understand what it means to be ill. But when we see the idea of pathology being used to so detrimental an effect in science, to protect religion by preventing science from treating normal features of existence as real, we might just pause to wonder if a philosophical consideration of the very idea of pathology is not worthwhile. Dennett takes the exact opposite option. He goes to some lengths to establish the principle of pathology as a means of understanding the otherwise inexplicability of religion. He proceeds in this manner by asking how we make sense of an ant mindlessly climbing a grass stalk, to no apparent purpose. We make sense of it when we discover the ants brain has been commandeered by a parasite that wants the ant to be eaten by a sheep, so that it can enter the next phase of its truly astounding life cycle. According to this idea, by discovering the parasite we discover the solution to the ants perplexing behaviour to be a pathological deviation of its normal behaviour. But in truth, this pathological interpretation gives us a model of knowledge accretion based on our own knowledge seeking behaviour, it is not a model of reality based on what we have discovered about the ant. This interpretation makes the ant the be all and end all of that aspect of reality we are focused upon, which it is not. The parasite was there all along, we just did not know about it. So there is no reason why we should give the ant priority in the situation, other than the bias fact that it is the ant that comes sequentially upper most in our thinking about the situation before us. The fact that the ant existed before the parasite occupied it is irrelevant to this point. What we are talking about here then, is really the nature of knowledge. This evaluation of our bias reasoning would tend to indicate that the way philosophers have used the idea of pathology in the study of human social activity, is a reflection of their own entanglement in that activity, which makes it mighty hard not to see things in this value laden manner. But it clearly is not scientific. Dennett shows himself willing to consider any idea, he has no holds barred, except one, the right one. Come hell or high water, he will not allow himself to think of humans as a superorganic species of mammal. And no wonder, for this would let all hell loose, as our work more than amply shows, not to mention history, which involved world wide warfare on two occasions, and a major pogrom just to recover from the last time people made this idea the basis of their reasoning about what human life was all about. No way is any professional academic going to go down that route again. Yet the mere mention of these subjects by using the word super-organism is a radical and major step in this direction in our view, since we know just how significant this is, a lot more so than Dennett knows it himself. Because we are totally committed to the idea that human nature is corporate and linguistic force creates human superorganic physiology, which means the superorganism is the human animal and the individual does not exist as an end in themselves, we have a means of overcoming the difficulty of getting stuck on the interpretation of human behaviour in pathological terms. This is very important, it causes us to see all manner of things as natural and healthy, that everyone else knows is anything but. Not just religion, but homosexuality, crime, war, racial hatred, pogroms, you name it, we make everything a healthy expression of human nature. And the fact is, that if Dennett were any kind of philosopher worthy of the name, and not just some jumped up overeducated schoolboy, he would begin by making out these general, fearsome conditions, by explaining that if we are to treat religion as a natural phenomenon, then this must mean treating every detail of human life as natural, with all the logical implications that atheist science has made manifest in the most forthright manner.

IV The long game : Iraq, expenses, and banking This is a special time to get a sense of how the superorganism lives, and how the Jewish master identity functions in life. The Iraq war and the scandal over MPs expenses is animating public debate right now. Government is being made to reinvent itself. It is all about image, recovering trust after one major meltdown after another. Today, 08/02/2010, there have been specifics about how parliament might be made more open and accountable, Newsnight just presented a short list of how power could be forced down the ranks so that it was not concentrated in the usual oligarchy, the cabinet, which has shown how well the mother of all parliaments and origin of democracy can, without letting slip the slightest relaxation of democratic principles, produce a fascist dictator with absolute power, that a Stalin would recognise and feel delighted with. The difference between Stalin and Blair being that while Stalin had to be brutal because his focus of power was closer to home, Blair could be subtle, evasive, because his role was that of a slave seeking to serve Israel, not himself, directly, or political power in the name of Britain as some kind of slave state existing in his name. But the big feeling now is that the slaves have just had their fat udders yanked hard, they have been emptied of all the serviceable juice they contain, the juice of social force. And now its time to let the herd recover, to fill their milky udders, so that, in another half century they can be milked once again. This is the long the game. By milking us in this way, every half century or so, or by letting us wither, and moving to another base, such as the far east next, the master race moves ever further towards its mastery of all earth, so the superorganism grows, as nature intended by evolving such a creature. So now, after the abuse, comes the making up, like a wife beater who wants to make up after they have slapped their bitch around, and the terrified bitch is just relieved to have peace and grins in servility when handed the chocolates and roses, and a soft apology. We have been bitch slapped, and now the media is working hard to present the politicians message, to bring us back into our mindless comfort zone. What a shit world we live in. There was a treat for us on our screens yesterday morning, Sunday 7th, Feb. 2010, Tony Baloney Blairs henchman Alistair Campbell in blubber mode. It was phony, the man is so good at being phony that he thinks he can do anything, even to the point of crying for the loss of his masters integrity ! I am so upset about all the horrible things being said about Tony. He is a man of such supreme sincerity., said the shark lamenting for the snake. Funny thing is, as weak as the news is on the slaves day of rest, I saw no more mention of this vile mans typically, though this time, astoundingly shameless performance. Last night however, Monday that is, Newsnight did a piece on Weepy Campbell. A political satirist and a psychologist were invited to talk about the new habit of politicians crying for the camera. It was like looking down on ants in a laboratory aquarium, only we could understand what these ants were saying to each other ! For their part these highly intelligent, sophisticated, well educated and professional mammalian ants, humans that is, had no idea we were looking on, they simply had no capacity to see beyond the confines of their very thick skulls. Was it the politicians working the people, or were the people demanding that politicians show greater empathy with them by showing emotion when dealing with emotive issues ? The death of Diana was raised as the pivotal moment launching this habit. These pundits are as full of shit as the people they pundit on. Sunday, 29 July 2012 Last week they were advertising a programme in which celebrities go public on their mental health issues, and whether it was in connection with this

or not, I saw Campbell being interviewed recently on the subject of his manic-depressive breakdowns. These people are travesties of humanity, you would no more want to take pity on a politician in hell than you would take pity on the vilest kind of criminal, but the issue is undoubtedly serious. However, when a politician suffers from such an issue, it is impossible to take it seriously because they are so dishonest that you cannot but help think it is a case of extreme circumstances requiring extreme solutions, so, the politician thinks, lets make a plea for sympathy like no plea for sympathy anyone has ever seen before. How come we never saw this kind of open-heart surgery being self-administered in the heyday of the evil these bastards were heaping on the world at the height of their power ? Politicians are sick psychopaths, and it behoves us never to forget it, of any of them, ever ! I enjoy the series on train journies following the old Victorian railway guide, presented by Michael Portillo, he comes across as a very nice man, but I have just accused him of being a psychopath, how does that work ? Well, I suppose it comes down to the fact that we do not exist. Neither Blair, Campbell or Portillo really exist, good, bad or indifferent, each person is a brick in the architecture of superorganic being. It is ludicrous to talk about individuals in judgemental terms, but we do, we can hardly help ourselves. I hate these people with a passion, but that is my individuality expressing itself, and since I do not exist my individuality cannot be real, so that nothing it says is real. What my individuality is, is an expression of my personal sense of animation. Certainly evil people like Blair, Thatcher, Hitler or Saddam Hussein, and a billion others, are only performing a vital service to the human animal, but because we are not that animal, we cannot take so circumspect a view of the things they do, and so we expel venom towards these monsters as befits our specific location within the human animals body that these people figure so largely in.

V Bliss : the new age of horror I just got this feeling, it just seems to of come upon me, all of sudden like, I feel meaningless, as an atheist, I feel like it just doesnt matter anymore, like no one cares, no Christian cares. Its as if I am living in a religious world, and all is well with that world, all is bliss. This fills me with horror. Not horror movie horror, just a sense of living death type horror, a sense that this is the world now, settled, as it is doomed to be now and forever, for an eternity. Horror ! There is a programme on BBC 1 right now, 08/02/2010 21:37:06, discussing a new piece of anti paedophile legislation that will set up a huge structure to register all people who ever have contact with children in any official capacity, nine million registrees ! There is much talk these days about the loss of childhood freedom, how we are raising a generation of children wrapped up in cotton-wool. Yet every word I here on the situation affirms that every measure of danger indicates no change since I was a kid. Many commentators of my generation, or even the one after mine, tell of how they were free, as I was, and how they do not think of granting this freedom to their sproggs. I thought that if I had brats Id sooner they were butchered than raised as prisoners in their own homes. But a thought has penetrated my skull, that if, and it is only a thought experiment concerned with contemporary social conditions, not personal expectations, if I had kids I would let them be as I was, free to roam about as they pleased. But in the Wright Stuff show on Channel Five a couple of weeks ago a regular panellist said how she felt that if she came

out of the shop ten paces behind her kids, she could just hear the whisperings of those about her, asking if those kids were unattended ! More to the point, earlier in the year, to do with this subject, someone told a story somewhere on TV, of how she had left her children in the park while she went to the house for something, and next thing she knew a copper accosted her and reprimanded her about her behaviour. Some time later she applied for a job at a nursery, and her Criminal Records Bureau check flagged up her unsuitability to be near children because this pig had reported the incident ! And that was the first she new of it. So I am thinking to myself, there is no escape, if you have kids, sure enough they have always been the property of the state, more or less, but now, if you tried to allow your unconformist view of life to inform the upbringing of your kids, they would more than likely be taken away from you and placed in care, which is a real hell on earth, believe me, I know. So here we are slipping into a blissful hell on earth, and any thoughts of escape are futile, not so much for ourselves, but for those of the future. There is no escape, the power of the superorganism works that way, as it is supposed to do, as nature made us so to enable, we slide into the hell of social life, and tragically, we call it heaven ! Christians now, religious freaks of all kinds, they are sitting pretty. They are comfortable, they no longer need to defend themselves, there are not threats, now is a time to tighten their grip. And so they do not even pretend to defend their faith, it is secure, and it does what faith should do, it gives them power in life. If people exist who do not want to be part of that, that is their loss, who cares ? I suddenly have this feeling. And you know, there can be only one reason for this state of affairs, and that is that science is religion. With Darwinism science is silenced, castrated, it has had one and a half centuries, and science has gone from strength to strength, but we are not one jot further advanced than the ancient Greeks were in terms of explaining human existence. This must of been what it was like after the fall of Greece, when the world was left with the Romans, not famed for their philosophy. And then we sank into what is called the Dark Ages, because of the loss of higher knowledge, and the associated arts of knowledge. Now the same thing is happening, living for over half a century at a crucial time in the process has allowed me to see it, to feel it. It is tragic. But what can we do, it is the will of human nature ? It is inevitable. We are doomed to be as insects, and we love being insects !

Chapter 19

The Joy of Reading Crap

As people who are only interested in fine science, alive during a staggeringly powerful scientific age, awash with scientific knowledge of the highest quality, while nonetheless living in an absolute theocracy, where science is totally suppressed, we are obliged to get our science via the system concocted by the priesthood, and for that reason we learn to love reading crap, it is the closest we can get to fine science. I spotted an interesting enough title while rummaging last week, and then discovered the author of my find made free and easy with a most precious word, superorganic. A good copy was nice and cheap and it arrived today, Tuesday, 09 February 2010. The inner leaf of the dust jacket began well, it spoke of understanding mankind as a product of evolution and as an evolving whole., and we cannot ask for more than that. The blurb on the back however, soon brought us back down to earth, where we expected to be, as it soon made Darwin the saviour of the modern world, thus In a way Darwin has healed the wound inflicted by Copernicus and Galileo. Man is not the center of the universe physically, but he may be the spiritual centre. These are the words of a raving lunatic, the man is American, and so anything is possible coming from their mouths, but this beggars belief. Entering the text, we find this book is really good, in the sense that it is a joy to read crap. The reason being, that it is concerned with the struggle of science to free itself from the initial degenerate pseudo scientific sociology based on a true conception of humans as a part of nature, which we atheist scientists, call science. The first thing we notice in this phase of theistic entrenchment, is the heavy working of the idea of social Darwinism. This is very important, for it serves as a familiar device, whereby a false enemy is erected, which can then be destroyed. Academic philosophers have a term for this kind of logical ruse, it maybe the straw man, you set him up, then set him alight. Thus we will often find ourselves dismissed as social Darwinists for making out that humans are a superorganism, because we are trying to apply science to society in a biological context. But we have seen that Darwin is a subterfuge, so we reject Darwin entirely, which makes it incredibly exasperating to find ourselves dismissed as social Darwinists. But from the priesthoods point of view it is easy to see how this social Darwinist staging post in the subversion of science, was mighty useful. It is not as if there was no such thing as social Darwinism, there certainly was, it was the key to Hitlers setting up a taboo preventing a real, organicist science of human nature, being resurrected following its excision from society in the Great Cleansing of 1914 18. It is nice to see Dobzhansky acknowledge that it was thanks to men like Hitler that science had been stomped on, thus ensuring the continuance of the Jewish hegemony which he served devotedly. Naturally he does not put it like this, he just notes that the ideas of the social Darwinists had been unfairly expunged from society because of people like the Nazis. Dobzhansky pretends to be moderating the reaction against the naturalistic movement, which you would think we would welcome ; as if ! I have yet to examine the book enough to say just what he is pretending to do, but it is clear enough, because of our familiarity with the

subject and the way it is tackled, that he is playing the culture card. Only he is doing this in a more sophisticated manner than it is usually done by those who try to separate culture from biology. Dobzhansky recognises the important absurdity in this, and tries to solve the problem, not of the absurdity, by removing it, but of the obviousness of the absurdity, which compromises the corruption of science. It is solving the glaring stupidity of modern science that Dobzhansky wants to improve upon, so that the lying message of the White Lie can be more pleasantly received by the idiots who like living a lie. I noticed an interesting title about the influence of social Darwinism on American thought, I must get the book, I am sure I have noticed it before. This volume is promoted as revealing how a politically neutral work can be nastily perverted by those who have a political agenda. No, shock horror ; fancy that. You would think he was talking about The Origin of Species, not defending its embroilment in the controversy it created, without which religion would of been doomed to sink beneath the onslaught of a true science of human nature. Sunday, 29 July 2012 I had better let you know what we were talking about above. Mankind Evolving : The Evolution of the Human Species, 1962.

I A delightfully disgusting book Today, Thursday, 11 February 2010, is the penultimate day of my torture at the hands of the state, tomorrow my enforced attendance at a detention centre for the criminally unemployed ends, and with it I intend to close this work. But just in the nick of time, one vile book has led to another, with which, I am incredibly delighted. The Evolution of Human Nature, C. Judson Herrick, 1961, first published in 1956, is an amazing piece of work. My excitement was aroused when I saw the word sociobiology appearing in the contents page, this is well before the word was made famous by Wilson in 1975. However the closing pages peaked my interest with the title The Unknown God, so I plumped for this part first. This begins delightfully, according to my reading, by saying that religious ideas had to be taken seriously by scientists because : It must be admitted, however, that the visions of the mystics are real events that influence their conduct and that the supernaturalism indoctrinated by the metaphysicians and theologians motivates the behaviour of multitudes of people. A comprehensive science of psychobiology cannot neglect these spiritistic beliefs and the resulting practice, because in actual operation they obviously are controlling factors of much personal behaviour and of massive social movements. (Herrick, p. 461) This is the greatest ever statement atheist science could ever wish anyone to make, it is all we ever say. Religion is natural, it has a biological function, and as such can be understood by science just as science can understand any other aspect of existence. In other words there can be nothing outside the realms of science. Then this vile, excruciatingly disgusting excuse for a human being, launches headlong into a proclamation of the exact opposite sentiment :

Spiritistic ideologies that are irreconcilable with our scientific knowledge must be rejected. .......... If we examine it dispassionately and with the mind receptive to all the evidence, we may find that rigorously mechanistic science may keep the peace with supernaturalism on the basis of mutual understanding and tolerance. (Ibid., p. 462) This sort of thing just tears the soul out of you, it is too painful to read this kind of evil shit, what kind of person can do this ? I cannot think of them as human. One has to understand that this is a fifth columnist, no wonder fifth columnists draw hatred out of people like no one else, in wartime it is the treachery of their two faced behaviour that gets to their victims, making them seeth with hatred and anger. This is of course routine religious shit, and it is an American piece of criminal science, perfectly in keeping with the much adored work of Gould that we have taken notice of for this very reason, just above. Herrick then proceeds to set out in quite precise terms exactly why religion and science are not anathema to one another. And I have to say, this is a rare treat, I hate it, but it is nonetheless nice to see an unequivocal statement seeking to defend the indefensible, because this helps us attack the obscenity of the very idea that science and religion can exist at one and the same time, in the same society. Part of his excuse for this grossly ignorant assertion is a barefaced declaration that some religion is good, and as such should be valued, and therefore it is not in conflict with science ! I mean, where do they get these people from ? In point of fact of course, Christianity, the most perfect example of a good religion, I imagine, when properly understood from a scientific point of view, is responsible for global warfare and the worst evils history knows of, all because the Jews are the master race, because the Jewish identity is the identity of the human superorganism. And, amazingly enough, this same book comes awfully close to addressing this very point, as we shall see, eventually. The drift of Herricks argument is facile in the extreme, it uses language calculated to mollycoddle : If, now, a naturalist or anybody else wishes to speculate about what may lie beyond the range of possible human experience, that is his privilege. The scientist cannot object to it provided these excursions into transcendentalism do not invade his own domain. (Ibid., p. 463) In point of fact his whole work is a wonderful vindication of our total condemnation of Darwin, because we make our condemnation of Darwin rest upon the fact that what Darwin did was to ensure that science, from the Origin of Species henceforth, would, like religion, be based upon the principle of the individual as an absolute entity. The beauty of Herricks garbage is that he deals with both our major concerns, the nature of humans as superorganisms, and the place of religion in human life, and circumvents any difficulties by always swinging from the observational pivot put in place by Darwin, which makes the individual the be all and end all of everything. This approach, which allows the essence of both religious logic and science to flow together in one work, in perfect harmony, involves a free flowing use of meaning and logic that pays no heed whatsoever to logic or meaning, something that language is made to do.

We see a perfect example of this seamless abuse of logic in the passage above, where the man argues that a scientist has no need to worry about religion as long as religion does not bother science. This is true of all things. No women has any reason to object to men raping women, as long as this never involves any women being raped, for example. Naturally we have chosen a blatant example that cannot be, which crunches logic in a manner we can all see. However, as long as we assume the person is the end, then there is no inconsistency in Herricks principle. And that is the whole point. There may be a major problem for science if people base ideas on mystical notions, but, given that each person is an authority in their own right, no objection can be raised in principle, because each person freely decides to believe what they believe. There is no conspiracy, unwitting or otherwise, being the implication, so that science can raise no objection in principle to people being religious. Yet, although we may tease this logic out of what this vile man says, we find that he himself has already made the point that religion has major implications, because it programmes people whether they like it or not ! I mean, the man is just gross beyond description. This is so typically American. It wreaks of mindless arrogance on the part of an all powerful person, whereby they just do not give a shit what they say, because Who cares ? They can say what they like, do what they like, Who is to stop them ? Which is rather evocative of the sentiment I mentioned the other day when I said I had a feeling that in England now, this arrogance seems to exude from the pores of the religious who we see portrayed in the media all the time. This is what I fear most about the influence of America, its poison is finding its way in, not surprisingly since the Yanks have been working hard to corrupt the Motherland for a long time now. It is an inevitable consequence of our being the point of origin for their culture, so that, most important of all, they speak our language. Our forebears certainly created a monster when they created America. Yet there is something special about being the seat of a global culture that is the global culture. It has its ups and downs. Of course you cannot separate men raping women from the reality of women being raped. Therefore it is ludicrous to say women need not concern themselves with men raping women as long as no women are ever raped. Herricks drivel is clearly meant to have its readers assume, along with the author, but without expressly saying so, that religion and science can exist without any necessary overlap causing science to be compromised. He gives us his imbecilic argument for the logic of this position, this much is true. But he completely disregards the reality of the position as borne out by history and contemporary life. He must of been alive when the original infamous effort was made to outlaw the teaching of evolution in school in his own country. Alright, we know he is trying to say this war has no basis in reason, because religion can live happily alongside science, but it is science that this scientist seeks to rebuke. So much shit, we wallow in it. But, like pigs, we humans like certain kinds of shit, and intellectual shit is heaven sent, to us. This particular stool of Herricks is pungent with fine ideas, and the one dropped by Dobzhansky which led us to Herrick, is to be commended for its aroma in this respect too. From this run of intellectual fluids, we are able to make an extraordinary speculation, whereby we may at least imagine some sort of connection reaching across the great divide of the two cleansing phases, connecting long dead organicism with its ghostly apparition conjured up by Wilson in 1975. With Herricks use of the word superorganism, combined with a fulsome discussion of ants compared to humans in terms of social organisation, we cannot help making a link between Herrick and Wilson, in our own minds at least. And this is the first time I have seen such a link. I am not aware of Wilson ever having written a piece describing the roots of his

superorganic ideas. I would not expect him to do so either, since, although this launched him to fame and towering authority, my understanding is that his ideas were trounced, he was forced to backtrack double quick time, and then sociobiology was re-launched in a manner subservient to Darwinism, so that science was kept sterile in all the essential ways. Under these circumstances we could hardly expect Wilson to of had any knowledge of the organicist roots with which his ideas were connecting, and this was his problem, which he has become famous for solving by transforming himself into a philosopher, and thus shunning all pretence to real science from the first moment of his travesty against a taboo set in place by Hitler after the two acts of cleansing removed science from society. Today he is famous as a strict rationalist, but this is a farce, I was reading something about his fame as a rationalist in the book on information that I am going to use for the essay Linguistic Force that I began a couple of weeks ago, Information : The New Language of Science. Sunday, 29 July 2012 We are approaching the end of this review, that concludes the writing of this work. But because of the rearrangement I applied a month or so back, whereby the next hundred pages or so had been cut and pasted below, some slight irregularity needs to be overcome. Immediately below is some material on Bill Hamilton, who, in the early sixties, made a major contribution to the preservation of Darwinism by tackling the problem of social life, I think it was concerned with kin selection and the like. Wilson can be related to this new movement, and the following passage, though it relates to the material on Hamilton below, seems to be meant to go here, since it connects Wilson to Hamilton. _______________

Note to go with Bill Hamilton : One more thing, a nice item has come into my possession, and it gives a brief notice of Hamiltons ideas, it does this in order to make the distinction between ants as social beings and humans as the same kind of thing : If one measures the level of social organization by the degree of selflessness of its members, their degree of cooperation, their division of labour and the level of solidarity within the group, then the social units of insects by far excel all social forms to be found among vertebrates, with the exception of humans. This demonstrates that social development does not run parallel to other aspects of phylogeny and also shows that an increase in intelligence by no means guarantees the development of social behaviour (Wilson, 1975 a). One explanation for the inverse ratio between the level of phylogenic development and the development of social organization is put forward in the kinship theory of Hamilton (1964). According to this theory, the level of social organization depends on the number of genes held in common by those in the group. One finds the greatest number of commonly held genes in those species of the animal kingdom with the highest level of social organization, that is coral and other, similar, colonies. The offspring of these colonies are nonsexually reproduced and all have identical heredity. Vertebrate animals, on the other hand, reproduce sexually and can only have a maximum of 50% of their genes in common, with the exception of identical twins. This could explain why altruism is rare among the vertebrates, apart from that associated with the rearing of young. Among humans, however, one finds a level of social organization which stands out in glaring contrast to the rest of the vertebrates. Moreover, this level of social organization comes about in a different

manner from elsewhere in the animal kingdom, in that it is based on those human abilities made possible by an increase in intelligence, namely the ability to ally oneself with ones rivals and the ability to compromise. The prerequisite for this is a highly differentiated language of symbols, which permits the conclusion of agreements which can be maintained over many generations. Such agreements allow the development of a division of labour which greatly exceeds that of social insects. Typical of human beings, and indicative of their relationship vis vis other vertebrates, however, is the fact that this division of labour is coupled with a preference for the individual rather than the group ; it is not based on the altruism of a specific caste, as with the social insects (Wilson, 1975 a). Thus, the social insects stand in the exact middle position between vertebrates and colonies of the coral type, inasmuch as their level of social organization is related to their proportions of common genes. The particular characteristics which determine sex in the Hymenoptera follow from the fact that males issue from unfertilized, haploid eggs, while females and workers develop from fertilized, diploid eggs. This type of sex determination means that female siblings are more closely related to each other than their own offspring. Females of the same parents have a common genetic inheritance of 75%, since they all inherit genes from their haploid fathers, whilst inheriting half the genes of their diploid mothers, but have only 50% of the same genes as their female offspring. The central point of the kinship theory when applied to the social insects is that their social organization is only made possible by the nature of their kinship relations, in that Hymenoptera societies are chiefly based on the relationship between female siblings, while males have almost no share in the life of the colony. (Social Biology of Ants, Dumpert pp. 2 3) I assume Wilson refers to Sociobiology, which references I have left in to show how much of an enemy of real social science, Wilson really always was from an atheist science point of view, since he is being utilised here in an outrageous attack on humans viewed as part of nature. Outrageous because this distancing of humans from social insects is being so arrogantly insinuated into a wonderful work of science that ought to of been dealing with just this topic from a sociological point of view, that saw humans and ants as two variations of one superorganic continuum. As to Hamilton, what is this garbage ? Where does intelligence come into this, and what the heck has shared genes got to do with anything ? All that is going on here is that a law of evolution has been laid down in the name of religionthe natural selection of the fittestand come hell or high water, the scientific priesthood are going to defend it come what may, precisely as they continue to do to this day, relentlessly, and wholly without any scientific justification. Where and when does Darwinism ever touch the baseline of reality denoted in Einsteins model delineating the creation of scientific knowledge, such that humans form part of nature ? Never, is the answer to that, and this little passage from Dumpert is a perfect demonstration of the fact. Darwins theory of evolution levitates humans above this baseline to which science must always refer, and this is why no science treats humans as natural entities created by nature, except our science of course. In this passage from Dumpert the act of levitation is performed by insinuating the irrelevance of so called intelligence into the equation, while the insects are earthed to material observations by making their physiology prone to a particular genetic arrangement manifest in their polymorphic physiological arrangements. The fact of the matter is however, that human intelligence is a fiction when utilised in this artful manner, and humans too display a divergent array of physiological types that also

disperse away from the normal dualism of male-female gender. To this end, in relation to the subject of White Lie making we may consult a superb, if severely disappointing work, of a practically unique nature : Although, as has been already indicated, there are instances of manly and military institutions of somewhat similar quality among other early peoples, it is doubtful whether in the history of the world there has ever been another case of such complete acceptance of comrade-love as a valued and recognised cult ; and certainly this cult has never been associated with such priceless contributions to art, literature and civilisation generally, as in the case of the Greeks. It is consequently all the more strange to find with what neglect the whole subjectboth of the love itself and of its relation to political and social lifehas been treated in modern times. It is difficult to understand the attitude of mind whichas in some professorial and literary circles is never tired of pointing out the excellencies of the Greek civilisation, the public spirit and bravery of its peoples, their instinct for beauty, their supremacy (especially at Athens) in literature and art ; and yet absolutely ignores a matter which was obviously a foundation element of that civilisation. The only feasible explanation, to my mind, of this strange phenomenon is that peopletaking (it must be said) a very easy-going and superficial view of the whole subjecthave assumed that the love-customs and institutions which have been described above were merely adopted as a blind or a cloak for sensuality, and were of no particular importance in themselves. Everyone knows, of course, that homosexual habits of a more or less frivolous and ephemeral kind are to be found fairly widely spread among most peoples ; and as it has been generally assumed among Western moralists that nothing good can proceed from the homosexual instinct, it has been possible for a certain class of minds either to pass over the said institutions as being frivolous and unimportant too, or else, if forced to acknowledge their value and importance, to separate this aspect of them entirely from the homosexual aspect, and to say that while the former was glorious the latter was negligible. But as I say, this kind of view is of the most superficial sort. It is impossible, with any seriousness, or deliberate consideration, to maintain on the one hand that the institution of military comradeship among the Doriansbranching out as it did later in the various Greek states into an inspiration of political freedom, or of art, or of philosophywas frivolous or unimportant ; and it is equally impossible on the other hand, to weigh the evidence and not see that a most intimate and, to some degree, physical relation lay at the root of the institution and could not possibly be separated from itnot to see, in fact, that what we call homosexuality was of the essence of the thing. All the historical evidence, and all the literature of this periodwhether serious or fanciful, whether in prose or in versepoint to this intimate unity ; and what the people themselves, who knew all the circumstances, associated so closely together, it is hard for us to separate and disunite. We must conclude, then, that the Dorian Greeks and those who were influenced by them regarded a very close and personal love between men as part and parcel of their civic life. Though homosexual, as we should say, in its quality, this love did not interfere with the institution of normal or ordinary marriage, which existing alongside of it had its own sphere of civic value and servicewhile the comrade-love occupied another sphere, equally necessary. This being so, it would obviously be as absurd to try to explain away the Greek comradeship, and all the life that flowed from it, by its connection with sensual

pleasure of a certain kind, as it would be to explain away the joys and activities of marriage, and the life of the family, by the phenomena of concubinage and hetairism. (Intermediate Types among Primitive Folk, Carpenter, pp. 102 104)

My reading notes for this passage run thus : 103 Interesting passage reflecting upon the power of a modern system to control the representation of knowledge in a manner totally at odds with true knowledge of reality, just because of a core of religious bias. 104 A remarkable idea arises from the fact that homosexual love had a distinct, vital role in society, separate from procreative family oriented love. For this indicates that homosexuality was the foundation of the hierarchy of social structure, which, in itself, is standard fare for us, as is the idea that Judaism took over the position of global master identity by opposing itself to homosexuality. But the idea that homosexuality and heterosexuality ran side by side, defining social structure suddenly suggests that Christianity was made in the likeness of Judaism and as the personification of Judaism in antipathy to homosexuality. This would explain how Christianity came to rule the world, without knowing its true slave status as a derivative of Judaism. Christianity having stolen the natural genetic power of homosexuality, under the guidance of the Jewish identity programme. ____ So this last point is asserting that genetic information creates physiology in such a manner as to accumulate linguistic force expressing social meaning, but operating at the level of genetic information such as we find in racial and sexual forms, which Judaism then captured via a linguistic identity programme raised to a higher level of social power by creating a slave biomass to carry its power of identity derived from excluding the naturally evolved homosexual based priesthood, such as Carpenters Dorians, that had become the basis of social hierarchy. We need to of read Carpenters book to grasp the full extent of this ideas justification, which the quote above explains had been scrupulously cleansed from Western academia, despite the overarching influence of Greek culture on the modern revival of knowledge. Monday, 30 July 2012 This idea that Christianity captured the power of homosexuality is a slightly fancy idea, but it rises up quite naturally when we become engrossed in these studies of how the Christian dispensation has operated over time. However this does not mean that homosexuality stopped playing its part in the overlordship of society, far from it, it just means that homosexuality went undercover, entering the power base of Christianity covertly. This is what we say those inclined to power, such as the Jews by virtue of their cultural disposition, do all the time. It is irrelevant what social power is based upon, left or right, nice or nasty, atheism or God, the exact same people take up the positions of power. Their only principle being : give me power. This follows from the idea that there is no such thing as an individual, a corollary of which is that there is no such thing as idealism or morality, as a general facet of human behaviour. In this sense, we could say the Jews entered the homosexual power base by creating Christianity, and the homosexual would then of responded by entering Christianity in turn. The idea of a social structure as a dynamic entity composed of individuals possessed of identity parameters that determine how they will be distributed within the social power structure, fits perfectly well with the general principles of organicist sociology. So that the basis of social structure lies within our genetic

makeup, but it becomes shaped by the influence of linguistic pressure upon the social structure initiated by this genetic framework. I have become aware in recent years that there might be an apparent link between being homosexual and thinking outside the box, in a nonconventional manner, that sets a person at odds with society. Precisely how this idea came into view I cannot say because I have never, before Carpenter, seen it stated in any form, and Carpenter is not saying what I have just said, but rather making a general point about homosexuality causing the outsider status to make the homosexual exceptional in the human arts by way of setting them apart from the general mass of society. I have long known that homosexuality was as normal for humans as the day is long, but until I got my hands on this unique work by Carpenter I had not seen an argument affirming the fact, and it is revelatory. Carpenters description of the alienated queer becoming a gifted individual of one sort or another fits me to a T, and I am so far outside society in which queers are not an accepted part of the family, that I am yet beyond Queerism and cannot take advantage of their coming into the fold. I am not inclined to get into any confessional about my sexuality, as that is private stuff, but it is only fair to say something if there is something to be said. I have never connected my alienation from society culminating in my transforming into a philosopher in middle age, with any facet of my thwarted sexuality. There is no reason to reach for such ideas since I have been deeply alienated from everyone, to my mind, since I was a toddler, and everyday of my life has been a total manifestation of that kind of mindset, inside my own head at least, although as I grew up and matured my sense of awkwardness amongst folk lessened, but I still hate company, and love being alone, except, it must be said for the lack of a female to have sex with. Why do I have to be born in that most narrow window of human existence when slavery is no longer the norm, I could of just bought a bitch like everyone else has done for time immemorial ? Damn it ! Now men have been castrated by a process of fiscal disempowerment, of which I have always intellectually approved, and as a consequence women rule the roost by virtue of their natural empowerment derived from the fact that they have it, and men want it, and normal men will do anything to get it. It is that last caveat that leaves me out in the cold. The real twist in this story is not so much about how my warped sexuality says something about my antagonism against the system, which may or may not be true, I do not know how to be certain about that, but the interesting thing is how the reverse of this offers some kind of opportunity to understand those who do accept the system on the basis of their wholly conventional sexuality, which directs them towards a member of the opposite sex, no complication, no difficulty, no conflict, just high baby, shagging, marriage, kids, life together, and the jobs a goodn. These people, the Normals, they are to me so utterly inexplicable, they have absolutely no care about anything but conformity, with the purpose of obtaining as good a material life as possible. Our society runs on this principle, we see it in the central theme of political argument that always talks about taxes, jobs, education, policing, all the things to do with living in the day to day world. So the issues I have lived for since I was a five year old, about knowing the truth, are as water off a ducks back to these folk. And herein I see a definite link between their sexuality and their attitude towards religion and science. So, by contrast with the Normals possession of this link to conventionality, I now appear to be set at severe odds, in such a way that my failure to express a normal sexual impulse towards partnership with a women, makes my sexuality look very much linked to my anarchistic, atheistic, unconventional stance toward social knowledge, religion, and science. In which case we get there in the end, by a circuitous route we conclude that my thwarted

expression of a simple conventional attitude towards sex, is directly linked to my creation of a radical philosophy wholly at odds with the world in which I live. But the link is a product of everyone elses normality, not any direct link to my inner self, that I am aware off. In other words, to me the problem is the way everyone else behaves, not the way I behave. They are the ones pretending to be honest and decent, and all the while living a lie. Still, it has to be said that such an idea adds an important dimension to the making of a white lie, especially as regards why the lie, once fabricated by a priesthood, sits so well with the masses, as it becomes the convention they live by. I end up being curiously placed, by my nature, in a no mans land lying beyond the normal reaches of heterosexuality, yet not stretching to the alternate normality of homosexuality. We may conclude that such variation is an understandable consequence of the evolution of a full blown mammalian superorganism, where gender variation is the standard means of elaborating internal exoskeletal definition, to produce a complex superorganic physiology. An interesting, if not unnerving question occurs to me following some reflection on Carpenters account of a non Jewish slave world, wherein sexuality is not suppressed to serve a master identity, but rather sexuality is the foundation of the priesthood. I find the idea scary, it makes me think that my life spent fighting against religion suggests that if I won we would go back to what was before, and then what would I be, what kind of life would I lead ? Such that I remind myself of the saying : one should be careful what one asks for ! But such a thought is fair enough, and I have no problem with what it implies, which is that Judaism, even if it has exterminated all that went before and taken over the world, has still performed an act of advancement. But the path of human evolution is not straight and narrow. I am never really concerned with the past, my concern is with the present, and the future. I want freedom now, I want science, I want a world without religion. Understanding sexuality should be one facet of that, not with a view to re-establishing old orders of existence, even if it is imagined that we might, it is about moving on. Carpenter was a homosexual, his work was intended to promote the acceptability of homosexuality, and to that end he sought to illustrate how homosexuality had been a positive, functional dimension of human life prior to the rise of Judaism. He does specifically identify the alienation of homosexuality with Judaism, which is delightful to see, even though he has no insight into why this might be, beyond the most superficial notion that Jews had been the victims of surrounding nations machinations for so long they were entitled to feel resentment for their abusers cultural modes. Carpenter accuses commentators in his own day of being highly superficial in their analysis of why the ancients displayed an openly homosexual lifestyle, and in turn his attempt to provide functional depth to his argument is made superficial by our ultimate reach into the true nature of human nature. Carpenter preserves the logic imbued into the linguistic programme insinuated into his brain and makes the individual appear as an end in themselves, he says homosexuality, having manifested itself, needed some outlet that made sense of this otherwise negative modality, in the social context, and this is why queers became artists, priests and scientists. This is classic thinking of the kind we attack all the time for its failure to take the core logic of human animality back to its foundations. Carpenter should of seen that homosexuals evolved to perform the functions he so rightly associates with them, and then tried to make sense of this fact, since he was in a far better position than us to do this, as it appears to me, since he lived in the age when the idea of the social organism was at its height. The above quote is taken because it gives us a factual example of how the establishment in our own day managed to control the form that knowledge took in the wider

world. He comes to the topic of Samurai comrade-love and deals with an ongoing suppression of literature in Japan, but such crude censorship was not applicable in Europe then, nor is it now, yet still, knowledge of homosexuality was suppressed and continues to be, in the sense that we are unearthing here, courtesy of Carpenter. I have never seen any modern accounts of homosexuality elaborating on the subject as we are doing here with Carpenters help. So the important thing is that the above passage indicates a cultural wide conspiracy of silence covering the whole Western world, exactly as we find ongoing today in relation to the corporate nature of human beings. The conspiracy was not overt in Carpenters day, but it was real. The conspiracy is most definitely not overt today, but it is as real as real can be. Thus we can add this example provided by Carpenter regarding the blank drawn by modern science over homosexuality in his day, to the oppression imposed on science in the ancient world, that has been our standby hitherto, regarding the use of Ptolemaic astronomy to oust real thought about the true place of the earth in space. Carpenter proves that this cleansing of knowledge prowess was till very much available to the theocracy just prior to the Great Cleansing.

II Herding Sunday, 29 July 2012 Yesterday I did not go to the pub, a significant deviation from the norm for me, but there are no longer any pubs to go to, which makes going to them difficult, we may as well all be dead. As it is, we are stuck on this dismal world till we die, so we must try to find ways to allay the tedium when the regular occupations, like reading and writing, are not available, for whatever reasons. So, I took a book from the bookcase, not so much to read, as to try and find something to throw away, something I just cannot do, and still the books keep pouring in through my door, as the debt on my credit card mounts and the ever helpful bank keeps raising my limit. The random choice from last night that I am now to make use of, is Thrasymachus or The Future of Morals by C. E. M. Joad, 1925. It is a physically tiny volume, of only ninety two pages in length, and checking this just now I see that I made a note in it in 1994, which means this book has been hanging around a long time. I did not have the idea of the superorganism then. Now I do, and the thing that struck me last night, because of this idea, was the persistent theme of herd mentality dominating this little item. Clearly herd mentality is central to the idea of the superorganism, but what use was Joad making of it here ? He must of been very familiar with the idea of the social organism, but the central thrust of this work is a homage to the individual. This work was complaining about the oppression of the social organism, not discussing it, and it was doing it in the shape of the herd. So this is not a book helping us directly, are there any such ? It is one of those rare items seeking to oppose truth by dealing with truth, circumspectly, by attacking the consequences of human biological nature from a political point of view that effectively sets out to refute the existence of any such biological nature, by attributing its influence to the inadequacies of individuals. The individualism of this book is delightful to my sensitivities, and I can well see why I would of liked it in the past, it is still appealing today, only I see through its message now in a way that I never could have before I knew what human nature actually is.

The benefits to be gained from such ostensibly unfriendly works are often better than we might expect, and this job is no exception. Here Joad uses the logical device of inversion to understand the modern state of oppression in society coming from the weak, who now rule the world, or he tries to. The interest we have in the principle that a logical inversion makes the weak all powerful, concerns the nature of the Jews as a master race consisting of disempowered, dispossessed peoples. So lets see how Joad presents this illogical reality. He begins by showing that justice is a tool used by the powerful to enslave the weak, as per the arguments presented by Plato through the mouth of Thrasymachus, in Platos Republic. In this section we find a slight nod to human biological nature as he uses the phrase social animal (p. 9) to refer to the values people have that make them act collectively in an oppressive manner, towards isolated individuals that act contrary to social conformity. He does this immediately after saying this, Tamed by their own conceit, man was now fit to live in society. (Ibid.) Which is such a ridiculous way to speak, it beggars belief that anyone could ever of put such words into print. How can man be a social animal tamed for society by his own conceit ? Make your mind up, he is either an animal, or he is a self made divine, he cannot be both. His conceit would be an expression of his biological, animal nature, in other words. A truly organicist sentiment appears thus : Uncivilized man is ungovernable man, but man tamed and tractable, with the bees of social virtue and social service buzzing in his citizens bonnet, is at once the prop and the dupe of unscrupulous governments. (Joad, p. 10) He proceeds to give us some nice atheistic arguments, presenting religion as the evil doer serving to make best use of this proclivity of the masses to impose conformity for the benefit of the powerful, who have commandeered this slavish quality of the human social animal. He says : To its superior utility in this respect we must in part attribute the success of Christianity. Of all religions known to man it lays the greatest stress upon those virtues whose practice is advantageous to the stronger. (Ibid., p. 12) He then proceeds to draw a lesson that is most apposite for us today, when we think of the furore occurring in the media a couple of weeks ago after it came to light that Barclays Bank had been manipulating the interest rate by misreporting its own borrowing rates, from which reports the public rates are determined. The great consternation this matter prompted concerned the fact that this deeply criminal behaviour, responsible for millions being stolen by the banks, was not a crime, no one could be prosecuted for this criminal activity ! John Snow on Channel Four News, amongst others, raised the question of rioters stealing petty items going to jail for significant periods, on their first offence, while these multi millionaires running society and bringing ruin upon us all, were untouchable. The same lesson drawn from the distant past, was alive in 1925 : The man who steals a leg of mutton goes to prison for a month ; the captain of industry grown rich on the profits stolen from his workmen gets a knighthood. (Ibid., p. 14)

These things never change because the human animal makes it so. Exploitive strategies are a sign of good health in the human animal, which is the crowd, the herd, the superorganism, that Joad is portraying here as something bad, by misrepresenting the human being as the individual. Chapter two gives us the logical inversion that we find evocative of our argument concerning the manner in which the Jewish master race comes to be our master. It indicates a basic principle, which the Jewish culture is based upon : the appearance of powerlessness, made the basis of supreme power. But this man is very devious, and we must therefore begin at the beginning. That morality is a tool of the powerful is his first principle, so now he wants to show that because we are a democracy, it is the common person who fits this abusive description :

CHAPTER II HERD MORALITY AND THE NEW TYRANNY OF THOUGHT The statement of general principles in the preceding chapter was not undertaken solely for the pleasure of political and ethical speculation. My concern is a more practical one. If the principle that justice is the interest of the stronger, is the explanation of what passes for morality, what, I wish to ask, is its application in the present and what is it likely to be in the immediate future ? In order to answer these questions we must first consider a further one : Who in a modern community is the stronger ? The fact that we are a democracy has not escaped notice. In our own day it is not kings, nobles, soldiers, prelates, politicians, or elected persons who are the stronger, but the common man, the plain man, the average man, the man in the street, whether city man or working man, and the crowd or herd of such men. He, or rather his female counterpart since she is more numerous even than he is, is the arbiter of morality, and the kind of conduct which is called moral is that which is convenient or pleasing to her. Plato with his usual acumen foresaw the possibility of this development, and was careful to provide for it within the bounds of Thrasymachus formula. All that it is necessary to do if we wish to apply the formula to a democracy is to invert it ; for stronger read weaker, and the formula remains unaltered. The practicability of this inversion is demonstrated by one, Callicles, in the Dialogue called Gorgias. Most men are stupid, irresolute, apathetic, mediocre, timid, and unimaginative. The qualities implied by these epithets, though discernible at all times, force themselves most pressingly upon the attention when men act together. Take a sheep and stand it on its hind legs and its resemblance to a human being is scarcely noticeable ; but stand a flock of sheep on their hind legs and, so far as psychology and behaviour go, you have a crowd of men. In other words, taken severally men may be individuals ; taken together they are a mere transmitting medium for herd emotion. Their individual stupidities are added together, but their individual wisdoms cancel out. In a democracy, says Callicles, the common men are the more numerous, they also possess the power ; acting, therefore, in accordance with their natures, they make the laws which their natures demand. Now it is natural for every man to wish to obtain as much as he can. It is also inevitable that in a state of nature the stronger should obtain more than the weaker. Hence the weaker, acting in self-defence, so

frame the laws that the endeavour of one individual to obtain more than the many is stigmatised as unjust. Hence justice, or morality, which is now revealed as the interest of the individually weaker but collectively stronger, may be regarded as their device for depriving the stronger of the preponderance of good things, which the strongers superior talents would naturally procure for them. What we may call herd morality is therefore, a form of self-defence dictated partly by fear, and partly by envy. The source of the fear is obvious ; the envy springs from the natural spite of inferior persons who are conscious of their inferiority, resent it, and wish to take it out of those who make them feel it. I have not, says the average man, the capacity of the strong man for acquiring a large share of the good things of life. Therefore I will take advantage of my numbers to lay it down that such acquisition is wrong and unjust. (Joad, pp. 17 19.) The trouble is, he has already indicated that the powerful manipulate their way into power by twisting the desire of the majority of ordinary people to enjoy a secure society in common with their brethren. Now he is suggesting that the powerful are reduced to making society according to the wishes of the people they enslave. This is utter shit. The period was just after the Russian revolution that introduced communism, that really made this kind of social model come true, after a fashion, but even here, the rulers came to power as they always have, by exploiting the defenceless plebes. We have taken this example of pure shit knowledge, for the unusual devotion it has to the idea of humans as a herd animal. Joad does not honour the principle of this idea, but certainly makes it clear that humans are not individuals, by the way he protests too much against the herd oppressing the individuality of people. Joad is himself playing a game of manipulating the masses to serve his agenda as a priest, a privileged one, a member of the elite, a message maker. We can put ourselves in the right frame of mind for the following point by thinking of the familiar fact that, logically speaking, not saying something is just as much lying as saying something that is false. Because such deliberate silence serves the same purpose of deceiving to a purpose, although it most definitely does not seem that way. The ploy smacks of the oft used, by us, moral coming from Aesops fable of the wind and the sun, where the exercise of power over people is tested in brutish versus persuasive mode, where stroking with the bent of human nature is presented as the far superior method of control. In our capitalist world the masses say nothing about financial inequality, on the basis that the freedom to seek wealth is equally available to all, and all would like to be one of those that makes it onto the rich list, as Joad says himself. This attitude equates to a silent lie, but one that happens to suit the rich, so they say nothing about the herd mentality making this disgusting state of affairs possible through the complicity of the masses in the greed of the masters. The situation Joad is up against in the middle of the first half of the twentieth century is very different. Socialism is at its peak, while capitalism is under siege. The herd mentality is vocal against inequality, so now the appearance of positive action contrary to the elites interests, can be attacked as a miserable expression of herd mentality. But in truth, herd mentality is all there ever is. The only question is how the people with power find themselves obliged to manage that mentality, as circumstances change over time. So that Joad gives us a nice introduction to the principles of the master rule, of the masses, but then proves himself to be an agent of that master power, not an unbiased exponent of the nature of human affairs. An interesting little piece nonetheless, dealing as it does with the idea of herd mentality and the relationship of this collective mindedness to the orientation of social forces.

Making America The rigid enforcement of uniformity is hostile not only to freedom of action but also to independence of thought. The laws against teaching or holding doctrines displeasing to the majority are particularly severe in America. Immigrants, for example, are not allowed to land in America until they have first expressed their disbelief in Communism, atheism and free love. Many people are put in prison for holding unpopular views, although these views do no apparent harm to anybody. Advocacy of birth-control, possession of irreverent and disreputable books such as Jurgen, expression of subversive opinions with regard to the relationship of capital and labour, and disbelief in God are among the offences so punished. Not only is it necessary not to profess unpopular viewsit is sometimes necessary to profess popular ones. In order to placate herd opinion it is found necessary to enforce by law the propagation of deliberate falsehood. This happens especially in those cases, unfortunately only too numerous, in which the truth is less gratifying to human conceit than we could wish, so that its adoption involves the abandonment of cherished beliefs. Such, for instance, is the belief that man is a degenerate angel, which is thought to be more flattering than the truth that he is a promoted ape. Thus the State of Tennessee has recently officially repudiated the monkey ancestry of its citizens. A law has been passed under which it is illegal for any teacher in a university or other public school to teach anything denying the story of creation given in the Bible, or that man has descended from the lower order of animals, and men have already been imprisoned for teaching evolution. It is not, so far as I know, maintained even in America that the doctrine of evolution is untrue. It is sufficient that it incurs the disapproval of the stronger. Thus truth herself is liable to be stigmatized as immoral if she is inconsiderate enough to flout the wishes of respectable citizens. Where individuality is to a large extent obliterated, and citizens are cut according to approved specification by the social machine, nothing is so much valued as personality. (Joad, pp. 30 31) I just had to slip this bit from Joad in at the last minute. It is germane to the theme of our work, for it tells us how the United States became a fascist Jewish state based upon the highest ideals of freedom, as set out in the Declaration of Independence ; that sounds to us more like a charter for covert fascist rule. What kind of nutter would make the ownership of guns a basis for the foundation of a society ? And in one of the most religiously oppressed societies on earth, how about that. It is a fact, a scientific fact, that there is no such thing as an individual, which means that carrying your own firearms, although an appealing idea to some of us, superficially, can only be a futile defence against social oppression in a modern state. On the streets of Aleppo citizens are fighting the Syrian army, right now, a civil war is raging, weapons are central to this fight. But this is not the scenario people have in mind when they defend their liberal guns laws. The idea that routine availability of such weaponry can be the basis of a social contract between the people and their rulers, is a wholly different one to that which the countries of the Arab Spring are dealing with at this time. The only true defence against oppression is unity against the state, obliging the state to be in harmony with the people. What this tactic of freely available arms actually does, is to allow a cabal of people backing a fascist state order to ensure that no peaceful, anti-Jewish lobby, will ever be able to rise up against the core right-wingers that are so entrenched in America by virtue of

the way this nasty society was set up. The foundation of America stinks of Jew craft, of master race manipulation. But you dont get to rule the world by being nice, so this is hardly a revelation. In other words, we have in the American Declaration of Independence, a charter for a fascist democracy, where there can only ever be a rightwing authority, because if ever there was any sense of a leftwing order coming into being the people of America, as the fascists would call themselves, would use their arsenal to attack the state. So that what the last bastion of freedom embodied in guns really means, is the last bastion of fascist rule, ensuring that liberalism will never secure a place in America. People want liberalism everywhere, but even when they nudge towards it, as with the current Obama administration, they still never get remotely close to a liberal government, it is not possible, it is written out of the America political system, from the off. And we see in the above quote, the carful manner in which the fascist rulers of America have always nurtured these conditions jealously, from the very beginning, to the present. What can you expect of a society founded upon an actual slave culture ? Not to mention Christian values ! Is there a difference between the two ? The acceptance of freely available guns can be related to the idea of morality serving the powerful, where Joad, disliking the contemporary rise of populist based political orders, that the powerful are suddenly the powerless. He inverts the logic because of an adjustment in the form of overlordship, where the priest now has to base their authority on the fiction of popular rule, whether it be democratic, or egalitarian, as in communism. So that legalising gun ownership sets up a powerbase that is of no use to most people, just as democracy or communism is of no use to most people, we the anonymous plebe always get stuck with the same shit anyway, whatever the system. An untouchable aristocracy always emerges from whatever system is dressed up by our masters, we see this in the current focus upon bankers, who are but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the existence of an elite core of masters owning the world, whose supporting organizations farm us as cattle. In order to place power in the hands of people that it is of use to, to create a master class within a new nation that is being forged, the priests introduced a rule saying that we all have the freedom to carry guns. Which looks egalitarian and contrary to elite interests, but we know it cannot be, because law makers never pass laws serving any interests but their own. And the idea of a democracy is utter shit, no one can be stupid enough to believe the idea that voting, in anyway influences the form a government takes. There is not one jot of evidence to suggest this is so, if by form we mean that the government treats the wishes of the people that elected it as its sole directive in the enactment of laws. The trick here is the same one that we see in the oppression managed by means of capitalist dogma. We are told that we are all free to be rich, except of course, only the same number of people will be rich under free for all capitalism, considered as a proportion of the population supported under these two kinds of system, as were rich when we lived under a monarchist aristocracy, or medieval feudalism come to that. Law makers figure out what suits them, and tell us we are going to get a system that is for us, while the system we get is only the one they had worked out would suit them according to the changing conditions of the time. The idea is that the possession of personal firearms serves as the last bastion of defence against the police, against the fascist state in other words. So some visiting American celebrity rap artist known as Ice T, or something like that, stated on Channel Four News a couple of weeks ago, when asked about gun ownership in the aftermath of the cinema slaughter perpetrated by a young man taking the part of an antihero from the Superman stories. Bullshit, is all we can say to this. If you believe that owning a gun keeps the law enforcers in check, you will believe anything, that my friend is your slave programming speaking through you, making you a dupe of the system, the logic of the proposition does not tally with what it means to be human, what it means to be a social animal ; but then, we are

not allowed to know what it means to be human, so there is no surprise in this delusions persuasiveness. I mean, I ask you, does the Rifle Association look to you like a band of libertarians waiting on tenterhooks to rise up should the menace of an oppressive, that is a rightwing state, come into view ? As ever, these are tricks pertaining to the management of linguistic force, perpetrated upon the masses by the Nazis who rule our world in an ever changing number of forms, but always as Nazis, or Jews, as they prefer to call themselves. The culture of oppressive freedom based on the rule of a covert priesthood, is practiced nowhere more perfectly than in America, the land of the free ! Shit, I ask you, any nation that has to get up on its high horse to spit these words in your face, is definitely trying too hard to tell you that was is, isnt. A free country does not have to tell us it is free, we know it by being there. The especially interesting part in Joads piece above, is how it raises the question where the sense of direction comes from ? Who told the policy makers of the United States to defend fascist Judaism by crushing modern liberalism ? Why are national states always so fascistic ? How come the leaders never want what the people all want, as in freedom ? Of course Joads argument refutes this last question. Being a democracy the leaders are as robots, according to his reasoning, they are forced to suppress true libertysince that is what the leaders do enforcebecause that is what the people want, as defined by what the leaders pass into law, which we know is driven by their masters, the plebes. Talk about shit reasoning. Take a facile idea like democracy and make it the basis of your intellectual understanding of reality, because it is what the priests call their current system of oppression, and hey presto, what have you got ? Bullshit, as usual. We liked this passage for what it says about the United States, not that we are in any great need of examples like this, we all know what a stinking cesspit of oppression the United States is, a God fearing hellhole. And so, we can see that it arises from the foundations of the United States being laid by priestcraft, that the modern American elite gets their nasty fascist, Jewish agenda from. Making America the worst Western nation on earth for their inbuilt extremism towards favouring rightwing attitudes, whether it is gun law, death penalties, vicious penal institutions, a slave attitude towards the working classes, puritanical attitudes towards drinking, and countless other ways of conducting themselves that makes an Englishman shudder to think of the monster we set loose on the world in our own image when we gave birth to that lot.

Part 4

Science of Linguistic Force

Chapter 20

Linking Linguistic Force to Social Structure

We can see how the very idea of words as discrete packets of meaning must serve to create a concept of unitary existence applying to the unit of language, mirroring the illusion of the individual person existing as an end in themselves. The word meaning applied to words practically denotes individuality. So that the evolution of linguistic sophistication has fashioned the appearance of the social unit, as we exist today. And this is what John Boodin was saying, though he did not realise it, in his The Social Mind : Foundations of Social Philosophy, 1939 : In primitive civilization we can scarcely speak of an individual. Man exists for the group. It is the life of the group that matters. Just as their language is holophrastic, every situation being expressed in a unique combination of sounds which have meaning only as a combination, so the individual is significant only in group patterns. Life is regulated from beginning to end by group customs and taboos, though the desire to live does at times bring about a change of medicines. We cannot speak of moral freedom unless there is the conscious realization of ideals. Man must develop analytical language and analytical concepts before the individual can have moral significance within the group. The penalty of such analytical thought is that the individual may become an abstraction and forget his group responsibility. Such individualism must be overcome by the development of creative imagination and a sense of unity on a higher moral plane. (pp. 549 550) This is as profound and as unwitting a recognition of the full force of language as a natural force, as we could ever hope to find. He is in effect saying that linguistic force has created every minute detail of our existence today, quite unbeknownst to us ! Shaping the way we think, shaping the very understanding that we treasure of ourselves. This incredible passage is part of an argument explaining how we came to value freedom, as such it is a typical piece of blind reasoning informed by the infinite capacity of humans to stuff their heads up their own backsides, and then glory in the wonderfulness of themselves. In reality, all our civilised complexity equates to is the extension of the superorganism, and not one thing more. The sublimation of the person in the primitive social group identified by Boodin, is exactly what continues to be the case today, only the social dynamic, or force, linguistic force that is, has intensified, allowing an interstitial gap to impart an illusion of freedom where, according to Boodins own logic, there can be none. Get a load of this, on the subject of interstitial gaps within superorganic fabric, this being an early notification of what has become a roaring process : Screwed. I was reading a passage in a book the other day, that I cannot now locate, which spoke of how laws intended to oblige people to do what is good for them were running

away with themselves. The critical point being, for our purposes here, that he said the state was now doing this to an immense degree : just because it could, due to new means of enforcing its will. Indeed, and so the story goes on, and on, and you may be sure, so it will continue to go on, ad infinitum. The book being The Map of Life by Lecky, 1899. This is about the management of the individual across an extended interstitial gap of superorganic fabric, allowing a more massive superorganism to exist. All of these factors, the evolution of analytic linguistic code, establishing identity programmes inducing an isolating sense of individuality, manifesting a more spacious social order, are pure physiology, pure biology, and only superficially sociology, and only then, when the sociology is understood to be a purely biological subject. This is why we find ourselves living in a civilisation, defined by its beauty and love, which is so evil that the mind falters at the attempt to give examples of something so pervasive that it is hard to know where to begin. Our civilisation is amazing, and it does have fabulous standards, but it is equally horrific and appalling. Yesterday, 27/03/2010, a man made the comment on TV that we must retain Christianity or else civilisation would come tumbling down around us. This is a classic case of a jumble of individually meaningless words coming together in an entirely false statement, jam packed with the most important meaning imaginable. The journalists were stopping people in the street outside a Catholic cathedral to canvass their thoughts in the light of the evidence that the Pope had acted as a Catholic priest when he was a Catholic priest. People were horrified, which seems bizarre, all the man did was make sure that priests who like raping children were protected, and helped to find suitable places to enjoy their inclination. Show us a Catholic official that has not supported this behaviour, that would be the trick. So, as Boodin rightly identifies, the structure of language determines the form of our consciousness. What is odd, is that from this observation he did not recognise that this must mean that our high standards, such as the conscious pursuit of freedom, must be identical to the primitives low standards, in functional terms, and simply about organising superorganic fabric, or social structure as the Linguistic Programme calls it. However, what we are being asked to grasp here, is an astoundingly tricky idea to catch hold of. I am finding it hard to put into words just what I want you to think of right now. I keep trying, and then realising I have not said what I want you to think. Boodin is helpful in a way, because he indicates that in small superorganisms linguistic force did not generate a linguistic pattern that allowed us to discern discrete words carrying specific meanings, instead linguistic force produced a message that was understood in a context that all knew directly. Under these circumstances linguistic force did not create a vast exoskeleton as it does in a civlized setting, it merely created an intimate physiological superorganic fabric. Thinking about this mode of speech I am put in mind of the jive talking portrayed in the hilarious 80s comedy Airplane, where Jamaican style English was spoken by an elderly white lady and a couple black dudes. This talk used normal words in so cursive a manner that the conversation became musical in its form. I imagine some such intonation being the norm in early human superorganic physiologies referred to by Boodin, being evocative of a highly integrated collective consciousness. Except their communication did not involve the decay of systematised language in an isolated social enclave, it represented the emergence of linguistic force at an amorphous stage of consciousness building. If we think of our man in the street commenting upon religious issues yesterday, we find he uses highly technical language by comparison with that which we are told sufficed in early human life. Each word is used precisely and in accordance with its strict meaning. But the particular sentence carries a huge overload of meaning, and one which for us, as atheist scientists, flies in the face of truth and reality. The total eradication of Judaism from the face

of the earth is the primary goal of our civilisation, it is the existence of religion which means our human world is vile and evil. So, it is clear that despite the very precise meaning of the words used, the ultimate idea expressed was meaningless in terms of reality. But, conversely, like the holophrastic linguistic flux used by primitives, the precise technical speech of this modern human exuded a powerful message wherein the true meaning lay, a message of power and force, claiming possession of humanity for the masters, the Jews. And this is all language ever does, wherever it is used. This is a hard idea to grasp point blank. But our whole argument, beginning as it does with the denial of the existence of the individual, leads towards this curious conclusion, where we gradually scratch away all linguistically induced deposits making up the superorganic fabric we live within. We deny one crucial element after another, we deny God, society, persons, meaning, evil, war, history, science, Darwinism, everything. Atheist science is one long negation of everything that we take for granted. But, if linguistic force creates all social substance and creates a linguistic programme that gives us our consciousness, and atheist science understands this, then this result is the inevitable consequence of applying atheist science to our existence. Everything must be revealed to be nonexistent, because it is something other than what we take it to be. It seems easy now to understand that God does not exist because God is the superorganism, since now we have reached the point where all our words turn out not to be words at all, because there is no such thing as a word. All there is, is the message put forth in the form of a linguistic flux arising from the combination of words, wherein only one meaning exists. And that is not a meaning at all, it is the meaning implied in a physiological function, such as the meaning implied in the assertion that without the Catholic church human existence is impossible. The meaning being that we are all slaves of Judaism, all part of one superorganism, and this superorganism will die, if we do not ensure the continuance of Judaism. Which is of course true, the Jewish superorganism will die if Catholicism is no more, but that does not mean some other superorganic form cannot take its place. So this assertion of loyalty vested in Christianity is simply a political war cry, that says stuff you, if priests want to molest little boys then good for them, they are Catholics, and Catholics are divine, because they are the representatives of the superorganism in the flesh. On Good Friday, three days ago, a Catholic priest in Rome delivered a speech calling the denial of the Catholic priests right to rape children the equivalent of the most evil manifestations of Nazi anti-Semitism that were ever seen. I have unfolded the implications of his arrogant whining. He achieved this gross comparison by quoting from a letter written to him by a Jew, which made the accusation for him. This is the kind of thing we get from the godly when we have caught them out at last. It is like corning a rat, it brings out the true nature of the beast. Isnt it sweet to see the master coming to the aid of their slaves ! We find it hard to justify our arguments claiming that anti-Semitism is a boon to Judaism, because evidence has to be of a material kind, as it is in science. But our assertions are based upon the scientific theory of evolution (not Darwins cooked up theory), which recognises that life is the product of a natural force, so that a mammalian superorganism had to evolve, and humans are that superorganism. From this it follows that structural consequences will exist that cannot be proven in political terms. Icke is a conspiracy theorist, he makes no attempt to offer rational explanations for the observations he makes, but his observations are correct in essence, because they are picking up the real physiological processes occurring within the superorganism that we are all part of. The problem-reactionsolution physiological dynamic becomes ever more refined, resulting in its institutionalisation delineated by parameters of identity, and a commentator like Icke picks this reality up. The core of superorganic identity, Judaism, also picks up the same dynamic in its mantra, but uses it to generate the physiological structure delivering social power to people in life by

controlling linguistic force. Hence Judaism becomes the unspoken target of a conspiracy theorist like Icke because it is itself produced by the same life force dynamic, so that conspiracy and conspiracy theory are two sides of one coin. This dynamic reaches its biological epitome therefore in the Jewish superorganism revealed by atheist science, that alone delivers an unbiased view of religion as a functional attribute of superorganic physiology. The Jews are of course perfectly well aware of the unnamed object lying within Ickes rancour, and they accuse him of anti-Semitism accordingly. But this only compounds the problem by practically verifying the general thesis set out by Icke. So there is no conspiracy. Jews need anti-Semitism, but Jews do not need to create it themselves, directly, in any way that would leave evidence for us to present to the world. Because the identity delineation of the social fabric generates anti-Jewish reactions spontaneously, whenever physiological conditions demand such an invigorating reaction. This is not magic, nor politics, it is the inevitable product of the interrelationships existing between different elements of the superorganic fabric, all of which are Jewish in nature, no matter how contrary to this core master identity they may appear to be. There are political manifestations that are closer to conspiratorial activities, to do with spreading religion and passing laws that induce immigration, and thereby supporting alien identities helping to decay indigenous identities in order to keep the biomass in a state of flux, centred upon the master identity of Judaism, allowing penetration by master identities that can then act as the constitutional bond, supported by other factors such as economics and war. These facets of human life are manifested at the political, conscious level of human action. An example of which we noted coming from the man in the street described above. But these ideological forms are not truly conspiratorial because they are all about people looking after their legitimate interests, pursued openly in terms of the public expression of their inner sense of identity. Any life form does as much, according to its own constitution. The political manifestation of social behaviour is like the physical manifestation of weather, lets say, in that we see the clouds, and feel the wind and the rain, but until science came along we did not know the nature of the various forces contributing to the manifestation of all this weather. And in this sense the political dimension of life is like a temperamental weather of human nature, always in a state of flux, often highly dynamic, but always rooted, unbeknownst to us, until atheist science came along, in human corporate nature. Friday, 15 June 2012 Sorting out the bibliography for my Master Race work a week or two past led me to a book I had used but did not possess a copy of, The Jew in History by Levison, 1916 ; presumably none were on sale when I was using it. Checking online I found one original copy was available, and cheap too ! This book arrived yesterday, and glancing at it I saw straightaway an interesting statement of the case regarding the creation of the Nazis and the holocaust by the Jews, unwittingly, as described above :

CHAPTER IX
THE ANTI-SEMITIC CRUSADE

IN his First Principles, Herbert Spencer describes the part which the law of rhythm plays in the cosmos. Evolution is shown to be, not the result of uniform motions, but of action and reaction. In the history of the Jews the law of action and reaction finds dramatic illustration. The splendour of the monarchy under David and Solomon, was followed by the gloom of the exile. On their return from captivity the star of hope shone brightly on the Jews, only to be eclipsed at the destruction of

Jerusalem and the dispersion. After the horrors of the Middle Ages came the dawn of liberty. With the eighteenth century came the regime of toleration. Once again the star of hope shone forth, but once again it was doomed to eclipse. Germany led the way in what is known as the Anti-Semitic Crusade. The emancipation of the Jews in that country had produced results not at all to the liking of the leaders of public opinion. No longer handicapped in the competitive arena, the Jews achieved success in all departments of national activity. In the words of Mr Abbott : Jews flooded the Universities, the Academies, the Medical Profession, the Civil Service, and the Bar. Many of the judges, and nearly one half of the practising lawyers of Germany are said to be Jews. Jews came forth as authors, journalists, and artists. Above all, Jews, thanks to the hereditary faculty for accumulation, fostered in them during the long period when money-lending was the one pursuit open to them, asserted themselves as financiers. Success awakened jealousy, and economic distressdue to entirely different causesstimulated it. With the advent of the industrial era in Germany, the power of money made itself felt, greatly to the chagrin of the landed gentry, who, along with the peasant proprietors, found themselves frequently, in their financial difficulties, dependent upon Jewish financiers. To fan the flames of popular discontent, religious prejudices were brought into play. Upon the scene appeared Herr Stocker, the Court preacher, with the cry that the Jews were injurious to a Christian state, and thus to intellectual jealousy was added religious fanaticism. In 1879 was formed an anti-Jewish league in order to render life in Germany intolerable to the race of aliens. Bismarck, in his official capacity, condemned the crusade, but he added : As a Prussian, as a German, as a Christian, as a man I cannot help but approve of it. The epidemic of Jew-baiting raged with virulence, and as a result thousands of the persecuted race were practically driven out of the country. The fanatics overdid their part. Common-sense began to assert itself. Herr Stocker was expelled from the Court, and with the decay of fanaticism the epidemic slowly waned. How futile was all the sound and fury of Stockerism, is shown by the fact that to-day half of the Socialist party in the Reichstag is composed of Jews. The epidemic spread to Austria, and even France, which a century previous had done justice to the Jews, involved herself in the shameful Dreyfus scandal, in a way disgraceful enough to make Diderot and his fellow-workers in the cause of toleration turn in their graves. But it is to Russia we must go to see the persecution of the Jews carried on with a persistent brutality, which makes one almost despair of humanity. In its treatment of the Jews, Russia is still at the stage of the Middle Ages. In that country popular animosity has its root in economic rather than religious causes. In 1881 the popular feeling found outlet in a terrible attack upon the Jews. A succession of bad harvests had reduced the peasantry to destitution, and in despair they were driven to get financial help from the Jews, who began to be looked upon as the cause of their misfortunes. Political demagogues inflamed the popular passions, and the result was an outburst of appalling savagery. All the provinces from the Baltic to the Black Sea were given over to slaughter and misery, such as Europe had not witnessed since the tragedy of the Black Death in the fourteenth century. As one writer remarks, the Russian persecution stands in some degree apart from other forms of the Anti-Semitic movement, on account of its unparalleled magnitude and ferocity. Instead of restraining the passions of the people, the Government justified them by passing a series of enactments, whose intention clearly was to crush the Jews under a dead weight of tyranny. Their property was confiscated, and they were driven into

Ghettoes. Fifteen provinces were allowed them to live in, known as the Pale. All the universities and schools for higher education were closed to them, and a feeling of hopeless misery settled upon the persecuted race. Wealthy Jews came to their assistance, notably Baron de Hirsch, who devoted a fortune to schemes of emigration. Over a million Jews were sent to America ; and fifty thousand settled in Palestine, Great Britain and other parts of Europe. (Levison, pp. 99 102.) The author is obviously Jewish, and the presentation is, as ever, one of mindless horror at the treatment of the Jews. No pause is given to consider the feelings of the aggrieved population subject to the manipulation and art of the Jews. And this story is what rings out through the ages where Jews are concerned, the resentment caused to local people by the alien Jews taking up positions of power and authority in the societies that they happily enter, but always keep themselves rigidly separate from, through the maintenance of their own cultural structures, preserving their own identities. We can see from this why its suits our masters, the Jews, to decimate our societies and undermine our cultures with an influx of aliens, the Muslims, and the introduction of a self hate mantra of multiculturalism, which in effect turns the needs of the Jews as a parasitic community, into a political creed for their hosts to live by, exactly as we find in Europe today after the world wars finally capped off the round of anti-Semitism whose roots are described by Levison above. But still the problem of the damn Jew persists, at the centre of all trouble, everywhere on earth. Global terrorism, war and revolution in the Middle East, rightwing politics in America, the supreme power on earth, the undermining of science through the ongoing war of religion against truth, and hence freedom, and as ever, the same old refrain is played out, that of the poor old Jew just doing his honourable best for humanity, that just will not get it, that the Jews are the Chosen, the saviours of mankind, here to help us ! We are saying that the Jews are our masters, and they are responsible for this pattern of development over time. In the above passage we have the proof. It is the Jews insistence upon preserving their identity that sets up the conflict dynamic. Reading between the lines of the above, we find that this Jewish author is saying that the Jews took over the elite structure of a society they existed within as outsiders to the main culture, and that it was an outrage for the mass of people who were by definition ousted from these positions of power within their own communities, to object to this usurpation of power because it was all done fair and square, according to rules which provided equal opportunity for all. But clearly there is no equality of opportunity between the Jews and the rest of humanity as regards these things, otherwise the Jews would not be numerically massively overrepresented in positions of wealth, power, and influence, wherever they go. Their culture is privileged relative to the state system as we have it, courtesy of the Jewish fostered machinery of political power, based on law and capitalism as developed over the millennia in association with the Jewish master identity. The Jews are not some kind of genetically superior human, a natural born father figure and benefactor to humanity, such as the professional Christian stooge suggests who provides an introduction to Levisons book. It is the process of linguistic force that has created the Jews as an organ of power within the superorganism. Our resentment as the eternal underdog to the Jew, living in a world of their making that we hate, is natural, inevitable and justifiable. And if we want a more direct example of this kind of culturally organized privilege invested in an exclusive organ of power within society, we need look no further than our own dear England, ruled as it is by the institution of the public school for the super rich. Who also are not our genetic superiors, nor superiors in any other sense of the word, quite the opposite in fact, but who nonetheless, century after century, rule us with an iron fist, come absolute monarchy or free democracy, it makes no difference.

Here is a story for you. Yesterday, 14/06/2012, I had to attend an appointment at the scheme funded by the government to give abuse to the unemployed. As I sat at a computer pretending to look for work for a tedious hour, a couple of the lads were whining on to the young women in charge, about how the government was responsible for the lack of work by bringing a flood of Poles into the country. Walking the half mile to the centre I had heard lots of foreign voices on the streets of this town, most of them Poles. There is a huge number of these people in this small town, and has been for some years now. When we see this issue debated on TV the point made is that employers want Polish workers because they are better, they love to work hard for long hours and low pay, in the poorest of conditions. And it is true, they do. And that is exactly what these lads were saying they were up against. And we may be sure that the Jews bring some kind of similar cultural inclination to the communities they infest too. So, what this comes down to, is that the Jews create anti-Semitism by virtue of their cultural forms. The Jews complaint strategy about this trouble that they cause themselves by virtue of being who they are, whom they have no need to be, but insist upon being, enters the debate at a level where the cultural question of who they are does not enter the picture, where the Jews right to be who they are is unquestioned. So the story goes on the way it goes on, entirely bias towards the Jew, and against the rest of us. Without the worst excesses of antiSemitism this strategy simply would not be possible. The use of the state machinery to pass laws protecting the alien from the people is incredible, but it is the fostering of hatred by the state that makes this master race strategy work so well, as when the state takes an active part in the execution of the hatred it has itself previously created by allowing Jews to infest society. Always it is the machinery of state that is responsible for these manoeuvres, and always this machinery is run by Jews, sometimes under the influence of Jews calling themselves Jews when Jews are allowed positions of power in their host societies, but otherwise by Jews calling themselves Christians or Muslims. The point about the Jewish culture is that it churns out people made to run the machinery of government, as we see Levison makes clear when he describes what happens when access to the machinery of state power is opened up to the Jews after having been held in abeyance. But behind it all, these dynamics are caused by the corporate nature of humans, which has developed the particular cultural form we are living with now, and if we want to understand why horrors like antiSemitism occur, we need to understand the underlying nature of this biological process. Although of course the object of the Jews is to keep our understanding on a political footing which denies science a look-in, and insists upon the ideology of individualism to account for all these things. I have to say that as I listened to these lads complaining about the way employers snapped up Poles while rejecting themselves and their mates, I thought Yeah right, you think they would want to employ you ! These lads were rough, and obviously nurtured on our wonderful benefits culture which allows us to be bone-idle, I love it. And they had kids ! I thought that was pretty tragic, imagine having these bums as your father, what hope of anything ? This workshy attitude has also been portrayed on documentaries, where English doley bums are shown to be arrogant, ignorant, lazy and altogether worthless as wage slaves. And given the work they are suppose to be doing, who the hell can blame them ? The sad thing is that in other parts of the world there exist people so well suited to mindless drudgery that a tap can be turned on and the country is flooded with them. Such is the shit world we live in, a world run by Jews, for Jews. One thing you can be sure of, you wont find any Jews on the dole, or working at the bottom rung of these wage slave jobs either. Well no, of course not, because they are so wonderful . . . yeah right. It is because they always have something better to do in this society, which is to screw the rest of us with their shit ideology of life

based on the rule of law and the power of the state as the machinery of law, to be driven by the people best suited to the task. When we see Jews or Christians defending religion in principle, as on a recent Big Questions programme, they say that what religion does is to make people suited for society. This means that Judaism, Christianity and Islam, prepares people to accept the rule of the state, and to be good citizens according to this model, somewhat in the manner of give unto Caesar. And this is exactly what the Jewish religious formula does. The question is, whether you think this is a good thing, and if you do, then why do you ? I myself consider the state to be the eternal enemy of humanity, and that it is our duty to wage war against the state, in a relentless struggle for freedom. A good old sixties philosophy. Hence I hate religion, and the state which is its handmaiden. What is Judaism ? Judaism is a culture. A culture is a programme, as in a computer programme, that creates a superorganism. This is why we speak thus of Judaism creating the state machinery that is the handmaiden of religion, that the Jews have an affinity for, that makes them our masters. The principle here is that there can only be one superorganism, therefore there can only be one culture. As Adolf Hitler said in Mein Kampf, where he spelled out the principles of Jewish master race philosophy, stating that there can only be one message, though it can come in a myriad of forms. His was just one more form of the same old, same old Judaism. Looking for other books by Levison just now, 15/06/2012 15:13, I hit upon a modern piece of Jewish propaganda by Denis MacShane, called Globalising Hatred, 2008, and ordered a copy straightaway, it was very cheap and must be worth taking a peek at. It is apparently a cry for reason, for liberal values and world peace ! Hahahahahahahahaha!!! Hilarious. If we would all just accept that the Jews are our masters and we are slaves of Judaism, and relax and enjoy the benefits accordingly, the Jews want nothing more than this from us, what is our problem ? We like being Christians dont we ? Of course anti-Semitism has gone global, the Jews are now a global master race. Where they go, their shadow follows them, and a good thing too, for they would not last long without it.

I Problem-reaction-solution Thursday, 14 June 2012 An important idea just occurred to me as I read this phrase above, to do with the manner in which linguistic force can be related to material, as in social structure, or superorganic physiology. This idea that a problem-reaction-solution dynamic acts as a physiological mechanism becoming refined as it develops institutional structure, suggests another useful idea, that of mere repetition creating structure. This brings to mind the adage No publicity is bad publicity. Which suggests the idea of a social form existing rather like the blank slate of which the individual mind is often said to be composed. The more that a particular flow of words is uttered, the more its acts like an acid carving the blank form of social appearances into a representation of the utterances made. Thus we have the other opposite idea, that unwanted voices should be Deprived of the oxygen of publicity. These ideas express a principle that things exist if they are spoken of, but not if they go unspoken. Hence we have political correctness, and laws against the public expression of

hatred against privileged minorities, serving the purpose of preserving a core dogma of religious power. And of course the most fixed expression of repetition is that which provides identity. Here the existence of a language is itself such a structural identity fixture, where we have the identity denoted by the language we speak, as in being English. And the same principle must apply to all denotations of identity, these being repeated constantly, so they pervade our consciousness. Identity then, carves social form, by the mere act of constant repetition. And from this fact arises racism as we know it today, where people express hatred for certain others, along lines of identity. The Jewish priesthood introduced slaves of Judaism into Europe after decimating the indigenous population whose Jewish slave identity had decayed due to localised conditions. This induced expressions of antagonism along identity lines creating structural tension in the social physiology, that was tackled by developing linguistic strategies to suppress this conflict based upon linguistic identity delineation. With enough decades having passed, the strategy has been intensified with deeply oppressive laws being introduced to attack the freedom of expression of the indigenous identity bloc, thus ensuring the privileged position of the alien identity bloc brought in to retain the Jewish foundations of the slave biomass. This is the process of problem-reaction-solution in action in its proper timeframe of social development, that runs on a slightly greater cyclical rate than that of the generational clock, allowing new generations to be gradually inducted into the new linguistic identity programme, as the old units die away. I wonder if we need to think about the idea of sacred names that must never be spoken when speaking about the naming of things creating their physical power ? I am thinking about the ancient Jewish name for God, Yahweh. The trouble is I know nothing about this subject, what the nature of the prohibition was, and how the name was ever known if it was never to be spoken ! I am inclined to think this special act of silence was somehow a means of intensifying the power of linguistic force that only comes from the opposite of silence, perhaps by placing a sacred silent word at the centre of an otherwise vocal cacophony of expression. So the Jews scream at the world all about them, of their Judaism, while preserving some special secret particle at its centre, only to be known by themselves ; that sounds about right. That sounds like a principle of social power based upon clan and political conspiracy, or hidden commonalities, like queers who only know each other, and know each other in a very special, intimate and private way, because they share each others arseholes. Hence homosexuals are natural born clan elements, tailor made by genetics to be conspirators, the basis of a priesthood elite. Or the organizations of ancient Greek mysteries, that kept secret knowledge at their heart into which initiates were inducted, it is as if Judaism has some such nature of exclusivity, and hence political power about it. But we should understand that such social structures are self evidently a direct product of linguistic expression, hence of linguistic force. The fact that linguistic force exists within our physiology makes the evolution of such social structures inevitable therefore.

II A bout of Bibliophilia Having just found occasion to refer to Leckys Map of Life I find myself suddenly propelled into making more of a meal of this book. Lecky is a highly significant figure from our period, who wrote works of some interest to us, both for their general relevance and their profound learning, his Rationalism in Europe being the most notable example. It was this fact that made me buy this more ephemeral looking tract while rooting through the charity

shops in the town I had to go to while on the torture run called New Deal recently. I just noticed a passing reference to the love of picking up books of no monetary value, but quite as precious as any that are expensive, to the lover of forgotten ideas, a biographical anecdote presumably, that explains the mass of delightfully obscure material found in Leckys History of Rationalism, and an anecdote I could lay a modest claim to myself, and demonstrate by virtue of my interest in this minor work of his : A collector of Caxtons, a collector of large printed or illustrated editions, a collector of first editions of famous books, a collector of those editions that are so much prized because an author has made in them some blunder which he afterwards corrected ; a collector of those unique books which have survived as rarities because no one thought it worth while to reprint them or because they are distinguished by some obsolete absurdity will probably not derive more pleasure, though he will spend vastly more money than the mere literary man who, being interested in some particular period or topic, loves to hunt up in old bookshops the obscure and forgotten literature relating to it. Much the same thing may be said of other tastes. The gratification of a strong taste or hobby will always give pleasure and it makes little difference whether it is an expensive or an inexpensive one. (The Map of Life : Conduct and Character, 1913, pp. 278 9. First pub. 1899.) Sunday, 17 June 2012 I recently had the delight of finding some volumes of Hugh Dohertys work online. I only became aware of the extent and nature of this mans organicist work recently, though I did buy a slim volume of his a few years ago. His books appear to be very rare, and they are definitely very obscure, but they are also the only truly organicist works written in English, and it has been an exquisite delight to buy three of his set of five volumes of Organic Philosophy just this year, putting the above into practice, though by my standards they were not exactly cheap, but neither were they too pricy. ___ Today the very idea that someone might be a collector of Caxtons is unimaginable, unless we use the word collector as a euphemism for a national library. Does your brain tingle with delight at this hint as to how a man of Leckys time could lose himself in narrow old corridors full of forgotten tomes, waiting to capture the fleeting transit of an antiquarian interest, carried along bare floor boards ? Mine does. A book sitting on a shelf as a century or two passes by, before the mere passage of time makes what was once obscure and arcane, become fascinating by appealing to a facet of mind beyond immediate erudition, being curious about the compositions of past intellects, like a fine brandy maturing, the finest liquor of all in fact. Many years ago I found my way into the remnants of one such place on the High Street in Oxford, running from The Plain to Carfax. To the back some stairs led up to a small, quite area, where I was disturbed by no one, with a central isle of books, and other shelves around. There were some old religious texts there that would be valued today for the mere fact they were seventeenth century. But not then, I too passed them by ; my atheism getting the better of my judgment for once. If I was not a doley bum at that particular moment my wage would of been what they call minimum now, my pennies were few, so all I came away with were three late eighteenth century leather bound magazines, which I still have, costing five or six pounds each. A dozen years later, that is two decades ago now, the place was no more, it then sold prints and such like. For how long before that sad demise, had that fine old Georgian fronted premises been suspended in time ? That is as close as I got to entering the spatial dimension Lecky conjures up in my mind, a taste of what must of been amazing ! Second hand book shops do still tend to be of a like still atmosphere, but none I

have been in, a rare visit anyway nowadays, have shelves full of old leather bound books for a paltry sum any more. Such things cannot last when the world changes as our world has changed. Now the internet offers the only accessible means of exercising a nuanced passion for books. Yesterday I dropped on a title I was looking for which bore the signature of a significant political figure from the interwar years, Herbert Morrison, a title on How Empires Grow, which I snapped up for little money. It adds nothing to the content, directly, but a little spice to the item and the act of acquiring it. In such a case the evidence of interest shown by a political decision maker of the day, on a matter of some historical significance as Germany prepared to build a global empire, is unique to the item of course. It arrived yesterday and is a skimpy volume which says nothing I would of wanted, giving no general discussion of the theory of how empires grow, with added organic overtones as implied by the titlenow that would of been nicebeing most interesting, on first impression, for its character as a socialist tract, socialism now being one of those dead and gone intellectual mindsets we were just talking about, albeit still hanging on in the minds of rapidly aging folk like me. I looked up a biographical piece on Morrison on the net, and within it I was amused to see this statement on the man :
When he was asked by the Wandsworth Tribunal if he belonged to any religious denomination, he replied, I belong to the ILP [Independent Labour party] and Socialism is my religion.

Now that is what I call old school, my school. There is much fuss at this precise moment, today being Friday, 09 April 2010, with an election campaign up and running, because of the apathy about voting. Meanwhile this weeks political hype has been about the yawning chasm that just opened up between the two main parties since Labour announced a hike in national insurance and the Tories came back with a promise to reverse this policy. A cohort of business leaders came out in support of the Tories, surprise surprise, throwing the media into frantic excitement upon the sudden appearance of such an earth shattering event, redefining the philosophical gap between the two alternatives we have to bother voting for. The media is part of the political machine, it is there to feed us propaganda and to chide us into being sheep. It never takes our position by ranting at the politicians for being worthless bums, and slagging them off for all being stooges and cardboard cut-outs of human beings. As if. This piece of nothing that politicians have concocted to give themselves jaw ache over, and us earache, has all the handwringing dilemma of a question asking someone if they want their eggs hard boiled for three minutes or hard boiled for 180 seconds. And the media are going ape shit over the fact that we are not impressed by the choice we have to make at the General Election ! There are major questions that we are all animated by, number one being how to stop immigration dead in its tracks, for the rest of the century. That is what we all want, and that is the last thing we are going to get, because we live in a Jewish theocracy, which is the focus of power in a superorganism that lives by the dynamic of population flow. And no one is going to tell us that either. This dullness was not the case when you had men like Morrison in the highest positions in the land, he was only kept away from being prime minister by Attlees success, at the very time he was signing this book I now have. Then the contrast was worth fighting for, but such civilized ideas as Socialism, competing with the deadpan misery of Conservatism, cannot be more than a flourish because of the nature of power being rooted in superorganic physiology, which means that hierarchy is the name of the game. So it is that we are back to a boring mush, and our everyday world reflects a mindless philosophy of mush that rules us today. See what thoughts you can wring out of a seemingly inconsequential signature, if you try.

How incongruous does it look to find the imputation that we live in a Jewish theocracy bursting into a diatribe of the kind we have just plonked above ? Very Id say. But as we are at this moment considering the growth of empires I thought we might sample an observation which explains what we have in mind when we speak of a global superorganism which carries the Jewish master identity everywhere today, enslaving the biomass of the planet to Judaism, and as such, really tells us something about how empires grow, which Horrabins item certainly does not do :

An Abstract Empire
The first question that needs to be answered is whether there is such a thing as a global capitalist system. My answer is, yes, but it is not a thing. We have an innate tendency to reify or personify abstract conceptsit is built into our languageand doing so can have unfortunate consequences. Abstract concepts take on a life of their own and it is only too easy to go off on the wrong track and become far removed from reality ; yet we cannot avoid thinking in abstract terms, because reality is just too complex to be understood in its entirety. That is why ideas play such an important role in historymore important than we realize. This is particularly true at the present moment in history. That the global capitalist system is an abstract concept does not make it any less significant. It rules our lives in the way that any regime rules peoples lives. The capitalist system can be compared to an empire that is more global in its coverage than any previous empire. It rules an entire civilization and, as in other empires, those who are outside its walls are considered barbarians. It is not a territorial empire because it lacks sovereignty and the trappings of sovereignty ; indeed, the sovereignty of the states that belong to it is the main limitation on its power and influence. It is almost invisible because it does not have any formal structure. Most of its subjects do not even know that they are subjected to it or, more correct, they recognize that they are subjected to impersonal and sometimes disruptive forces but they do not understand what those forces are. The empire analogy is justified because the global capitalist system does govern those who belong to itand it is not easy to opt out. Moreover, it has a center and a periphery just like an empire and the center benefits at the expense of the periphery. Most important, the global capitalist system exhibits some imperialistic tendencies. Far from seeking equilibrium, it is hell-bent on expansion. It cannot rest as long as there are any markets or resources that remain unincorporated. In this respect, it is little different from Alexander the Great or Attila the Hun and its expansionary tendencies may well prove its undoing. When I speak of expansion, I do not mean in geographical terms but in influence over peoples lives. In contrast to the nineteenth century when imperialism found a literal, territorial expression in the form of colonies, the current version of the global capitalist system is almost completely nonterritorial, or even extraterritorial, in character. Territories are governed by states and states often pose obstacles to the expansion of the capitalist system. This is true even of the United States, which is the most capitalistic of countries although isolationism and protectionism are recurrent themes in its political life. The global capitalist system is purely functional in nature and the function it serves is (not surprisingly) economic : the production, consumption, and exchange of goods and services. It is important to note that the exchange involves not only goods

and services but also the factors of production. As Marx and Engels pointed out 150 years ago, the capitalist system turns land, labor, and capital into commodities. As the system expands, the economic function comes to dominate the lives of people and societies. It penetrates into areas that were previously not considered economic, such as culture, politics, and the professions. Despite its nonterritorial nature, the system does have a center and periphery. The center is the provider of capital ; the periphery is the user of capital. The rules of the game are skewed in favor of the center. It could be argued that the center is in New York and London, because that is where the international financial markets are located, or in Washington, Frankfurt, and Tokyo, because that is where the worlds money supply is determined ; equally, it could be argued that the center is offshore, because that is where the most active and mobile part of the worlds financial capital is domiciled. (The Crisis of Global Capitalism, George Soros, pp. 103 105.) It is rather sweet to see this man pontificating on the nature of language, without the slightest notion of what the heck he is talking about, as per usual with the great intellects that teach us all we know. We take his passage on the assumption that he is an economist of some kind, not a philosopher. I am currently reading Baeyers Information and in it he frequently refers to the fact that terms used in physics are so abstract as to be way beyond comprehension, for example the wave function (p. 38). I have made use of this idea in my notes on his work, in validation of atheist sciences abstraction of sociology, whereby linguistic force is made the expression of universal energy in the social domain, and seeing Soros take exactly the same tack as Baeyer by asserting that extreme abstraction in no way discounts the true representation of reality, it is worth noting in passing for the support that such arguments give to the extreme abstraction imposed upon the idea we have of society when we deny the existence of individuals and assert that the superorganism is the only reality. And hence we discern the true nature of language, knowledge, religion, religious identity and all the specific expressions of religious identity plus other identities, like homosexuality and racial identity. And most importantly, we identify the most abstract vision of all, the master identity of Judaism which the above quote is all about, though Soros has no idea this is so. The centre of power in our globalised world is Judaism, the core identity of the system, and the system is biological, not economic. This should be obvious, since we are talking about the activities of an animal ! How can those activities being anything but biological ? Soros lack of knowledge about what humans are causes him to make facile mistakes, such as thinking that national sovereignty limits Jewish power, which in any case he confuses with capitalism, and does not even see for what it is, so it is hardly surprising that he has no idea what the nature of state structure is ! States are the exoskeletal framework of the global Jewish superorganism, they ensure that linguistic force imposes superorganic physiology in a Judophilic pattern, everywhere. Far from limiting the reach of Judaism (Capitalism to Soros), these skeletal structures enable the stable extension of Judaism, they are the building blocks of global Judaism, powered by the engine of capitalism, each state having a capitalist generator of its own within. Which is why Jews have imposed State organisation on the entire surface of the globe over the course of the last two millennia, via the agency of their hierarchical slave identity structures, denominated Christian and Islamic. But the Jews have, in their own name, been farming the process constantly, which is why they need the physiological mechanism of anti-Semitism to retain their identity definition, acting in conjunction with constant warfare, to keep the slave biomass in a suitably malleable state of flux to make it manageable.

Sunday, 17 June 2012 I see that my frame of mind when I quoted Soros some two years ago, was critical. Fair enough, but I found reading this quote just now delightful. My introduction to the quote said it all, that here we have a description of how global superorganisms grow that was so applicable to the abstract influence of Judaism, as the expression of the invisible Linguistic Force that creates all human form beyond that of the individual somatic form itself. It is the subjection of all societies to capitalism that I have in mind when I freely talk about countries like China as being Jewish slave nations, which some people are bound to find downright insane, because they refuse to get the point of all that we say in Atheist Science, which is that this science invites us to look beneath the superficial appearances of social form, as any good sociology should.

Chapter 21

Physics Applied to Social Form

With the aid of Baeyers suggestions regarding physics, we can even see how the way a human superorganic structure evolves about the Jewish identity core obeys the second law of thermodynamics, which requires entropy to increase towards stability. In other words, for Jewish identity to remain in command there must be a constant input of work, which, in the social context, occurs most notably in the shape of warfare, reinvigorating the initial act of war that imposed Jewish order upon the world in the first place. Otherwise the heightened complexity of a Jewish motivated superorganism, decomposes back to a lesser order of localised identity. The state structure therefore acts as a fixed order of localised identity, an artificial level beyond which Judaism will not sink, unless national order vested in the state breaks down. Territorial states as we know them, serve as a safety net preventing the rapid decay of the Jewish slave identity toward its natural tribal base created by the expression of linguistic force operating at its lower energetic level of genetic information, based upon the linguistic force of corporate being expressed in racial identity. The state structure invokes nationalism in place of race, and prevents the rapid decomposition of pure linguistic fabric back towards tribalism and away from Jewish slave identity appearing in the form of religion. It is notable how nationalistic Christians can be, such as our notorious British National Party, active today. Therefore we begin to see the function of the state structure operating as an exoskeletal fabric bound to an identity that is as biological as that of race, even though it appears in the form of a text based religion implanted into the national territory through the act of war, serving the primary identity of statehood, which is Judaism. By going to war amongst themselves, states pump up the linguistic force that created them by forcing people to express their natural urge to attach to the superorganism, now appearing in the name of the state structure that their existence depends upon. This attachment is orchestrated via the linguistic force delivered to them through the identity programme that is Judaism, in whatever guise. We see this effect now, with the decade long period of warfare which constantly sees dead heroes being brought home in coffins from Afghanistan, to be carried through the streets of British towns lined with beguiled onlookers captured by the fantasy of heroic sacrifice that at one level is simply the obedience of committed slaves to a terrible master, and at another deeper level, a natural subservience to the superorganism created by nature. In the face of such demonstrations of mourning over dead youth sacrificing themselves for the state, the mass of people have no defence, we are hooked. This is what war is really all about, the binding of superorganic physiology tightly together. War is a process of enslavement, represented today as an act of liberation ; which echoes the dogma of the church that calls upon us to be faithful and to guard against the evil that is all about, an ever present danger seeking to take possession of us. And this is why war is such a ubiquitous human behaviour, even in the modern era when you would think this kind of self destructive, brutal activity, would of been the first instinctive behaviour to decline with the rise of humanity to the status they so delight in calling civilized. Not a bit

of it, quite the reverse in fact, and this because war is as precious to the superorganism as tea and biscuits is to ourselves. Entropy, Baeyer tells us, is just another word for information, so that in the context of superorganic being, the increase of entropy equates to the decay of linguistic force, the decay of Jewish slave identity information that is. It follows from what Baeyer tells us, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Information, p. 91) is all about the decay of information, not the decay of energy, which the name of this law suggests. The idea of information decay fits in perfectly with our application of this law of physics to sociology. Such that linguistic force, seen as a true natural force creating superorganic physiology via the flow of information that directs the flow of energy, should invoke a universal law established by physicists, which describes the tendency of information to decay towards a uniform ambiance befitting the physical system in hand. Would anyone care to deny that information plays an active role in social life ? Well then, if there are universal laws governing the manifestation of information, these laws must apply to social domains as much as any other. Without the organicism of the social organism however, there is no way to conceive of this fact, and hence no one save for ourselves, has ever grasped this simple fact, to the best of our knowledge. What is nice about Soros thinking, is that he recognises that an abstract structure like capitalism impacts upon life just as much as a crystallised system, located geographically at a fixed point of social authority, as in the case of a national government. It is precisely this idea of amorphous, but real power, which always resides at the back of our minds when we speak about the global Jewish superorganism, rooted in capitalism. Judaism has always operated according to this abstract principle of power, organised via the extension of dominion through law, controlling wealth. This is why Jews are associated in everyones minds with money. Capitalism is merely the global manifestation of this physiological stratagem for controlling the energy flow of an extended human superorganism. These are biological dynamics, the Jewish dominion is a product of human corporate, biological nature, which is why its expression is rendered abstract, even though it is supposed to be made by humans acting as self serving individuals. If humans really made the world they live in, then that world could not possibly culminate in an overriding abstract power. To say otherwise is to invoke the abstraction of divinity, a conceptual trick that priests have used to disguise the basis of their power age upon age, as determined by the principles of human corporate nature of course. Soros is a priest. Having a public voice means that he must toe the line laid down by the theocracy, hence his blind stupidity about things he is expert in. Yesterday, 11/04/2010, I watched a minute or two of the Sunday morning propaganda show Big Questions on BBC 1, where they were debating the problem of class in Britain. The absurd thing is that their discussion revolved around whether a class problem existed, instead of getting on with a meaningful discussion about what class structure is, and talking about the functional, biological reasons for its existence. We can see why organicism had to be destroyed, fully developed by modern science sociological organicism would of ended all this nonsense instantly. The absurdity of this televised discussion spouting off about the moral aspects of class differentiation is the same as Dawkins and his eternal whining about religion. An endlessly monotone drawl about social life maintains the functional integrity of the product of linguistic force, evolved to control individual compliance with the needs of superorganic being that cause the problems individuals baulk at by imparting the idea that humans are in control, by assuming that these problems are not natural, but man made, and hence a question of moral rectitude. And the same politicising phenomenon applies in economics. On my shelf I have a book called To End Poverty : The Starvation of the Periphery by the Core, by

Richard Hunt, 1997. We can see from the opening sentence of the last paragraph in the above quote, that this title is echoed in Soros futile discussion. We draw on the public message only to illustrate the pervasiveness of the issues that we explain in absolute and final terms, in scientific terms that is. We might just note when observing that the monotone drawl assuages the pain of the subliminal identity programme, by inverting the location of power from its true location of authority vested in the superorganism, to the individual, that we have here the origins of the phenomenon called anti-Semitism, which utilises precisely the same linguistic mechanism of mind control. Mind control is a fairly severe phrase, all it really means is the control of individual consciousness through the management of meaning imbued into language by the power of authority to determine linguistic meaning, enacting a natural, hence gentle process, because we have no idea this process of control exists, we think language is a tool entirely under our personal control, and as such much nicer, eh ! Anti-Semitism applies at a lower level of mental illusion because Jews appear before us as tangible things, whereby this particular identity routine manipulates the location of power vested in the Jewish master identity, shifting it towards the lower hierarchical power bases of Jewish slave identity, such as Christianity and national identity, and also racial identity. As such anti-Semitism is a kind of linguistic prism deflecting consciousness through a one hundred and eighty degree tangent, shifting the real focus of power away from its true point of location, so that we see an inverted image of power vested in ourselves that is made to appear real because of the consequences of this illusion. Such as the eternal pogroms conducted by intruders into the regular political process, pretending to embody ourselves, thereby making us guilty of their crimes. But all the while, these intruders are only, and always, ultra Jews, although going by the Jewish slave name of Christians. Hitler was a defender of Christianity for example, and as such as Christian as it is possible to be. Never let anyone tell you otherwise, the standard propaganda being to call him an atheist, Hitler hated atheism because it undermined absolute power vested in the state. Do not take my word for it, read his Mein Kampf. But always, once the free expression of hatred for the alien has played itself out, the same old circumstances, and the Jews, persist, same as ever, only in point of fact vastly empowered by the cycle of tolerance and hatred that has rotated another turn, shifting the global biomass one more notch along the spiral of subservience to Judaism. All of this manipulation of knowledge requires that the individual is always seen as an end in themselves, and hence the importance of ensuring that the scientific theory of evolution selected by the theocracy preserved this false principle at religions core, as Darwins theory of evolution does. But it is the linguistic programme itself, consisting of the meanings imbued into the very language we speak, imprinted on our brains in the first years of life, that controls and constrains our consciousness, forcing us to take our slave status as a state of freedom, in which we spontaneously act to defend our masters when we seek to destroy our enemies, because we do not even know our own selves, just as we see the poor miserable ants do, that are bound by the psychological manacles of a slave maker ant species. I was looking at titles on the net yesterday under the name of Landauer, and some books on Latent Semantic Analysis cropped up which seemed to be offering a way of understanding how words acquire meaning. This is interesting because it goes to show how the rain of confusion pours down relentlessly when there is no guidance drawn from a basic theory of human nature, to determine what the nature of all things pertaining to humans are. The meaning held in language relates primarily to human nature, hence meaning is functional. The assumptions made by academics obeying the power of the priesthood they serve, and a part of, is that verbal meanings are somehow real ! What could be more insane than that ? If meanings were real there could be no lies, or poetry and such like, come to that.

I Meaning as the measure of linguistic force It is the fact that words have no fixed meaning that allows linguistic force to create social structure by generating a linguistic programme that interacts with ourselves as animal beings, concerning the imperatives drawn from our animal nature : the need for food, sex, shelter, comfort. Our organic needs act as the reward, while our linguistic programming serves as a game plan allowing us to access those rewards. The reason we experience an intense sense of pleasure from betting at the horses or on cards, and so on ad infinitum, derives from this physiological predisposition to follow a linguistic programme in order to receive rewards required by our biological needs. It is as if we were white mice engaged in some crazy gods laboratory maze experiment, somewhat as conceived by Douglas Adams in Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe, where one scene had humans serving as lab rats in a game run by mice. However the linguistic programme determining the form of the game which rules our lives, is in fact an extension of the human genome evolved to produce a superorganism, the real human object. The linguistic programme that rules our lives is not a game of any sort in reality, but it does tease out our biological needs to form a behavioural fabric of a social order of being. The main principle of superorganic formation is the organization and management of identity, since it is identity that consolidates the social structure by establishing its unity. We see evidence of this all the time in the struggle for the control of knowledge, where identities are bound up with ideas of reality. Where linguistic identities are especially contrived to serve as a foci of power there is a constant struggle over the retention of the primary identitys integrity, early Christian history being a fine record of such struggle. In our own case we seek to make religion anathema to science because in truth it is, and we want religion to be gone so that science can exist. Meanwhile religion tries to take over atheism as a defence against this move, by concocting ideas such as Humanism. If words had meanings in any absolute sense, this competition over the right to determine the meaning of an identity would not be possible. The point being that meanings are a pure expression of linguistic force, acting within the social context that meaning applies to, like electricity or magnetism in relation to atomic force. Meaning possesses a neutral power relative to the physical act of linguistic expression, that is the language we use. This neutrality of meaning is a mode of abstraction that allows absurd realities to be conjured up in acts of expression. Such as the idea that a tree will burn while a rock will not, unless we call the tree a rock and then prove that rocks do indeed burn, by putting the renamed tree on a fire and proving it ! Religion performs such linguistic inanities routinely, and has forced science to follow the same pattern in formulating primary theories about existence. We can envisage words as atomic units of language, such as tree, burn, rock. Where each of these atomic units of linguistic structure carries specific meanings, but because meaning is a measure of linguistic force attached to a physical unit of language, the distribution of linguistic force, in the form meaning, is not fixed. No one would mess about with the idiotic example we chose above to make a point, but religions do routinely make death the expression of life, and they mean it to be taken seriously. Which everyone gladly accepts as genuinely true ! Consequently, when we die we believe we go to heaven and see Mummy and Daddy and all our loved ones lost, again. Religion is the product of the concentration of the force of linguistic meaning so as to create a structural expression of linguistic force, in the shape of a religious identity. This identity organizes individuals into a superorganic body because, ultimately, these linguistic dynamics find their power in the

organization of individuals about the distribution and control of the necessaries of life, as determined by our animal nature. When we talk about early linguistic forms that had not developed an analytical nature by making use of distinct words carrying fixed meanings, where instead a stream of verbal expression took its shared significance in part from the context in which voice it was expressed, we can see how the idea of meaning as a pulse of linguistic force detached from words, might allow us to understand how linguistic physiology could work at this indistinct level of meaning. This level of linguistic force could only sustain a relatively small unit where every participant experienced the same contextual medium simultaneously. In addition, thinking of the historical evidence for our model of linguistic force, we can think of the way meaning is captured by identities based upon linguistic meanings in a manner reminiscent of our solar systems model of accretion. Christianity consumes people by consuming their identities and converting them to its own formulation. A well known example of what we have in mind would be the celebration of Christian feasts on dates once celebrated at pagan festivals. So the midwinter solstice festivity becomes a celebration of Christs birth, making the transition from paganism to a Jewish slave identity easier to accomplish for the Jewish priests taking possession of a new batch of human cattle, after the Roman slaves of Judaism had exterminated the Druid owners of those same herds. Viewed in terms of linguistic force, the expression of identity can be regarded as the focusing of linguistic force into an intensity of meaning. Whereby the transformation of pagan myth into Jewish myth becomes the captivation of meaning, resulting in an intensification of linguistic force upon the core identity of Judaism. Prior to the developed strategy of Christian slave Judaism, Roman slave Judaism adopted the exact same principle of allowing people to retain their own foci of identity-meaning while accepting new secular masters. So the Romans served as a transitional structural authority, intermediate between the pagan overlord and the master Jew who represents the organic authority of identity, or linguistic force itself. But all in all these dynamics are rooted in human corporate nature, and concern the distribution of linguistic force derived from the genetic evolution of human somatic form. A human superorganism is generated by linguistic force, which creates the structural physiology. This results in a living superorganism with a structure carrying a load of linguistic force. The structure is society as we know it, while the linguistic force is known to us via the resident expression of identity, which we most typically value as our religion. No one would deny that religion is an immense force in society. There can only be one identity, it must be religious, and in our world it is Judaism. Thus secular power is an expression of physiological structural power, while religious power is the expression of the linguistic force which generates all socio-physiological structure. If we can grasp this fact we will better understand the nature of Jewish power over our world, which is so awesome it is beyond thinking about, this force having allowed Jews to persist for millennia and impart their identity to the global human biomass, bucking the normal trend whereby societies crumble into dust, whereas Israel has so recently risen from nothing more substantial than a cauldron of linguistic force into a material form. All we can do is catch glimpses of how Judaism rules our world via the channelling of linguistic force through the medium of our Jewish superorganisms identity. While linguistic force is deemed by us to be a structural phenomenon, meaning is regarded as a functional parameter of linguistic force, delineating the form that linguistically generated structure takes. This is like saying that linguistic force is the ink from which written form is created, while meaning is the alphabet or code in which the form is written. Bear in mind when we say this, that meaning is a functional phenomenon, so that we mean written in a structural sense, just as DNA writes physiological (structural) meaning in a functional way. The analytical codification of linguistic force involves the fine tuning of the

structural form of a superorganic physiology, by fixing meaning to specific units of communication to enable a vast increase in structural complexity. Fixed, discrete meaning, increases the capacity of linguistic force to create complex superorganic physiology by controlling the force of language through the increased control of linguistic force expressed in the meaning imparted to words as integral units of linguistic force. This is a slightly circular, self affirming description, but all we are trying to say is that the latent potential of raw linguistic communication has been refined over millennia. Such reasoning prompts us to imagine that where basic speech involved intonation utilising sounds in a fluid manner, analytical speech utilising words, amounts to the creation of linguistic molecules from which all sorts of compounds, that is forms of knowledge or ideas, could be created by nature to drive the evolution of the human superorganism. We tell ourselves, through our highly analytical use of language, that we create our ideas, such as religion, myth, and so on, but such an idea is the most stupid notion imaginable, and obviously not true. We cannot help forming religious creeds, and these ideas are past on without question once formed, constituting our cultural heritage. We may argue that we create our knowledge of reality, such as science, since we work so hard for it, but such an idea is even more idiotic than the one that says we create our mythological accounts of existence, because the whole definition of science means that its understanding of reality is dictated by nature ! To say humans create knowledge is like saying that birds create flying. Birds can no more help creating flight than humans can help creating ideas. And this is why human ideas are, mostly, complete and utter shit, viewed as representations of something real that is. This applies to scientific ideas as much as religious ideas, since the two are one and the same thing, they are expressions of linguistic flux serving the being of the superorganism.

II Maths meets philosophy Reasoning about the nature of linguistic force evolving toward a more analytical mode in no way precludes the generation of false knowledge, serving to give identity to superorganic being. Indeed when we think of language evolving in this way we are put in mind of Baeyers account of Shannons work, which describes how information could be managed quantitatively without paying any regard to its meaning. Baeyers account implied that there was something real, i.e. meaning, that we just could not reach by any scientific means. However, according to our reasoning, the evolution of language from a primitive amorphous form to that precise form which we use today, seems to involve a like kind of process as that modelled by Shannon, where linguistic expression found a way to quantitatively enhance its capacity to organise structure without forcing the units of speech to pay any heed whatever to meaning. They might do so, but then again they might not, just like the output envisaged in a Shannon model of information counted bit by bit, where the information flow might be garbage, or it may not be, but as long as it is flowing it is all grist to the mill of information within the system. So that really, what we are doing, is discounting the very idea of meaning as anything real, which we have already done on philosophical grounds derived from atheist science, but now we are finding results drawn from the pure science of mathematical analysis to back up our reasoning. As humans we cannot be expected to realise that our words and ideas have no meaning, that they are simply routines in a biological programme that determines how we must think and behave, but I am afraid this bizarre idea is the only possible truth. Which means Shannons account of information as a material phenomenon tells us all there is to tell,

only failing to deliver a full account because the man was looking for something more than was there. Our insight makes no sense in a scientists model of reality as science exists in our absolute theocracy, because in our primitive society we are forced to think anthropomorphically, so that nature must carry that something, that we experience as meaning. This however, as we have just reasoned, is not so. Indeed the exact opposite is the case, language must be free to generate structure according to functional needs occurring at the level of social organization, not according to some abstract notion of meaning. This still leaves the objection that information may or may not be garbage. But in reality structure exists, invoking the Cartesian blurb I think therefore I am, expressed in a more mundane, and hence significant sense, as structure exists, therefore information is coherent. One cannot exist without the other. Which may not tell us where information gets its coherence from, but put that simply, we may as well ask where existence comes from, for that amounts to the same thing. Which is a question I can envisage no direct answer to. Tuesday, 19 June 2012 Other than the one we find coming up all the time in atheist science, which is a denial of existence. In this case this means denying the existence of existence, which must be as far as we can go in this direction, giving us a curious, extreme antithesis to Descartes famous dictum. This denial of existence is always a linguistic analysis, and in this case we would be saying that it is the idea of existence itself which is a fiction, just like the idea of God or evil, or meaning, as we have just been discussing. So in what way could the idea of existence be a purely linguistic manifestation relating to something else, that is real ? It is, as ever, a question of the meaning imparted to the word, the bias of linguistic force in other words. Where existence is concerned, it is a basic principle of our ruling linguistic programme that gives us our consciousness, that two levels of existence exist, the physical or material, and the invisible or spiritual. This dualism comes up in Dohertys Organic Philosophy that I am reading presently, all the time, because the man was an out and out religious freak. In relation to our own ideas the basic denial of individual existence bears on the meaning of existence, for here we make the question of being an end ourselves the definition of existence as used in its familiar sense, so that we say individuals do not exist. In short then, what we seem to driving at, is that the word existence is in fact a linguistic contrivance concocted as part of the elaboration of the Jewish identity programme, which is the linguistic programme ruling our lives, that conjures up the idea of existence as an absolute thing derived from the physical reality of existence, but always implying some mystical adjunct which is absolutely real, but not in a material sense, more in a sense of pure knowledge. Which is correct, the idea of existence is the product of linguistic force and nothing else, and has no existence outside of human existence, which it is part of. The idea of existence is part of human existence, otherwise it has no meaning, for it makes no sense in material terms, which are the only terms that exist in reality. Even our idea of existence only makes sense in material terms, as part of superorganic physiology. By denying that there is anything beyond the physical we negate the meaning of the word existence as we find it used in these contexts where it begs the question : What more is there ? When there is no more there is only what we see, using see in the broadest possible sense. Thus existence does not exist in the normal sense of the word that always implies something beyond physical being, and hence to ask where existence comes from is an invalid question, in the same way that asking what it is like in heaven is invalid, because there is no life after death. So it is also true that there is no beyond existence or coming into existence, as Parmenides argued long ago to the consternation of fellow Greek thinkers. There can be no coming into existence, existence either is and always has been, or it is not, and never was. Which suggests that Parmenides great revelation along these lines discerned the deceptive function of language as a programme giving us our conscious ideas, which

otherwise bore no relation to reality, so that Parmenides ideas were all about language and human nature, and thus about the nature of existence, though of course in a prescientific age he could only have an intuitive grasp of this. The idea that existence came from some mysterious state of nonexistence is a product of the ludicrous way priests seek to create a mystical domain. In effect what this question is therefore referring to, is that which brought the idea of existence into existence, and that was the coming of linguistic force in the shape of human kind, that could conjure up this idea of existence as part of the process of creating a human superorganism. Thus it would seem that existence actually refers to the coming into existence of the human species itself, as it exists in the form of the superorganism created by linguistic force. And we now understand this process of evolutionary emergence in a perfectly simple way, as a purely physical process with no remaining mysteries left in it. Wow, thats pretty good, wasnt expecting that outcome, just goes to show how solid my ideas are. Yu reckon ? Friday, 22 June 2012 Mulling over Parmenides briefly this evening, it occurred to me how the mystery over Parmenides lost meaning might be solved, and that would be if it was rediscovered by a modern philosopher in the course of their own ruminations, having myself in mind. Not that I presume to say I have performed this task ! But that my ruminations here might be evoking Parmenides lost idea, after all Parmenides is famous for having caused consternation amongst his fellow Greeks because his ideas undermined everything they took for granted about existence by undermining the basis of causality founded upon the principle of change, Parmenides saying that change was not possible at all. My ideas surely have a similar catastrophic tendency to undermine everything we take for granted today, leading to similar lines of thought appearing in both mine and Parmenides work. Parmenides ideas do resonate with some of mine, in the sense that one of our most radical ideas is that there is no such thing as an individual, they simply do not exist because all there is, is the human superorganism, as we understand ourselves once we know human nature is corporate, and the superorganic essence of human nature is all there is, so that it cannot be any other than corporate, as in superorganic, as it would have to be for the person to be an end in themselves in any sense whatsoever, this artful-cum-wishful dualism being what people invariably assert when faced with the idea that humans are superorganisms. So that at rock bottom, what Parmenides did was to refute dualism, exactly as I do : Parmenides argues that once one has reached the genuine character or reality of a thing, ones account of what the thing is has been completed, for there are no more distinctions to be made within the account (or the thing). (The Legacy of Parmenides, Curd, 1998, pp. 81 2.) This passage also picks up another radical idea of mine : that Atheist Science brings knowledge to an end, such that, beyond the idea that humans are superorganisms there is nothing else to know, this is the end of knowledge. That Parmenides upset everyone by presenting a logical denunciation of dualism is generally understood. The question is how he did it, since the poem he wrote containing his argument does not exist in its entirety, and this is where an act of rediscovery is required by a modern philosopher. If dualism is the issue, then we show that dualism is invalid, but vital, by showing that knowledge is a linguistic product with a biological function, thus reducing all linguistic dualisms serving a political purpose to a biologically functional monism. This has the exact same effect of destroying all knowledge oriented towards social authority as we understand Parmenides ideas seem to of had. The effect of our own revelations would therefore explain the consternation caused by any argument tending towards the undermining

of linguistic authority in this way. So that while Parmenides argument appears on the face of it to be about the nature of reality and existence themselves, it is in fact more likely to of been about the nature of language, and how reality and existence are represented in our ideas. Parmenides would not of needed to understand this distinction himself, since in order to do so you need to have a basis upon which to view language as something done to you by nature, that needs to be understood in naturalistic terms. Instead, Parmenides only needed to recognise the incongruity of what knowledge obliges us to believe about reality, rather than the origin and nature of our contradictory ideas themselves, which is what we actually reveal in Atheist Science, empowered as it is by modern scientific insights into reality and existence. Thus it would appear that it was the particular logic of linguistic expression that had become the basis of Greek culture, that Parmenides saw through. Just as we do in our own day with regard to the subliminal message of individuality providing the universal logic invoking the person as an authority in their own right, as we too live under the exact same autocracy of ignorance sustained by dualism to this very day, where all that is needed to turn everything upon its head is the sudden revelation of how things are, in direct opposition to how they are said to be. ___

All things considered, while any given portion of an information sequence, such as a DNA string, may indeed be garbage, taken overall, in relation to the structure it relates to, information will contain functional directives that equate to what we call meaning. Previously we have said that information is the pattern directing the flow of information in a structure, such that a river bed in a landscape represents information directing the flow of water along a gradient expressing gravitational energy latent in the structure of the planet earth. In such a case we can easily imagine all kinds of obstacles occurring to the direct flow of water, marshes, damns, river forks, and so on. But because of the scale of a river, we never lose sight of the fact that this channel of information is coherent, relentless, and as a directive for water to follow, perfectly meaningful and intelligible, at all times. But if we tried to analyse the flow of water in detail, inch by inch, we would soon become lost and confused, and ask how on earth the water in the hills ever ended up in the sea ? We indicated that the function of a linguistic programme had to be rooted in biological needs in order to drive human behaviour toward the formation of a living fabric, in the guise of a superorganic animal. With the coming of modern linguistic programming the waveband of analytical word forms serves as an interface between the biomass that has become removed from direct access to the means of life support, as per the routine observation that civilised life is a product of specialized roles, as farming allowed food production to support a different class of person. Consequently we find linguistic force playing an important role in this process of hierarchical definition. Analytic language, with its tendency toward creating words with fixed meanings, defining reality, a new reality indeed, seems to be related to the formation of this new kind of complex superorganic physiology. Wednesday, 20 June 2012 It is in relation to this process of creating a new structural reality, that of society, that words like existence which have no meaning outside the human context because of their overload of mystical meaning, come into existence spontaneously to describe human structures that are given validity by projecting the meaning found in human life onto the extended domain of existence within which we exist. In other words linguistic ability is an anthropomorphizing attribute, making reality appear to us in a human guise. This is what leads to the creation of religion, and sets up the war of religion against science, against the would be discovery of reality as it is. Which suggests that what

science is really all about is penetrating the product of this anthropomorphizing activity, exactly as we have discovered in our work. Left to its own devices language turns reality into a human form, which then becomes an obstacle to the advancement of learning. Baeyer tells us that measurement, as in the measurement of temperature for example, is the foundation of the hard sciences. By measuring something real we gain a handle on the underlying dynamics of reality, from which theories can be constructed on a mathematical basis. Can meaning be a real measure of linguistic force, and if so, how so ? Much of Baeyers work on Information involves the struggle to pin this slippery customer down, and measurement comes into this. He talks about Shannon quantifying information by using binary notation to derive the idea of bits of information that could be counted. But Shannon was only able to do this by ignoring the idea of meaning altogether, so that meaningful and meaningless information still counted the same. We have said that there is no such thing as meaning, since what we recognise as meaning is a functional expression of material structure. In the case of language meaning would have to be a measure of structural complexity associated with the information we wanted to measure the meaning of. Counting the number of zeros and ones is a measure of structural complexity at a base level. Since identity is the primary expression of linguistic force, in its function as the driving force creating superorganic physiology, it stands to reason that the measure of complexity for a social structure will be related to the array of identities of which a social form is composed. We therefore give a rough measure meaning by evaluating the identity complex within a social world. Counting roles is something sociologists already do a lot of, they write books on the subject of roles, therefore intuitively recognising the fundamental nature of role delineation in the organisation of a superorganism. This is all very imaginative, but it does not give us the kind of handle that scientists like to get a grip of. Meaning is the expression of linguistic force at the structural interface, this is the premise we begin with here. Conceptually this is good, we can use it to talk about how identities that we feel to be discrete are nonetheless all of a piece. A force of subliminal meaning reaches across divergent identities building social complexity. But how would we measure the force of meaning present in a modern society on this basis ? Look for common ideas and words in religious texts ? It is difficult to see how such things could ever be quantifiable in material terms, though conceptually this is a very nice way to think about the formation of social order. Measurement, it must be understood, is the purest form of reductionism, and as such it is bound to end up trying to fix on material entities that can be measured physically. How can meaning ever be reduced to such a routine ? Even when given a materialistic definition as a functional expression of linguistic force, the resulting concept is still largely linguistic and scarcely material at all. In the end we cannot escape the idea that meaning is a mode of consciousness associated with linguistic physiology, and as such not a quality to be located outside the human brain. What about inside, in degrees of stimulation ? Well that is a whole different ball game. That envisages following the electrical pathway of linguistic information as it runs in the brain, now there is an idea. If we could do that we could access the mental equivalent of zeros and ones and then just feed the electrical pulses into the brain allowing us to become as if telepathic, melding ourselves into one great lump of sentient meat. Pretty much as is then. Where might the force lie that is carried by meaning ? Would it reside in the individual ? Could we measure meaning by experimenting with people ? Deliver different messages and gauge the behavioural responses to determine the force of meaning in the message. That is certainly possible, after a fashion, we shift toward the realms of psychology when we talk thus. But humans cannot be freely used as guinea pigs in this way. But it is a fact that words carry a force of meaning in this overt sense, it is just that the force cannot be tracked down to a particle of linguistic meaning, to be measured by an instrument. Which

takes us back to where we started, there is no such thing as meaning, meaning is only real in terms of the function it serves in relation to the structure that linguistic force generates. Another interesting idea Baeyer gives us concerns the way Carnot dealt with the subject of heat engines by imagining an ideal heat engine that was one hundred percent efficient, and then proving that this could not exist, and hence no heat engine could be built that used all its fuel to do work. We could try and deal with the nature of meaning by imagining that meaning was real and that a message might transmit without any loss. This is Baeyers object in discussing Carnot, to then apply this theoretical principle to a Shannon type of information set up. But the information Baeyer deals with has no inherent meaning, whereas here we are solely concerned with the nature and integrity of meaning itself, albeit conceived as a functional element of the linguistic force that creates superorganic physiology. As can be seen from the way politicians use the idea of a message, the validity of meaning is seen in the result of its delivery, the proof is in the eating as the saying goes. This affirms that meaning is not absolute, but structural. Cannabis is comparatively harmless, but as a powerful drug it cannot be separated from other such stimulants, and must therefore be classed as illegal on the basis of harm, along with hard drugs like heroin. The problem then is to find ways of making the message match the structure of the law. Hence when calls are made for the decriminalisation of cannabis the refrain always heard, is that this would send out the wrong message, telling people that heroin was safe by association with cannabis. People like me might hate this game playing, but those who run the world cannot operate without it because they work on people as conglomerates, though they pretend to address them as thinking persons. According to this example a message is a way of harmonising a structural imperative delivered linguistically. In musical terms this must be akin to the tuning of a chord. Perhaps then meaning is a measure of linguistic harmonisation resulting in structural order. If we used this idea to sought out the problem of how a river flow directs water to the sea we would argue that the meaning of the information in this case lay in the central channel of the river. But still we would be hard put to transfer this riverine model to an actual measure of linguistic force in society. Language is at the root of all social structures, and meaning is the binding agent of the linguistic expression which delivers social structure composed of individuals. Language in the shape of words provides the bricks, meaning is the mortar gluing them in place.

III Baeyer Reading Baeyers Information has stimulated some ideas about the nature of meaning that make me want to copy the relevant notes now, and see what we have : Page 158 Information is physical, it is therefore subject to the laws of physics YES. This is incredibly useful once we know society is a physiological structure created by linguistic force, acting as a medium of information directing the social flow of organised, collaborative energy. This supports the idea that an invasive identity programme like Judaism is required to manage social energy to achieve structural domination of the social fabric, and in turn must be affected by the second law of thermodynamics regarding the decay of systems toward increasing entropy, i.e. loss of structure and complexity, obliging Judaism to utilise the mechanism of knowledge control in combination with restructuring warfare to affirm the slave

identity it imposes upon all humanity via the extension of meaning which is attuned to its own identity. I do not think that note was one I intended to replicate, but it is a beauty isnt it ! I love what this note says. This basically means that warfare is about pumping energy into a social system by causing the decay of established structure. One set of humans doing this to a social structure allows them to mine the social energy contained therein, by restructuring what has been broken down according to their own interests. So we are saying that from the point of view of humans, energy resides within a human social structure in a form that can be captured, owned, and managed by competing sets of humans. This can be easily visualised in the reality of social development of the modern kind, whereby corporations grow by replacing dispersed social structure. So the wealth of multifaceted corner shops are reduced to a uniform distribution of a few types of giant shopping centres covering the whole nation. Such rationalisation of the social fabric amounts to the farming of an established social structure, depriving the many who benefit from wealth accumulated over centuries, to benefit the few who become styled by such fancy terms as the nouveau riche. Warfare has the same objective of releasing accumulated potential spread evenly through a biomass. But unless it is overtly engaged in fresh acts of conquest, which can only be for a limited time, then warfare such as we saw in Europe in the twentieth century, mounted by Europeans against Europeans, is actually about breaking down a solidified structure to enable its established owners to farm its latent energy along new and more rationalised lines. It is perfectly normal for governments to wage war against their own people, history is all about such activity, though Dimbleby expressed shock at Nick Griffin of the BNP suggesting our present government was waging war against the indigenous people on a BBC 1 Question Time show last year. Griffin was of course quite right, after a fashion, but the logic of the argument requires filling out to make general sense. This accumulation of accessible energy within a social fabric clearly derives from the bonding activity of humans, which accumulates social fabric that can be as basic as occupying a territorial space and the resources therein. This bonding activity is entirely dependant upon the power of communication, such that we can say the linguistic force expressed in human activity accumulates within the social fabric that linguistic force itself generates by organising behaviour. The accumulated products of fixed linguistic force can then be broken down, releasing the basic constituents of wealth inherent in such a social fabric, by making them available for consumption by humans utilising an alternative pattern of social organisation, driven by a different expression of linguistic force, such as new laws or new ways of doing business. Herein we see the logic of linguistic force generating an infinite variety of languages, not so much in the inclusive national sense, more the exclusive kind, as found in professional jargon or priestly enclaves, as when Latin served the elite across Europe to the exclusion of local languages. The other nice thing to be thrown up by this note is that it homes in on linguistic force expressed in meaning, further refined to equate to identity, so that we say a master identity like Judaism evolves by causing meaningwhich is in effect linguistic force expressed in the form of identityto revolve about itself, making everyone possess a Jewish identity because their meaning in life is drawn towards the meaning held in Judaism. This is a fair description of the real world as we know it, as typified by the seemingly bizarre obsession Americans have with the life of Israel. In short, if warfare is about the decay of structure to release accumulated social energy locked within, then warfare is an act of digestion carried out by one superorganism against another, or by a complex superorganism acting upon itself in order to manage the integrity of its own fabric, directed by an established core identity. We see this kind of

warfare going on in one of our cousins in kind, the corals, where different species of coral compete for space on the reef where all corals must live, by performing an act of external digestion which seeks to consume any neighbour that is defined by a different parameter of genetic meaning, or social identity in other words. Wednesday, 20 June 2012 Coming to the end of book one of Dohertys Organic Philosophy, volume four, Collective Biology and Sociology, this afternoon, I reached a delightful passage very much in accord with our reasoning about social cleansing as a primary physiological attribute of human superorganisms. Doherty expresses this through the idea of necessity as the mother of all social development : Necessity, in fact, is only another name for nature, and the evolution of natural forces in all the realms of cosmological and sociological organisms. (Doherty, p. 181) The discussion surrounding this statement makes it clear that disaster in society is essential to the development of society, by its freeing up of solidified social arrangements to allow advancement to take place. This is a good example of how well suited Dohertys reasoning is to an organicist view of society. Only the primary driving force for him, must be God, whereas for us it is human corporate nature, biologically evolved to create a superorganism. Even though he provides us with the best statements of organicist sociology to be found anywhere outside our own work, as he says : Collective mankind is predestined to be organized into a complex social organism, as fatally as individual man is predestined to be organized into a complex vital organism. (Ibid., pp. 173 4) This is delightful, but such insights are always compromised by his adherence to religious nonsense as part of the reality he is elucidating in this highly naturalistic manner, that no scientist would ever dare espouse because they would be obliged to pick up the points of absurdity that this man can avoid by making his argument within the ambit of religious oversight. The reference for these quotes is slightly tricky as the same text appears under two alternative main titles, both as book one of Organic Philosophy, volume four ; and as a slim volume in its own right, Philosophy of History and Social Evolution, both 1874. He concludes this book one with some nice reasoning about the natural, spontaneous development of society, to which he also applies the idea of organic forces, in an altogether pleasing way. No mention of Darwin here, thank goodness. ___ Baeyer notes : 172 The electron is real, while probability is not real. In White Lie [this work] I have just concluded that meaning is a functional aspect of linguistic force, such that a word can be viewed as real, or fixed, by its form. While meaning constitutes a related part of a word, not a fixed part. If we apply this logic in reverse, to Baeyers argument, we could say the electron is a real particle of matter and its probability is its meaning. Speaking linguistically then, meaning is a phenomenon of

linguistic probability, distributing linguistic force across a social structure via the manifestation of language as we use it. I suppose we ought to expand on just what we take Baeyer to mean when he says the electron is real while probability is not, albeit fairly obvious. Since we are making something of this distinction in relation to the tricky phenomenon of meaning, we need at least to say something about this. The electron is a subatomic particle, as such it is as real as a house brick. The more interesting question arises when he says that probability is not real. We have to take this to mean not real by comparison with the definition inherent in the statement that the electron is real. But this justification does not cover all points of interest, for if the probability of events occurring tells us something about reality, which it most definitely does, then probability is most definitely real by association, even though the actual probability statement, describing the motion of an electron, is not identifying something fixed in physical existence. It is easy to see how this contrast between a fixed item, the real particle, and an associated attribute that varies over time is dynamic, and can suit our purpose once we have established the principle that linguistic force creates social structure by generating a linguistic programme that organises all human activity, given that we need to identify the power of fluxion in language as a dynamic able to carry social energy hither and thither. It is a plain and simple fact that meaning is not fixed, it is in fact highly dynamic and, in addition, a constant war is waged on the meaning we attribute to ideas, this is practically the be all and end of politics. We could therefore ask what the probability is of a particular meaning being attributed to a given set of words or ideas is. Which, following Baeyer, would mean that we must find that while words are real, particles of language, meaning is more akin to a measure of their probability of occurrence. And given that we have just recognised that human social identities are the purest expression of meaning, naming them, as we usually do by association with Judaism, we can see how the proliferation of Jewish identity meaning into alternate expressions of the same kind, which are then actively dispersed across the biomass of the planet, is a fine example of meaning serving as a flux of linguistic force, condensed into physiological form via what we treasure most of all as individuals, our religious identity. Thursday, 21 June 2012 The name Zipf comes to mind as I read this section written a couple of years ago. Zipf became of interest to me because he wrote a book with an organicist theme called National Unity and Disunity : The Nation as a Bio-Social Organism, 1941, from which we come across his Psycho-Biology of Language : an introduction to dynamic philology, 1935, which is the item of interest here. I cannot cut into this basically finished work now with a lengthy piece on Zipf, my recollection of his Psycho-Biology is that it was too technical for me to be able to read to any advantage. Turning to my 1965 edition now, I find it throws up some wonderful things nonetheless. The introduction tells us that Zipf took a scientists view of language and for him that meant the statistical analysis of language as a biological, psychological, social process. (page v.) The general idea informing this work is delightful. Under the subheading The Problem of Measuring Behavior we have this : Until some means has been devised for measuring the phenomena of a given field, one can neither make of that field an exact science nor study the dynamics of the field with any mentionable degree of precision. Hence the discovery of a method suitable for measuring the chief phenomena of speech is of immediate concern to Dynamic Philology. (p. 9)

While reading the above discussion of mine dealing with the idea of meaning as something to be measured I felt a little silly, as if I was overstretching myself, bordering on just those technical domains that I cannot readily penetrate. Reading the above from Zipf is reassuring in that he evidently sensed something of a similar kind of underlying reality to the power of human communication. Saturday, 23 June 2012 That said, dipping into the text we find the work loses its connection with our ideas, becoming more of an investigation into the evolution of linguistic structure and its function as a structure, rather than an assessment of the origins of language as a biological aspect of an animal, revealing that animals biological nature. Thus we find references to the way words develop as a means of increasing the expression of meaning, but I see no discussion of what exactly he takes linguistic meaning to be, as a biological phenomenon. This suggests he takes the automatic political mode of understanding programmed into his brain by the act of learning to speak, such that he thinks meaning is the conscious use of language by individuals, as a tool to aid them in their personal lives. Excuse me, I am trying to say something about this fellow from old memories without actually doing any work of refreshment. This is asking too much of myself. It just occurred to me to check the index for meaning because I read something about the facilitation of meaning yesterday, and then promptly lost it. Now we find a nice statement on meaning : Perhaps the most interesting feature of this high degree of orderliness in the distribution of words in the stream of speech is this : we select and arrange our words according to their meanings with little or no conscious reference to the relative frequency of occurrence of those words in the stream of speech, yet we find that words thus selected and arranged have a frequency distribution of great orderliness which for a large portion of the curve seems to be constant for language in general. The question arises as to the nature of meaning or meanings which leads automatically to this orderly frequency distribution. Whether this question can ever be completely solved quantitatively is probably doubtful, for meaning or meanings do not lend themselves to quantitative measurement. Yet, by the isolation of other factors which can be measured, we may gain a considerable insight into the nature of meaning, and perhaps finally apprehend something of its nature and behavior. (Zipf, p. 48) The trouble with this isolated selection, for all that it has some delightful remarks on meaning, is that it fails to tell us what he thinks meaning is, at all. The feeling we may get from the above, is that he is thinking of meaning as an integral attribute of language, whereas our thoughts on meaning have been prompted by the understanding that meaning is a product of the linguistic force which organizes human action to create superorganic form. Meaning for us is therefore a mechanism of linguistic programming providing the prompts that direct objects of linguistic force to act one way or another. Under this view the purpose of meaning is not to get each individual to know or understand anything, but rather it is to generate a common state of knowing or understanding distributed across a verbally interconnected biomass of human individuals. Which thought, suddenly seems to chime with the conditions Zipf describes above, concerning the curiously orderly distribution of meaning across a stream of speech, obtained unwittingly, as if prompted by an underlying force of, dare we say, language ! Zipfs work might therefore be just what we need to seek out the linguistic force that, to a mere conjurer of imaginative ideas like myself, it seems so hard to prove the presence of. See how important it is to adopt the correct pivot of observation when trying to understand humans, not to stand upon the individual, but to place ourselves upon the base of

superorganic being. Where failure to understand the existence of these alternatives leaves the cleverest of people floundering in the dark, without a clue what to make of the mysteries confronting them, which are as easy as pie to resolve, if only you have the key : the right pivot of observation ! Our resolution of Zipfs difficulty is only a prospective solution, but it is a nice idea, and one that completely alludes Zipf because his consciousness is held by the logical grip of religious dogma infused into the bias flux of meaning carried by our language, to preserve social authority vested in Judaism.

IV Shaping consciousness : the bias foundation of meaning Below I have taken a passage from Norberts work on the civilising process, and I have said that he makes a major assumption by talking thus about human transformation down the centuries. As ever we find our approach to human affairs has meant denying the existence of meaning right across the board, so, if we say there is no such thing as civilization, it is just one more example of this process of decodification that atheist science performs routinely as part of its method of elucidating human nature. But for most people no ructions of meaning would appear to them, they would take the word at face value and then perhaps debate its justification, but broadly speaking the word would be taken to refer to something real. The difference between the common consent as to meaning, and our routine rejection of the same, lies in the underlying interpretation of reality upon which the meaning of all the words used in society is based. Really, what all meaning boils down to, is the assumption that the person is autonomous, and of course this is a principle that we have upended. So the force of meaning is a uniform expression of linguistic force, with a constant parameter of meaning acting on consciousness by applying this baseline of meaning, to all linguistic usage. Thus meaning is not something defined by each word, bit by bit, and then varied in its degree of detachment to a specific word, such as we might think our common mode of reasoning suggests. No, there is only one meaning, and it says that humans are ends in themselves, and then the interpretation of reality, expressed in all words that come into use, carries this primary force of meaning infused into whatever overt meaning it also has. Obviously this only applies to words of an appropriately complex kind, dealing with the quality of things, rather than their simple identification, as in names and such like. From this understanding of how language works as a medium of superorganic being, we can make some sense of how the highly refined fraud of Darwinian science was just the one formulation to emerge from the cauldron of linguistic force that was bubbling up all sorts of linguistic concoctions to do with human superorganic nature, until finally a fraud took precedence because it conformed to the primary flux of linguistic meaning by raising the individual upon a pedestal of linguistic meaning, where all evolution was made to revolve about the individual as an end in themselves. People were guided in their efforts to defeat science and preserve religion, by this slant of linguistic force imbued into the very language we all use to think with. Science often bemoans the fact that it must struggle with ordinary language because it is just not designed to serve their needs, well, so it is, and so it is for a reason. Thus meaning is a uniform force, like electricity in matter. Its charge varies relative to the linguistic forms it is associated with, and that is where we would want to think about the variation in meaning between a word in one place, and then another. But the physiological purpose of language is not to communicate in bits of information, valued

person by person. It is to deliver form, social form, and it is the resulting form generated by language, which we need to focus on if we are to understand the nature of linguistic meaning. I spotted a couple of cheap books while searching for something online last week, to do with communication relative to social order, Symbol and Theory : A Philosophical Study of Theories of Religion and Social Anthropology by Skorupski, 1976, arrived a couple of days ago and Symbols and Social Theory by Hugh Duncan, 1969, arrived half an hour ago, get a load of this : And what is the social bond itself but a mystery ? We teach our young that it is not good to live alone, that men need each other, and that man is a social animal. But what do we need each other for ? Certainly not for love and joy alone, for we come together armed with terrible weapons to rend, tear, and kill each other. Even as we come together at an informal party we often admit ourselves to company that hates us, as we hate them. The pathos of our condition is that we socialize, indeed, must socialize, in hate as well as love. As social beings we enjoy being hated as well as being loved ; we even enjoy hating ourselves. As superiors we know full well that inferiors hate as well as love us, yet we strut and preen before those who hate and despise us, as well as before those who love and admire us. We would rather talk ill of ourselves than say nothing about ourselves, and we would rather hear others say evil things of us than say nothing at all. In hate, anger, rage, horror, terror, anguish, as in love, calm, joy, ecstasy, and serenity, we are bound to each other, for it is only in communication with the other (real or fantastic) that we experience emotions. Without others we are nothing. We must communicate to live. Yet how little we know of the pathologies in communication which cause us such suffering and joy in our attempts to relate to each other ! (Duncan, p. 267.) How do you like that ? Its fantastic isnt it, imagine finding a sociologist accepting that humans are somehow meant to be social ! It beggars belief, all sociologist know that humans only act social because they choose to, in order to get things they want. This is why we socialise even through the thick of it, as described by Duncan. Or that is how they like to tell it. Duncans description of the essence of human nature is wonderful, we could do no better, but of course he does not draw the logical conclusion, based on the fact of human evolution as an animal on planet earth. He still maintains the lunatic notion that we make our world. In this example of errant imbecility in our intellectual betters, we find that it is the motivation of emotional drives that implicitly defines the autonomy of the person in all that they do. There is always something that we are seeking to gratify, that explains our inexplicable behaviour. We are such complicated little dears, a sheer mystery !! Pathologies in communication the man says, what on earth is he going on about ? I cant be bothered looking, we just want to take the affirmation he gives us that human life is all about our linguistic physiology, and the impulse it gives us to create superorganic physiology, as in social form. We slot this passage in here because it shows how hard some people work at understanding this fact, but without ever getting anywhere near our true, scientific analysis, which causes us to say the strangest thingswhere strangeness is defined by comparative rarity, rather than a contrast with scientific veracityso we reduce meaning to a pulse of linguistic force, attached to the real, physical, verbal packets of information ceaselessly discharged by individuals in the course of their activity as cellular units of superorganic being, leading to a massive accumulation of social energy, deposited in the exoskeletal fabric of the living superorganism. Now that is what I call Sociology : the science of superorganic being.

By saying the meaning is a phenomenon of linguistic probability, distributing linguistic force across a social structure via the manifestation of language as we use it we might help our cause a little. Because we are endeavouring to establish a challenging theory of human nature we have tended to fix on key ideas that emphasise our core principle that the superorganism is real and the person is not, thereby contravening the foundation of meaning as we have it in our world, shaping our consciousness, giving us our minds. Thus we have linguistic force generating a linguistic programme that directs our every move. In Duncans book, which is actually a historical review of sociological theories of social communication, we immediately find theories set out that seek to make the person the commander of linguistic usage. So that on the back leaf of the dust jacket we find it stated that Americans argue that social bonds are the results of goals. In the above repetition of a previous remark of our own we recognise that the distribution of meaning in the form of a linguistic flux appears in a form that we all recognise in everyday life, which it obviously does. We speak, we listen, we respond. We do all these things, but as Duncans opening lament makes clear, it is far from obvious why we do them, if we are ends in ourselves. Why do we not just forget about others and get on and do our own thing ? being the implication. But of course we cannot, because people will not let one another alone. They want to breakdown any social structure that is not their own, and consume its potential energy, as we said above when describing how Jews farm the global human biomass today, as a grand example of something that occurs at the slightest level of social life. Friday, 22 June 2012 If someone has it, we want it, so that only by forming social structure can order be established that fixes what each has more securely, and it is language that serves to fix these arrangements. And this structure is what Duncan is really describing, hence the love hate dynamic of these social arrangements, because they are about stabilising inherent tensions to do with power, defined by our relations to one another. If someone is doing well, this by definition means others are doing badly, unless they can bask in the lucky persons brilliance. So there is always some kind of tension to be played out. We do not make this way of existence, it is natures handiwork, and we are her plaything. With the idea of meaning as a linguistic flux, we can think of our social activities which engage us in so much tussle described by Duncan above, as being about the acquisition of social power via the organisation of meaning about ourselves. We act socially, according to this view, because in order to accumulate meaning we must accumulate mass. And mass, in this social context, equates to an accumulation of individuals about a common sense of meaning. Such a common sense of meaning is what we call identity, as personified in racial, cultural and religious identity ; but, for our purposes here, we are only concerned with religious identity, for it is this form that truly represents an accumulation of linguistic force in the shape of meaning as we discuss it, and our world today is constructed on the basis of linguistic force as expressed in religious identity. What we get from this subtle adjustment of our ideas about the nature of linguistic force as it is manifested in society, is a chance to relate the consciousness of wilful interaction that we engage in, to the idea of a linguistic force controlling us via a linguistic programme. This is how we should always think about natural processes, where the dynamics always involve an actor and an interface. In our absolute theocracy science is not allowed to view humans as automatons of any kind, so when science figures out how termites act socially it is not permitted to apply the same logic to humans, we must be left free to determine every detail of our lives. Religion meanwhile is permitted to acknowledge that humans are powerless because only God knows or determines anything, and we should therefore honour God as our creator and try to do as God would want us to. By improving our model of linguistic force, with the aid of Baeyers description of how energy acts

according to physics, so that we can talk about meaning in energetic terms, we allow humans to interact with the operation of linguistic force in a partial manner, that makes complete sense of all that we know about ourselves. Humans do not make society, they do not make knowledge, they do not make meaning. But humans do interact with the landscape of social dynamics in much the same way they interact with other facets of physical existence, such as the geography of the planet, and the biosphere of which they are a part. We no longer have an all or nothing model of religious science versus atheist science, atheist science having moved on, to see better how our individual expression acts as a medium of the message, causing linguistic force to flow in an ordered manner. So we can add a real factor of determination in respect to social structure which takes account of the amorphous masses, since we know these masses carry a huge potential linguistic (social) force, expressed in revolution in the past, as it is a base force, only reactive when those who control the reigns of power lose their grip, or let go their grip in order to unleash the crude force of revolution. What is at the heart of these dynamics is the control of meaning, this is what these mysterious reigns of power consist of, and they can be broken when the final meaning of lifes necessities fail, and people rebel in desperation. Mostly we have been interested in the organised control of meaning to give a priesthood power, and there seem to be hints along this line of thinking in Duncans book, where subheadings such as Literati Education and Power, which I have not looked at, can surely only be about the control of knowledge, that is symbolism (meaning), by an elite. Ultimately then, reminding ourselves of the task we are engaged in here, the effort to maximise the attraction of linguistic force about our established sense of beingfocused upon the gravitational core of social power lodged in the primary identity of Judaismis the expression of human corporate nature revealed in the White Lie, which gives us the ultimate symbolisation (meaning) of our social existence. Religion is the overt expression of this ultimate meaning. And when talking thus of the relation of meaning to ourselves, we must keep in mind that the idea of linguistic force makes us objects of linguistic force, the material entities that this natural force acts upon.

Chapter 22

Meanings Meaning

Returning to my notes taken from Baeyer we have this next item which refers to an imaginary game played between two teams, one using quantum, and the other, classical physics : 179 The crux of the advantage accrued to quantum physics versus classical in this game, is that they have a secret device weighting their decision making process, compared with those not clued in. The small weighting toward a common decision oriented toward a position of authority eventually places this team in the place of authority themselves, as they win the game. If we think of meaning being akin to an electrical charge attached to a word or linguistic packet, then we can see how slanting words towards yourself would invoke an identical power garnering process, where social structure is created by linguistic force expressed in the distribution of meaning. All that is required is a fixed point of identity (religion) to act as the foci of accretion for linguistic force, and a dynamic property regarding the attachment of meaning to words. Both these phenomenon are the norm in society, although the priests would love us to believe otherwise, that meaning, unlike probability, is real and is managed by the conscious effort of people seeking to maintain a positive social world. No wonder political pundits call the management of meaning spin. I suspect my imaginary readers, for I know of no real ones, would not be able to grasp my meaning here, even if they read the relevant passage from Baeyer. I would like to quote the passage, but I darent for fear of breaching copyright rules and getting any post I make removed. The idea I am putting forward here is slightly tricky, I can barely hold onto it myself. The challenge then is to put my thoughts into words that convey a comprehensible idea. Baeyer is using the strange qualities of quantum physics to solve an imagined game scenario, in order to enable his readers to visualise how the reality of the quantum world as understood by physics, differs from the real world we interact with via our own physiological attributes. Quantum mechanics allows a relational form to be created by particles that have undergone an act of atomic interaction, which the particles will then carry when separated, such that the spin on one particle, will be an indication of the spin on the other particle. This is all very well, and difficult enough for a layperson to get a grip on with a complete sense of understanding. But the intriguing thing for us is the organization of the game, which effectively represents human interaction with the quantum world ; and yet, in so doing, it appears to me, to say something about how humans interact with the information of existence. By making two teams compete by seeking to give answers confirmed by a human observer of reality, where only the team using quantum analysis can accumulate enough

information to obtain the probability of being right more often than a team forced to use standard human observations, Baeyer sets up a scenario whereby the true object of the game becomes the satisfaction of authority vested in the power and nature of human observation and understanding. Where the winner must find a way of accumulating a bias of underlying, ordinarily invisible variables, which give clues to the reality the human observer sees automatically. So this game is rather like trying to unearth the reality which human intelligence ordinarily only senses intuitively, such as the idea that there is an overarching power ruling our lives that in reality is the superorganism we are all part of, but which becomes intuitively known via linguistic formulas as God, with all the social palaver that goes with this idea, that actually represents the demands of the living superorganism, which is a real living animal. In Baeyers game the quantum physicists would then be discovering some of the real factors which make us think there is a God, which no other people would be able to see, and this would allow them to satisfy the qualification for authority in society. This is a very odd consequence of Baeyers game, I cannot imagine for one moment that any such idea ever entered the mind of anyone discussing this game scenario as an illustration of quantum physics, but the idea occurs to us now because it slots right into our purview of human nature. It is a feature of our description of how religion acts, that the religious formula must represent the needs of the superorganism, and we have just made that principle inform our description of how access to deeper information of reality enables a priesthood to form. This is comparatively simplistic and obvious. What is really telling about Baeyers game scenario is that, although he is trying to make some aspect of reality dealing with quantum dynamics become real to us, what he actually ends up doing is to make whatever human authority says, the determinant of what is real. This is so because in reality humans do not give a toss what is real, they only care about power, this is why the obscenity of Darwinism has been raised onto a pedestal of scientific genius, just as Ptolemaic astronomy was of old. And it is this fact that is of interest to us, especially at this point in our discussion where we are concerned to understand how meaning can be a real feature of linguistic force, itself a real force of nature active in the organization of living matter. We have said that when warfare is used by the Jews to organize their dominion over all humanity, it comes in two forms, invasive and consolidating. Invasive war occurs once only, whereas consolidating warfare is a continual process. The same idea can be applied to the acquisition of knowledge about reality serving as a basis for social power. The action of the quantum physicists in accessing genuine knowledge imparting authority to them, can only occur once. But such knowledge of reality generates linguistic formulas, and these formulas can be attacked and commandeered by applying the same method as the quantum physicists used to access knowledge of reality, only now the new priesthood is seeking to access the covert knowledge imbued into religious identity formulas. This too we have talked about, it relates to how Judaism takes over the latent power of homosexuality upon which priesthoods were based in pagan societies like those of Greece and Rome, and how any other religious formulas are commandeered to bring them into orbit about the Jewish core identity, as seen in the way Christianity takes over pagan festivals. So in life, what people are really trying to do, is compete for control of the linguistic formulas representing hidden forces acting on human existence, and this comes down to a competition over the meaning of words, and the meaning of all that words give rise to. If we say we live in a Jewish superorganism, then we are in effect saying that all meaning in our world is Jewish. And this is perfectly reasonable, even to commonsense, given the bizarre manner in which the Christian and Islamic Jewish slave identities have taken over the world we all live in.

I Authority imparts spin to meaning It is obvious that the model we have constructed of meaning attached to words in a fluid form, sets up a dynamic where, if a human authority has a fixed view of what words mean, but meaning is not really fixed to words, then this fixity centred on authority must be an accumulation of just such a process as we discuss above, that of controlling the spin carried by any given packet of linguistic communication. In reality the authority that determines what a word means is the product of the act of accumulating meaning, so that the spin carried by a word is imparted by the authority which individuals must satisfy by affirming, if they are to win the game of being part of society. The point of this little endeavour of ours, is to show that the fluid attachment of meaning to words, is the foundation of social power, and thus the indication of what linguistic force is in our world. Friday, 22 June 2012 I am reminded to add the primary principle of linguistic force upon reading the above, to wit : the evolution of linguistic physiology that defines the human somatic form obliges individuals to speak, and in speaking linguistic force is projected into a social space created by the act of linguistic projection, whereupon linguistic force condenses into social authority by becoming fixed in the form of language, from which process of accumulative meaning social structure arises by reflecting the knowledge accrued in linguistic form, most particularly this applies to the formation of a core structure of social authority. Thus when we speak of authority as we do above, we have in mind the social structure, certainly, but ultimately we have in mind the power of linguistic force itself, which nature evolved in order to organize human action into forming a living superorganism as an end in itself, at the level of social organization. ___

From this description we can see why true knowledge is anathema to social power, and hence why science can never exist in a world where religion exists. Science, being the way we see reality as it is independent of ourselves, can only work by ensuring that meaning is an integral part of the word, or verbal unit, that carries it. In our social world then, the contrast between the classical physicist and the quantum physicist, is akin to the contrast between the initiate into social creeds, and the outsider. Thus we find the basis of the modern religious system rooted in the dynamics of covert knowledge accretion, familiar to us from the ancient world which gave rise to modern religious formulas that are imbued with implicit meaning that no one can understand or relate to unless they are themselves programmed along the same lines. Understanding here, does not mean understanding as such, it means conforming to. Ultimately, if we are to think about why subatomic matter gives rise to elemental structures which in turn build compounds and so the material world we are part of, the general conclusion we may take from physics, is that this result is a product of one hierarchical form coming into existence by understanding the covert dynamics of the preceding hierarchical form. Where, by understanding, we really have in mind that a structure carries the meaning of the previous mode of construction, or its latent potential force, onto a higher level of organization. And thus we manage to find some common ground between the physicists view of the quantum world and our own social complexity based upon linguistic force. If communication occurs, i.e. if structure ensues from interaction, then meaning exists. So we reduce all existence to interaction and structure ; where information

and meaning are cancelled out, being reduced to expressions of interactive dynamics which have no true existence in themselves, anymore than a physicists probability has. What we have just said is said in earnest, we are not engaged in philosophical effusion here, we are engaged in the exercise of exacting science, hard science, of a sociological kind, albeit at a highly abstract level of consideration. But the above discussion is rarefied relative to everyday experience, and so we must relate it to reality. To do this all we need do is remind ourselves of the expressions of thinkers on the subject of human life, such as Duncan above, and to think about our baseline in atheist science, where we make the existence of religion the most bizarre thing imaginable, because religion makes mindless insanity the supreme expression of our sublime genius. This bizarreness becomes accountable when we unearth complex notions of physical dynamics, mediated by natural forces expressed in physical form, once, that is, we have translated such ideas into the functional dynamics of linguistic physiology, which is the core of our animal being. No matter what is said about humans, we must always come back to our baseline of reality, that we can see and touchas indicated in the diagram by Einstein given belowwhich tells us that humans are animals that evolved here on earth. In respect to Baeyers quest to understand the nature of information and its conflation with the mystery of meaning, we might point out that this is where physics is seen to be subverted by religion, for our conclusion is that there is no such thing as either information or meaning, since there is only structure and interaction. Thus Shannons theory of information, in which he was forced to devise a model structure consisting of zeros and ones fixing a pattern of interaction in order to obtain a measure of information which was bereft of meaning, is all there is. This is an abstract model of structure and interaction, hence it reveals no meaning, because it is abstract. To derive meaning from this abstraction we need to see a hierarchical transmission of the latent potential of this abstraction to produce a hierarchical structure, carried onto a further level of structural form, which will of necessity carry meaning revealed in real structure, as opposed to the abstract structure of a Shannon model. If you reduce form to its limit you eventually take form beyond meaning, because meaning is a functional attribute of structure. In the same way a series of letters are an abstract representation of linguistic meaning, where the components of language are reduced to their most elementary form, which is bereft of meaning. This is hardly a mystery because we work with such units of communication routinely, so we know that a sequence of random letters are real units of language, but that if they are to carry meaning they must be given a higher structural form allowing their latent potential meaning to be released in verbal structures of communication. And we might just note that letters are abstractions from actual verbal communication, from the sounds our physiology is evolved to transmit and receive in an orderly, structure imparting fashion, that creates superorganic form by organising our interactive behaviour. Friday, 22 June 2012 According to this reasoning atomic elements of mass are abstract representations of matter that must be combined at a higher level of organization in order to form the actual structures which reveal the latent potential of their abstract meaning, such as oxygen, hydrogen or, up another level, water. ___

Meaning is not a fundamental property of existence, which sounds commonsense really. Could sociologists set up a computer programme to garner the bias of meaning in such a way as to produce a priesthood, and then an ensuing complex superorganic form, by following our model of linguistic meaning as a covert source of authority, as the source of

religious identity described here ? We might examine Russell on the limits of human knowledge to examine further into that idea, but it is too mathematical for me to take beyond a general consideration. Without referring to the early parts of Baeyers work, or to Youngs own Nature of Information, I seem to recall that Youngs culminating idea was that the essence of information was realised in relationships, which we seem to of concluded ourselves. The above is one portion of my notes, but another important item of a different kind appears later : 218 Consistent lying is a form of truth ! This is a logical vindication of the power of the White Lie as a unifying project that equates to a self fulfilling prophecy, whereby, if all academics adhere to the core principle of Jewish mythology, that is the lie that individuals are autonomous, then the social power implicated in the Jewish mythology of God will be made true, because consistent lying is as good as the truth in terms of knowing reality. Why lie in the first place ? Because the truth is unattached to any persona, any real human persona, to any identity that is, because the truth is universal and as a medium of definition, defining a human identity, truth is therefore useless since social structure cannot be formed on the basis of universal to knowledge. The lie is, as we say all along, necessary to distinguish sets of persons from one another, making the people of the Lie. Once a primary lie is established, i.e. Judaism, complexity in conformity to the lie can be developed by constantly remaking the same lie, to define extensions of the original social gamete.

II Einstein lends a hand

While we are drawing ideas from Baeyers work Information : The New Language of Science, 2003, we find ourselves in possession of a diagram produced by one of the most famous physicists. The following text relates to Einsteins diagram of knowledge formation reproduced above, taken from Baeyer : At the bottom of the drawing a straight, horizontal line represents the solid ground from which all science grows, and to which it must always return. It is labelled E : the variety of immediate sense Experiences, and includes everything that our senses perceive, nakedly or with the help of instruments : rainbows, snowflakes, stars, symphonies and quarks. The plane of experience, as Democritus realized more than two thousand years ago, anchors science to the material world and distinguishes it from speculative philosophy. High above that plane a dot marked A means the system of Axioms and stands for the great fundamental laws of science : the atomic doctrine of Democritus, Maxwells equations of electromagnetism, the two laws of thermodynamics, Darwins theory of evolution, Mendels laws of heredity, and a handful of others. On the left of the drawing is Einsteins own contribution to the philosophy of science : an exuberant, swooping arrow that starts just above the plane of experience and curves around to point at A. It represents the inductive leap from observation and experiment to theory not, as is commonly assumed, a logical or methodical inference, but a free invention of the human intellect, as Einstein put it elsewhere. Feynman called it a guess. The inductive leap connotes inspiration, imagination, invention, intuition, insight and instinct. The inductive arrow does not spring up from

any one point in the plane E, but skims along over it for a little distance, gathering evidence, as it were, without requiring a firm attachment to specific facts. On the right of the drawing, three straight arrows point down from A to three points labelled S, S', and S" located halfway between E and A. They stand for inferred propositions, those rigorous mathematical deductions from the fundamental laws, such as the proof of Keplers laws of planetary motion from Newtons law of gravity. If the inductive leap is the work of the great creative geniuses of science, the deduced propositions are produced by ordinary theoreticians. Finally, S, S' and S" are connected by dotted arrows to specific points back down on the plane E. The dotted lines represent the work of experimentalists, whose job is to compare theoretical predictions with actual observations, for, ideally, a theory should lead not just back to the sparse set of phenomena that inspired it in the first place, but to many others as well. (Baeyer, pp. 136 8) As we always say, science is : how we know reality. That is all science is, it is nothing more, and nothing less. Science is not a method, a technical approach, or anything of that kind ; although that is exactly what science in our absolute theocracy is. When we say what science is we are coming from the standpoint of atheist science, which demands that science includes an abstract recognition of its position in society as a preliminary to beginning its work, which empowers science to recognise and exclude the influence of all extraneous bias of the kind that perverts science today. Any true representation of reality is of the nature of science, while all science is of its nature true to reality, if it is truly science. The first paragraph of the above quote affirms this general principle, though in a manner which excludes the most important factor of all in seeking to produce true knowledge. The organic function of knowledge production is the creation social structure, which causes all final expressions of knowledge to be driven by the urge to seek the most perfect White Lie. Science must therefore somehow evade this imperative. Only yesterday, while drawing to the close of Baeyers book Information, we had an account of Austrian physicists who thought they were philosophers, one of whom was described as saying that science was not separate from society, but must be fitted into our other ways of thinking ! This is exactly what the theocracy needs, scientists who hate and despise science, and whose sole object in seeking to know reality is to enable them to obtain facts that will allow them to pervert knowledge to their demented religious aims. Science is anathema to society, science must seek to destroy society as we know it, to destroy religion, if science would be science. If we do not want our vicious, ugly, evil, brain-dead world, to be destroyed, then we should not do science. But of course we dont, we do white lie seeking instead. Now we come to examples of ways of knowing reality, which, to our horror, include Darwins theory of evolution ! Suddenly, instead of a diagram illustrating how scientific knowledge is made, we find ourselves in possession of a schematic for the ideal White Lie, drawn from Einsteins own mind. Thus the hard science of physics lends a helping hand to religion. Baeyer is responsible for including Darwin in a roll call of great Truths, but Baeyer is representing the solid-as-rock science of physics. This is an appalling thing to see, and inexcusable, since any idiot can see that Darwinism does not apply to human life, and cannot therefore be a true theory of evolution. Its dominance in a world ruled by religion can only mean that Darwinism is a lie made by science, in the name of religion. This gives us another nice angle on how the great lie which is science, inevitably pervades all departments of science, even though the baseline of deception is only fixed in the department of biology. I caught a rerun of a science programme on one of the BBC channels this week, today being Saturday, 17 April 2010, called What Darwin Did Not Know. In it the presenter was

talking about social insects, as he hacked into a termite mound, saying these animals devoted their lives to the queen in a selfless act of altruism. This created a dilemma for natural selection based on the struggle to reproduce, that was solved to the glory of Darwin when, in 1964, Bill Hamilton suddenly realised that the key was not the fitness of individuals as Darwin had thought, but the fitness of genes. This was the origin of sociobiology in America, while in Oxford Dawkins gave the idea a name by speaking of the selfish gene. So, the priest told us, Darwin triumphed over all. Except, he had not forgotten to report that the application of sociobiology to humans seemed far too reductionist. A clean sweep for Darwin, all life covered, of every kind, everywhere, except humans, which remain as free of vulnerability to scientific investigation as the day they popped out of the cauldron of linguistic force that is the Bible. It took many years and much work to analyse enough sociobiology and enough of Dawkins ideas to realise this was an extension of Darwin, an adjustment of the sham, but here we find a blunt acknowledgement of the link. The problem at the root of our work, which concerns the question of human social nature, is now dealt with by science. This makes perfect sense, as I had always found it odd that after animating all academia across the globe for a relentless war against science, lasting over a century, eradicating the idea of the human social organism by creating substitute science in the shape of Darwinism, and engaging in two world wars and the horror of the Nazis, just to deal with this problem of seepage from the cauldron of linguistic force, why would academia let Wilson spring a leak by conjuring up sociobiology ? With the benefit of hindsight, now enough decades have passed, we can see the entire picture in an instant. This programme on the BBC uses sociobiology as a continuation of Darwins perversion of science, protecting knowledge of human nature from being accessed by science, and revealing just what this whole revival of the social link to biology project has been about from the beginning.

III None conspiratorial conspiracy A gush of books has come through my front door this week, and one is incredible, shit, but incredible, as per normal. We have just been expounding upon the conspiracy of the academic priesthood against public access to true science, except we deny the crude notion of conspiracy. So how do we find the path that allows us to make such connections, while not declaring that everyone knows what they are doing ? This is where the following passage comes in, I hit upon it yesterday and I could not believe it, it is perfect, the only failure being that it adheres to the general principles of false science by assuming the human is the individual, and fails to assert the simple principle of true science which says the human individual is the superorganism that we call society :

The Social Constraint towards Self-Constraint What has the organization of society in the form of states, what have the monopolization and centralization of taxes and physical force over a large area, to do with civilization ? The observer of the civilizing process finds himself confronted by a whole tangle of problems. To mention a few of the most important at the outset, there is, first of all, the most general question. We have seenand the quotations in the first

volume served to illustrate this with specific examplesthat the civilizing process is a change of human conduct and sentiment in a quite specific direction. But, obviously, individual people did not at some past time intend this change, this civilization, and gradually realize it by conscious, rational, purposive measures. Clearly, civilization is not, any more than rationalization, a product of human ratio or the result of calculated long-term planning. How would it be conceivable that gradual rationalization could be founded on pre-existing rational behaviour and planning over centuries ? Could one really imagine that the civilizing process had been set in motion by people with that long-term perspective, that specific mastery of all shortterm affects, considering that this type of long-term perspective and self-mastery already presuppose a long civilizing process ? In fact, nothing in history indicates that this change was brought about rationally, through any purposive education of individual people or groups. It happened by and large unplanned ; but it did not happen, nevertheless, without a specific type of order. It has been shown in detail above how constraints through others from a variety of angles are converted into self-restraints, how the more animalic human activities are progressively thrust behind the scenes of mens communal social life and invested with feelings of shame, how the regulation of the whole instinctual and affective life by steady self-control becomes more and more stable, more even and more all-embracing. All this certainly does not spring from a rational idea conceived centuries ago by individual people and then implanted in one generation after another as the purpose of action and the desired state, until it was fully realized in the centuries of progress. And yet, though not planned and intended, this transformation is not merely a sequence of unstructured and chaotic changes. What poses itself here with regard to the civilizing process is nothing other than the general problem of historical change. Taken as a whole this change is not rationally planned ; but neither is it a random coming and going of orderless patterns. How is this possible ? How does it happen at all that formations arise in the human world that no single human being has intended, and which yet are anything but cloud formations without stability or structure ? The preceding study, and particularly those parts of it devoted to the problems of social dynamics, attempts to provide an answer to these questions. It is simple enough : plans and actions, the emotional and rational impulses of individual people, constantly interweave in a friendly or hostile way. This basic tissue resulting from many single plans and actions of men can give rise to changes and patterns that no individual person has planned or created. From this interdependence of people arises an order sui generis, an order more compelling and stronger than the will and reason of the individual people composing it. It is this order of interweaving human impulses and strivings, this social order, which determines the course of historical change ; it underlies the civilizing process. This order is neither rationalif by rational we mean that it has resulted intentionally from the purposive deliberation of individual people ; nor irrational if by irrational we mean that it has arisen in an incomprehensible way. It has occasionally been identified with the order of Nature ; it was interpreted by Hegel and some others as a kind of supra-individual Spirit, and his concept of a cunning of reason shows how much he too was preoccupied by the fact that all the planning and actions of people give rise to many things that no one actually intended. But the mental habits which tend to bind us to opposites such as rational and irrational, or spirit and nature, prove inadequate here. In this respect, too, reality is not

constructed quite as the conceptual apparatus of a particular standard would have us believe, whatever valuable services it may have performed in its time as a compass to guide us through an unknown world. The immanent regularities of social figurations are identical neither with regularities of the mind, of individual reasoning, nor with regularities of what we call nature, even though functionally all these different dimensions of reality are indissolubly linked to each other. On its own, however, this general statement about the relative autonomy of social figurations is of little help in their understanding ; it remains empty and ambiguous, unless the actual dynamics of social interweaving are directly illustrated by reference to specific and empirically demonstrable changes. Precisely this was one of the tasks to which Part One of this volume was devoted. It was attempted there to show what kind of interweaving, of mutual dependence between people, sets in motion, for example, processes of feudalization. It was shown how the compulsion of competitive situations drove a number of feudal lords into conflict, how the circle of competitors was slowly narrowed, and how this led to the monopoly of one and finallyin conjunction with other mechanisms of integration such as processes of increasing capital formation and functional differentiationto the formation of an absolutist state. This whole reorganization of human relationships went hand in hand with corresponding changes in mens manners, in their personality structure, the provisional result of which is our form of civilized conduct and sentiment. The connection between these specific changes in the structure of human relations and the corresponding changes in the structure of the personality will be discussed again shortly. But consideration of these mechanisms of integration is also relevant in a more general way to an understanding of the civilizing process. (Power & Civility. The Civilizing Process : Volume II, Norbert, 1982, pp. 229 232. First pub. in German 1939.) I cannot quote any more of this work, but I would like to, the notes going with this passage are brilliant too. The author was a professional sociologist working from the 1920s to the 1960s, according to one books description I read yesterday, and he was Jewish. It is interesting to see the thought he gives to the growth of states given that we have already determined in a manner beyond contradiction, that states are critical aspects of Jewish slave identity programming, providing the exoskeletal framework preventing the slave identity issued from core Judaism to the biomass, from decaying back to a base level where reinvasion is required. States therefore establish the reality of a new kind of superorganism, in the Jewish pattern of superorganic growth, though we must assume this is a general physiological pattern which could be identified in any human superorganism from ancient China to the pre-Jewish Central Americas. Saturday, 23 June 2012 Also, I do not know why it has taken me so long to get a grip on this idea, but states are military enclaves of social power, constructed on a military basis from which warfare arises as the most typical quality of state social structure. This makes sense in terms of the social cleansing imperative that is so vital to the rule of Judaism, based as it is upon the imposition of a slave identity that requires constant protection from corruption and decay, from within and without. Reading Doherty the other day, towards the end of book one, it caught my attention the way he spoke of the military states of Europe, such as Italy and France, yet to develop into democracies like Britain, writing in the 1870s. This is a reference to the constant European wars, still occurring at that time. He linked this to the rule of the Pope, and this clicked with the necessity of war to Jewish rule. Also, last night I was drawn to the same idea by the shenanigans in Egypt, where, after the Arab Spring of eighteen months ago, we finally have free elections, after which the army is placing its

man in power ! Once again showing how the state structure imposed by the Jews on all the world now, still requires the military structure in order to work in many of the most recently conquered places, Egypt only coming under modern European rule a couple of centuries ago. ___ The Jewish identity of this sociologist is interesting because this extreme brilliance in approaching close to reality, while being sure not to in anyway touch it, is just what we see in the likes of the famous sociologist Durkheim, who was a French Jew. It makes for some fabulous sociology, but at the same time it is exasperating because it is as if this man really knows what is real, but is being careful to see that no one else does, by assuming a position that pretends to go as far as is possible without going anywhere, really. Yet here he gives us a wonderful description, a bit convoluted in places, but still wonderful, in that it implicitly affirms that there is in reality no such thing as a man made society, the best we can ever do is affirm our approval of what is, after the event, just as Catholic slaves of Judaism do when they reach adolescence and take confirmation. And this general principle accounts for the manner in which the White Lie is fabricated by academia working to a fixed agenda over centuries, backed up by warfare directed at society, and touted in the form of fabulous scientific knowledge by men like Darwin, Wilson, Hamilton, Dawkins and so on ad infinitum. The central theme of Norberts work is the civilizing process whereby all humans are either exterminated or enslaved to Judaism. One description of his work said he believed this was driven by a process of evolving manners, and we see this hinted at in the above quote. I began reading Carpenters Intermediate Types, 1914, yesterday, and it reveals a world of sexual liberation as the norm, which we see as being destroyed by Jews in this so called process of civilizing the world. A world in which sex was taken as normal must of been a very strange world, and we take our massively crushed slave status as normal today, being trained in all the moral mechanisms of thought that Norbert is so keen to make fine acquisitions. So that it is natural for us to acquiesce in the massive assumption made by using the idea of transformation under the agnomen of a civilizing process. With the benefit of Carpenters tale of homosexuality as the norm in all human societies ever to of existed, until humanity was enslaved by Judaism, we find a very different story where moral assumptions have no place. There is nothing good about the society we live in, it is what it is, but we certainly did not choose it, just as Norbert affirms. And more to the point, there is nothing superior about our world today compared to the world others lived in in former times, millennia ago. The real solution to the question Norbert deals with is to be found by understanding the biological nature of the human form, to understand that this form is about superorganic being, and then to understand the process that converts global humanity from one less empowered to one massively empowered, in terms of the physiological empowerment of the superorganism. Moralistic assumptions are all about validating the changes experienced by individuals, which is part of the enslaving process, and it is no coincidence that we find Jews, a tiny proportion of the world biomass, heavily engaged in this highly specialised kind of moralising work, everywhere, in all ages. So much is this so that Jews write books about it, telling the world that hating Jews is wrong because Jews have done so much for humanity ! Here is one snatched from my bookshelves, Famous Jewish Lives, John Gilbert, 1970, I am sure there are many others in the same vein. Well, this is not about Jews, this is about knowledge, about knowing what humans are and how they exist as animals today. We can see that by emphasizing morality the status of the individual as an end in themselves is made paramount, just as religion teaches us, and just as religious freaks tell us when they bemoan the decay of religion by asking how we will be moral without the guiding rule of religion.

All these threads pull together, but there is nothing moral about morality, morality is an extremely evil, vile method of enslaving people, and ruling the world by taking over their mind, viewed in personal terms that is. The religious order provides the enslaving linguistic programme that Norbert eulogises without identifying it for what it is, a natural phenomenon which his kind are the masters of, that we are all enslaved to. We must belong to a superorganism, but the one we belong to is just that, a superorganism, nothing more, nothing less, there is no such thing as civilizing, or being civilized, all there is is nature, existing. Being civilized is what those who have enslaved us call what they have done for us by imposing alien laws, against human nature, and forcing us to spend all our lives working at soul destroying jobs in order to channel money to Israel.

IV Schematic for a white lie Now we know what the true nature of Einsteins diagram is, as an aid to white lie making, let us pay some attention to it as a conceptual device for perverting science, efficiently. The inductive leap needed for sociology, is to grasp the fact that humans are superorganic mammals, whose closest living relatives, in kind, are creatures such as ants that build large scale social forms. From the point of view of the theocracy, faced with the problem of dealing with the new phenomenon of scientific knowledge a couple of centuries ago, they had to appreciate the principles of the scientific method defined in the above diagram, and thus understand how to cut into that dynamic to ensure the conformity of science to religious needs. The great mass of scientific work done by religious professionals in the nineteenth century shows how this kind of knowledge will of been readily to hand. It is why religious freaks, devoted to perversion and lies as they are, are so passionate about true knowledge. Indeed, bizarrely, it could be said that because religious freaks need to keep abreast of true knowledge to protect their lies, they unwittingly further the cause of science. The thing being that it is the religious freaks that own the fabric of society and therefore have all the means to do privileged work. They are priests after all. Religious freaks do indeed argue that Christianity made science, but if this is so, it is only so in the sense that a criminal makes the law, without intention, and with regret ; by acting in ways that force a response. The required leap of imagination came easily to the first modern scientists drawn to the problem of human nature, as demonstrated by Comtes use of the phrase social organism in his Positive Philosophy of the 1830s. The inductive leap was easily made, and it informed the science of sociology henceforth, right up until the Great Cleansing of 1914 18. The method of knowledge perversion therefore, had to cut into this process of knowledge creation, taking over the whole process. The inductive leap had to be smudged out. The massively destructive military acts of twentieth century social flushing achieved this. Something then had to replace the eradicated inductive leap, but that something could not be a true replacement, it had to be an inductive leap that would lead to an axiom that would rain down misinformation, which could never reach the point of contact between ourselves and reality denoted in Einsteins diagram by E : the variety of immediate sense Experiences. Baeyer gives us this specially formulated inductive leap, concocted by the theocracy to ensure that no light was ever shone on human nature, by science. Darwinism was the replacement inductive leap that is now represented as one of the greatest ever leaps of human kind. But it is nothing of the kind, it is a subterfuge, and we can thank Einstein for his neat little image, helping us illustrate this fact succinctly.

We could adapt Einsteins diagram of knowledge formation to a representation of how theocracies control knowledge by subverting science. A process, we might add, that shows us the true power of universities, for these institutions constitute the machinery of knowledge subversion, now, as ever in the past, when this fact was blatantly obvious, or at least, this is so when viewed from our present. E must remain the same, since it is the reality delivered to our raw, untutored senses. A remains the same too, initially, being the axioms set on high, from which all reality is interpreted, because they are known to be true by virtue of their ability to account for all aspects of E, without ever a single contradiction being known. However, we want to adapt this diagram to the purposes of atheist science, and since our real world carries within the mix of true axioms the Trojan Horse of Jewish slave possession, the Darwinian theory of evolution that is, we must scratch Einsteins system of axioms, and insert system of white lies. Remember that the subversion of true knowledge is deemed a white lie because it preserves the age old religious order which is the living soul of our world, because religion provides the identity of the living superorganism that we are all part of. For atheist science these lies are black as hell, and a terrible evil, but that is how nature works and it is the job of atheist science to represent nature from a neutral point of observation that assumes there is no God and that all that can be known can be seen, according to the principles of science as set out in the first paragraph of the above quote. It would seem that the vulnerability in the process of scientific knowledge creation lies in the one freewheeling element, the inductive leap of imagination, which gives licence for anyone to say anything. This suggests that atheist science needs to insist that such imaginative leaps are not allowed to enter into the scientific process. And in truth, this is precisely what atheist science does when it insists that in order to do science, science must first destroy religion. The question is whether we can use the guiding hand of one of sciences great leaders, to help us reduce this to an abstract principle which does not expressly name religion as the problem ? The way to think about this, is to make it part of the scientific projects understanding of itself that it exists in the real world. So that science as a way of knowing must understand that it has an observational status that competes with any alternative observational statuses. This requires science to understand the nature of knowledge, which science does not do, for we see the assumption of integrity within academia being made by scientists all the time, as if religion had been separated from science once and for all and now science was no longer subject to pressure from alternative points of observation seeking alternative modes of knowledge. This assumption of purity in science will obviously not do, yet it is there for all to see. I have never seen any work of science call the integrity of science into question as a matter of principle, applying across the board. But really, when atheist science calls on science to openly attack religion as a first principle of doing science, the abstract formulation of this impossible requirement, is the demand that science be aware of its place in the human world of knowledge. Without a true science of human nature, a true science of sociology that is, such an insight is difficult for science to obtain. Which is one more reason why a real sociology could not be permitted to exist. In quantum physics much fuss has been made of the role of the observer as a factor to be accounted for in the observation. In a way this sense of self is what we are moving toward saying science must acknowledge when it decides what leaps of induction qualify as true leaps of imagination, as opposed to subversive acts of interception into the scientific process. The only way to deal with this aspect of knowledge creation is to be aware of it, and we make ourselves aware of it in the frequent acknowledgement of the war between religion and science for the control of knowledge. But as we can see from Baeyers book, he, as a professional scientist, has not applied our test to the acceptance of the axioms he declares

valid. And this is the bottom line, this is the abstract principle that atheist science can insist upon without naming religion. For an axiom to be elevated to the position provided for in Einsteins diagram, it must also of been subjected to the negative question as to whether their might be any bias motive involved in its inductive leap of the imagination. If this test is applied to Darwin, his whole edifice must come crashing down at once, for Darwinism is riddled with political bias serving religion, as personified in the idea of natural selection as a competitive mechanism making the individual the object of biological evolutionary force. As it is, we live in an absolute theocracy, where universities exist to control knowledge, and to preserve religion from the effects of corruption by science, by pure knowledge of reality that is. So it is that the system of axioms is in reality a dark cloud of white lies, from which the pattern of inferred propositions rain down. And indeed, much of our work in expounding upon the nature of the war between religion and science involves an endless examination of these propositions which appear in infinite abundance, forming a sea of knowledge all about is, discussing everything, everything that is except that tiny fraction of knowledge that we are interested in, that is inspired by the inductive leap which tells us the true nature of humans, as superorganic mammals. The inferred propositions then, must be relabelled fog of misinformation in our new, adapted version of Einsteins image of knowledge creation. Even a work like Bayers on physics, and most delightful, constitutes part of this fog, for a work such as this is not an integral block of matter, anymore than a protein making up part of a body constitutes such an integral unit. A book is a package of information from whence the flux of linguistic force, initially pumped into it in the process of creation, seeps out, according to the nature of the information block that the book is. So even though Baeyers book is largely sound in terms of true science, it is permeated by the corruption of the Jewish message of identity that gives the whole global superorganism its identity. And it is this astounding imposition of false information that science must combat if it is ever to be true to itself. Accordingly we see that all knowledge is subsumed into the objective of linguistic force, which is the creation of superorganic being. V Linguistic probabilities We have been using the idea of linguistic force for some time now, and it is a tricky idea to get to grips with because it invokes the idea of force as used by scientists, to do with gravity or magnetism, measurable aspects of reality, and yet linguistic force is intended to describe the basic force underpinning the creation of social structure. The idea is useful, but no one is going to take it as anything more than that, a useful tool for saying something about how language works, no one is going to actually believe that there is a natural force that can be justifiably called linguistic force. Yet from the outset of its inception in our work a couple of years ago, this has always been the intended meaning. Accordingly I have for some time wanted to think of some way of delving into the nature of this force and I was set on my way a couple of months ago by discovering a book called The Nature of Information by Young. On the strength of this book I thought I would set out to write an essay on linguistic force. I just ran a search for Youngs book to see if I could find an affordable copy, even though I have read a copy borrowed from the library, I like to own books that I think are special, and the man has a website selling a shortened version, twenty five pages long, published in 2005, so I bought a copy for six quid. I did not find that when looking a couple of months ago. Anyway, back to the job in hand. I thought of sending him an email explaining that he needed to understand the nature of humans before

he tackled the nature of information, but I will just knock this work up and post it to Scribd, and that will do. After reading Young my next work in the Linguistic Force project was Baeyer, but his work has fed me some useful ideas, and most important is the notion I got hold of a week or so ago that meaning was a particulate expression of linguistic force, associated with the stream of verbal communication in such a way that meaning could be likened to a probability, just as the dynamics of an electron can be in physics. We have to be aware of the danger of analogy when reasoning like this, as atheist scientists we ought to be highly sensitive to this danger since our historical roots lie in the idea of the social organism from the nineteenth century, which get horribly embroiled in analogical modes of elaboration which did the real science of the superorganism no favours. For sure this corruption was no doubt imposed maliciously to a large extent, but all the more reason to be clear that we mean to suggest no analogies here. The comparison is meant literally, after all our contention is that language expresses a natural force associated with living matter, so we would like to work out how this force operates in living matter. Now, as it happens, having had a pleasant, mentally relaxing sojourn through the pages of Carpenters brilliant Intermediate Types, I wanted something to move onto while the sun still burned down, after finishing this Queer treatise. My hand lighted upon Human Knowledge : Its Scope and Limits, by Bertrand Russell, 1948, which I picked up from a book shop a few months ago while on the torture run. Russell I hate, because he devoted his life to the role of gatekeeper for the theocracy by taking up the stance of an atheist who wasnt, just as Dawkins does today, both being all mouth and no substance. But still, the title is irresistible, and as it turns out, would you believe, he actually has an extensive discussion of the nature of probability in relation to meaning ! How amazing is that ? Ask and thy shall receive. It is not quite on meaning, more on the ability to determine the veracity of knowledge, but that is close enough to how I want to use his reasoning, to examine the nature of meaning as probability. Sunday, 24 June 2012 We seem to come to a dead halt here. All I would say is that these musings on meaning as a probability chime with Zipfs vindication of our extraordinary position on linguistic force as a real force. Zipfs pattern of meaning distributed across the stream of communication is, I assume, in conformity to the distribution of meaning according to the idea of probability. Sadly maths is an alien language to me, so much so that while I feel sure that what I just said is correct, I have no idea if it is or not ! How does anyone understand maths ? Maths as a description of reality, as opposed to simple arithmetic, leaves my mind stone cold, I am blind to its meaning, and always have been, much to my eternal consternation, because of its role in the creation of exact knowledge of reality. The only saving grace for me is that mathematical genius in now way indicates a capacity to reason logically, look at Newton, or Russell even, or indeed many such gifted scientists and mathematicians, who still had a penchant for utter stupidity of the first order, when it came to thinking sensibly about straightforward things. The only thing I can do now is to insert a major break, by creating a further part, and then read on and see what we have below, so that I may at last get this work ready to post to Scribd. This seems to be mostly about the idea of linguistic force that was evidently on my mind a couple of years ago when writing this, but that work never got written separately, and this item seems to contain the fruits of that phase of my endeavours, and as such is worth posting as part of my ongoing attempts to develop the idea of human corporate nature. The reference in what follows to avoiding any delay in looking at Lecky, might explain why we find this sudden end to what appears above, shifting our orientation so abruptly that it left me stumped to know what was going on. I see that we are still on track

for the main theme of White Lie making, which is a relief to see ; thought Id lost it there for a minute ! A note on the above. I did contact Young, and he replied. Then I mentioned the Jews, probably too intensely, but it is hard to be moderate with this topic, and I heard no more. Academics are brain-dead in respect to this taboo, incapable of treating ideas which stimulate this taboo in a rational manner, which is why anti-Semitism is a mechanism of taboo, serving Jewish interests as a master race, established by a process of language based, identity sublimation.

PART 5

When the White Lie was Lost

Chapter 23

Returning to Lecky

Lecky was a significant philosophical figure in the period of the social organism, which it is our passion to pursue by tracking down the many lost and forgotten works reflecting on this greatest ever age in the annals of human intellectual life, when men finally discovered the truth about what it was to be human. He was perhaps more historian than philosopher per se, but as his Map of Life shows, an impulse towards philosophy lies buried in the genre of social study of any kind. We bring our interest to bear through a perpetual interest in the war between religion and science, and it is this pivotal reality of human life that now makes us pause to trace a few lengths of the map Lecky so kindly laid down for us, from the benefit of his immense experience, qualifying him to act as a cartographer of human byways. I like the man, there is a certain sense of old time honesty about his work, one might even say a sense of timeless honesty, though I think he was a professional theologian ; what intellectual was not at that time ? This is how the subversion of modern science was made possible. But while at first we find no sign of Lecky handling this most important subject, the subversion of science, directly, it being practically unthinkable that he should, I eventually decided that he so covers the ground, so that here we may well have as good an account of the way men of the upper echelons of society would of been predisposed to facilitate such a process of knowledge subversion in his day, across the social reaches, as we are ever going to get. This is so important a topic that, having found a glimpse of it, we cannot delay its examination. Addressing the question of absolute religious morals, especially concerned with sin, Lecky approaches the matter of dishonesty thus : Considerations of this kind if duly realised bring out clearly the insincerity and the unreality of much of our professed belief. Hardly any sane man would desire to suppress Bank Holidays simply because they are the occasion of a considerable number of cases of drunkenness which would not otherwise have taken place. No humane legislator would hesitate to suppress them if they produced an equal number of deaths or other great physical calamities. This manner of measuring the relative importance of things is not incompatible with a general acknowledgment of the fact that there are many amusements which produce an amount of moral evil that overbalances their advantages as sources of pleasure, or of the great truth that the moral is the higher and ought to be the ruling part of our being. But the realities of life cannot be measured by rigid theological formul. Life is a scene in which different kinds of interest not only blend but also modify and in some degree counterbalance one another, and it can only be carried on by constant compromises in which the lines of definition are seldom very clearly marked, and in which even the highest interest must not altogether absorb or override the others. We have to deal with good

principles that cannot be pushed to their full logical results ; with varying standards which cannot be brought under inflexible law. Take for example the many untruths which the conventional courtesies of Society prescribe. Some of these are so purely matter of phraseology that they deceive no one. Others chiefly serve the purpose of courteous concealment, as when they enable us to refuse a request, or to decline an invitation or a visit without disclosing whether disinclination or inability is the cause. Then there are falsehoods for useful purposes. Few men would shrink from a falsehood which was the only means of saving a patient from a shock which would probably produce his death. No one, I suppose, would hesitate to deceive a criminal if by no other means he could prevent him from accomplishing a crime. There are also cases of the suppression of what we believe to be true, and of tacit or open acquiescence in what we believe to be false, when a full and truthful disclosure of our own beliefs might destroy the happiness of others, or subvert beliefs which are plainly necessary for their moral well-being. Cases of this kind will continually occur in life, and a good man who deals with each case as it arises will probably find no great difficulty in steering his course. But the vague and fluctuating lines of moral compromise cannot without grave moral danger be reduced to fixed rules to be carried out to their full logical consequences. The immortal pages of Pascal are sufficient to show to what extremes of immorality the doctrine that the end justifies the means has been pushed by the casuists of the Church of which Cardinal Newman was so great an ornament. A large and difficult field of moral compromise is opened out in the case of war, which necessarily involves a complete suspension of great portions of the moral law. This is not merely the case in unjust wars ; it applies also, though in a less degree, to those which are most necessary and most righteous. War is not, and never can be, a mere passionless discharge of a painful duty. (Map of Life, pp. 90 92) This sets the scene for our discussion of the war waged relentlessly by religion, against truth. Already we find the focus upon individual behaviour coming to the fore, so that Lecky speaks of the difficulty a person must balance in terms of how they handle interpersonal relations. This is not helpful. And then we find ourselves launched upon a broader field, that of warfare, which is anathema to morality, but must somehow be accommodated by the righteous. He proceeds to elaborate this theme, none of which can be much use to us. This is where I felt the map wandering vaguely into zones I did not care to plod through. But I wanted to see how far he would take his examination of this theme, and whether I might yet be gratified by arriving at a stately passage in an open landscape, addressing the question of whether absolute knowledge ought, in a scientific age, to be perverted for the sake of these moral, or higher considerations. We must come to another chapter before, while still following the same course, he steps over to a new track, whereupon, on page one hundred and nine, we begin to consider dishonesty in the service of the law. I guess I have a fondness for a topic of this kind, but it is still somewhat adrift of our journeys goal. We must walk on, briskly. At last the texture of the path changes once again, though we find ourselves still headed in the same direction as that which set our course. Now it is the political panorama that stretches out before us, and lying has much to do in the making of this terrain, to judge by the trudge Lecky makes of it. As we approach a general election next month, the announcement of which is expected tomorrow, an election likely to go down in history as a vote marred by the venom of political corruption flowing through the nations veins, a nation still sore from evil lies relating to the illegal war in Iraq, merging as it has with the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan keeping the

wound open, none of us need convincing on this score. We can march on, as the map looks to show some way to go, even yet. This landscape of lies in the service of society stretches like a geographic region of immense beauty, full of down and dale, broad expanses and open sky, with colour aplenty to catch the eye, a veritable Lake District all of a piece. Somehow we made it to the next resting place, waking us from our reveries, enlivening our senses with a sudden change of pace. We have hit the marshlands of religious oblivion, oh joy ! This is territory with which we are all too familiar. Still, as Lecky leads us on we cannot help but remark upon the signpost he places by the way. Lets pause to read what it says : This is not a book of theology, and I have no intention of dilating on these things. It must, however, be manifest to all who are acquainted with contemporary thought how largely these influences have displaced theological beliefs among great numbers of educated men ; how many things that were once widely believed have become absolutely incredible ; how many that were once supposed to rest on the plane of certainty have now sunk to the lower plane of mere probability or perhaps possibility. From the time of Galileo downwards, these changes have been denounced as incompatible with the whole structure of Christian belief. No less an apologist than Bishop Berkeley declared that the belief that the date of the existence of the world was approximately that which could be deduced from the book of Genesis was one of the fundamental beliefs which could not be given up. When the traveller Brydone published his travels in Sicily in 1773, conjecturing, from the deposits of lava, that the world must be much older than the Mosaic cosmogony admitted, his work was denounced as subverting the foundations of the Christian faith. The same charges were brought against the earlier geologists, and in our own day against the early supporters of the Darwinian theory ; and many now living can remember the outbursts of indignation against those who first introduced the principles of German criticism into English thought, and who impugned the historical character and the assumed authorship of the Pentateuch. It is not surprising or unreasonable that it should have been so, for it is impossible to deny that these changes have profoundly altered large portions of the beliefs that were once regarded as essential. One main object of a religion was believed to have been to furnish what may be called a theory of the universeto explain its origin, its destiny, and the strange contradictions and imperfections it presents. The Jewish theory was a very clear and definite one, but it is certainly not that of modern science. Yet few things are more remarkable than the facility with which these successive changes have gradually found their places within the Established Church, and how little that Church has been shaken by this fact. Even the Darwinian theory, though it has not yet passed into the circle of fully established truth, is in its main lines constantly mentioned with approbation by the clergy of the Church. The theory of evolution largely pervades their teaching. The doctrine that the Bible was never intended to teach science or scientific facts, and also the main facts and conclusions of modern Biblical criticism, have been largely accepted among the most educated clergy. Very few of them would now deny the antiquity of the world, the antiquity of man, or the antiquity of death, or would maintain that the Mosaic cosmogony was a true and literal account of the origin of the globe and of man, or would very strenuously argue either for the Mosaic authorship or the infallibility of the Pentateuch. (Ibid., pp. 202 4)

Here lies the war., is what this says to me. Though not, it must be said to Lecky, this is where his religious affiliations come to prominence, even if this is not a theological text. So whereas we got something of a debate on the ongoing necessity of lying in the conduct of political affairs, now, when the clash between new scientific ideas and old religious beliefs is reached, the whole manner of Leckys approach changes. There is no question of imputing out and out lying here, oh no. Now it is a case of religious errors having been honourable shortcomings, in the past, always valued for the best of intentions that sustained them. And now, though huge ructions have been produced by the newly upwelling scientific plate meeting the continental landmass of stagnated theology, the new mountains produced by the collision of oppositely shifting blocks of knowledge are already being rapidly weathered to the status of a gentle incline, that near anyone has accustomed themselves to hiking up. No, it is a pity, but Lecky does not help us here with any gritty revelations of the true nature of the war between religion and science, that allowed men to justify to themselves the preservation of religion by the subduction of science, leaving the new knowledge of the world buried under a sediment of old ideas, which Lecky proceeds to eulogise in the hackneyed manner of all voices, of any kind, that we ever hear. No one is going to admit the dishonest nature of science, of Darwinism, most importantly. That could no more be done in Leckys day, or our own, than any public voice could of admitted the earth was a planet prior to the point Lecky demarcates by naming Galileo. The ultimate lie cannot be admitted while it is still alive, or the game is up. And this is very much the nature of the linguistic flux pervading our world today, where all sing the praises of Darwinism, and none, not for a moment, raise any doubts about its authenticity as science. Yet, we know for sure, it cannot be ; for if it were, the peaks of its revelations would be beyond the reach of any believer in old religious ideas. The world would be a new world, as Leckys own remarks indicate it ought to be when he says that the old religious ideas are most definitely not those of modern science. All the world seeks the White Lie, and Lecky gives us an early, unwitting account as to why, or at any rate, a superficial one of sorts. But we are not done with Lecky yet. The best is still to come. His was such an important time in the history of White Lie making, as we can see from the fact that Lecky is able to speak of Darwinisms ongoing absorption by the theocracy, from his contemporary knowledge. This act of absorption into the sediment of religious disingenuity was metamorphosed into intellectual granite by the heat and pressure of world wide warfare, so that for our post cleansing generations the present Darwinian landscape looks as natural and as permanent as can be. Making us hard-pressed to discover the metamorphic trials underlying the surface of our settled consciousness, so smooth and amenable to religious freaks strolling along through life in their open toed sandals of love and piece, is the world fashioned by modern science. Leaving those of us not born with a congenital passion for lying, blinded by the sand kicked mindlessly in our faces by these happy frolickers, who make the map of life drawn by Lecky seem like an epic tale of Tolkien fiction, which it may as well be. Now lets see how Lecky eulogises these happy frolickers : The attitude of laymen whose opinions have come to diverge widely from the Church formularies is less perplexing, and except in as far as the recent revival of sacerdotal pretensions has produced a reaction, there has, if I mistake not, of late years been a decided tendency in the best and most cultivated lay opinion of this kind to look with increasing favour on the Established Church. The complete abolition of the religious and political disqualifications, which once placed its maintenance in antagonism with the interests of large sections of the people ; the abolition of the

indelibility of orders which excluded clergymen who changed their views from all other means of livelihood ; the greater elasticity of opinion permitted within its pale, and the elimination from the statute-book of nearly all penalties and restrictions resting solely upon ecclesiastical grounds,have all tended to diminish with such men the objections to the Church. It is a Church which does not injure those who are external to it, or interfere with those who are mere nominal adherents. It is more and more looked upon as a machine of well-organised beneficence, discharging efficiently and without corruption functions of supreme utility, and constituting one of the main sources of spiritual and moral life in the community. None of the modern influences of society can be confidently said to have superseded it. Experience has furnished much evidence of the insufficiency of mere intellectual education if it is unaccompanied by the education of character, and it is on this side that modern education is most defective. While it undoubtedly makes men far more keenly sensible than in the past to the vast inequalities of human lots, the habit of constantly holding out material prizes as its immediate objects, and the disappearance of those coercive methods of education which once disciplined the will, make it perhaps less efficient as an instrument of moral amelioration. Some habits of thought also, that have grown rapidly among educated men, have tended powerfully in the same direction. The sharp contrasts between true and false in matters of theology have been considerably attenuated. The point of view has changed. It is believed that in the history of the world gross and material conceptions of religion have been not only natural, but indispensable, and that it is only by a gradual process of intellectual evolution that the masses of men become prepared for higher and purer conceptions. Superstition and illusion play no small part in holding together the great fabric of society. Every falsehood, it has been said, is reduced to a certain malleability by an alloy of truth, and, on the other hand, truths of the utmost moment are, in certain stages of the worlds history, only operative when they are clothed with a vesture of superstition. The Divine Spirit filters down to the human heart through a gross and material medium. And what is true of different stages of human history is not less true of different contemporary strata of knowledge and intelligence. In spite of democratic declamation about the equality of man, it is more and more felt that the same kind of teaching is not good for every one. Truth, when undiluted, is too strong a medicine for many minds. Some things which a highly cultivated intellect would probably discard, and discard without danger, are essential to the moral being of multitudes. There is in all great religious systems something that is transitory and something that is eternal. Theological interpretations of the phenomena of outward nature which surround and influence us, and mythological narratives which have been handed down to us from a remote, uncritical and superstitious past, may be transformed or discredited, but there are elements in religion which have their roots much less in the reason of man than in his sorrows and his affections, and are the expression of wants, moral appetites and aspirations which are an essential, indestructible part of his nature. No one, I think, can doubt that this way of thinking, whether it be right or wrong, has very widely spread through educated Europe, and it is a habit of thought which commonly strengthens with age. Young men discuss religious questions simply as questions of truth or falsehood. In later life they more frequently accept their creed as a working hypothesis of life ; as a consolation in innumerable calamities ; as the one supposition under which life is not a melancholy anti-climax ; as the indispensable sanction of moral obligation ; as the gratification and reflection of needs, instincts and longings which are planted in the deepest recesses of human

nature ; as one of the chief pillars on which society rests. The proselytising, the aggressive, the critical spirit diminishes. Very often they deliberately turn away their thoughts from questions which appear to them to lead only to endless controversy, or to mere negative conclusions, and base their moral life on some strong unselfish interest for the benefit of their kind. In active, useful and unselfish work they find the best refuge from the perplexities of belief, and the best field for the cultivation of their moral nature, and work done for the benefit of others seldom fails to react powerfully on their own happiness. Nor is it always those who have most completely abandoned dogmatic systems who are the least sensible to the moral beauty which has grown up around them. The music of the village church, which sounds so harsh and commonplace to the worshipper within, sometimes fills with tears the eyes of the stranger who sits without, listening among the tombs. It is difficult to say how far the partial truce which has now fallen in England over the great antagonisms of belief is likely to be permanent. No one who knows the world can be insensible to the fact that a large and growing proportion of those who habitually attend our religious services have come to diverge very widely, though in many different degrees, from the beliefs which are expressed or implied in the formularies they use. Custom, fashion, the charm of old associations, the cravings of their own moral or spiritual nature, a desire to support a useful system of moral training, to set a good example to their children, their household, or their neighbours, keep them in their old place when the beliefs which they profess with their lips have in a great measure ebbed away. I do not undertake to blame or to judge them. Individual conscience and character, and particular circumstances have, in these matters, a decisive voice. But there are times when the difference between professed belief and real belief is too great for endurance, and when insincerity and half-belief affect seriously the moral character of a nation. The deepest, nay, the only theme of the worlds history, to which all others are subordinate, said Goethe, is the conflict of faith and unbelief. The epochs in which faith, in whatever form it may be, prevails, are the marked epochs in human history, full of heart-stirring memories and of substantial gains for all after times. The epochs in which unbelief, in whatever form it may be, prevails, even when for the moment they put on the semblance of glory and success, inevitably sink into insignificance in the eyes of posterity, which will not waste its thoughts on things barren and unfruitful. (Ibid., pp. 225 - 229)

Lets capture this sentence from the first paragraph taken above :
It is a Church which does not injure those who are external to it, or interfere with those who are mere nominal adherents.

Is it really ? We see in this account from Lecky an attitude very contemporary with our own times, all about the idea of the individual as an end in themselves, concerned only with how matters of controversy impinge on them directly, in substantial everyday terms. We reflect this attitude when we dismiss homosexually motivated atheism for just this reason, that it only seeks to make the church friendly to itself, allowing it to become part of the church congregation without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Homosexuality implicitly subverts the direct, ideological antagonism of atheism toward religion by capturing the power of this general antagonism for its own biologically defined organ of superorganic being. This nicely indicates how identity relates to knowledge in the organization of

superorganic physiology, and it is just the kind of modernizing that Lecky is praising here, which is not modernizing at all, but rather structural tinkering. As such it is of no interest to us atheist scientists whatsoever. What happened between the break in our last extract on page two hundred and four, and the opening of the extract above ? We have veered away from the discussion of science impacting upon religion to the popular adjustment of the Church to the people. What about the conflict of knowledge ? The intervening argument is all about internal Church matters, of no interest at all to ourselves, except we find the discussion pertinent to the current simmering crisis in the Church of England as third world slave bodies of this Jewish slave sect, threaten to breakaway because of the Churchs attempt to adapt to the secular acceptance of homosexuality. Monday, 25 June 2012 Curiously this same subject was in the news a week or so ago as the C of E launched an attack on the governments plans to allow queer marriage, though not to oblige the churches to perform the ceremonies. Still torn, but still striving to keep the slaves onboard, with the queers in the thick of it, promoting religion, making it seem important when its just a load of shit. Who needs marriage anyway ? We wont go there now, Im just letting off steam, dont mind me. In the passage above we have the conclusion bringing together difficulties discussed under the broad aspects of religion considered by Lecky, within which we are only concerned with a small part impinging upon the question of knowledge. So that we end up with this rather peculiar justification of religions continuity into the modern scientific age, which somehow avoids spelling out what it really seems, to us at least, to be saying :
Superstition and illusion play no small part in holding together the great fabric of society. Every falsehood, it has been said, is reduced to a certain malleability by an alloy of truth, and, on the other hand, truths of the utmost moment are, in certain stages of the worlds history, only operative when they are clothed with a vesture of superstition.

This is not a historical observation, though it has the tone of a timeless principle lying behind it. The fact is that Lecky seems to be saying that after all the difficulties faced by religion, in respect of the extraordinary advance in knowledge that he has been describing, now, a certain calm has settled upon affairs, and people are realising that religion must be maintained. As was said above, this is oh so familiar. In point of fact, writing this now, I suddenly realize that this is the world I was born into, where this religious fatalism pumped out by the recalcitrant priest squirming in the background of life was all the rage, when we all hoped and firmly believed that the evil of religion was behind us. But now this poison is on the rampage again, and studying texts from this time when religion had reached rock bottom, is enlightening to our understanding as to what was really happening in our own time. Here Lecky indicates that education was failing to supplant religion. Oh dear, how could the religious authorities ruling our schools for centuries have allowed that to happen, do you think ? Oops. And now the religious schools are set fair to take over the whole country once again. Phew, that was a close shave, but no problem really. It can take as long as it takes, there is only one power in the world, and that is Judaism. Judaism has not won out millennia after millennia for nothing. In our modern era, courtesy of atheist science, we get to examine in fine detail just how Judaism has overcome all obstacles, of all kinds, everywhere, and always. Lecky helps us in this endeavour, but he certainly does not mean to. If education that does not support religion fails, it does so for a good reason : because it is meant to !!

I A confession And now we come to the real diamond in the deposit left to us by Lecky in this piece :
The Divine Spirit filters down to the human heart through a gross and material medium. And what is true of different stages of human history is not less true of different contemporary strata of knowledge and intelligence. In spite of democratic declamation about the equality of man, it is more and more felt that the same kind of teaching is not good for every one. Truth, when undiluted, is too strong a medicine for many minds. Some things which a highly cultivated intellect would probably discard, and discard without danger, are essential to the moral being of multitudes.

In terms of our primary focus on the problem of understanding how science was subverted by the theocracy, by mimicking the act of creating great science through the nurturing of Darwin, this passage seems as close to a justification of such an act of evil as we could ever hope to get following the confession of its crime, by those who oversaw its success. We have noted elsewhere the link made by Leonard Woolf between the idea of individuality in the seventeenth century and the modern ideal of political equality. Here we see that precious idea upon which democratic society is founded, denied, but only in one precious area, that of access to true knowledge of the most abstruse kind. Here Lecky is granting all the principles of modern ideology pertaining to the idea of the individual as an end in themselves, and all the political ramifications which have flowed from such a fountainhead of philosophy, such as the recent flourish of homosexual life, which he could not of truly foretold, because its inkling was too compacted within the consciousness of the time. But when it comes to treating individuals as individuals in respect to science, to true knowledge of reality, he asserts this is not possible, so that people with political power must provide lies, White Lies therefore, to enable the powerless plebes to live life with joy. How convenient, aint that nice. So all religion is just there to make life nice for the little man ! Too sick for words. Tuesday, 26 June 2012 I watched a documentary on Girl Models on BBC 4 last night, about a Russian girl aged thirteen going off to model in Japan. The extremely wealthy business man who owns the modelling agency specialising in child modelling explained how the strong headed girls needed to be shocked into a submissive demeanour. To this end he took them to the morgue and showed them bodies of girls and boys their own age, dead through drugs and such like. If this was not enough, he had the bodies cut open in front of them ! You care so much for these girls that you will do this ? came the response from the strangely depressive women who acted as his agent. Why are you so compassionate and full of love for these girls ? she asked, in her own words. Because, he told us, I believe I was a very bad man in a former life, a solider who killed many people, and I have come back to atone for my crimes by helping people ! What the ****. I could not believe what I was hearing, what a sick, horrible . . . who does this twat think he is, Tony Blair ? The ability of powerful people to do unmitigated self serving evil for their own gratification, while portraying what they do as the personification of good, is beyond limit. Such outrageous hubris is only possible because of the power of wealth they have behind them thanks to the evil they commit without compunction. Lecky is displaying the exact same sublime arrogance when he talks thus about subverting science to preserve religion, as if it were a philanthropic duty to human kind that made the intellectual criminals performing this duty virtual saints. ___

The above repetition of the quote therefore seems to apply specifically and exclusively to the management of knowledge, of truth, of science, as it impacts upon religion. We can take it then, that this assertion that some people can be allowed freedoms that are not for all, as an indirect confirmation to the knowing, that science could not be allowed unbridled freedom. It is not a unique idea, there are items in the British museum, or some such place, ancient phallic artifacts, that we can see on television now, that were only available for knowledgeable gentleman in Leckys day. So the general principle was hardly unfamiliar. But here we see Lecky asserting that it was a principle that even then had to be maintained in the context of society at large, regarding religion and its need to be preserved. If he did not have in mind the war between science and religion, then we may well wonder what on earth he was talking about. If science was free, then what was there that the dopy masses were not privy to within the domain of popular education ? It could be said that he was only calling for the continuing influence of religion in education, to run alongside the materialistic science, and no doubt that is how the argument has always been phrased. But coming at the end of the broad discussion we have been treated to in his work, we can take something more profound from such an argument, I am sure. This does not mean Lecky knew Darwinism was false science, though he may well of, after all does his argument as concluded here not suggest that he would of approved of this deception ? Think of the famous declaration of some lady contemporary with Darwins revelations, who said that if we were descended from apes, then the masses, it must be hoped, would never get to hear of it. This was a double blind, this was the fraud they want us all to know and believe ; while the truth that we are related to ants and bees in terms of our evolved biological corporate nature, this was the common knowledge that Darwin was employed to eradicate, and this is the deception that Lecky validates in a work so eminently useful to us now for its almost candid approach to this question. After the foregoing remarkable segment, we come immediately to another equally important comment on the manner in which we are all drawn into conformity to the White Lie in life :
Young men discuss religious questions simply as questions of truth or falsehood. In later life they more frequently accept their creed as a working hypothesis of life ; as a consolation in innumerable calamities ; as the one supposition under which life is not a melancholy anticlimax ; as the indispensable sanction of moral obligation ; as the gratification and reflection of needs, instincts and longings which are planted in the deepest recesses of human nature ; as one of the chief pillars on which society rests. The proselytising, the aggressive, the critical spirit diminishes. Very often they deliberately turn away their thoughts from questions which appear to them to lead only to endless controversy, or to mere negative conclusions, and base their moral life on some strong unselfish interest for the benefit of their kind.

Both of these extracts from the main quote preceding them, effectively assume the falsity of all religion, and set this matter aside as being of no consequence in the broader context of everyday life. Lecky handles the matter a little differently, as we have said, than he seemed to when dealing with the more prosaic elements of daily affairs, as with the military, legal and political dimensions of social life. But we can see that in the end, his theme continues when dealing with dishonesty in relation to knowledge too, in relation to religion that is. The above appears to be about religion, since Lecky is discussing the attitude of people toward religion in youth and maturity. But given the tenor of his commentary, where young men passionately defend the truth of the beliefs their elders have indoctrinated into them through every form of programming, as they grow older they stop this harsh behaviour and feel the sublime, organic necessity of their believes. All of which implies that the preceding discussion about how religion denuded the impact of science on its dogma, pays dividends by

facilitating this accommodation to the implant of slave identity in maturity, where the cultural formula is recognised to be exactly what it is, in functional terms : the basis of the social order. In effect Lecky does give us a full-blown, unrestrained, if not forthright and open explanation, of how and why religion manages the problem of knowledge in the scientific age. What is lacking from Leckys own account, is the hard-hitting undercurrent of graft that makes this all possible. His map of life covers the terrain, but not the underlying geology. And it is this graft that really forms the substance of our interest when we talk about how religion survived the coming of the scientific age. We have a skeleton map of the process in Leckys hand, for the two key factors running closely together in Leckys Map of Life recognise firstly that a differential must be enforced by an elite, administering over the masses in respect to what knowledge is permitted, and secondly religious teaching must be preserved come what may. What is also lacking is the totality of the explanation for all this. If we take it that the description of mature people feeling the need of religious guidance equates to the mass of society sensing the need for conformity to the establishment, whatever it is, then we have our bedrock of religious continuity put in place by the preservation of religious indoctrination, without the need for any more implications of open conspiracy than all Leckys subtle explaining implies. The masses have been acculturated, so they conform. Meanwhile a higher order of the biomass have been educated more fully, and these handle the management of knowledge, effectively protecting the Message that the masses have been fed, to make sure that they can continue to live with the religion which rules over them. These managers are nowadays the scientists, and for scientists to serve this role of protecting the religious message, they needed a formula of their own, to imbibe and transmit. This message was provided by Darwin, it is the foundation of all scientific knowledge of all kinds, today, in that it provides the basic mandate for the application of the idea of the human individual as the supreme end, living for themselves, in relation to the practicalities of life. And of course what this Darwinian perversion of science does, is to isolate science from society, making science a soulless activity that means that scientifically informed education cannot fill the gap once provided by religion. So that as Lecky says, we must have religion still, because for some inexplicable reason, the education devised by the theocracy just does not manage to replace religion ! How can that be ? So if we work on it a little, we do indeed find all we want to know revealed in this account of dishonesty provided by the delightful wisdom of Lecky, a significant intellectual figure of our Period. It is this mature acceptance of the identity implant, which pervades the biomass and sets the scene for the relentless corruption of knowledge, and all departments of life relating to knowledge, that brings the apparent conspiracy we speak of when we talk about the war of religion against science, into being. In the other departments of social life, war, law and politics, we find the same artful pose pervading by dint of cultural training, as Lecky describes. In these departments the same management techniques apply. A special elite, people like our modern political leaders, trained in exclusive private schools, take the positions of control, being trained to be leaders, they are not questioners of truth. In war our leaders lie to us, we saw it over Iraq, it has always been thus. In the First World War the British used the Geneva Convention to aid their efforts to kill Germans by using hospital ships to transport arms. The Germans knew this and sank some of these ships, to the immense horror of the British, who tried to conduct war crimes tribunals for this crime after the war was closed. A parliamentary inquiry into this matter found any such allegations against the British were unfounded. A few years ago however, a woman handed a relatives old diary from the First World War into a museum, and it recorded, in detail, the loading of arms onto a hospital ship in London. This man obviously did not report the matter to the

inquiry, and nor did anyone else. Everyone was complicit in this vile crime, a crime as low as low can get, for it was directly responsible for the German attacks on boats that a civlized treaty tried to remove from the conflict. In many ways this is just the kind of thing Lecky is talking about, and justifying of course, as unavoidable. This tells us who the scum that rule us are, as people. It has always been thus, and it always will be. And remember that all this scum comes to a head in Judaism. In the field of law, our law makers are thieves that pass laws against thievery. We can see this of late since we have been treated to a fine display of their venal nature through the expenses scandal, and other related revelations about how politics works by manipulating systems for appointing candidates, and all sorts of like machinations. Anything to keep the master in power, to keep us enslaved to Judaism. The law itself is an impenetrable mystery to the uninitiated. All we plebes know, is that a primary principle of law is that ignorance of it, is no excuse for breaking it ! Very nice. Tuesday, 26 June 2012 Two years on and we can still dip into the social flux for samples of criminal lawmaking, this time concerning the avoidance of tax. Last week we had the prime minister declaring the behaviour of a comedian who specialises in criticising capitalist pigs, as outrageous for his use of a tax avoidance scheme of a most cynical kind, so that he only pays one percent in tax, despite being a millionaireperfectly legally. The press wasted no time in showing that Camerons father did the same thing to obtain the wealth our dear prime minister had inherited, and so on, and on, and on. So all in all Lecky paints us a fine picture of the whitewashing of knowledge that takes place everywhere, before the lies we are to live by are hung out to dry, from whence they flap like flags in a breeze, boldly flashing in our faces, lie, after lie, after lie. Even though he does not give it to us full on, his account does go to show that the potential to develop an account of the kind we develop in atheist science, must of existed in his day. And something similar is produced according to the manner of his own times by Plato in Ancient Greece, where his Republic speaks of society being ordered in a hierarchical manner into three classes denoted by gold, silver and bronze. None of this is new, as we can see, great thinkers can discern the same pattern forming in their own time, as we have done ourselves, with less finesse perhaps, but more acuity. The ability to perform the feat of dissemblance is enabled by the feat of deception imposed upon knowledge in the first place. It has always been thus, even now in the great age of freedom which is our scientific age. Lecky says it is not surprising that religious people baulked at the new knowledge of science, because it so rocked the great traditions upon which society was founded. We can repeat the same refrain, and say it is not surprising that science should of been so elaborately subverted by the imposition of Darwinism, for exactly the same reason Lecky gives, it still being valid all these years later. So we can see that it is unlikely that a nonconformist, a rebel, an anarchist, or a dabbed blamed scientist even, would ever take up this course, our course, and take us to where I have taken you, in my own little effort at social cartography. I have said it before, and we may have it again. Leckys account is all about how people are inducted into the Jewish slave implant during their malleable years, and how they then grow into it in maturity, so to speak, because by then its web of lies forms the basis of their social life, which is genuine enough for all to understand. There has to be such a web of life produced by linguistic force, it is merely that the Jewish web of slave identity provides the form that our web takes. And so it is that the web did not take with me. Hence I have not been accommodated in the way that most adults are supposed to be. And it is this which has allowed me to discover the eternal web of lies that men like Plato and Lecky have seen before. Now, because of the age we live in, when a true philosopher like myself, a true seeker after knowledge, not a seeker after the finest white lie, reaches their goal, they find

something quite startling, they find that science does not exist today anymore than it ever existed in the past. Altogether, this should not come as too much of a surprise, once we have spent a decade relentlessly trying to make sense of the fact, because we find that earlier accounts show the pattern is repeated. But still, it is quite an awesome thing, nonetheless. Oh, and we must not forget, the dupes, are made by nature to be lied to, to be given a model to live by, so that they do want to be lied to. Want in this context is not an intellectual idea, it is more like the desire to eat. People want to eat, hence they are happy to be farmed, to be coerced by the architects of society to use supermarkets and fast food outlets, just so long as they can fulfil the biological urge to eat. Same goes with the stuff that packs out their so called minds. The rancour we express about this, is our own. If people did not want illusions to live by, they could not be foisted upon them, exactly as we might say that if people did not want to eat, then food could not serve as a vehicle for their manipulation through its provision in a form designed to make our rulers powerful, irrespective of the damage it does to the human cattle forced to eat crap food by the way social structure is organized to serve the needs of the capitalist pigs that rule us. Crap because it is bad for them. So in that sense our political language used here, is not giving the true picture, but that is the nature of the effort we are engaged in, using normal, everyday meaning in political, individual centred language, to say something which transcends that meaning, denies the individual, and hence invalidates political language at every point. Again, make no mistake, people love capitalists, they practically worship them, they want to be them, the bitterness is entirely ours, because we are not part of the herd, how tragic, for us. If only we could be ignorant and fat, covered in tattoos, looking forward to the Olympics, and all the rest !

II A fine piece of garbage Having just enjoyed expounding upon one excellent piece of work from the turn of the last century but one, I am going to continue bulking up a work that I ought to be reading, not writing, because that was my plan of operation. Still, it is my method to add from life as I go along. Yesterday, 06/04/2010, I picked up a copy of Critical Problems in the History of Science, edited by Marshall Clagett, first published 1959, from the library. I had been trying to restrain my spending on books, but it took little time for me to decide it was worth spending the small sum of fourteen pounds on a copy of this item rather than copying it. I had to have it because it contained an extremely rare and hence highly precious account bearing on our Periodthe age of the social organismfrom the post cleansing era. This type of material is the most highly desired, being as valuable to atheist science as works of an organicist nature from the Period itself. Why has it taken me so long to find this one ? Beats me. How did I come upon it now ? Blimey, it can only be a few weeks since and already I am not sure. I get to these things by following a trail. I seem to recall picking up a new lead a month of two back in the shape of . . . . now let me see, who was it ? On my recently acquired book dump-spot, I see Wieses Perspectives in Social Inquiry, and this came out of the blue due to a new lead, that must be a clue. Searching for Wiese here leads me to The Functional Sociology of mile Waxweiler by Henry Frost, 1960, and that I guess was the portal to a new sliver of organicist related work, post cleansing. Frosts book is a free radical in subject terms, just the kind of item requiring to be located, and then, once found, leading to unexpected delights, hopefully.

Neither Frost nor Wiese have Greene of Clagett in view, so where did I get wind of this item ? It is a bit much when you have to conduct historical research into the origin of your own recent interests ! The question is of some interest however. Professional academics seem to have ways and means beyond our imagining, as I have said before, that is part of the way they control knowledge and lock the masses out, you have to be trained in order to know how to do research efficiently. Mind you, there still has to be an organised body of work for them to access, in terms of what we are thinking about now. The essay of interest in Clagetts volume is a fine example of how I struggle for many years to discover things which a professional is able to find available without any difficulty, or so it seems. Though to be fair these people are professional academics, they are trained, and they evidently have skills, like apparently being able to read French, in this case, which I would die for. The essay of interest in Clagett is Biology and Social Theory in the Nineteenth Century : Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer, by John Greene. In it he sets out to illuminate the very question I have sought to winkle out from somewhere, for years, a question I have spoken of before in terms of my desire to know if Comte magiced up the phrase social organism as he did the term Sociology, or if he got it from somewhere else. Greene only uses this magic term by way of naming one of Spencers works, but he does set out to discuss the origins of Comtes evolutionary conception of society, with specific reference to the relationship between the idea of social evolution and biological evolution. Straightaway I have names of votaries of the organicist conception of society who were immediate precursors to Comte and who influenced him. This is treasure. Needless to say there was a minor flurry of book buying going on here last night. He says there were biosociologists, men like George Cabanis, Antoine Destutt de Tracy, and Francis Joseph Gall, who envisage the new social science as a branch of zoology. (p. 422) Really !! Wow, now that is information to kill for ! There is one other way for me to investigate where I picked up a recent idea, precisely, and that is by using my record of books owned, and looking at the most recent additions to the list until I find likely candidates for the clue that led me to Greene. Lets do it. I am curious now, which bloody book was it ? Gotya. It comes back to me now I have the name, Dobzhansky, that was it, Mankind Evolving : The Evolution of the Human Species, 1962. Now I remember this work getting to grips with aspects of organicist sociology, albeit from a post cleansing perspective where science no longer existed, and the effort was on to cut any remaining traces of the umbilical chord linking modern science to the true science of the first to venture into the realms of human nature as a natural phenomenon. Greenes work is listed in Dobzhanskys bibliography. And where did Dob . . . oh no you dont. I am sure that was a random find from net rummaging if you must know, its got that kind of title. But then again, Dobzhanskys name may of cropped up in . . . now let me see. Greenes piece is a fine piece of garbage. All science is garbage, there is nothing we can do about that, we can only work with what we have, like the little scabs eking out an existence on the rotting refuse of an Indian city, we only have access to the droppings of priests employed by the theocracy to feed the plebes their mind deadening knowledge, filling the void while leaving space for the trash that is their Jewish slave identity. It is fine because it is bang on subject, it is trash because it is post cleansing science, whitewashed knowledge of just the kind Lecky would approve of as being a necessary compromise, though he would not approve in so many words for that would be letting the cat out of the bag. I am supposed to be consolidating this work on the search for the White Lie, not building it up. But Lecky turned out to be a most valuable contribution to the nitty-gritty of the matter, and now Greene says just one thing that serves as a perfect corollary of Leckys illuminations. Discussing Comte in the insipid manner of a modern scientist, all smarmy and self conceited, so that he manages to make organicism contemptible while maintaining a

superior attitude such that the flaw is not denigrated in the way we denigrate all intellectuals today, but rather seen as an error in the flow of knowledge which, taken over time, relentlessly improves. This is an illusion the priests of today want us to buy into, it is indeed a pillar of their power, and our own work, although it has rarely, if ever, paused to take notice of the fact, nonetheless implicitly undermines this most important notion of progress in knowledge. And conversely asserts that knowledge advances in a far more organic, that is functional manner, as befits the nature of the human animal, where knowledge exists to perform a physiological function, not to entertain. Just as knowledge underwent a burst of free expression in Ancient Greece, so it did the same in early modern Europe, but then, as in Greece, the flurry was tamed, the genii was forced back into the bottle, and while fabulous new knowledge was left abounding, in both cases, the real force of new knowledge, was no more. And it is a neat turn of phrase that exactly inverts this fact of history that Greene uses, that makes me discuss him now, directly following Lecky. He concludes his essay by making five points, the last is the telling fragment, from one of the first of the high priests of the newly whitewashed world, their coming implicitly predicted by Leckys Map of Life : 5. Finally, it was natural that the social evolutionists of the nineteenth century should have attempted to validate their programs of political and social action by claiming the sanction of science for their philosophies of history. As supernatural sanctions were discredited and the prestige of science grew, social prophets assumed the pose of the scientist. But the imposture could not long deceive. Science went on her way, a prolific but cruel mother, forever spawning scientisms and forever abandoning her illegitimate offspring. (Greene, in Clagett, p. 442) You really cannot hope to better this for a piece of arrogant, self-satisfied miscreant output coming from the voice of modern science, it caps all that we have already said on this issue immediately above. Despite all the sickening condescension from someone living in a world where science had been exorcised from all contact with humans viewed in the round, as social beings, the real nature of the invective is there for all who have a mind to see the meaning of this message. Tuesday, 26 June 2012 I have been much confused by the meaning of one of the first of the high priests, which might mean you could be puzzled too. I can only conclude that I was thinking of Greene, published here in 1959, as that early priest of the new era of ignorance disguised as great, but not vain wisdom.

Chapter 24

Bending Linguistic Force

As it happens I have a copy of The Trend of the Race by Samuel J. Holmes, 1921, which I take to be the same man as wrote the passage quoted above on page one hundred and nine. This work is of the disgraced eugenicist school, which obliges me to point out that the above quote is taken for its pertinence to this work, it is not a hint as to where other brilliant ideas may be found. That said, The Trend of the Race is a fascinating item for getting in touch with just how Darwinian pseudo science was applied to sociological topics to produce the extreme subversion of science that we complain of so much in atheist science. In this earlier book Holmes applies genetics to racial form because he is a Darwinist, and he argues that the existence of civilization is dependant upon the genetic attributes of implicitly superior races. This is of an order of blind stupidity beyond comprehension, a direct consequence of the corruption foisted upon science by Darwins emphasis upon competition, making the individual the primary unit of existence. Nasmyth, mentioned above on page one hundred and four, wanted to attack the Darwinian influence for causing an upsurge in this kind of twisted application of science to society, only he focused on the crux of the competition factor, namely force. And Nasmyth sought to attack Darwinism by defending Darwin, would you believe ! That is how sacred the man was, and is. The argument being that the application of Darwinism to society was never promoted by Darwin, it was the misapplication of Darwinism by Social Darwinists like Holmes that caused all the trouble. And indeed, this argument has been the key to allowing Darwin to survive up to the present, while all notions of applying biology to society have been made strictly taboo. This taboo expressly includes works of an avowedly eugenicist nature from this interwar period and before, and it is for this reason that we have been obliged to add these remarks following the above quote, ensuring that no one can accuse us of being Social Darwinists or eugenicists on the back of our use of these taboo works here. This is a fascinating aspect of the story as to how religion survived the coming of the scientific age, how war eradicated science ; how Darwinism subverted science to provide a sanitized alternative ; and how Darwinism itself was wrested from conflation with real science by undergoing its own phase of subversion, so that a clear taboo could be fashioned, thanks to Adolf Hitler and his crew, bringing Judaism safely into the modern age, where it could continue to wage war against all humanity and terrorize us to this day, as it has in all days. We cannot mention Trend of the Race without speaking of a brief chapter toward the close of the book, chapter fifteen, The Selective Function of Religion. Now there is a title to make the mouth of an atheist scientist water in expectation of a feast, or at least a tasty morsel. As it is Holmes is a strict Darwinist, so he does not apply the logic of his own later work shown above, which we use to make out the argument that a social organism is just as much an organism as any other living thing. He says beliefs often afford a powerful aid to the maintenance of the solidarity of the group which is so important an aid in inter-tribal or inter-national struggles. (p. 355). But he fails to grasp the significance of this observation in scientific terms, as in recognising that this religious affect is the product of linguistic force

creating a superorganic being, where religious bonding represents the identity of the superorganism subsuming individuals into its fabric. Some implications are there in what he does say, as he quotes a passage from Whethams Heredity and Society at the head of the chapter : the character of the national religion, the correctness of the biological principles its teaching embodies, the devotion, fidelity and number of its adherents, will be a real criterion of success or failure. But these evocations of religion as biological dynamic, are very poorly put together, amounting to nothing more than the most superficial protestations of a political nature, bereft of any of the scientific logic needed to make the deep connections we require for a true science of human nature. Even so, it is nice to see religion brought so firmly into the frame. Except, it would be eugenicists doing this wouldnt it ! Since eugenicism turned out to be a way of manufacturing knowledge in the process of creating a taboo package, never to be tampered with by science, ever again, after the package of linguistic force was fully packed, and setoff in the political world.

I Early emphasis on language as the essence of human sanctity Now I have opened a document I took after writing the above section. Language : An Introduction to the Study of Speech, Edward Sapir, 1921, which the contents indicate begins with a categorically religious statement, anathema to science : Language is cultural, not a biologically inherited function. So what argument appears under this gross obscenity, spoken by the superb scientist we quoted above ? Wow ! What follows here is mind numbingly insane. We could not ask for a more perfect elaboration of the idea that talking is not a biological attribute than Sapir provides, it is truly staggering in its outright insanity. One might wonder if there was some excuse for this astounding misrepresentation, something to do with a lack of knowledge, in terms of the advancement of science, as we sometimes mention in terms of the discovery of genetics in the post Second World War era. He actually has the audacity to compare the acquisition of walking with the acquisition of speech, and makes the former biological and the latter not so, purely because walking can, theoretically, be acquired without society existing, whereas society is necessary to allow speech to exist in the individual. The mind lurches into apoplectic seizure as it tries to comprehend this inanity, it beggars belief that anyone could ever of come up with so sick an analysis, let alone a leading linguist of the modern era, a man who has impressed us as an astounding genius in his ability to see that language is a force directing the formation of social structure, as implied in the above quote from Sapir, on page ninety nine. Let us be specific about the cause of our apoplectic reaction to Sapirs genius. He is making the existence of society the aspect of reality decoupling humanity from nature, in other words he is making language the product of human freewill. Yet even as he does so, he admits the absurdity of the suggestion by saying Eliminate society and there is every reason to believe that he will learn to walk, if, indeed, he survives at all. (p. 2) Well you can say that again ! If ! If ? What kind of an if is that ? You may as well say that sight is organic while hearing is not because a person held in a light proof cage would be able to hear while being unable to see ! This is so gross an effort of reasoning it makes you want to scream at the world for tolerating it. But there it is, just like religion grossness marches across the world, head held high, honoured by all people of great sense, academic training and public honour. Why is that ? I was just examining a text from a religious military journal dedicated to the war of religion

against science, Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, vol. VII, 1874, which contains an essay entitled Darwinism Tested by Recent Researches in Language, by Frederic Bateman, page seventy three. The object of this essay is to show that humans are of a different nature to animals because of their possession of the power of speech, shall we see what his actual reasons are ? Oh yes, I think so : there is a remarkable correspondence in the vital properties of the blood of man and animals, as shown by the fact that in the case of apparent death in man from loss of blood, resuscitation has taken place in consequence of the transfusion into the system of the blood of an animal, as the sheep, or the calf. It is idle to attempt to shirk the import of these physiological results. I admit the force of them. But supposing it is proved to a mathematical demonstration that man is like an ape, bone for bone, muscle for muscle, nerve for nerve, what then ? What does this prove, if it can be shown that man possesses a distinctive attribute, of which not a trace can be found in the ape, an attribute of such a nature as to create an immeasurable gulf between the two ? This attribute I assert to be the faculty of Articulate Language, which I maintain to be a difference, not only of degree, but of kind. (Bateman, p. 78) What is this stuff about giving humans a transfusion of pig blood or whatever ? I thought that was a no no, even human transfusions have to be blood typed. It makes you wonder where medical men like this were getting their knowledge from. Still, the point is taken. And for our purposes it goes to show how early on a pivotal link was found to decouple Darwinism from nature in respect to humans. And it is in the service of this gross abuse of science, rooted in Darwinism, that Sapir was catapulted onto the highest plane of intellectual greatness in the field of linguistics. In an absolute theocracy this corruption of science is the key to advancement, it is the personification of seeking the white lie as a life ambition. This reminds us of the old fable of the King and his New Suit of Clothes, where the clever artiste weaves something from nothing, and does it so skilfully that everyone sees that which does not exist, and lives by the light of the invisible. Our man of 1873 proceeds thus : I now propose very briefly to explain what I understand by the term faculty of language. I shall then inquire how far this faculty is shared by animals, and having shown that they do not possess it even in an elementary form, I shall then glance at the much-disputed question of the seat of languagethe localization of the faculty of speech,as I need not say, if it could be shown that language had a habitat in any particular part of the brain, the Darwinian could plead the structural analogy between the brain of man and that of the ape, as a proof that the latter possessed the rudiments of speech in an undeveloped form. (Bateman, pp. 78 9) Very nice. Language is indeed located in the brain, but this is the first reference to this fact I have ever come across in the pre-cleansing era, indeed it is just what I have always wanted to find, the effort to locate language within human physiology. Here we find our holy grail of atheist science in the hands of a rampant religious freak, using the observation as an act of denial. Where we wonder was the provocation coming from for him to do this ? Who is arguing that language is a physiological phenomenon at this time ? I might have a couple of essays veering in this direction, I would have to look them up. Anyway we can see straightaway from this approach how vital it has long been known to be, that language must

be kept as the sacred province of the individual, and hence it has remained so even into this age where we know perfectly well that it is not. The trick now being that science has been so thoroughly cleansed of the notion of the superorganic nature of humans, that no scientist can put two and two together and see that it is linguistic physiology that creates all social structure. Out of this last theory has arisen the principle of the localization of the cerebral faculties, which was, in the early part of the 19th century, announced in a definite form by Gall, who divided the brain into organs endowed with primordial faculties, distinct the one from the other. Gall was the first to attempt to connect the seat of language with any definite portion of the cerebro-spinal centre, by asserting that there was a special organ for language, which, according to him, was placed in those convolutions of the anterior lobes of the brain, which rest upon the posterior part of the supra-orbital plates, or, in other words, upon the roof of the orbit. (Bateman, p. 82) So there we are, long before Darwin it was an established scientific fact that the brain was, in relation to speech, the physiological analogue of wings in relation to flight, making human language the exact analogue of walking, in a comparison between legs and brains, or between walking and speech. But in 1921 our famous linguistic Sapir, was utterly ignorant of this fact. How convenient for him, and the theocracy which rules us. But our guide tells us that he has written a book on the subject of the seat of language, dated 1870, which looks into all attempts to associate speech with the brain, and this is his conclusion : I have endeavoured, however imperfectly, to show that none of the various theories as to the seat of language will stand the test of an impartial scrutiny. I have shown, and that upon the most indisputable authority, that persons could talk when the presumed seat of speech was invaded by an enormous tumour, completely disorganized by disease, or destroyed by a pistol-shot ! With these facts before me, I am tempted to ask whether speech, like the soul, may not be an attribute, the comprehension of which is beyond the limits of our finite minds ? (Ibid., p. 89) And so I think we have gone as far as we can with this man. But wait, wait ; what have we here ? But I may be told,granted the truth of your statements, surely you must admit that man speaks by and through his brain. Most assuredly I do. I admit that a certain normal and healthy state of cerebral tissue is necessary for the exterior manifestation of the faculty of speech, but that is a very different thing from saying that speech is located in this or that particular portion of the brain. Permit me to illustrate what I mean by an allusion to a passage in Platos celebrated dialogue on the Immortality of the Soul, where a disputant with Socrates inquires if the soul is not like the harmony of a lyre, more beautiful, more divine than the lyre itself, but yet is nothing without the lyre, vanishing when this instrument is broken. For the word soul, substitute speech, and for lyre, substitute brain. The instrument, i. e. the brain, may be damaged, and speech may become impossible, but that does not constitute the brain the seat of

speech, although it is undoubtedly the instrument by which this attribute becomes externally manifested. (Ibid., p. 90) Mother of God ! Give me strength. What is this supposed to mean ? I want him to tell us, but he closes here, the twat. This passage equates language to the soul directly, making them synonymous, so it seems to me. What else can it mean ? If nothing else this equating of language to the age old idea of the soul, effectively making language a medium of the real existing soul that exists separately from the body, and is eternal and infinite, just goes to show how critical the biological nature of language is to defining the biological nature of humans as animals, and how the interpretation of language as a natural phenomenon therefore has had to be guarded against, as it is to this day, at all cost All of which explains why a great linguist of the post cleansing era should come out with the inanely idiotic idea that language is not a biological attribute of the human animal ! What we need to remember is that language is an extension of the genetic medium of organic information that creates somatic bodies, where language serves to knit somatic bodies into super-somatic social structures. This function of language is radically different from all other animals that do not possess the corporate nature of humans. But other such creatures are commonplace, and well known in this connection, insects being the most familiar type. The attempt to make humans distinct from other animals in any regard, is clearly a throwback to old religious ways, not withstanding that famous atheists like Dawkins are fully behind such stances. It is natural to home in on the break indicated by language in this regard, because it makes humans seem so unique in their outer appearances. But once we know that humans are a special kind of organism, a superorganism, the apparent mystery here is completely nullified, and all becomes clear and commonplace. This in turn explains why the most important fruit of the linguistic facility is inane stupidity, to which searing brilliance in terms of reflecting reality accurately, comes a pathetic nowhere by comparison. In other words science cannot compete with religion because of the nature of these expressions of linguistic ability. The inherent bias favouring religion is obvious, as we see from many people like Bateman, Darwin, Sapir, Dawkins and countless others. It is perfectly possible to be a practicing scientist and remain totally irrational, or even religious ! Which means an infinite variety of people can be religious, many of them pretending to be scientists. But science is science is science, if you want to be a scientist then that is all you can be, there are no other possibilities. Which means the social possibilities for religion in terms of roles are infinite, whereas those for science are absolutely finite. This bodes ill for taking part in a social structure based on religion, and so religion persists while science wallows in perplexity. Hence, for science to exist, religion must be eliminated. Oh yes, and one more thing, in case you are wondering, which you should be by now if you are in tune with me. We do not have to make out that Sapir, like Bateman, his forerunner in absurd linguistics, was a Christian freak. We can say for certain that he was not. How come then his gross stupidity as a scientific genius within his special field, relating to human nature ? I hear you ask. He went one better, he was a master clansmen, a fullblown Jew. This biographical information appears in an item I was able to download on him : Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture and Personality, 1963, edited by Mandelbaum, who wrote the preface detailing Sapirs cultural roots. The passage that originally aroused our interest in Sapir above, appears on page one hundred and sixty two of this work. In its proper context it loses its impressive scientific force, and reveals its true slimy nature as scientific drivel, not worth the paper it is written on, as science. Though obviously it is extremely important as fake science, and as indicated by Darwins Origin of

Species, nothing on earth can be more important than fake science save religion itself, which fake science serves. Thinking in terms of the White Lie in its general sense, we may think we can unify science and religion on this basis, to make one consistent body of knowledge. We implicitly make the White Lie embrace the search for true knowledge, but we could say that even religion belongs in this category, except it is excluded by the initial trigger making us think of the search for the White Lie. Which is the fact that modern science strives to find a means of representing reality is the finest possible way, but always in conformity to the needs of religion. In that sense religion cannot itself be included in the category, or class of, a white lie. Semantics perhaps, but just a thought on the relationship of science and religion to each other, as seen from the perspective of the idea of the White Lie. The fact is that if the existence of religion is eternal, and the war against truth therefore continually inevitable in some form, then in the end the two opposites, are one. We should therefore have some understanding of what that oneness is, and it is of course the sum total of information making up the being of the superorganism. A kind of linguistic genome that can be zipped and unzipped along the divides denoting social structure, to allow the superorganism to live like any other organic entity.

II Comparative sociology Wednesday, 27 June 2012 We have just referred to the lack of attempts to treat humans as animals in a genuinely comparative sense, or to express thoughts to that effect at the social level of comparison. But last night I fished a couple of books from my shelves while hunting down Clagett, and I just wanted to at least record their existence as I am not sure I have ever made any reference to them, having only found them a couple of years ago, and then, despite their unique focus upon the comparative science of society they, inevitably, were a total washout. These are Of Ants and Men, 1939, and Of Societies and Men, 1951, by Caryl P. Haskins. These books begin with a wonderful refrain expounding the validity of the direct comparison between humans and ants, but then we hit brick walls that stop us in our tracks.

The Ties that Bind WHEN WE COMPARE the motives which bind together the societies of humans and of
ants, we are forcibly struck by their similarity. Fundamentally, of course, the purpose of social organization is precisely the same in both creaturesto promote individual welfare and security, to permit the individual to live more peaceably in his immediate environment and to reproduce with greater safety, and to obtain that margin of social security which will provide for his needs in time of famine and uncertainty. Even the attitudes of the individual toward his social group are surprisingly parallel in men and in ants. Individuals of both groups labor under a force which may well be called social pressure. We, to a far greater degree than we are usually willing to admit, are motivated in our daily actions and in the whole moulding of our life-patterns by our desire that others shall think well of us, that we shall have general approval. This force acts in favor of our societies, since it promotes initiative, individual activity, and healthy ambition. (Of Ants, p. 99)

Superficially speaking this is obviously very nice, simplistic, but at least open to comparing human society with society in nature at large. He even invokes a social force, which is linguistic force, though of course he has no idea this is so. But what makes this into a conceptual tombstone is the inversion of logic making society exist to serve the needs of individuals, that nonetheless evidently evolved to exist as ends in themselves ! It is pure lunacy, great for religion, but insane for science. Why bother reasoning out all this shit if all you want to do is keep the status quo of sublime stupidity ? Well, that is what priests do, they do it in religion, so why not science ?

Three Societies

THE TWO great principles manifested in the trends to complexity and simplicity are
well-nigh universal in their effect upon the evolution of societies, as they are upon the evolution of all life. Human societies no less than the societies of other living things are subject to these grand influences and reflect their effects in broadly similar fashion. The trend to complexity is a reflection of the pressure of adaptation and natural selection impressed upon societies as it is upon non-social life by the demands of an environment. That environment is the earth as a whole, which has itself grown more complex down the ages. Its opposite, the trend to simplification and specialization, is in turn a reflection of special aspects of that environment upon life and upon societies alikethe effects of special conditions that are monotonous or rigid and unyielding in their specific demands, such as those of heat or cold or drought, or of the host-parasite relation. The third principle, that of integration, is less universal in its application. This principle now demands a closer scrutiny. Like complexity and specialization, it is an adaptive device in the survival of societies. But it is a device that has been adopted only by certain kinds of societies. Conspicuous among them are such integrated groups as the Siphonophorans and the social insects. In the whole vast realm of family and associative societies, the trend to integration is but rarely and feebly expressed. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that in many cases it may actually be inimical to them in evolution. And since human society is integrative in only one specialized aspectas will presently be developedit is important to examine somewhat more closely the whole associative social way. Here is the core of the matter. Nearly all the superficial comparisons which are made between human and non-human societies take as their text the identity of the resemblances between social man and some of the spectacular integrated non-human social organizationsparticularly those of the social insects. The postulates are these : Because human and non-human societies alike show the impress of the trends to complexity and to specialization and hence face similar evolutionary dangers, it has too often been assumed that the trend to integration affects them in similar ways, and that if human societies are to survive they must go the way of the insect colony in evolution, exhibiting tighter and tighter integration, with correspondingly less and less of individual autonomy. In the course of natural evolution the member of the human society, like that of the insect colonyso the argument runsis to approach the role of the parasite, to become increasingly dependent, to lose more and more of individual competence. The integrated society has long been the text for theses upon

the meritsor the inevitabilityof totalitarian organization. But nature is not so simple. The societies of the world are of divers kinds and shapes. Many attempts have been made to classify them. Most of these have encountered various difficulties inherent in the almost impossible task of selecting suitable criteria. Many categories have been defined. The simple classification here adopted, which divides all societies into three broad classesthe integrated, the family, and the associativeis not intended to be either comprehensive or precise. It is based entirely upon their evolutionary aspects, their origins, and their modes of development, and is specifically designed to illuminate these particular problems. (Of Societies, pp. 165 6.) Again we have a remarkable piece of text here, quite unique, despite the suggestion that this discussion is but the latest in a long line of similar discussions. The comparison between humans and insects is much vaunted here, but rare in the extreme in any form readily discoverable. It is true however, that when they do surface, they do take this deeply contrived form, evocative of the religious nutter, the creationist and such like. Indeed it is the likes of the religious freak, usually of an eccentric kind, that enjoys the insect analogy for society, and uses it to make moral arguments about the dark destiny of man if they do not mend their ways. Ouspensky is the only example I can refer you to, and I have done so from time to time and made his text on this topic available online, somewhere within my work, I am sure. Here we see a very sophisticated form of the basic ruse that sets out to say humans are part of nature but, then again, not really. Of course the theme of integration that this man is about to use to protect religion from science is central in all that we have to say, even though we never discuss it in these blunt terms. The whole idea of linguistic force creating a linguistic identity programme where there can only be one identity, though it may appear in an infinite variety of forms, is all about generating a process of social integration. Hence we find everyone has become Jewish, even though this man would not recognise this fact because he thinks individuals are ends in themselves and therefore you are only Jewish if you bear that name in everyday life. As we can see then, the question of an ever deepening integration is very real in its covert effect upon individuals, but its discussion is made ridiculous if we expect to see it occurring in the same way that we see in insects, though indeed this is precisely how Ouspensky treats the matter, and obviously this idiot treats the sort of ideas Ouspensky and his kind were happy to present, as worthwhile ! Incredible. The material manifestation of this process of integration is all around in our social world, only here it is elaborated to us within the linguistic identity programme as a political process. But it is no such thing, and it is certainly not desired by anyone, even though they say they desire it, the so called desire being a programme running in their brains.

Chapter 25

The System of Truth

I Extreme lying Yesterday, 05/07/2012, a copy of volume two of Social and Cultural Dynamics by Pitirim Sorokin, first published in 1937, arrived from America. There are four volumes and for our purposes this would seem to be the best one to drop on, being concerned with the Fluctuation of Systems of Truth, Ethics, and Law. This is a monumental effort in lying, presenting an ideology of the White Lie, in effect. The idea that there is no such thing as truth is often banded about, and it infuriates me, I hate it ! Here this simple idea, sick, twisted, perverse idea, is taken as the key to understanding human nature. That is not out of order in the general scheme of things, it is what religion does, hell if academia can produce an incredible system of astronomy as in the Ptolemaic system, and in our own time the Darwinian theory of life, all in order to subvert knowledge and preserve political power in keeping with human corporate nature, then this work is only more of the same. Sorokin I have known of for years. He has been known to me as the Gatekeeper of Organicism because in the middle decades of the last century, his name is coughed up by the academics who begrudgingly found themselves forced to refer to organicism, men like the American sociologist Leslie A. White, if I remember rightly. On this occasions we were referred to Sorokins Contemporary Sociological Theories, 1928, for a wonderful exposition on the organicist idea, explaining why it was doomed to oblivion. This reference only cropped up a couple of times, the deathly silence on this genuine science of sociology after all the effort to eradicate it, was resounding. I naturally headed straight for this book, and found there an infuriating dismissal of organicism, ignorant, nasty, bereft of any intellectual content whatsoever. I have had an extremely low opinion of Sorokin since that time. However, occasionally his name has cropped up, and invariably in association with some great tome of his, about which I knew nothing. So, finally, I made an effort to see what this might be, not for the first time actually, but at last I dug up the work in question, I am sure. And now I have a copy in my hand I can see whats what. This is a strange book. It is not available for free online, so I will copy a couple of passages pertinent to our impending criticism, that I found during a brief examination last night. The introductory remarks are the best material for us to take to get an idea of what this work is supposed to be about :

PREFACE Are there different systems of truth the truth of faith, the truth of reason, the truth of the senses and do they fluctuate in their influence and acceptability in the course of time ? During which periods in the history of the Graeco-Roman and Western cultures from 600 B.C. to the present has each of these systems risen to importance or suffered decline ? What is the dominant contemporary system of truth and how has it come to be dominant ? What has been the movement of discoveries in the natural sciences and of technological invention from 600 B.C. to the present ? Which periods have been particularly fertile and which sterile in these respects, and why ? Is the movement of discoveries and inventions connected with the rise and fall of the main systems of truth ? Have the main categories of human thought and the first principles of science, philosophy, and religion been fluctuating in acceptability and prestige during these twenty-five hundred years ; and, if they have, which periods are marked by the domination of which of these categories and principles, and in what form ? What is the reason for such dominance ? How have the content and meaning of such categories as Causality, Space, Time, and Number been changing, and in which direction is the modification ? Have concepts such as Idealism and Materialism, Eternalism and Temporalism, Being and Becoming, Realism and Nominalism, Universalism and Singularism, Determinism and Indeterminism, and many others that lie at the foundation of scientific, philosophical, and other theories, varied in their influence, now one, say Idealism, rising, now its opposite, Materialism, becoming dominant ? And if they have varied in influence, when exactly did this take place and why ? Have other general scientific and philosophical theories, such as cosmogonic hypotheses, Atomism, Vitalism, Mechanism, also been fluctuating with regard to their acceptability ? Do the main ethical systems, such as that of Absolute Principles, of Hedonism, Utilitarianism, Eudaemonism, fluctuate also in their comparative prestige and currency ? If they do, when during the twenty-five hundred years under consideration was each of these systems dominant, and why ? Similarly, do the moral codes and mores as they are incorporated in law, particularly in criminal law, also change ? These are the problems dealt with as the first object of this volume. The existence and the nature of long-time fluctuations are studied in the fields of the philosophy, religion, science, ethics, and law of the Graeco-Roman and Western cultures from about the year 600 B.C. Do such waves or fluctuations indeed occur ? Which periods during these twenty-five hundred years have teen marked by the rise or decline of the various main systems of truth, main competitive principles of science, philosophy, religion, ethics, and law ? Is there in these fluctuations any steady tendency toward the disappearance of one of the currents, say of the truth of faith, or idealism, and toward an increase of some other, say of the truth of the senses, or materialism ? Or does each of the competitive principles simply fluctuate, now rising, now declining, without any linear trend ? Are these fluctuations periodical ? The elucidation of these problems is the first task of the present volume. The second object is to inquire, in conformity with the central idea of the entire work, whether the fluctuations in one compartment of the Graeco-Roman and Western cultures during the centuries involved are connected with fluctuations in their other compartments. Is a change in the system of truth always followed by changes in all the essential principles and theories of science, philosophy, religion, and ethics ?

Is it followed by analogous transformation in law ; in painting, sculpture, architecture, music, literature (see Volume One) ; in the forms of social relationship, political and economic organization, and in the movement of wars and internal disturbances (see Volume Three) ? Is culture a unified system in which a change in one compartment is accompanied by change in all the others ? If it is, are all the modifications in all the compartments synchronous ? Are they closely bound together ? Or do they occur nonsynchronously ? If they do not coincide in time, which compartment leads in the change and which lags behind ? Is there any uniformity in the time and order of change in the various compartments of culture ? What are the reasons for, and factors bringing about (ratio sive causa), all these fluctuations ? These problems constitute the second task with which the present volume is concerned. And to this extent it deals with the sociology of cultural change, particularly in the fields of philosophy, religion, science, ethics, and law. (Sorokin, pp. v vi.) This is a horrible way of presenting your argument, to ask if there is the very thing you intended to assume without question, that there most certainly is !! What a shithead. Obviously there can only be one truth, to say otherwise is to make lies into a form of truth ! Or at the very least, to make entrenched errors a form of truth. But this is not what Sorokin means, not at all. He actually means that there can be alternative kinds of truth, making him a precursor of the his horrible compatriot Stephen Jay Gould, with his sick notion of separate Magisteria of knowledge. Does that phrase make you want to wretch or what ! Boy do I hate these people. When he asks about the fluctuation of systems of knowledge, and asks why one form dominates, then another, he makes a massive assumption, which goes unspoken, that is right at the heart of validating the White Lie making process. That assumption is that at all times, in all places, people are seeking knowledge with open hearts, and the purest of goodwill, where, under no circumstances, would anyone ever seek to subvert knowledge, or restrain it, for one moment, for any reason. This is implicit in what he says, for otherwise the obvious place to begin is by telling us about the struggle for freedom of expression that weighs like an ocean upon humanity in all times and places, which he does not mention at all, here at any rate. Then we have a spray of philosophical type jargonisms. Very tiresome. The notes I made last night picked out the phrases system of truth and sociology of cultural change. The former is so incredible it stuns the mind with it arrogance. Here the man makes the process of creating the White Lie, into a system of truth making. In a manner of speaking I suppose it is just that ! Even so, it galls one to see it promoted thus. And then we have this second phrase, which shows this smarmy little freak presuming to call his travesty of reason some kind of sociology. Too awful. So I went on : The only positive thing I can say is that his logic invokes the idea of a social force, and a resulting social form expressing these dynamics, without the intervention of any other aspect such as that of a manmade decision making process. The one thing we might say about the above passage, is that it suggests an antiprogressive dynamic to human life, which is unique, no other work we have seen has ever suggested that life is prone to pendulum like variations where progress is concerned, to the point where the word progress becomes meaningless. This is beneficial to a scientific outlook in that it can only mean that order is functional, and hence values are illusory. But we may hardly imagine that this freak of academia wants to give this message, so why is he

speaking thus ? W have read too little to say much more about this. The fact is that human development within society has been truly progressive, in terms that are valid expressions of progressive development. The human animal superorganism has grown massively and consumed all humanity within one uniform identity, in the process it has developed extraordinary systems of knowledge empowering human activity, for example. We would not dispute the general notion of progress, only the abuse of that notion to invoke a divine imperative driving humanity towards perfection, and such like antiscientific, political uses, to which the idea of progress is always put.

Chapter Twelve FLUCTUATION OF GENERAL AND SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES Not only do the first principles and the categories of human thought fluctuate, but also almost all of the scientific theories of a more or less general nature. Some of these fluctuations probably proceed independently from our main variables. The others seem to be connected with the rise and decline of our main types of culture mentality. Perhaps only so-called facts remain unchanged, but any fact as a routine of sense perception is meaningless per se, if it is not put in some conceptual reference system or what is the same if it is not embraced by some kind of theory. Without this, no fact can exist as a relevant fact or can constitute knowledge in any sense. As examples of the fluctuation discussed, I am taking cosmogonic theories, the atomistic theory, the mechanistic and vitalistic interpretation of life phenomena, the theory of light, and a few others. The tracing of their quantitative and qualitative fluctuations is very concise. But it is probably accurate in all the essential traits. The literature given in the footnotes makes it possible to check the accuracy of the outlines. We begin with the Atomistic theories. (Ibid., p. 439.) This section is interesting for its footnotes elaborating profusely on the authorities recording the history of how scientific knowledge has fluctuated over time. But as I read it just now, I thought that the first thing you must surely address in a work of this kind dealing with systems of truth, is the nature of truth. I have noticed no such discussion, but then, as we say above, he has no intention of giving a sniff to that idea, his whole object is to defend the system of lies. My note on this passage ran thus : This description of oscillatory change is effectively an ideology of truthlessness. It suggests social cleansing, the way systems of truth ebb and flow. Suits Sorokin the backstop enemy of true scientific sociology. A primary feature of White Lie making that we periodically take notice of in our writing, is the practice of keeping the debate alive, keeping the White Lie ball in the air. This works for the priesthood whose power is based on religion, because religion only needs to exist in order to serve its biological function of delivering identity to the superorganism that the priesthood unwittingly serve. Thus it does not matter how the continuation of the debate

on the nature of knowledge comes about, all that matters is that it does come about. And this work would seem to be an extreme expression of that act of keeping the ball in the air. ___

VI. SOME GENERAL REMARKS ON THE LONG- AND SHORT-TIME FLUCTUATIONS OF PRESTIGE OF THE NATURAL-SCIENCE THEORIES The above examples, taken from the domain of the natural sciences, show that the scientific theories, like those in philosophy, and in other fields of thought have indeed fluctuated. They show also that the upward and downward movement of rival theories of a relatively broader character have been tangibly connected with the respective oscillations of the main systems of truth, and of the types of culture corresponding to each of them. There is hardly any doubt that, as far as mere oscillation is concerned, there probably has been no scientific theory which has not undergone it, and, like a fashion, now has been heralded as the last word of science and now has fallen into disrepute. At least, for me it is exceedingly difficult, indeed practically impossible, to indicate any single comparatively broad theory in the whole field of natural sciences which has been free from such a vicissitude. I do not know of any single general theory which after being formulated has remained an unchanged truth in subsequent time, if that time has been sufficiently long. Some of the theories need a span of several centuries before being recognized as the last word of science, or being discredited as erroneous and inadequate. Others require a much shorter time to undergo the cycle (Ibid., p. 467) This is rich. No religious freak could desire more than this, it says it all : science is nothing. See how this method of arguing ensures a win-win situation for the lie making priest. Consider what has happened with the subversion of science that overwhelms us today, with Darwinism. Here we find a miraculous survival, a science that has remained untouchable from day one, nothing can shake Darwinism. And why not ? Because it is not science. Here then we have a fraudulent science assuming authority, and this makes the lie maker a winner. If however this most fabulous of all sciences, so called, should ever fail, should it ever suit the theocracy that it should, then the lie maker is a winner again, because this vindicates the argument that this high priest of lie making is elaborating above. Lying steals reality and sets up this kind of win-win scenario, it is the basis of social power, it is in point of fact the essence of meaning which language projects into social space, to create social authority. My note from last night, still 05/07/2012 : Talks about the fluctuation of all theories, so what of organicism ? It would seem this applies here, but Sorokins view undermines organicisms return as true science. There is a good reason why a theocracy would want to develop such a philosophy of truthlessness. Given that organicism is absolute truth, as in genuine science, we must expect it to keep coming back, but it can never be finally ascendant as that would mean an end to religion. So Sorokin is presenting an ideology of absolute authority based upon the control of knowledge a never ending search for truth as in freedom always defeated by the never ending search for a white lie upon which to base truth, to protect religion, the false truth of identity that linguistic force exists to create in order to form the superorganism.

A point we might make in view of our discussion of Turners Extended Organism above, is that this ambulatory theory of knowledge would chime with Turners feeling that the idea of society as a living being keeps coming and going. And in turn, this fact suggests another use for Sorokins priestcraft along these same lines, explaining the ebb and flow of ideas according to some detached, none political dynamic. Our scientific model of human nature indicates that the superorganism is composed of individuals who naturally form a complex structure focused upon a tiny core of social power. This core is the product of linguistic force, and it controls that force centred upon itself by controlling the product of linguistic force, appearing in its abstract form as authority, which in its specific form comes before us as knowledge, and in its concrete form appears as a social structure of power, as the elite that rule us by controlling the linguistic force that creates its own structure. So that the dynamic Sorokin is trying to account for theoretically, which Turner seeks to belittle by treating it, in one specific case, as ephemeral, is about the search for a White Lie as the basis of social power. The ensuing struggle being biological in nature, being a facet of an animals physiology, that ebbs and flows according to the life of the animal concerned. The question is not whether truth comes in and out of fashion, but how this phenomenon relates to the growth of the living superorganism, as seen in the ebb and flow of political power about a foci of identity, which comes and goes in the service of the One true identity of Judaism, which has remained eternal, thus far.

Chapter 26

Homo sapiens corporalis

Saturday, 21 July 2012 Last night I refrained from going to the pub in town, it has become too unpleasant to bare these dreary, miserable places. Having pulled a book from the shelf to make way for my Fourier volumes alongside my Doherty volumes, I picked up this item which has been around for years, maybe as many as fifteen, and in it I found treasure ! Corporation Man by Antony Jay, 1972, sports a title that you can imagine attracted my attention, but it is, unsurprisingly, not about humans as superorganisms, but about the rise of modern business corporations, at least, that is what the author thought it was about. I have dipped into this book over the years, and drawn a blank. My only note on the front blank pages is from January last year, and gives a favourable response in general, and specifically to one of the last chapters, The Instruments of Corporate Identity. But something else caught my eye last night, the idea of the ten groups. This idea concerns the manner in which human corporate nature generates superorganic physiology by causing sentient brick units to come together in packages, which display a logarithmic growth structure based upon the number ten. At least that is my summarisation of the idea presented by Jay. In point of fact we find the reasoning behind this number ten explained in the introductory portion of the book, which indicates that the specific number is not important, but rather the idea of unification towards structural order lying behind this number. The more we examine this text the more exciting it appears to be, for what we seem to have here is the most thorough scientific elaboration of human corporate nature ever written, hidden behind a veil of unwittingness that is the authors own state of mind in writing this work. What a very odd thing. He even conjured up a Latin name for our species which invokes the idea of a biological human nature defining us as a social animal, used above for the chapter heading. I have toyed with this idea of a scientific name myself over the years, which shows the proximity of our thinking. After becoming intrigued by the material dealing with the basic social unit of the ten group, I looked more methodically for the main idea behind this work and eventually checked out the opening sections. Here we find a clear statement on the origin of Jays ideas. And what is of great interest is his deferment to what he calls the New Biology. This scientific movement bringing biology to bear on human society, Jay regards as revolutionary, and he identifies a few of the key players, names we are familiar with, Jay indeed being of my own generation. So that we have names like Ardrey and Morris. Saturday, 21 July 2012 Reading Doherty today I hit a passage where he speaks of the routine habit of creating leaders to act as conduits of the spiritual message, which reminds me of the King tribe idea that Jay puts forward. The point is that this idea is recognised by many and given varying interpretations, but the fact is that the general phenomenon of a wise informer imparting knowledge of meaning and purpose to a people is real, and it can only have one explanation. And this is in terms of human biological nature, which indeed Jay

thinks he understands courtesy of the New Biologists. But he does not, because despite his focus on the corporate dynamic, he and all his confederates in kind, remain firmly rooted in the sterile intellectual soil of individualism. Doherty has this : All savage races have medicine-men, who see and hear spirits, who give them admonitions ; oracles and temples have been established in many places from the earliest dawn of history. Prophets and lawgivers have been recognized authorities in many nations ; hereditary priests and Levites, judges and kings were established amongst the Jews ; hereditary castes of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sutras among the Hindoos ; emperors and mandarins of different grades among the Chinese ; medicine-men and war-chiefs among wild tribes of savages in Asia, Africa, America, and Polynesia. (Doherty, Vol. 4, p. 344.) Elite orders are an endemic feature of human existence, whatever form that existence takes. Where Doherty recognises this in the anthropological details he identifies, Jay sees the same thing within the evolution of modern business structures, which is the dominant form of social structure in our world today, supplanting tribal, and even religious orders of the past, as the main edifice of social life. Instead of building churches, we find great wealth pumped into towers of business, reaching for the skies. Like the eyesore just officially opened in London called the Shard, a superb piece of technical prowess, but an offensive imposition by Muslims upon the newly captured capital of their greatest Western kingdom. If Muslims want to fix an ugly minaret towering over London, there is nothing we can do to stop them. All of London is one giant mosque now, as the country is a mosque in waiting, just as the Jews always intended it should be when they wreaked havoc across Europe last century, forcing us to fight to cleanse ourselves of our beloved free European, modern atheist culture. Sunday, 22 July 2012 And today we find a little more putting us in mind of Jay, coming from Doherty, on page three hundred and fifty four. Doherty describes the way Jewish prophecy recorded in the Bible has come to pass, proving the power of prophecy. We must agree with this assertion, but we put it down to the fact that human social life is subject to natural laws, proving there is a biological human nature which people are connected to in an intuitive manner through their linguistic physiology. Giving rise to what Doherty sees as a spiritual dimension allowing perfect knowledge to be communicated, imperfectly, to special people here on earth, who then deliver the garbled message in the form of religion. Jays work meanwhile is a modern, secular expression of this act of communication with our biological nature. Still intuitive and therefore delivering imperfect knowledge which is nonetheless insightful and powerful, such that when this kind of knowledge is put to work for people it empowers them. This being what intuitively formulated knowledge did for the Jews acting as a corporation unified under the impress of a religious identity, making them the master race. Thereby delivering the benefit of such communication with our own biological nature to all humanity via two subidentities turning us all into Jews, which, in other words, empowered the superorganism that humanity is, under the name of Judaism. We should note that such intuitive understanding as we are saying creates social life, is in reality no different to the intuitive understanding that we see expressed in all the wonders people have created down the ages. It is only when we come to modern times, as defined by science, which delivers precise, unintuitive knowledge, that things become any different. So the making of a bridge or a cathedral, the domesticating of plants or animals, or anything creative that we do in this manipulative, artful way, is an expression of intuitive

understanding. The creation of social life is never seen this way because we do not see it from outside of what it is. We are on the inside of social life looking out, where we only see the elements of the constructive activity that we feel we are responsible for. Then we may wonder how the overall product comes together. But all it is, religion, law, morality and everything else of a social knowledge kind, is nothing other than the expression of our technological acuity in a self organizing mode. From the introductory portion of Jays work we obtain the following : The hunting band, the ten-group, is the foundation of every corporation, the base which supports the whole corporate edifice. No organization theory that does not rest on this base can ever make sense. Already I find myself impatient when I ask the size of a company or division and am given the answer in employed capital or turnover : it is the number of ten-groups that expresses the size of the management task, not the number of pounds or dollars, and it is the morale, effectiveness and output of groups, not of individuals, that is the proper measure of corporate health and strength. Every manager must know cases of men who collect glowing reports in one group and then leave it, perhaps for a solitary job, and dismally fail to live up to their reputation or who have looked unpromising until they got into the right group and have turned into successes. I have said that every corporation rests on ten-groups whether it realizes it or not : indeed the tendency to form such groups is so powerful that they sometimes form within but in opposition to the corporation, and there is plenty of evidence of this as well : it will be discussed later in the book. And if groups are going to form anyway, then clearly one of the prime tasks of the corporation is to get the largest possible number of effective groups all pulling in the same direction, all hunting on the corporations behalf. But how can this be possible when a group has an absolute maximum of about fifteen, while a corporation employs tens or hundreds of thousands ? And since ten people arbitrarily put together do not automatically form a band, when is a ten-group not a ten-group ? How do ten-groups organize themselves internally ? Which conditions make them flourish and which make them wither ? All these questions have to be asked if we are to understand corporate organization in the light of this powerful male urge to band together for survival, and the succeeding chapters will attempt to answer them. The answers are a fusion of the knowledge I have acquired from the New Biology and other relevant sources, and the experience I have gained first-hand in large organizations and second-hand from friends and colleagues. The knowledge is still new and some of it is still being challenged by scientists of repute, and the experience is necessarily narrow and limited ; the answers must therefore be taken as tentative. And there is a third and totally unscientific ingredient which I might as well admit : my own feelings, emotions, instincts and intuitions, in so far as I have been able to isolate and analyse them, as a group member, and group manager, and in particular when I have seen the same emotional irrational reactions provoked time and again by the same sort of stimuli in other group members. And is it so unscientific ? If a member of a baboon troop could tell us how he reacted to different situations, what emotions were stirred up in his breast by the behaviour of enemies, rivals and friends, this would be evidence of a kind ; if he could also report on many conversations with members of other troops and pass on to us what seemed to be the common elements of all their experience, we would take this into account as well. Why should not the self-observation of a past, and perhaps future, member of the subspecies Homo sapiens corporalis be equally valuable ? (Jay, pp. 42 43.)

Relating Jays ideas on human social behaviour to the formulation of intuitive knowledge found in Jewish mythology, constituting a programme of millennial long social development, allows us to incorporate this new found material into this essay consistently, as it clearly has a bearing on the manner in which linguistic force creates the White Lie that is the identity programme which organizes human behaviour to form a living superorganism that we call society. Although we may think that the best place for Jays work to make an appearance would be the in The Master Race, the last item posted to Scribd, the fact is that themes like this are flexible, because in the end each work we produce is merely picking up a different thread arising from one coherent idea. Which is good, because it means that as we go about our business of seeking Wisdom, we can always accommodate whatever ideas we find, within the work we are writing at any given time, no matter what the ostensible topic may be that provides that work with its title and intended theme. What the ten group principle identified in the above passage indicates, is that there is no such thing as an individual. We are in a position to grasp this radical insight, which flies straight over Jays head because he is too close to the structure he is studying to derive any basic principles of human nature that would enable him to take this ten group idea that last stage towards completion. The key interest we have in this work is the light it sheds on the formation of a superorganism, as in, a corporation. For a corporation in Jays context, is the superorganism in waiting. So that when he discusses the role of the ten group in the formation of corporations, and how the corporation can harness the power of the ten group by imposing uniformity and direction on a mass of such groups coming under its auspices, he is in fact asking how nature forms human superorganisms, and most specifically, he is attempting to tell us how the Jews were made. But although this sounds wonderful, and is wonderful, we have the glaring evidence of Jays unwittingness regarding this supreme knowledge, as revealed in this horrible statement : if we are to understand corporate organization in the light of this powerful male urge to band together for survival This is pure Darwinism, that eulogizes the individual as an integral unit existing in its own right, that the corporation must manage, in order to make this wilful entity serve its purpose, which it can do because this creature is made to be harnessed to a common cause. It really is amazing that people can argue thus, going all around the houses with this idea of humans being made for social unification, without ever concluding that human nature is social, to the point that the individual as a wilful entity does not exist. But there it is, this truth is a Rubicon no one ever dare so much as contemplate crossing. His final claim to insights constituting a valid scientific contribution, is anathema to science, being instead a key mechanism of corruption in sociology, where he asserts that if a baboon could speak it could aid our understanding of baboons. No! This is a total misconception of the nature of speech. Scientists cannot ask people for their insights because people do not exist, so they cannot have insights of this kind, at the level of self knowledge applying beyond the immediate demands of daily animal life, concerning their reasons for doing what they do, because individuals have no means of knowing why they do what they do, because all they do, unbeknownst to themselves, is follow a programme that comes to them from an external source of authority that they are evolved to respond to robotically, through the pressure of linguistic information driving individual behaviour to follow a uniform pattern. All an individual can do is to report events and conditions, they cannot pass opinions because they are not made by nature to possess opinions. They are made to receive

programming that they are programmed to believe originates with themselves, where meaning derives from linguistic routines, as in words, carrying meanings such as we find in words such as opinion that subliminally affirm the reality of the individual as a foci of authority. So this attitude of Jays is a fatal error in self understanding, due to his reliance upon a Darwinian based science supposedly applying to humans, that is barred from applying to humans from the outset by its allegiance to the scientific authority of Darwinism, that it is attached to by virtue of the social structure created for the purpose of making all knowledge serve the corporation which is Judaism. Thus creating a barrier that no one has seen their way past in a modern scientific context. His conversation regarding the need for corporations to recognise and organize manpower, is perfect for us in our desire to imagine how the Jewish master race was put together. For we can imagine the priests living in the early Near Eastern civilizations some six millennia ago, conceiving of their tribal group as an equivalent body to this corporation within a population of competing corporations, where they too were enabled to identify the exact same social dynamics that Jay experienced in real life, because he has been there at the inception of the era of corporations as they moved into a phase of full-blown superorganic organization. The formation of the Jews was self evidently all about timing, it could only happen once, and it was bound to happen, as an inevitable consequences of human superorganic form reaching the stage of development it did in the early days of civilizations formation. The same self contained uniqueness applies to any such natural system. A solar system can only occur once in any given setting, once the central star has ignited the energy in the system has shifted along a developmental trajectory that is neither reversible nor repeatable, in that system. The same dynamic applies to the realisation of a global superorganism. We get one shot at this, and it will never be repeated, because the nature of our kind is such that once we have run the gamut of our potential, the energy of life will not be available to repeat the exercise in the shape of mammalian kind. This is a familiar pattern seen in the history of life on earth, so that life changed the earth in such a way that it moved lifes development onto new stages that left life as it had been behind, and unrepeatable on earth. As when bacteria spent three billion years converting iron to iron oxide until the point was reached where free oxygen could become a stable part of the atmosphere, providing the energy dimension for life to shift gear beyond the bacterial level. Other civilizations than our own have arisen, but this is the first with the potential to go global, and having gone global it does not look to be either reversible, or repeatable. Jays account naturalises the process of master race formation for us, by normalising it, by giving us an example of this process in action, in an ordinary everyday context, showing that it is a normal outcome of human development. This is what makes his work so beautiful to come across.

The Dispersed Tribe and the Unity of the Kingdom

A CORPORATION, as we understand it today, is a far more recent notion than a manufacturing business ; it is also very different. Manufacturing businesses, of the sort that began to dominate our lives about two centuries ago, were defined by their product : if it was yarn they were spinning businesses, if it was cloth they were weaving businesses, if it was steel they were in the steel-making business, and that was that. Few employees were asked to do much more than learn a process and then keep on applying it. If demand rose, more machines and people carried out the same process : and while everybody hoped the business would grow and prosper, it nevertheless had a slightly temporary feeling about it. The business existed for as long

as people wanted the product, but if they stopped wanting it then presumably the business would cease to exist. If you invested in it, you were basically investing in the product, as if it were an extension of the commodity market, and your chief concern was the same as with any other commodity how strong was the demand and how great was the supply ? A manufacturing business of that sort required very little in the way of management : it chiefly depended on capital, entrepreneurial flair, a pool of cheap labour, a source of power, strict industrial and financial disciplines, access to raw materials and access to markets. The corporation did not begin until a new idea started to grow : the idea of permanence and, even more important, confidence in, and commitment to, permanence. This is not to say that some Victorian mill-owners did not believe their business would go on and on, without any foreseeable end to the worldwide demand for Lancashire cotton ; but that is simply blind optimism. The commitment to permanence says, in effect, that whatever may happen to the market, the technology, the raw materials, the processes or any other variable, we shall still be in business ; our aim is not to produce a particular product, or carry out a particular process, or provide a particular service ; our aim is corporate survival, whatever internal changes or convulsions it may entail. The investor is invited to invest not in the corporations product, but in its ability to survive and grow. Donald Schon pointed out in the 1970 Reith Lectures that it is no longer any good simply thinking of the laundry business : housewives buy their own washing-machines, chemists come up with drip-dry cotton and permanent-crease Terylene, manufacturers develop throwaway paper clothes, retailers open launderettes and start nappy services, and what has happened to your laundry business after all that ? The only constant is that people like to wear clean clothes, and if you are committed to permanence you have to be in the forefront of as many of these developments as you can. If you are exclusively committed to a steam laundry, you are committed to obsolescence. It is clear that this process is accelerating, not so much because there are no longer any simple processes that have to be carried out year after year, but because it is now economic to build machines to carry out those processes ; and now that the computer is taking over the simple clerical processes in the same way that automated equipment and transfer machines are taking over the mechanical ones, more and more people are spending more and more time creating, or adapting to, change and innovation. And what is a corporation then ? Of course, it still manufactures goods ; but the emphasis has been shifting steadily away from what the corporation does, and on to what it is. (Ibid., pp. 189 190.) We can feel the organicist tone of this work in the title, with its reference to a focal point of authority, as in kingdom, buried within a whole emphasising the idea of unity. Having just read Dohertys volume on sociology and having turned our attention to Fouriers work, the theme of unity is uppermost in our minds as the defining feature of organicist thinking. But there is something much more important in this title, and that is the idea of a dispersed tribe. This is bang on the idea we have of the Jews as a master race qualified for rule by virtue of its dispersal, within the wider none Jewish biomass, wherein the king tribe described by Jay in this book, still retains its key tribal nature, that of close affiliation orienting all its members intuitively towards one common goal, without any external, physical authority being required to give actual commands. In the business context the king tribe gets its identity from the allocation of status as management, imparting a role of leader with special duties and powers that are felt in common wherever a manager exists, without

any contact occurring between individual managers as such, as Jay describes. The key is that each manager has a sense of linkage between themselves and their superior. Whereas in real life, the natural life of society, the Jew gets the exact same sense of specialness from their peculiar religion, which infuses into each Jew their sense of specialness, which is known as Chosenness. Of course the physical hook allowing this arrangement to be made in the business world, is the privilege that comes with being a manager, the prestige, and the wealth. And likewise, the Jew obtains exactly the same kind of privileges in all societies they inhabit, where they have a role that is distinct from the masses amongst whom they live. They make their way in business and other elite roles, finance, law, media, politics, all sorts of elite occupations, which they then become famous for their overrepresentation within, and talked of, by their own propaganda, as if they must be some kind of geniuses, until it unravels for a spell, and they become vilified as parasites. The business corporation and the Jewish corporation are very similar things, exactly as we would expect them to be given our scientific understanding of the human animal. The existence of roles defining an elite order with power over the whole entity of which the resulting loosely constituted order is a part, is important, because this loose arrangement created via the mechanism of a strictly defined role loosely allocated and dispersed, means that whatever unifies the main mass that the Jews exist within, does not impress its influence upon the Jews, who have their own focal point of unity and purpose as indicated by their retention of a distinctive identity even when immersed in the social body of an overwhelming alternative identity. So that the Jews are then a de facto authority within an authority, which is why they end up being identified as aliens and suffer what they now force us to call anti-Semitism, since they have integrated us into their being by making us totally subject to their authority through the imposition of Christianity and Islam upon the biomass they live within. Obviously in the business scenario the disjunction we are speaking of with regard to the Jews does not apply in the same way. The king tribe was always part of this comparatively minute social structure that Jays attention is focused upon. Even so, this business model is a precise analogue of how Judaism works, wherever it appears, and in whatever form it appears, as Jew, Christian or Nazi, etc. As we would expect since the business corporation is an anatomical attribute of the Jewish superorganism. Jewish identity thought of in these terms is like a gyroscope fitted into each individual by way of their programming into their culture, orientating them towards the interests of the Jewish idea viewed as a corporate entity, of the kind Jay speaks of when he talks about the corporation coming into being only when the idea of longevity is added to the social structure of a complex, powerful social organization, rooted in the control of wealth. The machinery of this gyroscope is the genetic, physiological anatomy of the individual, manifested in the human brain. But this machinery needs to be programmed, and the programming is enabled by the capacity for language that this machinery exists to deliver, with the object of creating a superorganism. This is what the human animals nature and form is all about, being made to orient towards the formation of a corporate body. Human biological nature is, as we have insisted from the outset, Corporate, and Jays Latin name expresses this fact perfectly. As Turner says in his Extended Organism, you just cannot keep this idea down, it keeps on erupting from the science of life applied to humans, however cramped and twisted the final figure of corporate being ends up, the general theme is always making itself felt. Science fights a relentless war against this knowledge, because science is corrupt. Of course the real making of the Jews is their conversion of all the world into Jews, by spawning two subidentities that programme people to orient their individual anatomical gyroscopes, their brains that is, towards the same foci of interest as the Jew has within themselves. No better example of this can be found than the rabid American fixation on Israel as the reason for Americas existence ! Demonstrating how powerful this linguistic

programming can be, although we Brits have the same programming, revealed in an American manner by the likes of Blair. But its orientation is there all the time, as every other Christian and Muslim nation has the exact same sense of purpose, that of global domination centred on Jerusalem, the biomass these social structures contain having been captured by the Jewish superorganism, as per the linguistic programme that evolved for that purpose in the early melting pot of civilization in the Middle East, six millennia ago. But more to the point of Jays work, running in parallel with these cultural expressions of Judaism appearing under a multiplicity of identities, we have the one uniform mechanism of social management that is called Capitalism, which, even more so than the American culture, is an expression of Jewish identity, and the very basis of Judaisms power, as all the anecdotal evidence of the ages confirms by what it say s about the Jew, and money. Not forgetting the theme of this particular work, we can see how, under these circumstances of orientation implanted into individuals on the basis of their anatomy, designed to receive such an orientation as we speak of here, through the preordained integration of language into their brains, the making of the White Lie, instead of something fantastic and unbelievable, becomes something natural and impossible to avoid. No matter what obstacles arise in terms of the power of knowledge to discern reality, still, insane reason persists unabated, as we can see it must, for that is what our brains exist to enable. Coming to the second paragraph of the above passage, we strike the critical part of what Jay is saying, for us. In describing how a recent innovation in social life began as a powerful but fragile structure, awaiting transformation into something bearing the name of a living organism, i. e. a corporate entity, he indicates the nature of conditions that must of pertained to give rise to the Jews as a specially evolved cultural form, dedicated to serving as a core of identity-cum-authority, for a global superorganism. And his argument fits the Jewish scenario perfectly, as he talks about the way a business acting like a mixture of nicely balanced ingredients, just waiting to be cooked through the addition of the magic ingredient, the catalyst of Purpose, delivering longevity. This is what the Jews brought to the fauna of social kingdoms constituting the Near Eastern civilization of six millennia ago. All the ingredients for a human global superorganism were in place, the elaborate city states with their priest-kings and military orders. What they lacked was the integrating factor that would galvanize a state of unity into being by drawing all their actions towards a core foci of human social life, overreaching their comparatively ephemeral political structures. This is what the Jewish cultural formula provided, and this is why this formula came to be the first cultural genome physically constituted in a form we know today as the Bible, in which we should include the Koran, not to mention other religious texts such as those used to programme Sikhs. So that as we can see from Jays argument, the crucial factor provided by the corporate form over that of the basic business enterprise, was the sense of vision which gave life in the shape of an abstraction of the force underlying all business enterprises, that is to say, in a form that begged to be given an identity in order that it could transcend ephemeral conditions and become immortal, living under whatever circumstances presented themselves. Of course, as we all know from the experience of life in this world, the trouble with breathing life into a machine, is that the resulting form wants to consume, and instead of simply taking things as they come, it starts to try and control circumstances in order to make all things available, available to it exclusively, to feed its appetite. And that is precisely what Judaism does, it consumes humanity, and everything that humanity desires the Jews want for themselves, as the core being of the superorganism. This is why we have the mad world where our growth is relentless, and the only thought we are able to conceive of in hard times, is more growth. Its like a junky shaking themselves to pieces as the drug provides less and

less of what is needed, so that the only cure the crazed lunatic can think of for the disease caused by consumption, is more and yet more of the same. Where Jay presents us with the corporation coming into being as a vision of continued form, by saying : whatever may happen to the market, the technology, the raw materials, the processes or any other variable, we shall still be in business for the Jews this reads : no matter what dispensations come and go, whatever priesthood, king or warlord, irrespective of the social order prevailing, we shall prevail, we shall persist, we will always rise again, no matter what else may befall those we live with, and amongst

I Unity as the essence of superorganic nature A couple of days ago, 02/08/2012, a copy of Creation by Evolution edited by Frances Mason, 1928, arrived from America, after I had taken a free PDF and then found a cheap copy available, for just six quid. There is nothing astounding about this volume, it looks like a nice bit of theocratic propaganda intended for the simple masses, for those with an educational level of interest in ideas, which has a limited extent even nowadays. We are talking about a line of demarcation, not absolute, but along the lines of middleclass versus working-class, so we would expect this book to of found its way into middleclass homes quote readily, and working class homes only infrequently. These matters of intended readership aside, its date places it at an interesting juncture in the story of evolutions imposition upon society in a cleansed form, and consequently a couple of interesting names make an appearance, or one at least, namely that of Lloyd Morgan, who rings a bell as having advocated a monistic, force driven model of evolution, quite contrary to Darwins mechanistic, infinitely punctuated idea of this life process. Added to which, and of even more significance, are two chapters dealing with superorganic evolution. Not directly of course, heaven forbid that any scientist working in the aftermath of the great cleansing expressly conducted to eradicate a true science of evolution, to leave a clear path for a sterile science of evolution, would then spoil the whole show, yet we do find traces of the organicist debate in two discussions of how ants and bees came to exist in a true social form. Already the struggle was on for the now firmly established Darwinian priesthood to meet the requirement for an account of social life in Darwinian terms, which was only to find a passable footing in some remotely plausible form with kin selection theory emerging in the 1960s, paving the way for E. O. Wilsons travesty of the life sciences, arriving in the shape of Sociobiology in the following decade. Taking a quick look at the index last night for any interesting entries, I found none that I searched for, but I turned to the text when I found this entry under Honey-bee, lessons and laws derived from a study of. What I found next chimed with the idea in my brain, resonating with the reading done of late, concerning unity, which we refer to above as we begin to discuss Jays piece : It will be observed that the life of the whole colony is based on the principles of pure socialism, and that the social system is superior to ours. There is no

unemployment in a hive ; there are no strikes, no lock-outs. Except the drones everyone works continuously and at high pressure. A vast majority of the bees live as workers, entirely renouncing individual rights in their effort to continue the swarm to make sure that another queen bee may always be ready when her predecessor dies. Self-preservation and self-propagation are completely transcended that the swarm the social unitmay be continued. Sometimes bees act as foragers, collecting pollen or nectar from plants to be turned into honey. Sometimes they act as chemists, as when they inject drops of formic acid into the stored food to prevent its fermentation. Sometimes they are sealing down cells. Sometimes they are sweeping and cleaning and scavenging to keep the hive clean, and dragging dead bees into the open. Sometimes they are acting as policemen to guard the hiveto scare away intruders. Sometimes they are architects and wax-workers and moulders. At times some fan their wings to ventilate the interior of the dark hive and to aid in the evaporation of the water in the honey if it is too weak. Some of them act as nurses and some as maids of honour, who do not allow the queen to get out of their sight. As has been pointed out by a learned divine : Three facts emerge from a study of this community : 1. The lesson of solidarity, of the social spirit, to which the interests of the individual are subservient. 2. The distribution of labour in accordance with the law of mutual help, each doing his work like an instrument in a vast orchestra and all producing a beautiful harmony. 3. The law of sacrifice for the sake of the future race. Each individual is so wrapped up in the community that if isolated from its fellows it dies. The constant sense of mutual help, of self-sacrifice for the future race, is the dominating characteristic of all bees, and there is something that Maeterlinck calls the spirit of the hive, which in some way guides, directs, and controls the work of this strange, self-sacrificing community. Here there is no private property. As Dryden says in his translation of Vergils book about the bee : All is the States ; the State provides for all. In a passionate devotion to duty and in an energy expended solely for others, in a single-minded purpose, the queen and the worker honey-bee are unique among animals. Now, how has this wonderful socialistic life come about ? How has it been evolved ? How can we discover the steps in its evolution ? We can trace the social bees and wasps back to solitary bees and wasps, and we can trace a steady growth of complexity in the habits of life of these solitary insects and in the complexity of their homes until we reach the stage that is briefly described above. (Mason, pp. 192 194.) We are taking this passage now on the fortuitous basis that it fell into my lap at this time. But it fits in perfectly with the above discussion, which is no fluke, since I am forever directing my searches in the one direction of seeking out the truth which countermands the White Lie, which rules our world by subverting and seeking to obliterate that truth constantly, wherever truth emerges. Doherty brings unity to the fore as the guiding principle in his Christian sanctioned sociological organicism, and he directs our attention to Fourier, who builds a major sociological ideology on unity as the central dynamic of universal creation. Then we drop on a modern piece discussing a subject that although slightly askew of our precise orientation, is nonetheless social in its nature, is concerned with human social organization, and is inspired by contemporary biological theories about the nature and origin

of humanity. Now, to round off the picture, by chance we hit upon a passage discussing our cousins in kind in the same manner, with a focus on the drive towards unity, which manifests the exact same details of social organization found in all these various sources coming into view recently, with which the general tenor of our own work also concurs, where the components of the social whole come together under the influence of a directing force, resulting in a state of unity. The reference to Virgils work on bees, concerns the fourth book of his Georgics. ___

Trying to find the prompt in the index for the above half an hour ago, now being 04/08/2012 08:37, I hit upon the most disgusting, most foul, horrible, horrible, yuk!!! There is a heading Development, Evolution, and Religion, which took me by surprise, I have to say, such a passage was not expected. Having reproduced the above and knocked off a bit of spiel to accompany it, I just set-to reading this unexpected little gem. I should of realised that this being a science book dealing with the most virulently antagonistic science for religion, which was coming under the greatest attack from religion at this precise time, with the outlawing of evolution in American schools, this work was bound to do all it could to undermine science and protect religion. So I only managed to read the first two paragraphs, each of which begins with a delightful statement of scientific fact concerning the animal nature of humans, and how anyone maintaining belief in God under these circumstances can be nothing short of insane. Which in no way impedes the author concluding each of these paragraphs with a pro-religious war cry : this knowledge has not destroyed our belief in the dignity of man nor in the existence of God. (p. 77) ; and, yet this knowledge need not destroy belief in the dignity of man nor in the existence of God. (p. 78) The juxtaposition of these refrains appears like the fervent crescendo of a church sermon seeking to dramatise its sick message of sacredness by means of a brazen contrast with an offending truth, in the arrogant manner that only a religious freak can stomach without suffering a sense of self revulsion. So it turns out this chapter is written by a religious freak appearing in a scientific guise, showing how corrupt science is. Instead of waging war on these people, science welcomes religions apologists into the fold to destroy that which the fold exists to be. This man sets himself up as an advocate of moderate, in effect multicultural religion, thus defining the deniers of evolution as fundamentalists, a name we have become so familiar with today, applied to any who diverge from the mainstream ideology of equal respect for all beliefs, without judging one against the other in terms of better or worse, as in true or false. Yes, a nice little book, for it is an early brick in the wall of what has become the solid edifice of Jewish master race ideology post the Universal Cleansing of 1939 45, secured for the Jews by the Hitler Taboo. You see, PDFs, wonderful as they are, cannot facilitate this free access to a piece of work, that must be held in the hand in order to allow this kind of speedy discovery of crucial material. I have laboured for days this week over a book on Fourier in anguish to avoid blowing yet more money that I have not got on another book that might prove of little real use, but in the end it was no use, I have had to cough up, I had to have the hard copy. The True Organization of the Church, published in 1848, if you were wondering, which should be here in double quick time the charge for postage these people levied, 11 from America, when another company regularly posts at 3! Ah well, what can you do ?

II The spiritual of religion, is the information of science Thursday, 28 June 2012 Warm muggy weather. Is that open skysunshine ? Make haste for the greenhouse. Ten minutes reading, one page read. What a summer. The page : ARTISTIC SOCIAL ORGANISM.

THE physical body is a temporary instrument of industry, while the instinctual

organism is a permanent vocational instrument of art in the pursuits of industry and pleasure. The body is, in fact, merely a kind of heat-making machine for working purposes, directed by the soul, in all its operations, according to the special instincts and tastes of the practical intellect. In the individual unit of life the external temporary body, derived from the matter of the globe, is intimately associated with the permanent ethereal body and artistic soulwhereas, in the collective unity of life the automatic slave organism, equally derived from the external force and substance of the planet, is not so intimately blended with the living body and soul of humanity. The permanent spiritual body of a man is one with his spirit, while the temporary natural body is only fused with it as an alloy ; but still the union is, in a manner, indissoluble during mortal life, while the slave organism of mankind collectively (immensely more powerful than the physical bodies of the race), though necessarily connected with the souls of men, is not indissolubly fused with their mortal bodies. One is, nevertheless, as indispensable to the race as the other to the individual ; and as we recognize individual bicorporeity, we must admit collective tricorporeity. The only fact we need, however, notice here is, that both the mortal body of the individual, and the instrumental organism of the race, are merely physical and mechanical forces and substances derived from the body of the planet, and organized by mankind as instrumentalities for use and recreation. (Organic Philosophy, Doherty, Vol. IV, 1874, p. 213.) I found a lot packed into this one page. Having just had my mind focused upon the idea of integration, courtesy of Haskins, and how it did not apply to humans, the telling part for me in the above, is the bit where Doherty uses his analogical method in a unique way to discern an element of freely organised, or fluid integration, applying to the social body with regard to the dualistic dimension of our being, concerning our individuality versus our social aspect. Thus he talks about the bilateral constitution consisting of the material body and its spiritual companion, which latter aspect we would recognise in terms of information, as in the linguistic force that creates the social body by organizing individuals. Then he says the social body is composed of two likewise identical parts, only here there is a less direct attachment between the collective body and its associated collective spirit. He does not elaborate on the significance of this observation, but its import is at the heart of the matter concerning human nature, and the kind of animals that we are. It is this fluid attachment of the information programme at the social level, that sets up the social dynamics producing the master identity that can capture all the more loosely attached superorganic biomass, and incorporate it into one superorganism, in an ever increasingly intensified process of social integration, based upon a refined identity programme such as Judaism. The major error in Dohertys reasoning here, would therefore be failing to understand the real nature of the spiritual dimension, such

that the information package carried by the individual, must be derived from the information package acting on the social body to give it, its own social form. He manages to preserve the individual as the focal point of human existence by this facile, self serving interpretation ; which is nonetheless an absolute delight to have discovered, showing us just how far the organicist idea had penetrated nineteenth century Western consciousness. This is a rare example of such organicist reasoning, but that it could exist in this elaborate form at all, is quite something. We should no doubt reflect upon the fact that this English text probably gives us a unique insight into a way of thinking about human society that was far more pervasive on the continent, which Doherty had been connected with in his earlier years by way of his affiliation with the Fourierist movement in France, itself shaped around the earliest expression of sociological organicism, as I understand it from my all too sparse attempts to review this subject.

III Frictionless structure This contrast that we have highlighted by way of Doherty, such that the mystical notion of a spiritual dimension, so real to Doherty, is interpreted by science as the reality of information, with information being an expression of the energetic forces of the material world as they act upon matter that is so organized by information, as to be classified as alive, sets up another contrast between religion and science as absolute opposites that cannot exist in the same place at the same time, save for the White Lie, which acts like an expression of linguistic force inducing a repulsion of linguistic force, keeping truth and knowledge separate, allowing linguistic force to perform its function as a means of organizing individuals who can thereby accommodate that which is otherwise impossible, as seen in the fact that individuals do not exist, which is an absolutely unacceptable fact, made tolerable by the manifestation of linguistic force in the form of the White Lie. In the course of conversation yesterday, 03/08/2012, my brother said that he had read something that referred to the information age we live now as having introduced a frictionless age, where we can do everything we might ever wish to do in the course of our everyday lives, without ever coming up against anyone in the flesh. There is an implied consequence here of a moral kind, indicating that the ordinary friction of social interaction had a beneficial effect in containing our behaviour within social bounds, that is lost where everything is done in cyberspace. I am sure that this idea could easily be illustrated by tales from life. But coming up with the idea of the White Lie as an expression of linguistic force intervening between knowledge and truth, thus allowing social existence to exist where it would otherwise be impossible to create by means of communication, because in performing its function communication would simultaneously breakdown the cooperation it evolved to create by allowing the objects of linguistic force to be aware of how they were being manipulated, ties in nicely with the idea of a frictionless social world. Except of course, when applied in the context of Atheist Science, that frictionless state is seen to be the norm, just as morality is seen to be nonexistent, because morals are part of a linguistic programme, not items of a genuine moral kind. So that what we have in this rendition of this idea referred to by my oh so moral brother, not, is really a political ploy made possible by the White Lie, that allows us to think we exist as ends in ourselves, and thus it is a ploy calling for moral behaviour to be maintained, and no doubt somehow to be imposed upon cyberspace. When we talk about seeking the white lie we obviously imply an authority based on the control of knowledge being the seeker, though it only need be an authority like Jays

amorphous, dispersed king tribe, performing this function, consisting of a myriad of individuals just like the person who published the material about the nasty frictionless world we are thinking about now. Thus the moral agenda is the intervening white lie that makes social interaction possible by serving as a repulsive expression of linguistic force, it being this repulsive expression of force acting against the free expression of linguistic force, that makes social order possible in animals of a mammalian kind, this repulsive force being what the priests, the power mongers, must control, must possess, so they can be the arbiters of all social action that occurs, either being allowed, or being constrained. No behaviour can be allowed to fall outside the control of the master core, which must be affiliated to a core identity, that can only be religious, and is Jewish. Firstly linguistic force generates order and authority through its spontaneous expression that is built into the somatic body of the person. Then, as the intensity of its expression increases the resulting build up of knowledge induces a further elaboration upon the process generating the linguistic information of superorganic being, whereby knowledge takes a negative form serving to keep the whole structure intensely unified, while at the same time being highly fluid and dynamic, in an ordered way. When we talk about a linguistic programme composed of vectors driving social organization by manipulating individual behaviour, and we identify moral injunctions as a type of control vector, we need to understand that the machinery of organization that this linguistic programme acts upon, is produced genetically. Just as a complicated machine is animated in all its complexity by the power source that drives it, so the human individual is likewise animated by moral vectors. People have often reacted to the sharp contrast in behaviours arising from homosexuality, causing a backlash of outrage against this specialized expression of a universal behaviour, occurring in wholly different kinds of society to our own, such as that of Central America when the Europeans arrived, whereby, we may be inclined to think of this behaviour in terms of individual personalities acting in a given judgemental way. But the fact is that people are as inclined to react judgementally at the sight of the behaviour of others, as they are inclined to salivate at the sight of delicious food ready to eat. So that in no sense whatever, is morality anything to do with individuals as such. Individuals are not the source of moral outrage, anymore than individuals are the source of, the creative point of origin of, salivary juices. Individuals are made to react judgementally as part of their evolution to be a social animal. What the moral vector is that stimulates the individuals mental reaction is, is completely irrelevant, the stimulating outrage will always be the opposite of what the individual takes to be the norm according to their own standards of behaviour and inclination, or what their programming tells them to react to more generally. In a supermassive, complex superorganism such as we are all part of, the variety of types of people and life circumstances means that within one unified society, there will always be lines of demarcation between moralists and their objects of moral venom, this is just the thing the human animal needs in order to build living structure. And there is no shortage of it ! And of course, as it takes one grain of sand added to another to eventually form a vast stretch of beach, making each single grain vital in its own way, whilst still being irrelevant in isolation, so in the human world the individual instinct to judge the behaviour of others acts as a founding mechanism of superorganic form, whereby the accumulation of such instinctive behaviour culminates in a Big Brother state covering the whole damned world, just as we live in now. There are no shortage of individuals willing to come together on the basis of this moral instinct to form rocks, towering cliffs, and such like geological similes of social form, as in police, lawmakers, judges, prison warders, religious proclaimers, executioners, and so on to eternity and beyond. The state employs the linguistic mechanism of individualization to justify its coercive actions and structures, when it can be bothered. It talks about the errant actions of individuals, most especially Muslim terrorists at the present time, but there is

always some malefactor to be feared and guarded against. Whatever particular form the excuse takes, and however plausible, not to say downright legitimate it might be, the end result is the same. Perfect. The state calls for the maximum use of human ingenuity to spy on, and thus control, every last one of us. As if each of us were a potentially lethal viral infection, and none could therefore be allowed to circulate within the body without being examined by the bodys defences. This is how the superorganism is conjured up from individuals, this is what we are. Reading which rather puts us in mind of Herbert Spencers reaction against his own organicist reasoning in the nineteenth century, when he became a thumping exponent of the individual versus the state. But these matters do not concern us, we are only interested in the science, and its elaboration, the judgements we leave to another time and place, maybe. However contrary to this claim of detachment some of these discussions may seem, they are only intended to bring the debate alive by placing ourselves as conscious entities, within the wider context we reveal in our science of social life. The coming of the internet has created an area of communication that authorities consider is running free, and as such is understandably seen as frictionless. But all this means, is that the force of language upon which the integrity of the superorganism is based, is free flowing in a manner unnerving to the authorities who wish to gain rigid control of it, as soon as possible ; though it looks to me like they are doing a pretty good job as it is. Ever tried looking for those cartoons of the prophet which so pissed off the Muslims ? Dont bother, you wont find them, not by any ordinary means anyway.

IV Material-cum-scientific conditions predicate the White Lies form This judgemental instinct whereby people love to condemn others, while paying no heed to their own behaviours, is no accident, it is in many ways the very cornerstone of human natures expression, for it is at the root of social organization. This instinct to judge is a powerful force of control driving individuals to conform to a common pattern of behaviour, which in and of itself is bound to cause an elite to emerge within any extended social biomass, as a refined expression of itself setting social standards. Indicating why there is always elaborate social structure associated with moral standards, creating institutions which are seats of political power. In a huge social biomass such as our own, these matters of the norm are formulated in a variety of ways related to the ruling authority of society. But this judgemental instinct is as powerful and active within most individuals as ever it was, and we have an example of this kind of behaviour described in Joads book condemning the small minded person who would impose moral standards restricting the special genius, of a gifted and exceptional nature. But where this instinct can easily be seen to serve as the basis of social order on the grandest scale, it is also true at the intimate scale of personal feeling, that this instinct has great significance. For a structure to be built out of sentient bricks, the same requirement must apply as we find in actual bricks, that is to say, one brick must be placed upon another in order for a structure to arise from these elementary units. Thus the expression of the judgemental instinct at the level of the individual, whilst it is exclusively about building structure on the grandest scale, begins by making itself felt at the intimate structural level of status. Status is a personal expression of structure, and as such status can be seen as the instinctive basis of individuality, giving the sentient brick unit its integrity as a structural entity, serving the grander plan that will result in a unified whole existing on a vast scale.

So this very nasty habit we have of forever wanting to pry into the lives of others, and, if we find anything awry, to squawk about it, is in many ways the most immediate material manifestation of our human corporate nature. Much could be said about this, in terms of the way this judgemental instinct produces morality which although of no specific value in itself, does become refined as the central figure of the religious ideology which makes its values sacred, thus increasing the power of linguistic force acting through the mechanism of these genetically evolved instinctive inclinations, to create an ever greater social form. However, there is something important as regards the order of growth in a superorganism, that needs to be said with regard to this matter. First comes material potential for growth, then comes psychological validation exploiting, or expressing the judgemental instinct. This is no passing point of interest, this fundamental dualism of superorganic physiology created on the basis of linguistic force, is at the very root of the conflict between the two forms of knowledge arising from this process of superorganic formation, such that we end up with religion at war with science where only religion can be the victor, because, in anatomical terms, the whole point of religion is to serve science, in that science is the modern form of materialism that signifies power of extension, or superorganic growth relative to competing superorganisms, where religion provides the identity for that which is extended by the physical power which allows grow to be realized. Lets have the example which prompted this insight. Last night, 05/08/2012, BBC 2 had the best archaeological programme I have seen in many a day. It was about a Neolithic temple site in the Orkneys. I checked the BBC 2 website yesterday, 06/08/2012, but for the life of me I could not see how to view the previous nights programmes, nor could I find a search parameter that would bring this programme up. My brother told me this was a repeat, and a general search of the net indicated this temple was first excavated around 2009, so you can find the relevant information by searching for a neolithic temple on the Orkneys. This site was untouched by anything since it was abandoned, so that excavations done recently, with all the care and knowledge we are now able to bring to bear on such matters, revealed precisely what had gone on at the site in its closing phases. The significance of the site in life gave a unique opportunity to those able to read it, to witness human corporate nature in action at a critical point in its expression, the point at which one living human animal moved across the territory occupied by another living human animal, as the invader consumed the resident. The basis of the invading growths advance was technological, which is an expression of linguistic force in the shape of practical information, but it culminates in an expression of linguistic force that defines the resulting growth as a living entity, making identity expression the dominant feature of the human biomass, as in religion. This suggests why nineteenth century commentators found the various attempts to create a religious formula on the basis of science, such as Comtes Positivism, sterile. The impetus for such alternatives were derived from the rise of science that was undermining Jewish identity mythology. But the replacement of identity required that a new technology should arise from an alien source, that had developed its own identity in association with its new found technical prowess. In this case it was Jewish society that had developed the new scientific prowess which it would then use to erase those none Jewish superorganisms still existing in the world. Hence the reason that the first practical thing science was used for as soon as it had got up and running in practical terms, was to engage in worldwide warfare that removed all cultural forms that were not in essence Jewish, from the face of the planet. We have many examples of this kind of behaviour recorded in history, and we discuss them freely in terms of Judaism consuming the entire human biomass of the planet, but in this prehistoric example we get a different angle on the process, because it occurs at a much early

stage in the evolution of human superorganisms, preceding the rise of the Jews, for which these earlier stages of superorganic growth paved the way. Perhaps the technology at the root of Judaism, if we apply this idea to the rise of the Jews, was quite simply the power of writing ! A point often considered, but never thought of in quite these fundamental terms before, where linguistic force expressed in the potential to create superorganic exoskeletal structure, precedes the elaboration of a linguistically formed identity to dress the resulting form. The temple site had been in use for about a thousand years, it was the heart of a living superorganism that reached from this northern centre to cover the entire British Isles, and almost certainly had links to the continent. This was therefore a continental wide superorganism, one of the first of its kind, just the sort of thing the Jewish identity programme was made to parasitise and take over, but that is a much later story. Before the Jews came along, another coral reef like invasion took place across these lands, as a new kind of human superorganism shifted over what is now the British Isles, erasing all that went before by way of linguistic order, and incorporating its detached biomass into itself, in precisely the same manner that Judaism has always shown us in a process of consumption by the core master identity that is epitomised in the machinery of capitalism nowadays. The temple society is designated the new stone age, based upon the technological innovation revealed in the materials left behind for archaeologists to find. These artifacts tell a meaningful story revealing the augmentation of intellectual prowess upon which this social order was based, which had the power to extend itself in superorganic growth, actually based upon farming, which technical prowess required the elaboration of ideological formulas and their related social structures, to allow the potential extension of power to run its course. Thus religion provides identity as the basis of uniformity in extension, which first requires a material basis to arise from. Technology is a product of linguistic force, as is culture. So that science and religion are both expressions of linguistic force, where the science provides the material basis for the expression of unity which defines the living form. The new stone age gave way to the bronze age, a transition the presenter illustrated nicely by showing us a beautiful polished stone axe, followed by a fine quality bronze axe, which contrast, said it all. Bear in mind what we are looking at when we compare two such wonderful artifacts, it is not the superficial appearance, nor even the underlying qualities of the two items that tells us what is going on here. Rather it is the implications in terms of the concentration of linguistic force, expressed in the increase in information, as knowledge, that is involved in the production of the more modern of the two artifacts. The stone axe is clever, but the metal axe is astoundingly so, and of itself indicates a specialist caste of knowledge mongers existing as a specialist order in a powerful social structure. This is what ousted the people of the temple, not the use of the axe in battle against them, but the underlying implications in terms of knowledge as social power. Hence their opportunity to close the portal on their world, as the new age crossed the land. This social dynamic reminds us of the dilemma faced by Hitler upon taking a stand against the master race, which by definition required an alternative master identity, the formulation of which was attempted in the creation of the Third Reich, but without any real potential for change behind it. This is why despite reviling the Jews, whom Hitler wanted to be, in his own name, he did not abandon the Jewish slave identity of Christianity, because he knew this identity was the only viable one on offer, which he hoped he could commandeer, apparently. A futile idea, based upon an astute understanding of the observable social dynamics, though bereft of any deeper scientific understanding of what was really happening in relation to these identity dynamics. The remarkable discovery on the Orkneys, was the story told in the temple precincts. For a thousand years the elaborate temple site had facilitated the representation of the linguistic programmes ideology, just as a modem day cathedral might. It elaborately

represented the journey from life to death, to the place of the ancestors, showing, as one commentator said, the intimate connection between the living and the dead, showing that the living could not exist without the dead. This idea is so evocative of the reality of humans as superorganisms in which the individual has no place as an end in themselves, and it is a primary theme of linguistic programming linking the sentient brick unit to the living being of the human animal, so that it is totally dominant in the ongoing Jewish mythology of today, as seen in the massive rigmarole about a future state. Finally the whole temple site was demolished, and one great temple building erected, with different arrangements than previously, that seemed to make this building a symbol of the pathway to the ancestors being closed. At the same time, in a gully surrounding this last building, the carcases of six hundred cattle were deposited, capable of feeding ten thousand people, the bones having been covered up in the debris of the building immediately after their deposit in the gully. It would seem, therefore, that the impending doom of the living superorganism is expressed in these remarkable finds, excavated so wonderfully by this team of dedicated professional scientists. It is just a pity that they themselves can have no means of accessing the real nature of that which they have discovered, due to the fact that we are all part of a contemporary living superorganism formed on the same basis as that which they have been examining, where knowledge appears in the form of a White Lie, allowing life to be, with life as the purpose of knowledge, not truth as the purpose of knowledge.

Chapter 27

Edging the White Lie

Just when I thought I had finished, another portal opens up, and in we go. Yesterday, 06/08/2012, while making a familiar journey, I called in at the half dozen or so charity shops on route, as per usual, and this time I scooped a few leads into the land of the White Lie. One of which is of major significance. What We Believe But Cannot Prove : Todays Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty, edited by John Brockman, first published 2005, is a novel item. What we have here is a centre for super priests, drawn exclusively from the priesthood serving the absolute theocracy from within the arena of science. The book explains that a website was set up to realize the dream of tapping into the top one hundred scientific intellects and drawing off their quotients of genius by asking them, to ask one another, the questions they each asked themselves. The formula had produced a system whereby each year a specific question was asked, and this book was a hard copy of the responses given to the 2005 question which had drawn a great deal of interest : Great minds can sometimes guess the truth before they have either the evidence or arguments for it. (Diderot called it having the esprit de divination.) What do you believe is true, even though you cannot prove it ? (Brockman, p. xi) It is just the right question for such a forum, and it is right that it should of stimulated the interest it did. However, having read the first few responses last night, which vary from short to minimal, I would have to say they do not bear the hallmark of anything special. A tendency to use this opportunity to voice political agendas is inevitable, we see this in Dawkins crass offering that is meaningless, simply recapitulating the message he always touts in his public communications, and others were similarly crap too. The root of the problem is that these dorks have no idea what the human is, and all their thinking is about projecting a higher ideal of what we might be imagined to be. Thats science for you, anything to avoid the truth about what we are, put plain and simply, and finally. A sniff of something showed itself in Rushkoffs answer, because he unwittingly tapped into our organicist theme by mooting the idea of force driving evolution, rather than mechanism, though he put this idea in the usual religious terms by speaking about evolution having a purpose and direction. That people should have such a sense of purpose is implicit in our idea of human nature as being corporate, because the individual does not exist, therefore the individual experiences having a purpose, because they do, in that they exist to serve the being of the human animal. Although Rushkoff clearly has no idea of this, curiously he manages to bring the superorganic dimension into his justification by saying :

Its important to recognize that evolution at its best is a team sport. As Darwins later, lesser known but more important works contend, survival of the fittest is a law that applies not as much to individuals as to groups. (Ibid., p. 8) The suggestion that Darwin was an advocate of the social organism, which is implicit in this reasoning, is not true at all, I am not aware that this phrase ever passed his lips, or his pen. But it is nice to see that this jerk thinks they should have. The item I recently spoke of anguishing over the purchase of, arrived the day before yesterday, and last night I dipped into it, whereupon this excellent little observation that there is no such thing as an individual, came up : The preceding paragraphs clearly establish the doctrine on the part of the New Church, that the power of self-determination, and still more the power to lead ones self to Order, which is supposed to be inherent in man, is a mere metaphysical abstraction. The notion that free-will means the power possessed by man of doing as he pleases independently of any external influence, originates in a misconception of the term free-will. Free-will simply means that man enjoys the power of willing what he loves, and that it is a law of Divine Order that God should not prevent man from doing what he wills. This will lead us at once to perceive that free-will can only exist in the individual man so far as it exists in the whole race. For as soon as the exercise of my personal will interferes with the order of Society, Society checks the development of my powers, and from that moment I cease to be free. The spontaneous and universal development of the faculties of the individual man, which is mans true freedom, can only exist, when it is the result of the universal development of the Collective Man according to an universal law of Order ; or the same idea might be expressed in this manner, that no individual man can enjoy freedom, so long as the freedom he claims is not universally demanded by, and necessary to, the freedom of every member of the social body. (True Organization of the Church, Hempel, 1848, pp. 101 102.) This is pleasing to see, as there is a thoroughly organicist invective here, in a work seeking to unify Fouriers social science with Christianity, a process of amalgamation that we find pursued to its limit by Doherty in his Organic Philosophy, though not in the same deliberate manner as it is in the above work. The beauty of such works, sad as it is that we have no scientific equivalents in English, is that they show how Jewish identity programming is an organic formula in perfect keeping with a genuine science of society. The knowledge of this fact cannot be tolerated however, without jeopardising religion, since it is clear that the scientifically minded amongst us would simply cancel out the religious guff contained in these works and present the whole package as a naturalistic model in which Christianity was seen to be a natural expression of human corporate nature. Back to our contemporary scientific priesthood. These people really wallow in their own self glorification, it is too much. But that does not mean I do not find the book a little treasure to of dropped on. Unfortunately the nature of it does not allow dipping in to find what is there, nothing short of checking every entry will prevail here ; or at least that was my first thought. Therefore we shall take another tack in dealing with this most interesting little find. Today, Tuesday, 07 August 2012, I checked the website in question and found myself immediately distracted by a name appearing before me, a man dealing with social science and

self organization. Dirk Helbing has some notion of socio-technology inspired by human social behaviour, to make the technology act cooperatively, as we do ! How about that for an idea ? There was this description of his talents : Dirk Helbing is known for the social force model, in particular its application to selforganizing phenomena in pedestrian crowds. Which we like for its reference to a social force model, even though we may be sure the true social force, that of language, is a million miles away from this priests imagination. Somehow I ended up running a search for self-organization and society, and a fair heap of titles rolled up before my eyes. Most of these offerings were horrendously expensive, but I ordered a couple of cheap items, and certainly fancied a couple more. One book was about applying social organization principles to the rise of stone age megalithic cultures, which I certainly thought I would like to have a ganders at, but the cheapest copy was from India of all places, they seem to be moving in on this market at the moment, at 40 I put it on the side. Mmm, tempting. Straightaway then this has been a good diversion, but lets return to the book in hand, because there was an interesting passage in the introductory discussion of the subject of the book which has some bearing on our theme in this work. Now where were we ? Hunger strikes, I need a butty ! It has been surprisingly difficult to establish definitively what the truth is about any matter, however simple. It is always hard to get a grasp of ones own innate assumptions, and it was once perilous to challenge the wisdom of the elders, or the traditions that had survived the centuries, and dangerous to incur the anger of the gods, or at least, of their earthly representatives. Perhaps it was the greatest invention of all, greater than that of the wheel or agriculture, this slow elaboration of a thought system, science, that has disproof at its heart and self correction as its essential procedure. Only recently, over this past half millennium, has some significant part of humankind begun to dispense with the kinds of insights supposedly revealed by supernatural entities, and to support instead a vast and disparate mental enterprise that works by accretion, dispute, refinement and occasional radical challenges. There are no sacred texts in fact, a form of blasphemy has turned out to be useful. Empirical observation and proof are, of course, vitally important, but some science is little more than accurate description and classification ; some ideas take hold, not because they are proved, but because they are consonant with what is known already across different fields of study, or because they turn out to predict or retrodict phenomena efficiently, or because persuasive persons with powers of patronage hold them naturally, human frailty is well represented in science. But the ambition of juniors and an adversarial method, as well as mortality itself are mighty enforcers. As one commentator has noted, science proceeds by funerals. And again, some science appears true because it is elegant it is economically formulated, while seeming to explain a great deal. Despite fulmination against it from the pulpit, Darwins theory of natural selection gained rapid acceptance, at least by the standards of Victorian intellectual life. His proof was really an overwhelming set of examples, laid out with exacting care. A relatively simple idea made sense across a huge variety of cases and circumstances, a fact not lost on an army of Anglican vicars in country livings, who devoted their copious free time to natural history. Einsteins novel description, in his theory of general relativity, of gravitation as a consequence, not of the attraction between bodies according to their

mass, but of the curvature of space-time generated by matter and energy, was enshrined in text books within a few years of its formulation. Steven Weinberg describes how, from 1919 onwards, various expeditions by astronomers set out to test the theory by measuring the deflection of starlight by the sun during an eclipse. Not until the availability of radio telescopy in the early 50s were the measurements accurate enough to provide verification. For forty years, despite a paucity of evidence, the theory was generally accepted because, in Weinbergs phrase, it was compellingly beautiful. (Ibid., pp. xiv xv.) It does not matter where you look, it is always Darwins imposition that is held up as the proof that science is supreme in the modern age, and, above all else, free, and defiant against social authority. Too much ! But it makes sense that these morons should be so robotised to believe that the one thing which is fake, is true ! Tossers, humans on parade are such contemptible objects, so full of themselves, so full of shit. What we have here is the supreme expression of the White Lie, the White Lie so perfectly insinuated into our world that there is now seen to be, only perfection in the pursuit of knowledge. Hahahaha! Hilarious. I mean, I ask you. But look, see what we have here. This is the true fruit of Darwinism. Before Darwin the war over freedom raged, after Darwin, it ended, stopped in its tracks, not by the victory of science over religion, not a bit of it, religion rules today as much as it ever did anywhere on earth, at any time. What Darwin did was to separate the two combatants for social authority by establishing the twin tracks of knowledge, a parting that has been openly eulogised in more recent times as the total eradication of science has become ever more conclusive. Thus we have that sickest of sick ideas, courtesy of the now mercifully dead Gould, that of the twin magisteria of religion and science. Vomit making or what ! There are no sacred texts the man blaggerdly asserts. The Origin of Species is as sacred as the Bible to any scientist, find me one, just one of all of them on the planet, for whom this is not absolutely, and utterly true. Find me one scientist anywhere, who would, under any circumstances, entertain the possibility, that the least fragment of the text of the Origin of Species is not as true as many an American religious freak says the Bible is. Just one. They are all full of shit. They make my blood boil. OK, so if there are things Darwin wrote that are demonstrably not true, any scientist will freely concede the point. But that is hardly the issue, it is no more than Christians had to swallow regarding the Bible in Darwins day. But never a peep do we hear of any possibility that Darwin was wrong, even though not one jot of evidence validates his central idea of natural selection, focused upon the individual to the exclusion of any other primary, alternative main cause of evolution. These bastards just go right on pounding the Darwinian stone on our heads, making sure that we get it, that this is all there is. And meanwhile, its business as usual for the master race, safe on its own track to the future domination of the world, which no scientist concerns themselves with at all, save the likes of Dawkins who treats the question as one of individual delinquency. All this self-satisfied talk of a failsafe system for ensuring truth shall overcome the frailties of human nature, but the fact is that the idea that humans are superorganisms is the proof that this is not true. It is inconceivable that this idea would not be uppermost in science if it had not been eradicated by the theocracy through control of the knowledge manufacturing process, plus military forces for cleansing social fabric, combined with other ongoing efforts at social cleansing which removed this knowledge and made it taboo, replacing it with a sterilised dogma, Darwinism, which these dupes now tout as the real thing because they are created by the system to do so and they know no better, and care even less,

which is hardly surprising since they do not exist, except as unitary object of superorganic being. The way we talk about this idea of human superorganicism shows how utterly devastating it would be to resurrect, for religion, and no one goes within a million miles of it. Yet it is true science, as we have more than amply proven according to the principles set out in the above quote, concerning the overwhelming force of an argument serving as well as any physical evidence in certain cases. But the physical evidence is there in abundance, the power of speech, the existence of religion, hell, I cannot even be bothered listing them, we have done it so often. Talk about elegant, what could be more elegant than our ideas on the human animal as a superorganism, as a means of explaining every last detail of human life as we know it, and as we know anything about it, from any place, and any time ? Meanwhile, what does Darwinism tell us, absolutely nothing. As the man indicates, Darwin had no proof that his mechanism was the essence of evolution, and of course it is not, it is a mid-nineteenth century political contrivance, intended to ensure that human social life could not be incorporated into the biological realms of existence that were swamping society at its ideological core, at that time. Only by this deceitful means could religion be preserved, obviously. Religion does not come from the individual, there are no individuals. Religion comes from the core of society created by linguistic force, where it is fixed within a priesthood constituted by means of a linguistic identity, Judaism. Preserve the identity and programme the people, that is the single directive informing the existence of this core power base, and this they do at all and any cost, as we can see from the world wars and the Nazis. Not to mention the corruption of all knowledge in the most cynical and vile manner, foisting fake science upon the world to replace true knowledge disallowed, thus denying humanity the opportunity to know itself and to live worthwhile lives as individuals, which we all seem to crave so much, I know I do. But what is new for religious freaks in this show of ultimate evil ? It is after all only nature at work, expressing human corporate nature. The failure of Darwinism to destroy religion is a clue to the corruption of science that is undeniable, but it tells these damned scientists nothing that this first goal of true knowledge is not met by Darwinism, they just mindlessly accept that the two protagonist throughout all the ages of knowledge creation, have now supposedly, conveniently, just when the power to know everything for real comes along, gone their separate ways. Tossers! And there sure aint nothing beautiful about Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection, it is monstrous, ugly, facile, useless as a means of explaining anything about human life. The musings of these people makes you want to weep. What we have in the above quote is a classic piece of degenerate science pumped out endlessly by the priesthood of today, paid up members of the absolute theocracy that rules our world as it has ruled it for millennia, by brute force and ignorance. Still, thats nature for you ! Friday, 10 August 2012 It is baking hot outside, at last, and was yesterday too, as if summer had finally arrived, better late than never. So I have finally entered Fouriers own work, as opposed to Dohertys representation of it. Fouriers system is weird in the extreme, but, to my surprise, I find myself able to accommodate his reasoning to our true, linguistic force based model, of social life. For his passions we may read products of linguistic force, for example. Something we may do because Fourier is determined to treat human behaviours as manifestations of natural forces. In effect his social science is based upon the idea of a biological human nature, even though he does not appear to grasp this fact, he rather steps over it, concerning himself with universal forces of order and being, which many people do, to the detriment of their ability to understand their subject in hand, when thinking about humans. Early on in volume one of The Passions of the Human Soul, published in 1851, but written by 1820, he makes the relevant observation that moral philosophers pump out

volumes of books enough to swamp the world, while none of them know the first thing about the subject they love to pontificate on so endlessly. Sound familiar ? If we believe what philosophy tells us, the senses ought not to direct us ; we ought to resist their impulsion, and only listen to the impulsion of the 400,000 volumes which men have neither money to buy, nor time to read. God is very deceitful then, if He hath given us as guides 400,000 volumes which did not exist in the first ages of the world, and which since their existence have been unknown to ninety-nine hundredths of the human race, and incomprehensible to those who have known them. (Passions, vol. 1, p. 10) Indeed it does sound familiar, it sounds like ourselves talking about science. We can well imagine that the priests of this current post social cleansing era have already pumped out the equivalent quantity of volumes as Fourier names. And we know for sure that all the scientists who publish their endless treatises on Darwin, have not the slightest notion what these books mean, they do mean something, but it certainly is not what their authors think they mean. Todays treatise on science mean exactly the same thing as the treatise on natural and moral philosophy of yesteryear. They are the mass of the White Lie swamping our ability to see reason, while employing a substantial number in the highly privileged role of knowledge makers, who act as Gatekeepers for the Theocracy by filling the void where true seekers after knowledge would go if the authorities left matters to run their course freely. In the work we are checking out now, we find these people are seeking to delineate a break with this past where an intellectual elite once swamped the world in garbage knowledge. They seek to do this by asserting that now the world is, instead, awash with perfect, true knowledge, of a wholly different kind. Yeah, yeah, yawn, yawn. The rant may change, but the tune remains the same. What it never occurs to these dickheads to wonder at, is how come that after three millennia, to use Fouriers timescale, of being drowned in useless knowledge, do we suddenly find ourselves made free in a genuine sense by having access to true knowledge, and yet, not one thing changes. Life remains exactly as it was before, and where it comes to self knowledge, about the nature of society and ourselves, here, the depths of our ignorance only plumb new reaches, by contrast to this supposed state of sublime truth provided by science, for here we can see that we still know nothing, and never will, if this new state of perfect knowing is any indication of the future. No, this is all evidence of the same old same old. A ruddy theocracy ruling us by controlling knowledge, keeping us enslaved to the misery of a life under the jackboot of religion, exactly as we were made by nature to live with. Fourier creates a system which he imposes upon nature, as we can see on page seventeen where he treats of certain natural human faculties like a musical ear and night vision. This gives his social science the attributes of religion, where a concocted scheme acts as the key for interpreting reality, which is of course precisely what modern scientists do with regard to natural selection. No matter what the issue, they always force it to be viewed through the tinted spectacles of Darwinism, while refusing to consider any other possibilities if this method leaves them short of answers. The key centred method is not wrong, on the contrary, it is the very method we use, there can be no other. It is the object chosen to act as the key which is at fault, where however, it this possibility of misplaced focus that gives language its biological potential as a stream of information able to create a superorganism, as we have discussed elsewhere. Knowledge must arise from a key insight, the beauty of Fouriers key insight is that it approximates to our own genuinely scientific insight, in that he

makes Unity the basis of everything, and places that unity within nature. Science based upon a true principle follows the same key, recognising Monism as the sole basis of science. But the theocracy has always sidelined this idea, and keeps it under control by ensuring that science cannot step outside the fields of technical, material application. Brockman says that science does enter the arena of conceptual knowledge when he speaks of some ideas being little more than acts of faith based up their excellence and power of explanation. But certainly science is not promoted on this basis, he even applies this condition to Darwinism, but few would concede this much, they like to pretend natural selection is proven by solid physical evidence, that can be repeated anywhere, anytime. Not so. Because the mechanism of evolutionary change is not the issue, but rather the nature of biological evolution, which has to do with the expression of force, in living form. ___ Continuing my free and easy perusal last night, 07/08/2012, we have a few things to report. I put a mark against three names, Porco, Sapolsky and Shermer. Our interest in Carolyn Porcos contribution is along the lines of what Ian McEwan said in the introduction, from which we quoted above. Porco opens with a strong declaration that science and religion are the products of two wholly different modes of knowledge formation, and it was dangerous to ask questions that suggested otherwise. She uses our mantra that Nature is the final arbiter (p. 14) ; which of course no professional scientist abides by at all, they simply accept what has been accepted previously, just as religious freaks do. Her opening remarks contain an objection to the question asked, because it facilitates : the conclusion that truth and religious belief develop by the same means and are therefore equivalent. (p. 14) Our reaction upon reading this mode of reasoning, is to say they do develop by the same process, that of expressing linguistic force, moving towards the same object, that of forming a superorganic being. We say this because we assert that science is, in political terms, corrupt, being made sterile in order to be safe for religion to live with. Porco, once again, as with all robotically trained professional scientists, accepts the rule that science and religion have been separated, so that science can go its own way free to say anything it cares to. But this is not true, as we prove endlessly, as any idiot could know if they dared think about the real world we live in, ruled as it is by religion. So that we can see that this book is picking up a theme expounding upon the sublime, perfect nature of science, as each simpleminded idiot demonstrates their allegiance to a common bit of nonsense. These people are not individuals, they are unitary entities making up an organ of social being. If any one of them were to breach the taboos containing science within a linguistic force field, they would not be found here, being given a platform from which to disseminate their antithetical ideas. And what is it with this stupid, facile concern with life elsewhere than on earth ? It seems to be all these idiots can think of, you may as well ask if, well, anything ! It is idiotic, of course life abounds all over the universe, you do not have to prove it to know it. The people I am reading now, having just finished Doherty and having turned to Fourier, took it for granted that life identical to our own here on earth, existed on all the other planets of the solar system. Fourier even talks about one author who describes the people living on the sun !! All of which just goes to show how fluid the popular conception of reality can be, and that really, there are no inherent limits to that which people can take in their stride. The only actual limit occurs wherever the Jewish theocracy secures it in place by means of various nasty deeds such as genocide, social wide brutality, of the kind we see in Russia or China at

present time, the imposition of ignorance that we endure in the West, and the running of a system of ingrained injustice that appears wherever civilization exists, that makes people want to do anything that will allow them not to be a victim of the system, but instead they get to make others into victims. So the argument goes, that we have something else here, as these scientists assert that tangible proof is the sole basis for scientific knowledge. But this highly constricted insistence is the primary means by which science has been put in its place by religion, precluding any scientist from doing precisely what this question is asking scientists to do, that we have already seen causes some scientists to object, and cry out for their bonds to be resecured ! One contributor even went so far as to repeat the mantra that science is always provisional, and never gives absolute truth. This is vile and ridiculous. Just because some things are provisional, does not mean that all things are provisional. Only a religious freak could endure this kind of dogmatic nonsense. I hate these people. Their thinking is all about obeying a mantra, allowing them to be part of the priesthood which alone can arbitrate true knowledge. That is what their various fixed tenets of the trade are all about, controlling the sector of knowledge formulation, exactly as priestcraft has always been about. Robert Sapolsky is the first of these scientists to take the opportunity to make atheism the nub of his response. We have already had one who made his unprovable belief to be the existence of God, but in a circuitous manner that meant you would not be able to prove that was what he was saying, even though you knew it to be the case, which is rather apt for the occasion. This was Leon Lederman, who expects some spectacular new unforeseen splendour (p. 26) to greet him upon death. Religious freak. What we had hoped for was that someone might say something about humans being superorganisms, given the freedom to roam that this question offers. Seeing the credentials of these early contributors, with physicists dominating so far, it is clear we need some folk from the social sciences. There has been one biologist so far, but these people, like sociologists, are the worst. Biologists are especially rigorously trained to be both ignorant, and at the same time, arrogant about their learned ignorance. This is because, through the role of Darwinism as the protector of religion in the guise of biological science, they are special targets for religious freaks, and hence they are deliberately trained to resist any influence that does not come from within Darwinism. A neat trick, wouldnt you say ? Its a kind of catch twenty two, whereby you are made the unwitting dupe of religion by being made the supreme enemy of religion, only not really, whereupon you are made especially invulnerable to influence that might free you from your role as protector of everything you stand for the destruction of. Yes, very neat. It is amazing how linguistic force ties us up in knots. There will then, be nothing here worth spit, just scientists practicing their art of priestcraft in the service of the absolute Jewish theocracy, that we all are part of. Sapolsky concedes that : Scientists are subjective human beings operating in an ostensibly objective business, so there are probably lots of things we take on faith. (p. 30) Which shows a suitable amount of caution, but not the slightest indication of any interest in why humans are what they are, as in torn by the ideal of truth, and the love of lies. He then says that he likes to have proof before believing anything, and that it would be perfectly fine with me if there were a proof that there is no God. (p. 31) Thus donating another friendly remark, but flippantly, again with no serious thought as to what form such a

proof might take. The actual proof takes the form of showing what God is, based upon the understanding of what human biological nature is, and hence what language is as a biological phenomenon. All of which stuff these vacuous people know nothing of. Next we come to Michael Shermer. I was stopped in my tracks here. This is the annoying person that said : Our knowledge of nature remains provisional because we can never know if we have final Truth. (p. 37) This rule of scientific knowledge is a gift to religion, and anathema to science. It is part of the method epitomised by Darwin, whereby science and religion are separated, allowing religion to conduct business as usual, while science is made impotent to compete with religion on any grounds save the most mundane. He then goes onto display seemingly rock solid scientific credentials by insisting that there is no paranormal or supernatural domain of nature, only the normal and natural. This is perfect in itself, but we know it means nothing in practice. This is to confine science in the same negative manner as atheism has been confined, by being allowed to make denials only. By following this rule therefore, science is made a negative mode knowledge formation, which is ridiculous, since science is the only positive way of knowing anything ! Shermer could of said that there is the superorganic, this being the domain of nature we humans appear within, making a positive statement about nature as a source of knowledge explaining what we humans are. Where Shermer talks about the provisional nature of knowledge, he expands upon this by saying that science is a human activity and nature is complex and dynamic, by way of explaining the provisional nature of knowledge of reality. This assertion carries the subliminal message that the human animal is the individual, and knowledge is a product of individual effort and desire. This is ridiculous, it is clear that humans evolved to generate knowledge as a product of their physiology, and as such the nature of knowledge is not even touched upon in these remarks. Knowledge has a biological function, it does not exist to pleasure us. We have seen above how practical knowledge forms the basis of superorganic expansion as religious knowledge dresses the resulting superorganic growth, arising from the accumulation of such practical knowledge. This gives us a dynamic whereby science delivers the foundation for religion, which then gives life to the form science enables. So that although science precedes religion as a basis of authority, once the superorganic form is made, the social structure enabled by technical knowledge becomes subservient to the religious knowledge of identity that gives the whole form its life and meaning. It would not make sense for science to create structure which can become alive, only to then destroy that life form from within, so it does not, it remains subservient to religion once the living being is established. This fact, that come what may science does not destroy the religion it lays the foundations for, is the proof that human social form is a living biological form, made by nature, and not made by humans. The continuity of religion can be contrasted with everything else. In Britain we have undergone a major restructuring over the course of my lifetime, transforming ourselves from a unitary British culture into what is called a multicultural society. The society I grew up in no longer exists, not at all, I might as well be living on the moon for all I know of it. Mercifully I rarely see any sign of multiculturalism where I live, so that the change I experience concerns the material fabric of our culture, which basically comes down to the loss of the public houses. This may sound petty, but believe me, it isnt. I use to wonder how societies lived when I travelled to the continent

decades ago, in my youth, how could social life occur without pubs ! Pubs to me are everything, and there decimation has removed the culture I have known and loved, and I have been lost without it for a decade or more now, just continuing my routine of going out and drinking, but in empty dives serving their excuse for beer, forever getting worse, and worse, worse ; I know not what else to do. Thank goodness for death. But through all of this social change religion remains as solidly in place as ever it was, even though this was the one thing on its deathbed when I was a child ! This act of survival, through the thick of change, is the continuity of biological form. The destructive change in fact was the act of rejuvenation needed by religion, that is the reason all the rest of our culture has been erased, the two things are connected, it is the old story of social cleansing, soft cleansing in the case of the commercial fabric, following on the heels of the hard cleansing of war that prepared the basis for Judaism to reassert itself. We do not mind destroying our most precious self, as long as we preserve this facet of ourselves, even though no one is religious, while we all love our native secular culture. Except of course, this is nothing to do with any we, it is nature, focused upon a core authority at the heart of social life, that authority is the power of identity, and the ruling identity is Judaism. See how different our way of speaking about these matters is. Where these halfwits prevaricate and waffle, we make positive statements and describe reality in coherent, solid terms, pulled together by rational arguments explaining everything in a consistent manner. They claim to have the key to all knowledge of life, as in natural selection, but yet they can tell us nothing about what life is, and less than nothing about what humans are. Meanwhile we have the real key to all things, as in the knowledge that human nature is corporate, and this key opens all doors, because it actually tells us what knowledge is. By knowing what knowledge is we are able to say what truth actually is as a facet of existence, and this is what gives us the ability to identity absolute truth when we see it. That is the difference between ourselves, and these damned priests. This knowledge that we provide is absolute truth, the end of knowledge, once you know that humans are superorganisms there is nowhere else you can go. You are there. Building upon this deeply religious principle enunciated by Shermer, forming the bedrock of modern science, as in the provisional nature of scientific knowledge, Shermer hammers home his eulogy to religion by saying that we can never prove whether God exists or not, but, we know He does not exist because countless people have tried to solve the problem, for all of history. This argument has all the logical prowess of a priggish child whose head has been fattened on books of a superior nature, the classics say, that are bereft of content, vacuous treatises fit for nothing, of the kind Fourier condemns. We have proven that God does not exist, and shown why it is that no one else has ever done this, which is because we do not live in a free society where the true knowledge of human nature is allowed to exist. All this puerile talk assumes the ideal state of our world, and that we are free. Then, Shermer goes on to say : The universe is ultimately determined, but we have free will. This is too much, it is pure religious gush. His justification for this crap is the same as that concerning the failure to prove Gods status in nature, he says that countless geniuses have failed to resolve the paradox of feeling free in a determined universe. (p. 38) Yeah, you shithead, because the world is run by priests and never a day has existed when anyone has been free to speak about such things in a manner contrary to elite interests. These arguments are produced by children, for children, there are no adults here. Enough.

But in conclusion, we can see that this is a nice way to end our study of the all pervasive search for the White Lie, which everyone is always successful in finding. So all ends happily ever after, as we can see from this last line quoted.

Final Word For some reason, just as we are coming to a close, I noticed the subtitle given to this work, and the word biology appearing in it. Biology, I thought, is that right ? I wondered where the biology was in this work, and changed it to sociology. But I do not like the meaning this latter word carries, it is virtually meaningless thanks to the efforts of academics over the last century or so. So biology it is. The biological aspect arises from the focus upon linguistic force, something we see reflected in the above criticism of Shermers political treatment of knowledge, corrected by our biological treatment. Once we know that humans are superorganisms, it follows that sociology was always a particular case of biology, just as Comte made it out to be when he first coined the word sociology. So biology it must remain, in any work of Atheist Science.

Appendix
Thursday, 23 August 2012 Today a book arrived that seems so pertinent to one of the major imputations of the seeking a white lie theme, that I thought I must at least insert a notice of it. The Great betrayal : Fraud in Science, by Horace Judson, 2004, is nothing special upon first glimpse, but it does have something to contribute to the idea that Darwinism is a concocted science, imposed upon society by the forces of social authority whose power derives from religion. We have had cause to attack the defences that present science as a sacred body of knowledge, based upon the principle of its self validating system, and straightaway we find this claim called into question by Judson. The prologue cuts to the chase, as he discusses the manner in which institutions are protective of their reputation. Then he questions the self policing of science by scientists, indicating how incestuous its organization is, and how secret, like an ancient Greek mystery cult designed to induct people into its order. How could an anti-Darwinist get through this barrier ? And of course these secret orders will be rife with religious freaks and political extremists, on the right. The blurb I read on this book when buying it said it considered all kinds of fraud, and I had wondered if it would consider fraud imposed by authority of a political nature, but there is no sign of this in the contents. His introduction says that he was forced to purge the book of much interesting material in the publishing process, a curse that we are free from, never having been published. Did we lose anything of this most precious sort in the process ? I doubt it. We cannot expect any direct discussion of official, establishment science, as having been concocted wholesale in order to serve a social agenda determined by political authority, that is the stuff reserved for the likes of the Nazis. Books like this are rare, and the discussion of structural organization in science, and titbits of the kind referred to above, are worth having as evidence of the manner in which the culture of fraud, to use Judsons first chapter heading, is more pervasive than that which he portrays in economics. Fraud is endemic to society, hell, religion is fraud, if you want to put it like that. In scientific terms, what is identified as fraud on this social level is the expression of linguistic force which creates the social structure as a living superorganism. What he calls fraud, is simply the rough edge of what we call linguistic bias expressed to a biological purpose, which can be represented by linguistic bias as a political phenomenon, arising from the foibles of individuals acting according to their biologically given nature as ends in themselves. Thus his account is a political treatise in complete conformity to Judaic principles of slave programming, it is itself a fraud, albeit an unwitting one. Still nice to see a book of this kind though.

Bibliography

Adams, Douglas

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe, Orion, 1979.

Aikman, David

The Delusion of Disbelief : Why the New Atheism Is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, Tyndale House, 2008.

Angeles, Peter A. (Ed.)

Critiques of God : Making the Case Against the Belief in God, Prometheus, 1976.

Baeyer, Hans Christian von Information : The New Language of Science, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2003.

Bakunin, Michael

God and the State, Freedom Press, 1910. (First pub. in French, 1882.)

Bateman, Frederic

Darwinism Tested by Recent Researches in Language, in Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, vol. VII, Robert Hardwicke, 1874.

Berg, Geoffrey Hugh Lewis

The Six Ways of Atheism : New Logical Disproofs of the Existence of God, Temple DPS Ltd., 2006. The Devils Delusion : Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, Crown Forum, 2008.

Berlinski, David

Bernard, Henry

Some Neglected Factors in Evolution : An Essay in Constructive Biology, G. P. Putnams Sons, 1911.

Billington, Ray

Religion Without God, Routledge, 2001.

Binet, Alfred

The Psychic Life of Micro-Organisms. A Study in Experimental Psychology, Open Court Publishing, 1889.

Bluntschli, J. K.

Theory of the State, Oxford, 1901. (First English ed. 1885.)

Boodin, John Elof

The Social Mind : Foundations of Social Philosophy, The Macmillan Company, 1939.

Bradley, Michael

The Chosen Race from the Caucasus : Jewish Origins, Delusions, Deceptions and Historical Role in the Slave Trade, Genocide and Cultural Colonization, Third World Press, 1992. What We Believe But Cannot Prove : Todays Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty, Pocket Books, 2006. (First published 2005,)

Brockman, John (Ed.)

Buchanan, David & Huczynski, Andrzej

Organizational Behaviour : An Introductory Text, third edition, Prentice Hall, 1997. (First ed. 1985.)

Carlson, Neil

Physiology of Behavior, fifth edition, Allyn & Bacon, 1994.

Carpenter, Edward

Intermediate Types among Primitive Folk : A Study in Social Evolution, George Allen & Unwin Limited, 1914.

Carr, William Guy

The Conspiracy to Destroy all Existing Governments and all Religions, CPA Book Publisher, 1998. (Wikipedia, August 2012 Written in 1958.)

Carroll, John B. (Ed.)

Language, Thought and Reality : Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, MIT, 1959. (First ed. 1956).

Carus, Paul

The Religion of Science, Open Court Publishing, 1893.

Clagett, Marshall (Ed.)

Critical Problems in the History of Science. Proceedings of the Institute for the History of Science at the University of Wisconsin, September 1-11, 1957. Wisconsin, 1962. (First pub. 1959.)

Cohen, Chapman

Primitive Survivals in Modern Thought, Pioneer Press, 1935.

Comte, Auguste

The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte, Freely Translated and Condensed by Harriet Martineau, Calvin Blanchard, 1856. (First French ed. 1830 42.)

Craig, William Lane & Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter

God ? : a Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist (Point/Counterpoint), OUP, 2003.

Cumberland, Richard

A Treatise of the Laws of Nature, Liberty Fund, 2005. First pub. in Latin, 1672.

Curd, Patricia

The Legacy of Parmenides : Eleatic Monism and Later Presocratic Thought, Princeton, 1998.

Darwin, Charles

The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, John Murray, 1900. First pub. 1859.

Dawkins, Richard

The God Delusion, Black Swan, 2007. First pub. 2006. The Selfish Gene, OUP, 1999. First pub. 1976. The Extended Phenotype : The Long Reach of the Gene, OUP, 1999. First pub. 1982. The Greatest Show on Earth : The Evidence for Evolution, Bantam Books, 2009.

Day, Vox

The Irrational Atheist : Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, Benbella Books, 2008.

Dennert, E.

At the Deathbed of Darwinism : A Series of Papers, Dodo Press, POD 2009. First pub. 1904. Darwins Dangerous Idea : Evolution and the Meanings of Life, Penguin, 1996. First pub. 1995. Breaking the Spell : Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Viking, 2006.

Dennett, Daniel C.

Diamond, Jared

Guns, Germs and Steel : A Short History of Everybody for the Last 13,000 Years, Vintage, 1998. First pub. 1997.

Dixon, Terence & Lucas, Martin

The Human Race, Book Club Associates, 1982.

Dobzhansky, Theodosius

Mankind Evolving : The Evolution of the Human Species, Yale, 1962. Organic Philosophy ; or, Mans True Place in Nature, Vol. 4, Collective Biology and Sociology, Trbner and Co., 1874. Philosophy of History and Social Evolution, Trbner and Co., 1874.

Doherty, Hugh

Draper, John William

History of The Intellectual Development of Europe, Two volumes, Bell and Daldy, 1864. History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, D. Appleton and Company, 1875.

Duffy, J. Emmett & Thiel, Martin (Eds.)

Evolutionary Ecology of Social and Sexual Systems : Crustaceans as Model Organisms, OUP, 2007.

Dumpert, Klaus

The Social Biology of Ants, Pitman, 1981. First pub. in German, 1978.

Duncan, Hugh Dalziel

Symbols and Social Theory, OUP, 1969.

Everitt, Nicholas

The Non-Existence of God : An Introduction, Taylor & Francis Ltd., 2003.

Feser, Edward

The Last Superstition : A Refutation of the New Atheism, St. Augustines Press, 2008.

Fourier, Charles

The Passions of the Human Soul and their Influence on Society and Civilization, Two volumes, Augustus M. Kelley, 1968. (First pub. 1851.)

Frost, Henry H.

The Functional Sociology of mile Waxweiler and the Institut de Sociologie Solvay, Acadmie Royale de Belgique, 1960.

Genet, Russell Merle

The Chimpanzees Who Would be Ants : The Evolutionary Epic of Humanity, Nova Science Publications, 1997. Humanity : The Chimpanzees Who Would be Ants, Collins Foundation Press, 2007.

Gilbert, John R.

Famous Jewish Lives, Odhams Books, 1970.

Gleick, James

Genius : Richard Feynman and Modern Physics, Little, Brown and Company, 1992.

Graham, William

The Creed of Science : Religious, Moral, and Social, C. Kegan Paul & Co., 1881. Answering the New Atheism : Dismantling Dawkins Case Against God, Emmaus Road Publishing, 2008.

Hahn, Scott and Wiker, Benjamin

Hampson, Michael

God Without God : Western Spirituality Without the Wrathful King, John Hunt Publishing, 2008.

Haught, John F.

God and the New Atheism : A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. When Atheism Becomes Religion : Americas New Fundamentalists, Free Press, 2009.

Hedges, Chris

Harris, Sam

The End of Faith : Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, Free Press, 2005. First pub. 2004. Letter to a Christian Nation, Alfred A. Knopf, 2006.

Harrison, Frederic

The Positive Evolution of Religion : Its Moral and Social Reaction, William Heinemann, 1913.

Harrison, Jane E.

Rationalism and Religious Reaction, Conway Memorial Lecture, Watts & Co., 1919.

Haskins, Caryl P.

Of Ants and Men, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1945. (First pub. 1939.)

Of Societies and Men, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1952. (First pub. 1951.)

Hemple, Charles Julius

The True Organization of the New Church, AMS Press, 1972. (First pub. 1848.)

Herrick, C. Judson

The Evolution of Human Nature, Harper & Brothers, 1961. (First published 1956.)

Hitler, Adolf

Mein Kampf, Two volumes in one, Vol. 1, A Retrospect, Vol. 2, The National Socialist Movement, Hurst and Blackett Ltd., 1939. First pub. Vol. 1, 1925 and Vol. 2, 1926.

Hoffman, Paul

The Man Who Loved Only Numbers : The Story of Paul Erdos and the Search for Mathematical Truth, Fourth Estate, 1998.

Holmes, Samuel J.

The Trend of the Race : A Study of Present Tendencies in the Biological Development of Civilized Mankind, Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1921. Organic Form and Related Biological Problems, University of California Press, 1948.

Huber, M. P.

Natural History of Ants, Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1820.

Hunt, Richard

To End Poverty : The Starvation of the Periphery by the Core, Alternative Green, 1997.

Icke, David

The Biggest Secret, Bridge of Love Publications, 1999.

Issawi, Charles

An Arab Philosophy of History : Selections from the Prolegomena of Ibn Khaldun of Tunis (1332-1406.), John Murray, 1969. (First published 1950.)

Jay, Antony Joad, C. E. M.

Corporation Man, The Professional Library Ltd., 1972. Thrasymachus or The Future of Morals, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd., 1925.

Joshi, S.T.

Atheism : a Reader, Prometheus Books, 2000.

Judson, Horace Freeland

The Great betrayal : Fraud in Science, Harcourt, Inc., 2004.

Kauffman, Stuart

At Home in the Universe : The Search for Laws of SelfOrganization and Complexity, Penguin, 1996. (First pub. 1995.)

Kennedy, Paul

The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers : Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000, Random House, 1987.

Khaldun, Ibn

A Selection from the Prolegomena of Ibn Khaldun, E. J. Brill, 1905.

Kidd, Benjamin

Social Evolution, Macmillan and Co, 1894.

Kitzinger, Celia

The Social Construction of Lesbianism, Sage Publications, 1989. (First pub. 1987.)

Lahaye, Tim

The Battle for the Mind : A Subtle Warfare, Fleming H. Revell Co., 1980.

Landtman, Gunnar

The Origin of the Inequality of the Social Classes, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., 1938. The Great Apes : Our Face in Natures Mirror, Blandford, 1996.

Leach, Michael

Lecky, William

History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, Two volumes, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1884. The Map of Life : Conduct and Character, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1913. (First pub. 1899.)

Levison, Leon Lilienfeld, Paul von

The Jew in History, Marshall Brothers, Ltd., 1916. Zur Vertheidigung der Organischen Methode in der Sociologie, Georg Reimer, 1898.

Lubbock, John

Pre-Historic Times : As Illustrated by Ancient Remains and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages, D. Appleton and Company, 1890. (First pub. 1865.)

MacIntyre, Alasdair & Ricoeur, Paul

The Religious Significance of Atheism, No 18 Bampton Lectures in America, Columbia University, 1969.

MacShane, Denis

Globalising Hatred : The New Antisemitism, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2008.

Mandelbaum, David (Ed.)

Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture and Personality, University of California Press, 1963.

Martin, Michael (Ed.)

The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Cambridge, 2006.

Marwick, Arthur

The Deluge : British Society and the First World War, Macmillan Press Ltd., 1978. (First published 1965.)

Mason, Frances (Ed.)

Creation by Evolution : A Consensus of Present-Day Knowledge as Set Forth by Leading Authorities in NonTechnical Language that all may Understand, The Macmillan Company, 1928.

McGrath, Alister and The Dawkins Delusion ? : Atheist Fundamentalism and the McGrath, Joanna , Collicutt Denial of the Devine, IVP Books, 2007. Hitlers Gift : Scientists Who Fled Nazi Germany, Richard Cohen Books, 2000.

Medawar, Jean and Pike, David

Metz, Rudolf

A Hundred Years of British Philosophy, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1938. (First pub. in German, 1934.) Atheist Universe : the Thinking Persons Answer to Christian Fundamentalism, Ulysses Press, 2006.

Mills, David

Morris, Desmond

The Human Zoo, Jonathan Cape, 1969. Intimate Behaviour, Jonathan Cape, 1971.

Myers, Charles S.

The Absurdity of any Mind-Body Relation, Oxford, 1932.

Nasmyth, George

Social Progress and the Darwinian Theory : A Study of Force as a Factor in Human Relations, G. P. Putnams Sons, 1916.

Newman, Francis William

Phases of Faith : or, Passages from the History of My Creed, John Chapman, third edition, 1853.

Nielsen, Kai

Atheism and Philosophy : With a New Preface By the Author, Prometheus Books, 2005.

Norbert, Elias

Power & Civility. The Civilizing Process : Volume II, Pantheon Books, 1982. (First pub. in German 1939.)

Onfray, Michel

Atheist Manifesto : the Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, Arcade Publishing, 2007.

Paulos, John Allen

Irreligion : a Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Dont Add Up, Hill & Wang Inc., 2007.

Reid, G. Archdall et. al.

Sociological Papers Volume III., Macmillan & Co., Limited, 1907.

Ricard, Jacques

Emergent Collective Properties, Networks and Information in Biology, Elsevier, 2006.

Russell, Bertrand

Human Knowledge : Its Scope and Limits, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1948. Why I am not a Christian : And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1957.

Sapir, Edward

Language : An Introduction to the Study of Speech, Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1921.

Skorupski, John

Symbol and Theory : A philosophical study of theories of religion in social anthropology, Cambridge, 1976.

Smith, George H.

Atheism : the Case Against God, Nash Publishing, 1974. Why Atheism ?, Prometheus Books, 2000.

Sombart, Werner

The Jews and Modern Capitalism, T. Fisher Unwin, 1913. (First pub. in German, 1911.)

Sorokin, Pitirim A.

Contemporary Sociological Theories, Harper & Brothers, 1928. Social and Cultural Dynamics, Vol. 2, Fluctuation of Systems of Truth, Ethics, and Law, The Bedminster Press, 1962. (First published 1937.)

Soros, George

The Crisis of Global Capitalism [Open Society Endangered], Little, Brown and Company, 1998.

Spencer, Herbert

The Social Organism, in Essays Scientific, Political, and Speculative, D. Appleton and Company, 1892. (First pub. 1860.)

Stenger, Victor J.

God, the Failed Hypothesis : How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist , Prometheus Books, 2007.

Stewart, Robert B.

The Future of Atheism : Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett in Dialogue, SPCK, 2008.

Tautz, Jrgen

The Buzz about Bees : Biology of a Superorganism, Springer, 2009. (First pub. in German, 2006.)

Teller, Woolsey

The Atheism of Astronomy : A Refutation of the Theory that the Universe is Governed by Intelligence, The Truth Seeker Company, 1938. Essays of an Atheist, The Truth Seeker Company, 1945.

Thrower, James A.

Western Atheism : A Short History, Prometheus, 1999.

Topinard, Paul

Science and Faith : or Man as an Animal, and Man as a Member of Society, with a Discussion of Animal Societies, Open Court, 1899.

Toussenel, A.

Les Juifs Roi de lEpoque : Histoire de la Feodalit Financire, Two volumes, E. Dentu, 1888. (First pub. 1844.)

Turner, J. Scott

The Extended Organism : The Physiology of Animal-Built Structures, Harvard, 2000.

Vernon, Mark

After Atheism : Science, Religion and the Meaning of Life, Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

Vincent, George Edgar

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

Vitz, Paul C.

Faith of the Fatherless : the Psychology of Atheism, Spence Publishing Company, 1999.

Weingart, Peter ; Mitchell, Human By Nature : Between Biology and the Social Sciences, Sandra ; Richerson, Peter & Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997. Maasen, Sabine (Eds.)

Whetham, William & Whetham, Catherine

Heredity and Society, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1912.

Wiese, Leopold von

Systematic Sociology, Arno Press, 1974. (First pub. 1932.)

Willis, Roy (Ed.)

World Mythology, BCA, 1993. Darwins Cathedral : Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, Chicago, 2002.

Wilson, David Sloan

Wilson, Edward O. and Hlldobler, Bert

The Superorganism : The Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect Societies, W. W. Norton & Company, 2009.

Wolpert, Lewis

The Unnatural Nature of Science, Faber and Faber, 1992.

Woolf, Leonard

After the Deluge : A Study of Communal Psychology, Penguin, 1937. (First pub. 1931.)

Worms, Ren

Philosophie des Sciences Sociales, Vol. 1, Objet des Sciences Sociales, 2nd Ed., M. Giard & E. Brire, 1913.

Young, Paul

The Nature of Information, Praeger, 1987.

Zacharias, Ravi

The Real Face of Atheism, Baker, 2004.

Ziman, John

The Force of Knowledge : The Scientific Dimension of Society, Cambridge, 1978. (First pub. 1976).

Zipf, George Kingsley

The Psycho-Biology of Language : An Introduction to Dynamic Philology, The M.I.T. Press, 1965. (First pub. 1935.) National Unity and Disunity : The Nation as a Bio-Social Organism, The Principia Press, Inc., 1941.