Could use an image of an Amazon slave maker ant from Forel for the cover.

A History
of the

Forlorn Philosophy
 Index

Page

Preface 3

Introduction 11

Edifice of Knowledge 25

Religion 40

Reason 113

Some Precursors of Nineteenth Century 124

Human Science

Peace ? 138

The Nature of Religion 149

Organic Physiology in Sombart 161

Omnipotence 168
 Preface

Philosophy in its most basic intellectual form may be described as the search
for broad understanding, for knowledge, for wisdom or some such profound idea.
The history presented here is about a true and definite academic philosophy, as we
shall see, it is not the story of some abstruse popular feeling or suchlike vague and
transient conception. This is a history rather than the history of this topic, in the
sense that it is far from being a definitive account of the forlorn philosophy in
question. This history has a philosophical intent of its own which is in sympathy with
the forlorn philosophy that it is concerned to resurrect, and as such this account is an
illustrative history that will try to give a taste of something that has been eradicated
from our so called free society.
This philosophy is not old, not ancient, it is, in historical terms, of the modern
era, if not exactly modern ; it cannot be modern since it is extinct. So this philosophy
may as well be prehistoric, for as things stand it is lost to the world just as surely as if
it were written in sand upon an ancient shore. And this fate is no accident, this
philosophy was destroyed, hence our characterisation of this philosophy as forlorn.
The definition of forlorn offered by the Oxford dictionary that is most suited to our
purposes is — desperate, hopeless, forsaken — which describes perfectly the
philosophy we shall be seeking to unearth and understand in this work.

Our philosophy was no fly by night fancy. It was not some delusion of an
eccentric. It lasted, from start to finish, for about a century in its modern form, and it
was embraced by leading academics and philosophers from all walks of life, and in all
corners of the modern world. Today it is dead, worse, today it is not only dead, it is
taboo. This philosophy was not overtaken by the advancing tide of ideas, it was
murdered and cast into hell with a curse put upon it that was intended to keep it in
purdah for all eternity. This, we cannot allow.

What is our philosophy ? What might anyone reading the forgoing

introductory remarks imagine it could be ? What candidates are there in recent
historical times that have been exposed to such a fate ?
Some spring to mind. But anyone who thinks they know the answer is bound
to be wrong, for I have already made it plain that this idea no longer exists. The ideas
that we are all perfectly familiar with that are shunned by the world and studied as
lessons in malignant thought are anything but dead. These twisted ideas are useful,
they teach a lesson about how dangerous some ideas can be, a lesson that serves the
powers that rule our social world by controlling exactly what we can and cannot
think. Our philosophy is unknown for a reason, it is unknown because it is
unreservedly dangerous to other more favoured philosophies. Our philosophy is
dangerous because it is powerful, because it has a case to make. Our philosophy did
not exercise the minds of generations of leading thinkers for the course of the greatest
century of intellectual development the world has ever known, through any kind of
accident or aberration.
And so it is teasing to pose the question What is our philosophy ? for no one
except me can possibly know the answer, nor could they guess it. I discovered this
knowledge, it took me a life time, and I have spent years trying to understand what
my discovery meant. I could go on rummaging here and rooting there for years to
come, I enjoy the search, I love unearthing the books, tracking down the lost trails and
when I think I have been so clever and done so well I suddenly realise I am knee deep
in another mound of ideas that take the subject into another field of investigation once
again. How many more areas of lost and forgotten ideas connected with the central
theme of this forlorn philosophy are there to be found ? I do not know, the extent
cannot be infinite, but there is a good deal to do. It is like rummaging through the
libraries of the ancient world before they were destroyed, the job is difficult, but I
love it.
The nature of my qualifications for this task amount to nothing more than the
fact that I am the one who knows. I have been, first and foremost, a passionate life
long atheist, despising religion and loathing everything religion stands for, simply
because all so called religious ideas are utterly contemptible, I have always wanted to
know the answer to the question Why does religion exist ?

It goes without saying that anyone who is passionate about religion, as I am,
and who wants to know why this awful thing exists, is bound to turn to the only way
of knowing anything, which is through the method of understanding we know as the
scientific method. Science has a story to tell about humans, but the story science
offers makes no more pretence to uncover the nature of humans than it pretends, in
another department of knowledge, in cosmology, to know what the nature of existence
is. So in turning to science for an answer I have always found an empty void full of
the most fascinating knowledge about how life came to exist and how the universe
itself came into being, but where the critical question of human nature is concerned
we find only a mystery beyond the reach of science.
I am just a Joe Bloggs, perhaps a little eccentric, living in a age when society
went into a momentary free fall before recovering its usual footing. But as an author
of a work of academic philosophy my status is that of a lay person acting in the role of
an amateur. This kind of work is said to be beyond the reach of amateurs in the
modern world because the art of academic research has advanced so far that only the
professionals have the training and the support to carry out research in a thorough
manner, enabling them to put all the pieces together in respect to any major subject.
Amateurs are left to the fringe territories of public interest which have more to do
with popular feeling than anything that science can get its teeth into in its own right.
Academics guard their territory jealously and if anyone from outside their speciality
does encroach upon their domain they bite back, a case in point would be that of
Robert Ardrey who wrote African Genesis in 1961, which expounded at length upon
the nature of humanity based upon anthropological knowledge that was being
unearthed in Africa. In retaliation some wit of an anthropologist wrote a play, Ardrey
being a playwright, and asked how Ardrey liked that. Well, let them snap away.
Ardrey did undoubtedly overstep the mark, and he was no more correct in his analysis
of human nature than the anthropologists are. The answer to such difficulties is for
the professionals to be honest academics committed to science, then we would have
the answers and that would be an end to it. As long as professionals deliberately
avoid providing real knowledge the more inquisitive and less robotic individuals are
bound to be driven to seek answers for themselves. What this boils down to is that the
job of professional academics is to keep pace with the tendency of people to act as
free thinking individuals by ensuring that the ideas churned out by academia are able
to satisfy the most critical mind. The robotic nature of humans evolved to function as
a unit of society through the need to work, to mate, and such like, which means that
even the most searching individuals will become conformists within an entirely idiotic
scheme of knowledge. The trick here seems to be to allow the more independent
individuals to enjoy an unrestrained stimulation of their egos, so that each is like a
mini divine, each with their flock of admirers. In this way each priestly figure
becomes a nucleus surrounded by an array of devotees, thus forming a molecular
structure whose bonding strength relies in turn upon the extended fabric of society
that is composed of similarly constituted molecular groups. An array of such
molecular groups constitutes a social core dispersed throughout society, forming a
nucleic social structure about which the more amorphous mass of the living body of
society is obliged to adhere whether those within this extended mass are inducted into
the binding dogma or not.

There is no doubt that as an amateur my ability to develop my subject is

severely limited, and at the same time the work of professionals is magnificent. But
there is just one problem with professionals, they are of necessity part of the
establishment, and as such they are not free to step outside that cordon of established
thinking which constitutes their molecular discipline. On the face of it this limitation
is inevitable, historians writing books that deny the Nazi holocaust took place ally
themselves with a political creed which is dangerous, they bring their discipline into
disrepute, and consequently they are likely to end up in prison in countries that have
laws against holocaust denial, countries like Austria for example, if they are stupid
enough to go to such places. But what if the holocaust never took place ? What
then ? A friend infuriated me just last weekend while we were out having a beer,
when he told me that he had seen a programme which revealed that no plane ever hit
the Pentagon as part of the 9/11 attacks that took out the twin towers. Twenty years
ago, when a neighbour told me that the moon landings never took place, I was
stunned by such an idiotic and disgusting statement. Conspiracy theories have a
function that is directly related to the academic art of misinformation. The
management of knowledge is like the management of any other precious commodity,
it necessities constant vigilance that equates to an ongoing war in which those in
charge impose their version of the truth and use an infinity of alternatives to buoy up
their own imposition while selectively attacking specific ideas such as holocaust
denial. The only thing that must never be allowed to have a voice is the real truth, for
this cannot be opposed by any rational means, it is too simple and obvious.
My space travel denying neighbour was just an ordinary working fellow. How
is it possible for anyone to come out with such a ridiculous remark ? A man of this
type would be most unlikely ever to spontaneously start discussing the Darwinian
account of evolution, and how this means humans evolved from animals, but such lay
people do often grasp hold of false and ludicrous versions of intellectual ideas that
mimic genuine work. Misinformation is part of the flow of information, and this sets
up tensions within the flow of information that is meant to pass for knowledge,
tensions that academia must bring under control in its role as an authoritative source
of knowledge. This effort to control the tension between alternative conflicting
accounts of reality makes academics the front line in the delivery of political power
since political power is always rooted in the conception of reality that is foisted upon
a society. And this position makes academics first and foremost political agents.
However viewed individually academics do not reveal their political nature, this
attribute is controlled by the institution which trains them, employs them, and gives
them their authority and status, so it is the university which is a political institution.
Academics meanwhile, despite all their native intelligence and refined abilities in the
realms of study and intellectual effort, remain as deluded about the true nature of the
ideas they handle and create as my perfectly normal, yet completely crazy, neighbour.
Yesterday, 10/05/07, Tony Blair gave his retirement speech and last night the
voices were out discussing his speech. On Question Time someone had obviously
said Blair was a liar and I caught the part where one of his henchmen, Mandelson,
was saying that you can disagree with Blair all you like but you have no cause to call
him a liar. I switched from BBC 1 to 2 and the ex leader of the Liberals was saying
that he never questioned that Blair was telling the truth. So, all these politicians were
saying that under no circumstances were they accusing politicians of being liars !
This is like saying a painter never uses a brush. The whole point of politics is to lie to
people. I had thought to myself after the speech, when they interviewed the old trade
union leader Kinnock and the American “WMD” Powell, (Weapons of Mass
Destruction), both of whom sang Blair’s praises, of course, Why did the BBC not just
interview Blair immediately after his speech and ask him if he agreed with the
contents of his own speech ! This strict control of the media displays the unity of the
social fabric united through a living molecular social structure contained within an
exoskeletal fabric ; in this case the exoskeletal structure is the BBC, which is itself
part of the state structure, which is part of the church structure, which is part of the
whole fabric of the global Jewish superorganism.

The general argument to be unfolded here will reveal that society is a natural
entity created exclusively by nature, just as a forest is a natural entity created
exclusively by nature, where within society knowledge is the information medium
revealing the manner in which the energy contained within the bounds of the human
animal directs the form that society takes, just as the energy bound within the plants
of a forest determines the structural form of the forest. The only difference between
the forest and the human society is that in the case of human society one species
provides all the diversity from which the whole organic form is produced, whereas a
forest is a complex of many thousands of species creating one unified ecosystem.
While I do not wish to generalise the argument to the point of saying that knowledge
exists in a forest and shapes the forest, just as knowledge exists in society and shapes
society, it is nonetheless true that each species within an ecosystem has built into it
behaviours that are determined by its role in the forest and as such we can think of the
sum of all responses to be the flux of knowledge maintaining the form of the living
forest.
Certain elements of the information flux give the social body its identity as
distinct from its structural form, just as any living entity must have an identity imbued
into its form so that it can know itself, and these specific aspects of identity
information have the quality of a colour in that when they identify an organism they
are their own justification, by which we mean information that imparts identity is part
of reality even though it may take on the form of representing reality. So, to think of
religion which gives society its organic identity through the medium of language, and
which tells a functional but nonsensical story to which individuals are attached,
although the stated facts of any religious ideology are obviously false, the religion is a
functional element of reality and as such it is meaningless to ask if any given religious
idea is true or false, just as it would be ridiculous to ask if the shape of an oak leaf is
true or false, religion just is, and an oak leaf just is.
The reason that information of identity seeks to represent reality in a false
guise is that what defines living matter is that it contains information and is the
product of information. Since life exists by exploiting life it follows from this
dynamic that life can be reduced to a struggle for the control of information, and
hence it makes sense that once a species has developed a winning model another
species might seek to exploit that winning model by mimicking it.
We are seeking to get a handle on the function of false knowledge as
represented by conspiracy theories promoting ludicrous interpretations of important
events. To this end we should try and evaluate the normal perspective from which we
receive knowledge because this is very definite. If we think of the black and white
stripes of a zebra we are predisposed to think that the animal’s genetic make up is
responsible for creating this stripped pattern, we do not see the pattern as a negative
image wherein the zebra’s genes work to suppress brown and red, and so on. But in
the case of the colouration of human society through the medium of linguistic
information this is exactly what we see happening when we hear about conspiracy
theories. Conspiracy theories are streams of negative information with a positive
purpose in that they cause disharmony throughout the information flux that allows one
dominant central beam to come through loud and clear against the background hiss.
Academic science is of the same nature as conspiracy theories in that it too is a flux of
knowledge highly crafted to form a background noise against which the steady beam
of political information can be shone to create a positive image that we all see and
believe, more or less, even though this positive image above all else is a false image
of reality because it is an image created to serve a political purpose, just as the zebras
stripes are a self created image and not a representation of something real aside from
itself. The zebras stripes are in reality a political image serving a purpose to which
the zebra is attached, just as the Jewish religion is a political image serving a purpose
to which Jews are attached.
When biologists try to explain the zebra’s stripes they think of the skin pattern
in relation to survival value, as dictated by Darwin’s law of evolution based upon the
survival of the fittest. Hence they suppose that the combined effect of each individual
zebra moving in a herd makes it difficult for predators to single out an individual. But
this individualist dogma, designed to protect religion from science by keeping our
attention focused upon the individual existing as an independent entity that benefits
from associating with its own kind, cannot avoid the logic of our argument regarding
the projection of a social space beyond the individual that is necessarily part of the
organic being of the species. The proposed mass effect is a form of social being
composed of individuals. The difference between social space formed directly
through genetic information, and social space formed through the added factor of
linguistic information as in the case of human and ant societies, is so radical that the
evolution of language represents the evolution of a new form of organism, the
superorganism, where individuals evolve a form that creates and sustains a living
social structure that the individuals of that species are entirely dependant upon, and
within which they live out their entire lives. This social space has the quality of an
environmental space, and hence the attributes of an ecosystem, which explains why
creatures like ants and humans evolve their own array of associated species, both
floral and faunal.
Since insects personify the social form we are obliged to say that humans are
in effect mammalian insects, just as whales or dolphins are mammalian fish, and bats
are mammalian birds. Humans in reality, even, if not especially, those who are most
noted for their powers of reasoning, are no more rational or self conscious than an
individual ant is rational and conscious within the context of its own social world,
because humans think the knowledge they possess is real, but it is not, it is functional
and as such our knowledge is only real in its own right, and on this basis anything we
believe is by definition real. But this political definition of reality is precisely the
point at which scientific knowledge conflicts with social knowledge, for science uses
an independent standard of reality giving a definition of real that is independent of
political purposes. It is the job of academia to bring science into line by forcing
science to disregard its own definition of reality when this definition meets the
political definition, because these two definitions are anathema to one another, and the
political definition must always prevail over the scientific definition or else the
society in which science exists would be destroyed by its own efforts to live.

Forel ;

We come now to the functions of the ant's brain—in other words to its
psychology, its mind, to which we shall have to return again and again. In the
introduction to Part I, we have already said a few words about Semon's 'mneme,'
about the engrams which are left by all sensory and other irritations in living
organisms, about their conservation and their ecphory or revivification by memory in
the individual and by instinct in heredity, and lastly about the hereditary instinct itself,
compared with all that the individual acquires during his life, that is, throughout his
whole ontogenesis from the egg-stage till death. Weigh carefully in your mind, friend
reader, the importance of this, for it is at the very basis of the life of body and mind in
plants, animals and man. I have also mentioned the secondary automatisms, which in
the individual are the result of the ever-repeated ecphory of certain engrams, and
which thus form habits. These habits fall back into automatism, becoming
unconscious or rather sub-conscious, in us human beings at any rate, and undoubtedly
also in the higher animals and even in the ants.
And now you will tell me that I am contradicting myself and trying to make
ants into human beings ! Not at all—comparison and identification are two different
things ! Allow me, therefore, to make a comparison. You know the story of Panurge
and his sheep : when their leader was thrown into the water all the others followed. A
strong leader draws the majority with him and then the minority can but follow, in
men as in sheep. Have we not just seen that ants do the same thing by means of their
antennal language ? Nevertheless a single sheep, a single ant, above all a single man,
does not always succeed in drawing the majority after him. There are minorities
which are able to put up a resistance, especially among those men who are capable of
thinking and willing on their own account.
We will now assume, at what risk it matters not, that the engrams acquired
during the life of man by study, by books and most of all by well-reasoned and
laborious reflection, constitute on an average 60 per cent. of his thought and will, and
thus also determine 60 per cent. of his actions. I fear, indeed, that this figure may be
too high. The rest is due to hereditary dispositions, to constellations of instinctive
passions and to the imitative prejudice in favour of the acquired routine followed by
the unreflecting majority. We will assume on the other hand that in the ant, instinct
fixed once for all by heredity constitutes alone 95 per cent. of the thought, will and
action. To these we may add 4 per cent. due to emotional constellations and the
routine of habits fairly rapidly acquired (secondary automatisms). Even then, 1 per
cent. still remains for reflection, which can modify the ant's actions according to
circumstances and special cases.
One per cent., forsooth, is very little ; such a trifling fraction can only be
perceived by close attention and much perseverance on our part. That is why it is
missed by the majority of those human beings who look at ants, and also why this
same majority regard insects as mere machines, Whereas they consider themselves to
be created in the image God. I really do not think I have exaggerated anything or
committed any error in my comparison, summary as it may be.

(Forel, 1928, pages 242-3)

I do not know who Panurge was, but we get the idea. What Forel is in effect
describing here is the basic law of social evolution whereby individuals evolve a
physiology that makes them so dependant upon each other, and so intimately
connected via the attribute called “mind”, that a focal point comes into existence that
is external to all individuals from whence that focal point derives, therefore by
definition bringing into existence a new form of living structure that is social, and
within which the individuals of which the social form is composed are reduced to the
status of cells within a living body. There can be no doubt that it is the
interdependence denoted by a shared consciousness that defines a social organism.
The basis of true social being is the physiology of language, and any animal that has a
sophisticated means of communication is necessarily reduced to the status of a robot
by the possession of language, since a robot is a machine and a language is a software
programme that tells a machine how to think and act. What is implicit in this model
of social formation is that the externalisation of consciousness projected in the form
of a social structure means that a focal point of authority must exist within the
externalised social space, and this authority will be defined by the contents of
consciousness, and that focal point of authority will always be defined by the
attributes of identity that the linguistic programme instils into the individuals of which
society is composed ; this fact must apply equally to ants as it does to humans or else
the complex social structure that these creatures create could not exist. Thus it is that
in Forel’s example we have a named character leading an anonymous flock.
Religious identity is the universal equivalent of Panurge in the modern world, but
prior to the evolution of linguistic routines able to generate external focal points of a
social structure nature used more organic routines based upon genetic information to
create human societies, and thus race and ethnic points of social focus continue to
play an important role in the organization of the living social organism at the present
time.
It is from these basic physiological considerations that we are able to make
sense of the main thrust of this work, dealing as it does with a forlorn philosophy
which was destroyed at great cost by political forces because it was true.

From these opening remarks about the forlorn philosophy that we are going to
consider here it follows that the establishment is actively seeking to exclude this
philosophy from the body of ideas that academics present as valid. We know that
excluding certain ideas is perfectly valid because popular myths abound for all sorts
of reasons. But given that it is accepted that the academic establishment must draw a
line between ideas that are fit for study and those which are beyond the pale of true
academic interest, how can we be sure that this fact does not then serve the wider
interests of the supreme authorities in society who of necessity must keep control over
certain aspects of knowledge if religion is to be preserved ?
The answer is that we must test the establishment by asking questions as to the
reasonableness of its exclusions. This story is as much about the exclusion of science
from the domain of official knowledge as it is about the philosophy in question. And
we must know that this philosophy is not philosophy at all, the forlorn philosophy is
in reality true science, the true science of human nature, the science that does tell us
exactly how humanity came to exist in terms that are entirely in keeping with the
scientific method. Thus our history is the latest chapter in the eternal war between
reason and religion that is a central theme of this work.
 Introduction

In a manner of speaking no philosophy can truly be said to have a beginning,

for if it did then we should be able to find that beginning. But how can this be done ?
it would be like trying to find the beginning of fire in the sense of the first group of
people ever to harness this source of energy as part of their social routine. It cannot
be done, such knowledge is lost in time. The philosophy with which we are going to
deal here is like this, it too is lost in time for it is a philosophy of being, and people
have generated philosophies of existence in which they took a part since people
became people.
A proper academic history of our philosophy would trace our central idea back
to the ancients, for signs of it are to found amongst their works, those who wrote
about our central theme in the nineteenth century were often versed in the classics and
they were pleased to point out the observations that have come down to us from the
ancients which alluded to our subject. As we all know, scientific knowledge was
smothered by religion for over a thousand years and it only came into its own again in
Western Europe a few centuries ago. Therefore our central idea saw the light of day
once again along with all other scientific ideas, and we could certainly discuss the
history of this early modern phase in respect to the undercurrents of our idea during
this first period of modern enlightenment. But I am not an academic seeking to
present a piece of academic history. I am a layman seeking to reveal a suppressed
scientific idea, I have a very definite agenda. I want to reveal an idea and to this end I
am only interested in the promotion of the idea in its true form, but this act of
revelation is necessarily an exercise in historical recovery because we are dealing with
an idea that was once prevalent and is now suppressed ; as such our idea has no
modern form, except perhaps that form which I can give it myself. An example of
which you will find in the preface above, where I define life in terms of information
and thus reduce genetics and language to a lower common denominator by
discounting the political character of language, and instead I identify language with a
strictly physiological role in the creation of social structure.

The Struggle for a Science of Humanity

As science turned its attention to life and began to make sense of life by
recognising order amongst living things humans were included in the investigations.
It seems that the religious idea of the human soul took a central place in the ensuing
conflict. We can still appreciate the depth of feeling that religiously minded people
have for the idea that humans have a personal soul which is thought of as the most
precious essence of their being, but in times when religion was all there was the soul
meant something even more definite. The possession of a soul was what gave
humans their unique relationship to the creator of the universe, it was the soul which
gave us passage to the kingdom of heaven, and to deny the existence of the soul was
like tearing the heart out of God.
 I make these remarks because, taking my lead from a superb history dealing
with the early nineteenth century struggle to develop a science of humanity, The
Politics of Evolution by Adrian Desmond, 1989, I obtained my own copy of a book
from the period which Desmond says caused its author to be the object of an
onslaught of abuse from those wielding power in society. In this book, Lectures on
Physiology, Zoology and the Natural History of Man, by Lawrence, 1819, we have an
opening response to the author's detractors in which he defends his position, and it is
clear that his crime is to of denied the existence of the soul. In this essay we also find
the interesting expression of a key idea central to our subject wherein the scientist is
forever obliged to concede that they must not trespass upon the domain of religion.
Thus we have before us an example of a particular battle fought in the war between
science and religion, a battle which reveals the general tenor of the struggle wherein
religion has absolute power because all the material forces of society are always in the
hands of the priest, and where the individual practitioner of science is thereby made to
recognise their limitations.
By priest we do not mean to confine ourselves to a religious practitioner, but
rather anyone who acts as a guardian or promoter of traditional values, whether they
do so knowingly, or unwittingly through their behaviour. This does tend to make all
people who are active in society a form of priest. If society is viewed as an organism
and individuals as cells then the way we use priest here virtually makes the word
synonymous with the word cell. Just as there are many kinds of cells in a living body
so there are many kinds of priests in the social body. The reason we use the word
priest in this context is because the job of the religious priest is to maintain the dogma
of authority embodied in the church they serve, and the maintenance of the dogma of
authority is the supreme function of all individuals in society. The end point of social
authority is always a form of religious identity, even when the social authority is
avowedly atheist, as in the case of communist societies, because communism is
simply religion without a godhead, so that in reality anyone who in any way
whatsoever helps to sustain society is acting as a true priest.
If the use of the word priest in this way seems overstretched then we might
just note the idea of society itself forming a church, which has been voiced in
religious texts, and which implies that all people within society form a congregation,
also implies that all authoritative elements of society are servants of the church, that is
to say, priests. While our political priests impose their delusion upon us in the form
of the illusion that we live in a free society, the truth is that we live in an absolute
theocracy which tolerates nothing that is antagonistic to itself, and hence, viewed
from a correct political stance, our society is in fact a church ; although it is our
contention that a scientific stance makes human society a superorganism.
Thus we have a hierarchy of self consciousness regarding the status of our
social existence : in an ascending order this hierarchy is science, religion, politics.
Wherein the scientific idea of society as an organic form is totally beyond
consciousness. The religious conception of society as a religious entity is sub-
conscious, in that people act according to religious precepts and religion affects our
conscious actions, yet most people are no more aware that they live in an absolute
theocracy than they are aware that society is in reality a living superorganism created
entirely by nature. While the political conception of society occupies the fullest level
of consciousness through which we interact at all times. What is most astounding is
that it is impossible to inform people of these facts of reality, they simply do not
comprehend these ideas because their ability to think about such matters is determined
by the linguistic programme implanted into their brains, that forces them to interpret
all such ideas according to a political model ; exactly as we would expect if the
highest level of consciousness is political. For us, as advocates of the scientific
method as the sole way of knowing anything, any correct stance always means acting
in a full state of consciousness, and a full state of consciousness is only consistent
with an exclusively scientific stance that accords with our prior definition of science
which requires the exclusive use of none political determinants of reality in the
formulation knowledge. For us then, there is no religion and there is no politics, there
is only biology in which these two social phenomena constitute aspects of biological
form. This view of a correct stance being none political, is directly opposed to
individuals acting in their own best interests within society, and hence this view of a
correct stance lends credibility to the idea that all human beings are as completely
automated in their actions and levels of consciousness as are ants, so that even the
most refined intellectuals are wholly oblivious of the meaning of their own ideas and
thoughts. If it were otherwise these highly cultivated people would be incapable of
taking part in society, whereas these people are the very core, one might say the very
soul, of our social being.
All of this reasoning helps to account for the extremely bizarre existence of
religion in society. And we may note that anyone who is capable of understanding
what is being said here, and is able to recognise the truth of what is being said, is
incapable of taking part in society, exactly as our consideration of these matters
suggests must be the case. Thus if science is to become the vehicle of human
consciousness, society must become something wholly different to that which we
have hitherto known as the civlized world, society must become rationalised, it must
become a world in which religion does not exist and self consciousness is derived
from scientific knowledge. A world without religion is a world without politics, so
the corollary of self consciousness based on science is a world of social organization
based on none competitive organic principles derived from a scientific understanding
of what we are as a superorganic species. This may be the sort of revolution that will
make it possible for humans to live upon this planet for aeons to come, something
which is looking decidedly unlikely at the present time as we face catastrophic change
brought on by the use of scientific knowledge through the medium of levels of
consciousness that are themselves not connected to the scientific foundations which
are transforming the structure of the organism that we are. Our consciousness has to
get in touch with our organic being in order to achieve a balance between the power
of organization and the command of that power.
 The title page of this book bears the signature Frederick J Mouat, he was a
"surgeon-general in the Indian Army and produced a number of medical treatises
including an anatomical atlas (Calcutta, 1849)." according to details found on the
internet. He also wrote a book about a visit to the Andaman Islands which belong to
India, and where the most primitive humans ever to of been discovered lived, and still
live to this day, although they are under pressure. Copies of this book are far too
expensive to buy so I cannot obtain one for investigation, which is a pity because it
sounds interesting. But, getting back to the job in hand, lets take the first ten pages
from Lawrence because this is his defence against those who seek to silence freedom
of thought, and as such his words represent actions within a war which was lost long
ago, reducing us to the status of intellectual, or mind slaves, once again.
 LECTURES
ON

PHYSIOLOGY, ZOOLOGY,
AND THE

NATURAL HISTORY OF MAN.

____________

LECTURE I.

INTRODUCTORY TO THE COURSE DELIVERED IN 1817.

__________

Reply to the Charges of Mr. Abernethy ; modem History and

Progress of comparative Anatomy.
___________

GENTLEMEN !

I CANNOT presume to address you again in the character of Professor to this College,
without first publicly clearing myself from a charge publicly made in this theatre ; —
the charge of having perverted the honourable office, intrusted to me by this Court, to
the very unworthy design of propagating opinions detrimental to society, and of
endeavouring to enforce them for the purpose of loosening those restraints, on which
the welfare of mankind depends.*
_____________________________________________________________________

* Physiological Lectures, exhibiting a general View of Mr. Hunter's Physiology, and of his Researches
in comparative Anatomy ; delivered before the Royal College of Surgeons, by J. ABERNETHY, F. R. S. See
particularly Lect. 1, 2, 6, and 7 : the passages and pages are too numerous to be particularized. Had the author been
content with pronouncing his attack from the chair of the College, I should have been satisfied with defending
myself in the same place. The publication of his charge has made it necessary for me to publish my reply.
The apparent contradiction between the allotted subject of these Physiological Lectures, — human
anatomy ; the professed topic, — Mr. Hunter's knowledge of comparative anatomy ; and their actual contents,
anatomical, physiological, ethical, controversial, abusive, &c. &c. ; is only to be reconciled by a consideration of
the real motives, which may be discovered without a very deep research. That the few remarks on life, published in
my Introduction to comparative Anatomy and Physiology, should have been the sole occasion, and have furnished
so much of the subject of these Lectures, was an honour altogether unexpected and unwished on my part. If it
should be thought that I do not show a proper sense of so distinguished a compliment, by bestowing in return, so
short a notice on the Physiological Lectures, more particularly when nearly all the opinions and facts they contain
would afford ample matter for discussion, my apology must be want of room, and not being yet fully convinced
that the pretended Hunterian theory of life is the most important subject that can be entertained, by the human
mind. This slowness of belief must be pardoned in a modern sceptic.
Not to fatigue his audience by too much of one thing, however good, the author judiciously interspersed
his views of the so called Hunterian doctrine, and his series of anathemas against the designs, principles, and
character of the audacious sceptics who refuse to accept the gracious present, with other topics ; and did not
disdain to intermix the most elementary anatomical truths. Thus we learn that the head is placed on the top of a
column of bones called vertebra ; (p. 108) ; that the seven upper ribs are connected by gristles to the breast-bone
(121) ; that there are two bones of the fore-arm ; and that the ulna sends backward a projection we name the elbow
(126) ; that the wrist is composed of eight little bones (129) ; &c. &c. &c. When we consider that the audience, to
whom these Lectures were delivered, comprised the venerable elders of our profession, appointed to guard the
portals of the great edifice in Lincoln's Inn Fields ; the general body of London surgeons, who having been
admitted within the gates, must be deemed accomplished in all parts of anatomical and surgical science ; and the
students of the several schools of medicine ; who having devoted one winter at least to anatomical pursuits, must
be presumed to possess the a b c of the science ; and when we further reflect that the author would undoubtedly be
governed in his selection of subjects by a deliberate view and sound estimate of the wants of his audience, we are
naturally anxious to know for which of the three classes above mentioned these " Early Lessons " in anatomy were
designed. Perhaps, however, like the water in a medical prescription, they were only meant as an innocent vehicle
for the more active ingredients.

(It is interesting to take the contemporary account verbatim, but in doing so I

find the meaning difficult to extract because it was delivered to people who were
familiar with the situation this statement refers to. Lawrence gives us the reference
for the publication in which he has been attacked and says that these Physiological
Lectures that are developed according to Hunter's ideas and presented by Abernethy,
and they were basically a disguise of no use as lectures, whose real object was to
provide a means of attacking Lawrence's own different ideas on human physiology.)

I feel obliged to call your attention to this subject ; — not by the probability of
the accusation, and still less by the arguments adduced in support of it ; — but,
because the character of the accuser may with some supply the deficiency of proof ;
— because the silence of contempt, which the illiberality and weakness of the charge
would so well justify, might be construed by others into an admission of guilt ; —
and, if I could appear before you under the possibility of such an admission, you
might reasonably suppose me indifferent to your approbation or blame, and therefore
unworthy of the office which I now hold.
I am not going to drag you again over the field of controversy :— my opinions
are published :— they were not brought forward secretly ; they have never shunned
the light, and they never shall be concealed nor compromised. Without this freedom
of inquiry and speech, the duty of your professors would be irksome and humiliating :
they would be dishonoured in their own eyes, and in the estimation of the public.
These privileges, GENTLEMEN ! shall never be surrendered by me : I will not be set
down nor cried down by any person, in any place, or under any pretext. However
flattering it may be to my vanity to wear this gown, if it involves any sacrifice of
independence, the smallest dereliction of the right to examine freely the subjects on
which I address you, and to express fearlessly the result of my investigations, I would
strip it off instantly.
I willingly concede to every man, what I claim for myself ; — the freest range
of thought and expression ; and am perfectly indifferent whether the sentiments of
others on speculative subjects coincide with or differ from my own. Instead of
wishing or expecting that uniformity of opinion should be established, I am convinced
that it is neither practicable nor desirable ; that varieties of thought are as numerous,
and as strongly marked, and as irreducible to one standard as those of bodily form ;
and that to quarrel with one, who thinks differently from ourselves, would be no less
unreasonable than to be angry with him for having features unlike our own.
To fair argument and free discussion I shall never object, even if they should
completely destroy my own opinions ; far my object is truth, not victory. But when
argument is abandoned. and its place supplied by an inquiry into motives, designs,
and tendencies, the case is altered. If vanquished in fair discussion, I should have
yielded quietly ; but it cannot have been expected that I would lie still, and be
trampled on, lecture after lecture ; cut and mangled with every weapon fair and foul ;
assailed with appeals to the passions and prejudices, to the fears of the timid, the
alarms of the ignorant and the bigoted : and this, too, when nothing is easier than to
destroy the ill-constructed fabric ; to crumble its very fragments to dust, and scatter
them before the wind.
It is alleged that there is a party of modem sceptics, co-operating in the
diffusion of these noxious opinions with a no less terrible band of French
physiologists, for the purpose of demoralizing mankind ! Such is the general tenour
of the accusation, independently of the modifications, by which it is worked up into
separate counts, and of the rhetorical ornaments, by which it was embellished. Had
the statement been general, I should not have appropriated it by entering on a
defence ; — but have left that service to any volunteer of the sceptical party, which I
know no more of, than I do of the man in the moon, and in whose existence I believe
just as much. The quotation of my own words, however, rendered it impossible for me
lo shield myself under the pretext of uncertainty ; indeed, it particularized and fixed
the accusation, for which no other tangible object could be discovered.
The vague and indefinite expressions of sceptical party, modem sceptics, and
other abusive terms, form too flimsy a veil to conceal the real object of this fierce
attack ; while the pretended concern for important truths and principles, and the loud
imputation of bad designs and evil tendencies, instead of decently covering, rather
expose the nakedness of the feelings in which it originated.
Perhaps all the counts of this alarming indictment are not intended to apply to
all the persons thus unexpectedly dragged to the bar of public opinion ; — but, as the
prosecutor made no distinction in the shades of guilt, I must plead to the whole
accusation ; — of propagating dangerous opinions, — and of doing so in concert with
the French physiologists :— the French, who seem to be considered our natural
enemies in science, as well as in politics.
I plead not guilty ; and enter on my defence with a confident reliance on the
candour and impartiality of the tribunal, before whom the cause is brought ;— a
tribunal too enlightened to confound the angry feelings and exaggerated expressions
of controversy with the calm deductions of reason ; — and well able to appreciate this
attempt at enlisting religion and morality on the side of self-love ; by which difference
of opinion, at all times but too irritating to the human mind, receives the double
aggravation, of real inability to persuade, and fancied right to condemn.
Where, GENTLEMEN ! shall we find proofs of this heavy charge, — of this
design so hostile to the very elements and foundation of civil union ? What are the
overt acts to prove this treason against society ? this compassing and imagining the
destruction of moral restraint, and the grounds of mutual confidence ? What support
can you discover for such imputations in the profession, pursuits, habits and character
of those who are accused ? How will it promote their interests to endanger the very
frame of society ? By what latitude and artifice of construction, by what ingenuity of
explanation, can the materials of such a charge be extracted from the discussion of an
abstract physiological question ? from discourses first delivered in this theatre to an
assembly of the whole profession, and since openly published to the whole world ? I
need not remind you that such an accusation is repelled by every appearance, every
probability, and every presumption ; and that in opposition to these primá facie
sources of distrust, it can only be established by the clearest and most unequivocal
evidence : not by bold assertions and strained inferences — not by declamatory
common-places on morals — nor by all the pangs and complaints of mortified self-
love.
 A party of modern sceptics ! — A sceptic is one who doubts ; — and if this
party includes those, who doubt, — or rather who do not doubt at all, — about the
electro-chemical doctrine of life, I can have no objection to belong to so numerous
and respectable a body. The assent of the mind to any proposition cannot be forced ; it
must depend on the weight of evidence and argument. I cannot adopt this hypothesis
until some proof or reasoning of a very different nature from any hitherto produced
shall be brought forwards. I declare most sincerely, that I never met with even the
shadow of a proof that the contraction of a muscle or the sensation of a nerve
depended in any degree on electrical principles ; or that reflection, judgment,
memory, arise out of changes similar in their causes or order to those we call
chemical. On the other hand, I see the animal functions inseparable from the animal
organs ; — first showing themselves when they are first developed ; — coming to
perfection as they are perfected ; — modified by their various affections ; — decaying
as they decay ; and finally ceasing when they are destroyed.
Examine the mind, the grand prerogative of man. Where is the mind of the
fetus ? where that of the child just born ? Do we not see it actually built up before our
eyes by the actions of the five external senses, and of the gradually developed internal
faculties ? Do we not trace it advancing by a slow progress through infancy and
childhood, to the perfect expansion of its faculties in the adult ; — annihilated for a
rime by a blow on the head, or the shedding of a little blood in apoplexy ; — decaying
as the body declines in old age ; — and finally reduced to an amount hardly
perceptible, when the body, worn out by the mere exercise of the organs, reaches by
the simple operation of natural decay that state of decrepitude most aptly termed
second childhood ?
Where then shall we find proofs of the mind's independence on the bodily
structure ? — of that mind, which, like the corporeal frame, is infantile in the child,
manly in the adult, sick and debilitated in disease, frenzied or melancholy in the
madman, enfeebled in the decline of life, doting in decrepitude, and annihilated by
death ?
Take away from the mind of man, or from that of any other animal, the
operations of the five external senses, and the functions of the brain, and what will be
left behind ?
That life then, or the assemblage of all the functions, is immediately dependent
on organization, appears to me, physiologically speaking, as clear as that the presence
of the sun above the horizon causes the light of day ; and to suppose that we could
have light without that luminary, would not be more unreasonable than to conceive
that life is independent of the animal body, in which the vital phenomena are
observed.
I say, physiologically speaking ; and beg you to attend particularly to this
qualification : because the theological doctrine of the soul, and its separate existence,
has nothing to do with this physiological question, but rests on a species of proof
altogether different. These sublime dogmas could never have been brought to light by
the labours of the anatomist and physiologist. An immaterial and spiritual being could
not have been discovered amid the blood and filth of the dissecting-room ; and the
very idea of resorting to this low and dirty source for a proof of so exalted and refined
a truth, is an illustration of what we daily see, the powerful bias that professional
habits and the exclusive contemplation of a particular subject, give even to the
strongest minds, — an illustration of that esprit de metier, which led the honest currier
in the threatened city to recommend a fortification of leather.
 When we reflect that the immortality of the soul and a future state of rewards
and punishments were fully recognised in all the religions of the ancient world, except
the Jewish ; —and that they are equally so in all those of more modern time ; — when
we consider, that this belief prevailed universally in the vast and populous regions of
the East, for ages and ages before the period to which our remotest annals extend, and
that it is firmly rooted in countries and nations, on which the sun of science has never
yet shone, the demonstration that the anatomical and physiological researches of the
last half century have not the most remote connexion with, or imaginable influence on
the proof of these great truths will be completed beyond the possibility of doubt or
denial, in the estimation of every unprejudiced person. I do not enlarge on this point,
because it is too obvious, and because divinity and morals, however excellent in their
own time and place, do not exactly suit the theatre, audience, or subject of these
Lectures.
The greatest of the ancient philosophers said that the surest way of gaining
admission into the temple of wisdom, was through the portal of doubt — and he
declared that he knew only one thing — his own ignorance. Were Socrates to show
his head above ground just now, he must conclude, either that he himself had
completely mistaken the road to knowledge, or that his successors had accomplished
the journey, and had penetrated into the sanctuary of the temple. For, in the modern
philosophy, doubting is proscribed as the source of all mischief ; and an overbearing
dogmatism, even on the most abstruse and difficult questions, is held forth as a wiser
course than the modest confession of ignorance.
When favourite speculations have been long indulged, and much pains have
been bestowed on them, they are viewed with that parental partiality, which cannot
bear to hear of faults in the object of its attachment. The mere doubt of an impartial
observer is offensive ; and the discovery of any thing like a blemish in the darling is
not only ascribed to an entire want of discrimination and judgment, but resented as an
injury. The irritation rises higher, in proportion to the coolness of the object which
excites it ; as Sir Anthony Absolute in the play, while swelling with rage, and boiling
over with abuse on the persons around him, begins to damn them again with tenfold
energy because they cannot keep their tempers, because they cannot be as cool as he
is.
By a curious inconsistency in the human mind, difference of opinion is more
offensive and intolerable in proportion as the subject is of a more refined nature, and
less susceptible of direct proof. Hence the rancorous intolerance excited by the minute
and almost evanescent shades of opinion that distinguish many religious sects. The
quarrels of the Homoousians and the Homoiousians filled the Roman empire for a
long series of years with discord, faction, persecution, arid civil war. Yet the point at
issue, actually comprised in the variation of a single diphthong, is so minute as to be
"scarcely visible to the nicest theological eye," (GIBBON) and certainly, in reference to
either faith or practice, is not a jot more important than the controversy which divided
the mighty empire of Lilliput, respecting the right end to break in eating an egg. ' Tis
a pity we cannot find some convenient way of settling these important controversies ;
such as occurred to the traveller, who met with a people divided into two parties on
the question whether they should walk into the temple of their deity with the right or
the left leg foremost. Each side conceived the practice of the other to be impious ; the
traveller recommended the obvious expedient, which in the heat of their quarrel they
had overlooked, of jumping in with both legs together.
The peculiar virulence of controversy, in all cases in which religion is
supposed to be concerned, is so remarkable, as to have become proverbial : — the
odium theologicum is the most concentrated essence of animosity and rancour. Let us
not then open the fair garden of science to this ugly fiend ; let not her sweet cup be
tainted by the most distant approach of his venomous breath.
Is the cause of truth to be promoted by affixing injurious and party names to
those who differ from us in these points of nice and curious speculation ? who cannot
pursue the same track with ourselves through the airy regions of immaterial being, of
which the only utility seems to consist in affording occupation to the organs of
ideality and mysticism ? Is not this kind of abuse more likely, by moving the
passions, to disturb the operation of the judgment.
The practice of calling names in argument has been chiefly resorted to by the
fair sex, and in religious discussions ; in both cases, apparently, from a common cause
— the weakness of the other means of attack and defence. The priests of former times
used to rain a torrent of abusive epithets, as heretic, infidel, atheist, and the Lord
knows what, on all who had the audacity to differ from them in opinion. This
ecclesiastical artillery has been so much used, as to have become in great measure
unserviceable : it is now found more noisy than destructive ; and the general
discovery of its harmlessness has assisted, with the progress of liberal ideas, to
discountenance its employment in controversy, as poisoned weapons and other unfair
advantages have been banished from honourable warfare. Sometimes however it
frightens and stuns, if it does not dangerously wound ; and thus it silences antagonists,
who could not easily have been overcome by weight of argument.
It would have been praise enough to any doctrine, that it should explain the
great mystery of life ; that it should solve the enigma, which has puzzled the ablest
heads of all ages ; — but this subtile and mobile vital fluid is brought forward with
more ambitious pretensions, and it is not only designed to show the nature and
operation of the cause, by which the vital phenomena are produced, but to add a new
sanction to the great principles of morals and religion, and to eradicate all the selfish
and bad passions of our nature. An obscure hypothesis, which few have ever heard of,
and fewer can comprehend, is to make us all good and virtuous, to impose a restraint
upon vice stronger than Bow-street or the Old Bailey can apply ; and in all probability
to convert the offices of Mr. Recorder and his assistant Mr. Ketch into sinecures.*
What has been the effect of this great discovery on its author ? What are the
first fruits of this new ethical power ? A series of Quixotic attacks on conspirators
and parties as purely imaginary as the giants and castles encountered by the knight of
La Mancha ; of unfounded charges and angry invective, undisguised and glaring
national partiality, unreasonable national antipathy, unmerited and unprovoked abuse
of the writers of a whole nation, afford an overwhelming proof of its complete moral
inefficacy.
These magnificent designs are interrupted by a conspiring band of sceptics and
French physiologists ; — by a nest of plotters brought forth all at once on this green
table, and threatening, in the noise and alarm which preceded their discovery, as well
as in their utter insignificancy and harmlessness when discovered, to eclipse even the
green bag conspiracy of another place. The foundations of morality undermined, and
religion endangered by a little discussion, and a little ridicule of the electro-chemical
hypothesis of life ! Thus the possessor of a specific endeavours to frighten people by
the most lively pictures of their danger ; that they may receive, with a higher opinion,
of its virtues and. importance, his pretended infallible remedy.
_____________________________________________________________________

* Let us suppose for a moment that the adoption of this hypothesis would really have all the efficacy
that is pretended, it would then be desirable that it should turn out to be true ; but would that afford any proof of
the hypothesis ? If, in a disputed question, you tell me that I shall have a large estate, if I am convinced that you
are in the right : undoubtedly I shall desire with all my heart to find that you are right ; but I cannot be convinced
of it, unless your arguments should be found satisfactory. In the same way, in tossing up for heads and tails, if I am
to receive a guinea provided tails turn up, and a hundred if it should be heads, this difference does not at all
increase the chances of the latter event, however it may operate on my wishes.*

I shall not insult your understandings by formally proving that this

physiological doctrine never has afforded, and never can afford, any support to
religion or morals ; and that the great truths, so important to mankind, rest on a
perfectly different, and far more solid foundation. If they could be endangered at all
by the discussions, with which we amuse ourselves, it would be by unsettling them
from their natural and firm establishment in the natural feelings and propensities, in
the common sense, in the mutual wants and relations of mankind, and erecting them
anew on the artificial and rotten foundation of these unsubstantial speculations, or on
the equally unsafe ground of abstruse metaphysical researches.*
As to the charge itself, of bringing forward doctrines with any design hostile to
the principles or opinions, on which the welfare of society depends ; or with any other
intention, except that of displaying to you the impartial result of my own reflections
and researches ; — I reply in one word ; — that it is false. I beg you, indeed, to
observe, that I have only remarked on the opinions of others ; I have adduced none of
my own. I profess an entire ignorance of the nature of the vital properties, except in so
far as they are disclosed by experience ; and find my knowledge on this subject
reduced to the simple result of observation, that certain phenomena occur in certain
organic textures.† To the question, what opinions I would substitute in place of those,
to which I object, I answer, none. Ignorance is preferable to error : he is nearer to
truth, who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
And here I take the opportunity of protesting, in the strongest terms, — in
behalf of the interests of science, and of that free discussion, which is essential to its
successful cultivation, —against the attempt to stifle impartial inquiry by an outcry of
pernicious tendency ; and against perverting science and literature, which naturally
tend to bring mankind acquainted with each other, to the anti-social purpose of
inflaming and prolonging national prejudice and animosity. Letters have been called
the tongue of the world ; and science may be regarded in the same light. They supply
common objects of interest, in which the selfish and unsocial feelings are not called
into action, and thus they promote new friendships among nations. Through them
distant people become capable of conversing ; and losing by degrees the awkwardness
of strangers, and the moroseness of suspicion, they learn to know and understand each
other. Science, the partisan of no country, but the beneficent patroness of all, has
liberally opened a temple where all may meet. She never inquires about the country or
sect of those who seek admission : — she never allots a higher or a lower place from
exaggerated national claims, or unfounded national antipathies. Her influence on the
mind, like that of the sun on the chilled earth, has long been preparing it for higher
cultivation, and further improvement. The philosopher of one country should not see
an enemy in the philosopher of another : he should take his seat in the temple of
science, and ask not who sits beside him. The savage notion of a natural enemy
should be banished from this sanctuary, where all, from whatever quarter, should be
regarded as of one great family ; and being engaged in pursuits calculated to increase
the general sum of happiness, should never exercise intolerance towards each other,
nor assume that right of arraigning the motives and designs of others, which belongs
only to the Being who can penetrate the recesses of the human heart ; — an
assumption which is so well reprobated by our great poet :

Let not this weak unknowing hand

Presume thy bolts to throw ;
And deal damnation round the land
On each I judge thy foe.

_____________________________________________________________________

* The profound, the virtuous, and fervently pious PASCAL acknowledged, what all sound theologians
maintain, that the immortality of the soul, the great truths of religion, and the fundamental principles of morals,
cannot be demonstrably proved by mere reason ; and that revelation alone is capable of dissipating the
uncertainties, which perplex those who inquire too curiously into the sources of these important principles. All will
acknowledge that, as no other remedy can be so perfect and satisfactory as this, no other can be necessary, if we
resort to this with firm faith. How many persons could be found, whose belief in a Deity rests on the chain of
reasoning in CLARK'S Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God : or in KANT'S Einzig mögliche
Beweisgrund zu einer Demonstration de Daseyn Gottes ? How many are there who have had perseverance enough
to go through the chain of argument in these works ? If the close and profound reasoning and the metaphysical
acuteness of CLARK and KANT have been employed to little purpose on such a subject, what are we to expect
from this pretended Hunterian theory of life ?
† The author of the Physiological Lectures entertains some peculiar views concerning the evidence, on
which we are to rely in our physical researches, which probably furnish a clue to the peculiar results at which he
has arrived. He "confides more in the eye of reason than in that of sense : and would rather form opinions from
analogy, than from the imperfect evidence of sight." P. 203, where the expression is employed in discussing a
question of fact. The same statement, in nearly the same words, occurs in several other places. From a comparison
of these passages with each other, and with the leading doctrines of the lectures, I consider their meaning to be,
that when the evidence of the senses is at variance with preconceived notions, or the constructions, combinations,
or other operations of the mental faculties, the author rejects the former and adheres to the latter. As the author
must be the best judge of the relative value belonging to the evidence of his own senses and that of his fancy,
imagination, and other internal powers, it is fair to presume that he has exercised a sound discretion in this very
important determination. It is however rather unreasonable for him to expect that others should rely on the
workings of his fancy in preference to the evidence of their own senses.

______________

This passage is a lengthy extract, and perhaps not the finest philosophical
argument on the subject of freedom in the pursuit of knowledge. But it is real and the
man who made it was in a serious predicament, which gives these words a value
beyond anything mere philosophy can compete with.
There are certain key features contained in this passage that are central to our
subject. It is clear from this statement that this is all about the eternal strife between
religion and science. It is also clear that this advocate for science, and therefore
against religion, is a warrior for religion ; he is a typical example of what we would
have to call an unwitting priest. So we have a war in which both parties are fighting
on behalf of the same side. This is an ever present aspect of society, so that, for
example, we have socialists and capitalists, but no matter who we vote for both are
options always wholly committed to church and state, and everything which goes with
the ancient establishment. As a consequence society never ever changes in any
significant way, just as our bodies never change no matter how different we may look
because of the different clothes we wear. The reason for this is two fold, firstly the
vital role religion plays in society, which Lawrence concedes, and secondly the
stranglehold that religious authority has on our society which makes life difficult for
people who want to be part of society if they do not toe the line. Atheists existed at
the time when Lawrence was giving his lectures, but atheism was a crime that people
were prosecuted for.
Desmond's account is brilliant and describes these tensions. Lawrence tries to
accommodate religion by adopting a line that others, like Pascal, also sort to adopt by
trying to compartmentalise scientific and religious knowledge so that each could go
about its business in peace. Accordingly Lawrence thinks science can investigate
human physiology without undermining religious ideas such as the belief in human
uniqueness expressed in ideas like that of mind and soul. Desmond indicates how
fractious the arguments could be and also how much Darwin disapproved of the
disruptive element taking part in the fray.
What is really interesting about all of this is that we had a raging feud between
religion and knowledge taking place before Darwin, in which we see that the enemies
of freedom had no intention of losing. Then along comes Darwin who supposedly
dropped a bombshell upon the world and sealed the fate of religion by presenting an
argument beyond the power of anyone to oppose. And here we are over a century and
a half later living in a world dominated by religion, a world in which science is
powerless to give us the first inkling of an idea of the place of humans in nature, and
this same society worships Darwin as if he were a god, calling him one of the greatest
scientists ever to of lived.
How extraordinarily convenient all this seems, we have a right result, religion
and science both thrive, both are entirely free to do their thing. Religion instead of
being compromised is thriving like never before, instead of the deeply primitive
Christian religion dying out as it use to be in Darwin’s day, we now live in a society
where religions so primitive and debased, such as Islam and Sikhism, are welcomed
into our newborn multicultural society. How convenient. How suspicious. How
utterly absurd.

It is not possible for science and religion to exist in the same place and time.
Either religion exists and science serves the priesthood, or religion is dead and gone.
The first job of science is to destroy religion, in the same way that the first job of a
builder is to prepare the ground. In effect Lawrence was giving up the fight when he
acknowledged the independence of scientific and religious ideas. He circumscribed
his little area of interest and left science as a mode of understanding, or a method of
enquiry, to its miserable fate. This attitude of the scientist working within the
establishment shows us how the remarkable achievement of the theocracy, of the
social authorities that is, was accomplished whereby the modern science that insults
our intelligence today has be fashioned and made to perform the same job that the
elaborate and so called brilliant science of astronomy created by Ptolemy in the
ancient world, served the theocracy that rules us today as the intellectual foundations
of that theocracy was constituted up until the opening of the modern era when the
idiotic notion forced on us was that the earth was at the centre of the universe.
Our society is an absolute theocracy that tolerates no freedom of thought of
any kind. Consequently to speak in these terms, in terms of an absolute and total
intolerance of religion, is to take a position that declares to the world that the world
should be annihilated. Everything that people hold most precious is contemptible and
must be destroyed. Life as we know it must be cleansed. This is what people are
bound to hear being said as a message contained in any statement that says the first
duty of science is to eradicate religion from the earth, and to make it impossible for
anyone to believe in God or to subscribe to any religion henceforth. To sincerely
believe in science is then, to all the world, the mark of an extremist, or this is how the
priesthood try to portray such a person, by fencing them in with all sorts of ideas that
pretend to be reasonable, but like our devious conspiracy theories, are really only
intended to undermine confidence in true knowledge so that false knowledge can
continue to serve its political function within the social organism. The word extremist
used in the context of the war between religion and science means someone who
thinks they alone have a right to say what is true. However this is the essence of the
problem that lies between science and religion. Both seek to account for reality
according to alternative primary sources of authority, religion starts from the power of
God, science starts from the existence of reality. Science therefore negates God as a
matter of course, and in effect science must adopt the attitude that before science the
slate was clean, so that only knowledge acquired in the name of science can be given
credence. Thus we build upon what we know, what we do not know does not exist
until it has become known through the practice of scientific inquiry.
Religion exists and is of vital importance to humans, but only science can tell
us what religion is, no religious person can have any idea what religion is because to
know what religion is is to be irreligious. And this is why science is perverted and
finds itself dominated by religious people, and why academic facilities welcome
religious people, and why churches have there own academic institutions that teach
science ! The fact is that there is no such thing as science, science is not possible in
this universe. Or so it seems. We have presented the argument setting the limits on
science. We have indicated that science cannot exist, now we will reveal what
science would be if it did exist, and in doing so it will become plain why science
cannot, and does not, exist.
 Chapter I

The Edifice of Knowledge

With the foregoing introduction to the conflict we may now progress to the
subject in hand, to the edifice of knowledge that would be built if scientists had done
the job right, and made open war against religion their main priority from the outset.
We can see from the manner in which knowledge progressed within a groove
constrained politically by means of a social structure, that is the establishment which
is composed of law, government, church, university, media, economics and military
facets, all linked together and focused upon the core power of religion, arises from a
process of knowledge formulation that combines the quality of free movement
inherent in the creation of knowledge, necessary because of the need to explore, with
an organization that contains the product of exploration. It is important to make this
point because we need to understand above all things how the false knowledge that
has burdens our world is created in a seemingly free and open society such as the
society we think we live in. It is because of the open range granted to knowledge
exploration that the war between science and religion went on across the whole range
of intellectual endeavour. This openness in the pursuit of knowledge precisely
emulates the central principle of Darwin’s theory of evolution, for he effectively says
that nature constitutes a space within which open competition is allowed, yet within
which winners emerge who stake their claim to that space by existing, and who
thereby negate the freedom which is made the primary quality of their existence. This
is precisely what happens in our open society, so that, curiously enough, our
spokespersons for knowledge manage to define the natural dynamics of existence by
giving them the inverse quality of that which they really have. We are told that
society is free and open because those who in fact rule society with an iron fist, and
tolerate no freedom, have achieved their position of power through the free play of
forces that means their dictatorship is a work personifying freedom. In life those
organisms which exist are the rightful winners of the struggle for survival, this is a
self justifying statement, and it is precisely the self justifying logic of this statement
that Darwin focused upon humans by means of his law of evolution through
competition. Thus the existence of religion is vindicated by its very existence.
Religion is the biological attribute giving the social organism its identity, and as we
have just said, organisms need no justification beyond their own existence, so that as
the identity of an organism, just like the stripped identity of the zebra, religion needs
no justification other than its own existence. This is the basic mechanism of life that
is given voice in the idea that nine tenths of the law is possession, if it is then it is. It
is by this crafty use of language that science is contained by the theocracy and
effectively suppressed. It may be thought that we do have science, we have the
science that Lawrence believed he was pursuing, that could be kept apart from the
concerns of religion. But while the body of flesh and bone might of seemed of little
consequence in the clash with religion, merely needing an adjustment regarding
precious ideas concerning the nature of the soul, the body social was quite another
matter because this touched upon the formation of society, and when the philosophers
cracked open this nut they opened the way for the entry of science upon the path to a
full-blooded knowledge of humanity which religion certainly could accommodate
because religion is part of human organic nature as it has existed up to this time.
Scientific method may well be applied to flesh and bone without worry, but it could
not be applied to society, the body in nature had to be separated from society in
nature.
Darwin was the establishment's answer to this difficulty. Darwin was to be
the supreme natural historian of man. His "masterpiece" Origin of Species set out a
general thesis on the nature of life from a scientific point of view, in which humans
were included. But this first shot across the bows of social well-being was all puff
and wind, and no substance. The big pretence of Darwin’s masterpiece was all about
how humans took their part in the process of evolution as kin of the anthropoid apes.
But as obvious as it is that human form is mirrored in the shape of the monkey kind, it
is equally obvious that people are not apes.
There is no doubting the great impact made upon society when the Origin of
Species was published, an influence that has echoed loudly down the years to the
present day, or more correctly, has been broadcast loudly down the years and is now
rammed down our throats like any lying dogma used by the theocracy. The reality is
that Darwin tells us nothing, because the effect of Darwin’s work is that we are left in
the position of the person who tries to jump a chasm and despite making a brilliant
effort, misses by one inch. And as the saying goes, a miss is as good as a mile. It is
in the light of this aphorism that we must understand Darwin’s work, because it is a
deliberate fraud in that it deliberately seeks to take us as close to the truth as possible
without taking us all the way. Darwin uses the liar’s strategy ; liars hide their part in
an event by fitting their story to the event in minute detail, leaving out only the
minimum amount concerning their involvement, which is the only aspect of real
interest. If success is judged in terms of public acclaim, which social power seeks to
ensure is the case, Darwin's work has been a brilliant success. But in terms of
intellectual advancement Darwinism has not told us anything about who and what we
are, it has not told us what life is, it has not told us how life evolves, and it has not
told us what the nature of existence is. All of these questions are the questions that
any science of humanity would automatically reveal the correct answers to in purely
naturalistic terms.
By filling the space that should be occupied by science, while at the same time
not telling us anything scientific, Darwin has not only told us nothing, but in the true
style of the liar’s story, Darwin’s story leads us up a blind alley and stops us seeking
true knowledge. As such Darwinism does not only fail to reveal answers, it positively
prevents us from finding the answers we seek. This is exactly the method of public
control through deceit that we find politicians using, as we found in relation to Tony
Blair and his retirement speech. Politicians feign honesty, claiming they have sincere
intentions but they can make errors, while in truth they carefully craft their lies to hide
the essence of their real motives because their social power is always founded upon
religion, and therefore their actions are always directed toward a religious objective.
The reason for our involvement in Iraq is to do with the interests of the Jews in the
middle east. Put in political terms all war is about the advancement of Jewish power,
put in biological terms war is about superorganic growth. And since the identity of
the global superorganism is Jewish, these alternative descriptions of the nature of war
are two ways of saying the same thing. But returning to the corruption of science, the
question that leaps out at us here is how on earth Darwin's ideas came to impress
themselves upon every single person who has been genuinely interested in
discovering a natural history of humanity ?
Darwin had his detractors, we often read that there are difficulties with the
ideas he put forward, but we find that as far as mainstream science is concerned
Darwin's ideas are accepted and people cry out that he is one of the greatest scientists
of all time. The truth is that Darwin is one of the greatest enemies of science, to be
ranked alongside the acclaimed genius of the ancient world, Ptolemy, who made a
similarly fabulous effort to undermine the science of astronomy in the name of
religion. The key to Darwin's success as a scientific impostor is that he presented the
idea of a process linked to a mechanism that applied across the board, thus utilising
the language and method of science. The process of evolution was guided by natural
selection based upon the principle of competition between individuals engaged in a
struggle for survival. The problem with this model of life processes is that there is no
way to apply this model to humans because the social life of humans mitigates this
law of nature since it is clear that our world is about cooperation not competition.
Therefore, from a scientific point of view, Darwin's ideas are clearly wrong and
utterly worthless from the outset. It goes without saying that science must seek to
include humans on a par with all other life forms, even bacteria. Science needs a
model that explains every detail of human existence in precisely the same terms as it
accounts for the details of any other life form in existence. The priests might object
that at worst Darwin did his best, but he fell short because he could not get over the
final hurdle presented by his own self consciousness, but that his work was true
science sincerely pursued. It is certainly possible that Darwin had no idea that his
work was dedicated to accommodating science to religion by destroying science, but
the more we pay attention to this question of intent the harder it becomes to give
prominence to the mechanism of unwittingness at this level of human effort.
As part of the study of how knowledge comes to be formed by nature certain
basic principles come to the fore, one principle is that conspiracy theories must be
minimised while the idea of robotic unwittingness must be maximised. To this end I
have sort to engage with all sorts of people over recent years to try and discover what
the nature and form of any boundary existing between their levels of consciousness
may be in relation to these attitudes toward the nature of existence. As a consequence
of these efforts I have seen the way people adhere to a story with perfect compliance
to its logical imperatives, and then snap in an instant into an entirely opposite mode
when the occasion suits because they see their personal interests change in relation to
the argument. In saying this I am put in mind of the news of Northern Ireland’s new
assembly shown on television yesterday, 11/05/07, with Ian Paisley standing up
saying that if he had been told that ten years ago he would be sharing power with Sinn
Fein terrorists he would of been disbelieving. This is a monumental turn around and
it is exactly the kind of thing we are talking about. But these are political matters, the
mystery is how do the like of professional scientists accommodate lunatic ideas like
those represented by so called science today in respect to the place of humans in
nature ?
The answer is that people accept whatever is mainstream, and they do not
question the wave of socially validated information that washes over their “antennae”
any more than the ant does as long as they are aligned to that information and
benefiting from it. For the last six months I have engaged in an on and off discussion
with a young man in a local pub. He first sort me out and presented himself to me as
a devoted Christian, this charade was soon dropped, and so he was not a Christian.
He eventually presented himself as being keen on Richard Dawkins and wanting to
expand his knowledge. I then gave him the last “book” that I wrote outlining the true
nature of humans and the manner in which our human nature shaped social events of
the most profound kind. In the last conversation we had a few weeks ago he adopted
the stance that while he did not believe in Christianity he thought it should be taught
because it brought order to society. I cursed him in no uncertain terms and declared
him to be nothing but a fascist. As personally aggravating as this duck and dive
attitude is, it is universal, this is how people work, and thus we must assume that all
academics know perfectly well that they are really nothing but priests working for the
preservation of the church that is society. Of course beyond the front men and women
who know they are maintaining a charade there will be a mass of devotees who live in
blissful ignorance and obedience to the image presented.

Science needs a firm foundation rooted in physical reality, and so does

religion. Religion is a form of knowledge and it must be constructed according to
certain principles that impress themselves upon people as being valid in some
functional manner. This is why religion cannot disentangle itself from the real world
and simply let science get on with its work. Religion has to impose its authority on all
things because that is what religion is, religion is the essence of authority. Religion is
identity, and identity is another word for authority because identity is the sum of a
physical entity. So for example everything we do as individuals is focused upon us as
a person, and by extension upon us as an element of a wider social identity to which
our person belongs. Establishing an intellectual foundation involves the formation of
conceptual principles from which all ideas can be made to flow, so that no matter how
vast the edifice of knowledge becomes its construction will always be informed by the
same simple principles upon which the model is based. The basic principle of
religious ideas involves the separation of humanity from reality to produce a dualistic
model of existence that captures the robotic role of humans as units of a social
organism, while disguising human corporate nature in order to ensure mindless
obedience to the idea of identity that is presented in the dualistic model. Science is
the exact opposite of this model, science seeks a monistic explanation that unifies so
that science would simply present the true image of human nature giving rise to a
social organism, whereas religion divides the social organism into a God and people
made in God’s image. Thus religion divides the substance of society in order to
reconstruct the social organism according to a political plan which is imbued with an
identity to which a body of people are attached, the Jewish people. Religion is not
divisive, it is not seeking to split things in two, the purpose of creating a dualistic
model is to recreate the human world within the natural world as something belonging
to humanity in such a way that this reconstruction serves a master race. This outcome
is dictated by nature, it is a biological result, the Jews just happen to be the focal point
of this result, someone had to be the master identity for this outcome is implicit in
human organic nature.
If then science is to be fashioned along lines that accommodate religion it too
must be developed in accord with the dualistic principles underlying religious
knowledge. This is exactly what is achieved in Origin of Species where a mode of
biological evolution is developed from which human activity is excluded from the
outset. Thus Darwin created a dualistic model of life by only exposing one side of the
process. The beauty of this method is that the one side thus exposed, the process of
natural selection, has the quality of scientific investigation about it because it
examines material reality and interprets observations solely on the basis of the
evidence, exactly as science should. But when Ptolemy examined the heavens to
produce a complex model of celestial movements he too took the scientific approach
of focusing upon the elements of nature before his eyes. The trouble was he placed
himself at the centre of the universe before beginning. Darwin did the equivalent in
respect to the science of life, he placed himself in the position of the individual and
made the individual the be all and end all of the process of which life was the product.
It should be perfectly clear that if we want to exclude human society from a
naturalistic account then we will automatically succeed if we only allow our model to
take account of the individual as an end in themselves. Thus we see that Darwin's
model was dualistic, it split individuals away from the social being in which they live
and thus, like Ptolemy, Darwinism observes reality but only reveals one side of the
story. Meanwhile religion always tells the other side of the story left untouched by
Darwinian science, so called, religion tells us all about how the unruly individual is
made into a society by God's love and care, this is something that Darwin's ideas
simply shed no light on whatsoever.

Darwin was good, fiendishly good. The intellectual world in which Darwin
lived was focused upon human society, even if Darwin was not. Darwin's specialist
subject was biology, as a scientist he was meant to be a biologist, this is where his
ideas apply, the biology of life. He was not about to develop a biological, that is to
say an organic model of society, and he did not. But others were very much
concerned with the organic nature of human society and Darwin could not completely
overlook this aspect of the question because human society was not the only example
of its kind. Darwin had to take some account of society as a natural biological
phenomena. After presenting the world with his groundbreaking book Darwin
published a work dedicated to the evolution of humans, The Descent of Man, in which
he tackled the problem of placing man within a naturalistic scheme of life without
actually revealing anything about how humans evolved, or how humans could be
understood in purely naturalistic terms, he achieved this ruse by sticking to his bias
dualism which gave only one side of the story.
The solution Darwin found that enabled him to adhere to a one sided
representation of the dualistic model was to take the famous example of insect
societies, ants in particular, and to make the dimorphism of these creatures support
and sustain his unscientific and illogical conception of the supremacy of the
individual by creating a sub-dualism within his overall plan. By a sub-dualism we
mean a further split in an already dualistic model, so that dualism is a principle
running through all interpretations that the model is applied to. Thus Darwin says that
at first the problem of individuals evolving in nature to suit the formation of a social
body seemed fatal to his conception of natural selection focused upon competing
individuals. But as ants showed extreme diversity between groups of individuals, so
that one species consisted of a number of physical types each dedicated to a particular
functional role serving the formation of a social being, the fact that humans formed a
social being just like a cooperating insect society without such dimorphism, indicated
that there were two ! modes operating at the level of the social unit whereby
organisms evolved in response to the struggle for survival ; an inner mode and an
outer mode.
Darwin conceived of natural selection acting at the level of social organization
causing individuals to evolve through distinct modes of internal and external
expression, whereby external expression caused various forms of body to come into
being, as in insects, while the internal expression of the same evolutionary force
caused man, uniquely ! of course, to evolve about an augmenting brain which would
lead to the same result by an all important different means, which would mean that
ants were robots while humans were free agents. Ants were slaves of society because
they knew no other way, humans were members of society because they desired no
other way. This evokes the difference we see in life where people work as slaves
because they have no choice, in contrast to people work freely because they are paid.
The difference between these two modes of working is subtle, the whip is replaced
with money, and a whole new kind of exoskeletal structure evolves to accommodate
the psychological mechanism of human robotics.
Once the alternative mode of expressing competition at the social level of
organization had become engaged according to the internal principle, the body would
no longer be subject to further pressure to evolve in any specialised direction because
the increasing power of the brain would in effect cause a reverse process to act upon
the individual person reducing their need to be individually capable of standing on
their own resources, and instead selection would cause a more degenerate body form
to evolve that was able to become part of an organized social body upon which this
degenerate individual physiology would become wholly dependant for its survival.
Thus by running all around the houses and catching one daft conception after another
Darwin managed to retain the illogical logic of his initial fraudulent imposition upon
science.

This brief analysis of Darwin's work has been made possible by virtue of a
book written by an American professor, the title page is presented here.
 Words are not always what they seem ; in fact words are rarely what they
seem, that is the whole of point of language, to make it possible to create purposeful
models of life. Language did not evolve in order to allow humans to talk about the
weather or any other literal aspect of existence. If this were the case then language
would have the attributes of another physical sense, in that it would render as perfect
an image of reality as it could, and lying would be impossible. And so the title The
Natural History of the State could suggest a variety of interpretations to those who
read it today, depending upon their own preconceived notions of what the individual
components of the title mean. The main reason for such potential ambiguity today
however is the fact that this work is one of the finest examples of the forlorn
philosophy that we seek to recover ever to of been written. As such the intended
meaning of this title is simply meaningless to our generation because while it would
of informed its contemporary readership of its contents quite adequately, its subject
matter has been cleansed from society with a degree of exactitude that we could only
wish to emulate in such dangerous professions as that of nuclear waste management !
And so as the preface to this work offers us a short statement on its objective
we shall take a copy in its entirety and let the book speak for itself.

PREFACE

There is in general an attitude of reserve on the part of political science

with regard to the social and political implications of Darwinian doctrine
which is justified by the present state of that doctrine. Although Darwin's
theory of the origin of species by transformism is generally accepted, his
account of the factors of the process does not meet with general acceptance
but is regarded by many critics as being defective on some points. Meanwhile
important data have been accumulating in various fields and it is manifest that
the doctrine is deeply affecting the ideas of the times. It is impossible to avoid
the subject altogether in the study of political science, but it has been a matter
of practical difficulty to provide students with a succinct account of the way in
which the doctrine now bears on politics. To meet this difficulty the present
work has been produced. Although the treatment is concise, the work makes a
detailed survey of connections between biology and politics inferable from the
doctrine, with notes and references directing the reader to sources of
information on the topics discussed. Hence any class of readers interested in
scientific opinion as to social and political origins may find the work useful.

H. J. F.
Princeton University

May, 1915

And there we have it, Darwin's ideas are one and the same thing as the science
of biology as it relates to the nature of life, and at the same time this science is all but
excluded from application to humans in any regard that has anything meaningful to
say that matters to anyone. The fact that it is possible to present the evidence of this
book should not be misconstrued as evidence contradicting the statement just made
regarding the dearth of real science regarding the subject of humanity. I searched
relentlessly for five years before I hit upon this book and it was a purely lucky find,
being only one of two copies I found, there also being a late reprint from the 1980's.
As promised in the preface Ford’s work is a wonderful resource for further
study, and in this respect it introduced a whole new vein of anthropological
knowledge which I had previously seen neither hide nor hair of in my preceding
searches. What is interesting about this rare book on an uncommon topic is that it is
offered from within the branch of political science. We have already seen that the
theocracy controls knowledge by organizing social structure so that knowledge is
channelled through an affiliated series of control systems which have developed
modes of scientific understanding that are based upon the same dualistic principles as
that which religious knowledge is based upon. It is in keeping with the dualistic
method of knowledge control that knowledge should be further subject to containment
through the fragmentation of particularly important facets of knowledge, such as
biology pertaining to man, into an array of diverse subject areas. And this is precisely
what we see in practice. Who would ever of thought that in order to study the natural
history of humans you would have to turn to the specialist subject of political
science ? It is as if the only way to study horticulture is by doing a geology course in
which the make up of the soil is made the basis of plant life, which on the face of it is
fair enough, but not when the link between geology and botany is hidden and can only
be found by many years of searching enquiry resulting in extraordinary good fortune.
You will never find anthropological books or sociology books directing you towards
political science books seeking to take account of biology in their models of human
society. In effect the “ball” of human organic nature is passed from one player to the
next before being conveniently lost in the undergrowth never to be seen again.
This fracturing of the science of humanity into a multitude of specialities
which never acknowledge the existence of one another follows the divide and rule
principle normally associated with political activity that treats different segments of
society as political blocs with competing interests. The creation of exclusive
academic specialities offers the same opportunity for political control. But more to
the point is the fact that each speciality conducts the full range of legitimate scientific
studies in tandem with the vastly overwhelming illegitimate pseudo scientific studies
which swamp each department of science, thus subverting each scientific area toward
the logic of a religious model, so that all departments of science are eventually forced
to exude genuine science altogether, to leave a cleansed body of none scientific
science right across the board.
The consequence of this methodical and relentless process of knowledge
cleansing is that when we want to discover the lost forlorn science, that for a brief
spell dominated our society in its first flush of becoming the scientific society it is said
to be today, we really have our work cut out. Ford makes no complaint of this kind,
he is a professor in one of the theocracy's state sanctioned universities, he accepts the
laws of entry into such a position, including obedience to the rules of academic
etiquette which make each person a specialist in their own domain, precluding any
transgression upon the territory assigned to another discipline. Thus Ford's work
actually runs counter to the method we have just said is the norm whereby each sticks
to their own and ignores the existence of any other. In this work Ford seeks to consult
each department of knowledge relevant to the natural history of the state considered in
the light of Darwin's work. The first section of Chapter I, The Impact of Darwinism,
is entitled Political Implications and begins thus ;
 “ The purpose of this treatise is to examine the foundations of political
science from the naturalistic point of view established by the publication of
Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859. It is a corollary of the Darwinian theory
that the State has a natural history. ”
(Page 1)

Thus we are treated to a review of Evolutionary Process (Chapter II),

Biological Data (Chapter III), Psychological Data (Chapter IV), Linguistic Data,
(Chapter V), Anthropological Data (Chapter VI), and Genetic Data in (Chapter VII).
And yet, rather curiously, what we do not get is a review of sociology. For an insight
into this seemingly extraordinary oversight we may turn to page six where the
following remarks follow a brief discussion of some of the initial ideas arising from
Darwin's great work ;

“ Notwithstanding this promising start the methodizing of political

science upon an objective basis in connection with natural history has halted,
and little work has been done in that direction. The naturalistic concept has
apparently been abandoned by political science and has been taken over by
sociology, the subject-matter of which is not primarily the State but the
associational process of which the State is but one among many
manifestations. The present tendency in political science is away from the
naturalistic standpoint. The suggestions of Darwinism instead of supplying
social and political criteria appear to be a source of distraction and
perplexity. ”
(Page 6)

And so even here, in the very substance of social form, it seems the
institutions of state and the mass of society are to be separated as two distinct
subjects, as if we might expect the study of botany to be divided into specialists in
leaves and specialists in roots because it is clear to all that roots and leaves are so
vastly different in their nature, function and form. But wait a minute, botanists treat
leaves and roots as parts of a plant, they take the plant to be the whole thing. How
stupid can people get, why don't these idiots learn from the sociologists,
anthropologists, linguistics, psychologists, economists and political scientists that it is
madness to treat biological units as if they were one whole being. No wonder
botanists are able to present scientific ideas as if they were scientific ideas - but wait a
minute, isn't that what scientists want to do ?
Oh dear, it is so confusing, perhaps what we mean to say is that the human
science people should take a leaf out of the botanist’s book ; but that would a disaster,
then we would end up with a science of humanity ! God forbid.

Pardon me for being stupid, it is difficult to know what else to do when faced
with the machinations of these academic professionals. If we do not laugh then we
can but drown our sorrows in tears.

But if these professional academics were really so keen to avoid the problems
of science in their presentation of knowledge which in reality had the sole purpose of
reinforcing the authority of the theocracy, why bother touching upon these issues at
all ?
 This question has already been answered, but it is important and it comes to
the fore at this point, after considering what Ford has to say, so that we can state the
matter simply. The method by which knowledge is controlled is to allow a natural
flow to arise like springs gushing from their natural sources, the flow of knowledge
from a multiplicity of points in the social body is then channelled into a forum of
debate and study which refines the babbling brooks to produce a steady flow of
consistent form by sorting the effervescent and turbulent expressions from those that
are deemed steady and calm, and thus to compose a useful and steady stream of
knowledge. The problem that academics faced in 1915, undoubtedly, was that their
students of the day had parents who were educated in a time when science was still
flowing freely. Thus, as we see from Ford's own remarks, there was a need to say
something to the younger generation about the great body of knowledge which had
come to represent the solid foundation of human science over the course of the last
century before the authorities had managed to shape a channel in which science could
be made to flow in conformity to the Biblical ideology which makes humanity unique
and inscrutable.
This sounds highly contrived, but it is a system, that is what the social
structure created by the priests who control all these matters have built over centuries
and millennia, to achieve an unswerving control of knowledge and society in its
entirety. Each priest acts unwittingly according to a fixed agenda, we can see the
influence of this social force in the words of Lawrence quoted above. Lets take a
piece of propaganda from a senior priest dealing with precisely this point. In a
chapter entitled The New 'Santa Maria', in which the United Nations is likened to the
ship Columbus sailed in to the New World, a Secretary-General of the UN, Dag
Hammarskjöld says this :

" The history of mankind is made by man, but men partly make it blindly. No
one can foresee with certainty what will emerge from the give and take of the
forces at work in any age. For that reason history often seems to run its course
beyond the reach of any man or nation. We cannot mould the world as masters
of a material thing. Columbus did not reach the East Indies. But we can
influence the development of the world from within as a spiritual thing. In this
sense Columbus would have been a pioneer for a new age even if he himself
had never reached America.
As individuals and as groups we can put our influence to the best of
our understanding and ability on the side of what we believe is right and true.
We can help in the movement toward those ends that inspire our lives and are
shared by all men of good will—in terms very close to those of the Charter of
the United Nations—peace and freedom for all, in a world of equal rights for
all. "
(The Servant of Peace, 1962, Page 41)

So we have no idea what we are doing or why, but if we affiliate ourselves to a fixed
agenda then we can add to the resulting product that it is beyond our ability to know.
The same notion is expressed in the Jewish idea of Chosenness which the Jews allot
to themselves. This gushing sentimentalism is nonsense, the product this man speaks
of is determined by nature. The history of mankind is made by nature just as the
history of elephants or asteroids is made by nature, and accordingly the way
knowledge is managed is dictated by nature. This is obvious from all the extremely
nasty activities that are vital to the success of all organizations like the churches and
the UN that are supposedly dedicated to the love of humanity. Without the Nazis, for
example, the Jews would of been eradicated by the advance of the forlorn philosophy
that we seek to rediscover because we simply want to know what is real. Thus in no
uncertain terms it can be said that Hitler is the single greatest saviour of Judaism the
Jews have ever had, even if they do not know this is so. From a political, that is from
a conscious point of view, this is a horrific thing to say, and Jews would explode in
raging anger against anyone making such a statement ; thus the ghost of Hitler lives
on in the hearts of the Jews who never fail to call upon him to continue to protect
them from their true enemy, the simple honest truth. Given that these matters are
entirely determined by nature then from a scientific point of view these are mere facts,
and the meanings or feelings associated with these facts are facets of these
physiological dynamics and nothing more. Without the relentless efforts of
Hammarskjöld's "men of good will", indeed without the ceaseless dedication of the
Jews to the preservation and promotion of their faith, the Nazis could not of come into
existence. There are no such things as "good" and "evil", there is only process, intake
and outtake. The only people who could of prevented the Nazis from existing are the
scientists who sort the true knowledge that would of eradicated Judaism from the face
of the earth, and thus negated the physiological need that the Jewish superorganism
had for an anti-Jew, the Nazis, at one and the same time. According to the same
naturalistic principles we can say that in effect Ford's book was written out of a
necessity to sustain the appearance of a free society open to all points of view. But
the fact is that this book is unique in my experience, it is absolutely gorgeous because
it really does present a brilliant argument for the idea of the State as an organic entity
created at the behest of a natural process. We do not need to think of Ford as being
engaged in some sort of conspiratorial enterprise to deceive the young while
destroying science for the sake of religion, because it is true, as Hammarskjöld says,
that each individual only need fulfil their role within the establishment and the desired
result will follow, because our society is an absolute theocracy, always has been, and
always will be and the desired result is written into the Jewish identity programme
that is implanted into all people on earth.
On the contrary, we want to resist all suggestions of conspiratorial campaigns,
not because conspiracy is unthinkable, many political figures see it as a duty to find
ways to help their poor feeble minded cattle to see things in a false way that is for
their own good, Plato in the ancient world and Churchill in the modern world being
two famous leaders who have openly said as much. But this pressing need to keep
people ignorant by teaching them knowledge can only work if the whole being of
society is constrained to support the imposition so completely that the notion of
conspiracy becomes meaningless because the systems in all their aspects make
conformity to the one message a subliminal command. It is rather like asking if we
are engaged in a conspiracy in Britain to defy Europe by driving on the left side of the
road. Does every person setting off in their car make a wilful decision to drive on the
left ? No, absolutely not, the structure of our cars, our roads, and their associated
infrastructure, our laws and any other relevant aspect of the subject, conspire to
channel us according to this rule. But the fact is that we do all have to obey this rule,
and we do so, but this is no conspiracy, we are aware of the fact that we drive on the
left but we feel no difficulty in this nor any sense of inner conflict.
And it is in a similar manner that we must try to understand the issue we are
seeking to tackle here in respect to the altogether more extraordinary way in which all
concerned parties do take up their correct position in conformity to established
principles, even as they engage in an effort to discover knowledge in a world free of
any constraints. The method by which nature enables this social unity to come to be
is through the practice of building social structures that channel and guide knowledge
through the biomass of the people of which the social being is composed. These
results can be recognised in times more proximate to our current period. It is only to
be expected that if society builds a system that channels knowledge to culminate in
one vast social reservoir of knowledge in which only knowledge conforming to the
pattern of religious conformity is to be tolerated, then society will be tasked with the
job of maintaining these bulwarks against freedom and truth. And in keeping with all
that we know about the construction of great edifices of any kind, apart from the
ongoing job of routine maintenance, there will crop up from time to time a need to
deal with major incidents of repair as cracks appear in the fabric containing the
theophilic (God-friendly) knowledge as fresh springs of untainted knowledge erupt
right in the midst of the living social system.
A minor fracture erupted in the social fabric in 1975 when an American
entomologists dared to include humans in a broader scheme of natural history, he put
himself in Lawrence's shoes, and brought down upon himself a tirade of abuse from
his fellow scientists who were appalled that he should use scientific ideas in his
attempt to think about biological principles in which man was included. After all had
the church not already gone to hell and back to get this issue dealt with ? Oh yes, that
had been done in fine fashion already. The aftermath of Edward O. Wilson's breach
of the dam wall containing the priestly science that keeps us all enslaved to the
theocracy, with his publication of Sociobiology in 1975, is seen in a flurry of works
designed to repair the breach and reassert the dualism which keeps humanity beyond
the reach of reason. What is most telling about the flurry of works dealing with this
problem is that none are mainstream, some popular paperbacks came out in which
scientists rage against the use of science in scientific circles, and proclaim the sanctity
of humanity which is beyond any form of scientific interrogation. But if you look
hard enough and are very very lucky you can actually find books just like this one by
Ford which are clearly written for precisely the same reason that Ford's book was
written, namely to comfort the poor students who are taught they live in a free world
while being cruelly exposed to true ideas that reveal that this notion of freedom is a
delusion.
In 1915 the object was to cork the damn that had just about been brought to
completion, in 1990 when George Maclay treated the small coterie of Americans who
were in need of a soothing balm to his potted history of The Social Organism, the idea
was to force the genie back into the bottle from whence Wilson had almost released it.
Wilson, very much like Lawrence in his day, has been back stepping in double-quick
time ever since, and the whole of the academic establishment has done everything in
its power to ensure that this dangerous leak of scientific thinking into the blood stream
of society could be thoroughly washed from our consciousness once again. The
Americans are rather interesting in this subject area as we can see from the fact that
we find both Ford's work and Wilson's coming from that enclave of the theocracy
which rules our world with an iron fist ; a fist that usually wears a kid glove, but make
no mistake, the gloves do come off.
I am not certain what any distinctive American contribution to these matters
may consist of. As they form part of the English speaking world and they are
intimately connected with our culture, and they are wealthy and able to contribute to
the culture born of a common language in such a way that a definite link is
established, I inevitably find myself accessing the American pool of thought all the
time. There is an interplay between our two cultures, European English and
American English ; but there are differences. Still, at the end of the day, a miss is as
good as a mile, and the Americans are no more free in the sense of producing a true
science of humanity than we are, we both plummet into the abyss of blind ignorance
in any attempt to free ourselves from the chains of religious ignorance.

A question which arises from the foregoing is how come Ford was such a
copout if he also made a brilliant effort to write openly about the idea that the State
had a natural history, and that it should indeed be regarded as an organism ? We have
already answered this question when we diverted our attention toward the peripheral
subject of conspiracy theories, and how we must guard against any such line of
reasoning. We saw that Ford as a professional academic was occupying a place
within a material structure which was bound by a closely woven net of rules that
governed how he, or anyone else in the establishment, could approach their work.
The classic telltale signs of perverted knowledge are indicated in the evidence of
dualistic thinking, so that Ford indicates that political science is artificially separated
by sociology through the creation of a new category whereby the associational
process is made the substance of sociological investigation, and the special study of
the State is carved out of this mass and made distinct. It is as if the brain might be
carved out of the body and made a distinct subject of human physiology not to be
included in the subject of human physiology because it is a control system as distinct
from a controlled system, resulting in a physiology which only concerns itself with
the associational process whereby the body is seen to work as a whole. What kind of
physiologist would even think to include the brain in any attempt to understand the
body as a living entity ! What lunatics they would be ; you cut the brain from the
skull, feed it to your dog—if the animal rights movement have not banned pet
ownership by this time—and then you begin the work of making sense of the body as
an organised unit. Obviously.

Crickey there I go getting all mad again. Apologies once again, it is a difficult
job thinking about this stuff without getting into a lather. Perhaps if I had a lobotomy
that would help, then I would be able to think more clearly, as the professionals think.
That is it, that must be their secret. So that is how to get on in society. Yippee, were
all going for a lobotomy ....... diddley-dee-diddley-dee. No need to go far, just make
sure you do not miss a day at school.

The split between sociology and political science, along the lines of
demarcation separating the organizational structure of society from the collective
activity of society, is the crucial factor in making political science serve its function in
the pantheon of theological control over knowledge. Ford need do nothing more than
adhere to the principles inherent in the foundation of his subject as he delineates them
in The Natural History of the State. After this no matter what efforts he makes he will
always fail totally to illuminate the subject he is interested in, just as surely as
Ptolemy was bound to fail to achieve his goal of providing the world with an accurate
model of heavenly motions no matter what he did, because he began by placing
himself at the central point in the universe instead of placing himself where nature
placed him, on the planet earth in orbit about the sun.
As Ford's work draws to a climax, after a magnificent performance driving
human science to a hitherto unheard-of pinnacle, we prepare for the great astounding
revelation—the true nature of humanity—and instead we find ourselves raising water
from a dry well that offers us nothing in return for our efforts. This none result is
quite remarkable. What does this git say after all his brilliant and exceptional efforts
to develop a naturalistic foundation for his science ? He says that a science of politics
is impossible !

The Forms of the State

The variety of the factors that supervene when personality emerges

from the biologic process and their irreducible character sufficiently explain
the futility of all attempts to establish a methodology of political science on
the concept of the State as an organism. The traditional Aristotelian
classification of State forms, so often criticized as inadequate, still holds the
field with modifications insufficient to change its general character. The
practical difficulties in the way of placing State forms upon an objective basis
like that of the forms with which the naturalist deals seem to be in-
surmountable. The State is not apprehensible at all save as it is objectified in
institutions. In a way the same is true of the organisms formed by insect
communities. Their differentiation is definable only by characteristic structure,
the shape and arrangement of cells, the physique and functions of the
inhabitants. A similar method with State species would introduce racial
groupings, but State species while affected by racial influence are not confined
by racial lines. There is no fixed relation between the type of the community
and the physical structure of its units as in the case of ants and bees. In the
insect community the process of polymorphism has established community
function in the bodily structure of the members of the community. In the State
the unity is a psychical adjustment, and the order is infinitely modifiable.
Although the State originates as a biological product it emerges from that
category in attaining the psychosphere. Psychological factors then dominate
biological factors, and attempts to describe social activities in terms of
biological process become inadequate. The fact that the psychical has evolved
from the biological no more makes it similar than electricity is like steam.
Another source of difficulty is the fact that the State is an organism
that we cannot view objectively as we do other organisms, since we ourselves
are part of its unit life. The student of State species is somewhat in the position
of a philosophic bee who surveys the hive from the inside, and hence
construes its activities in terms derived from thought and experience as a
member of its society. Thus valuations tend to become subjective. Moreover,
the philosophic bee has to do with fixed structure. The observer of human
society has to do with plastic structure and mutable conditions, and he has to
reckon with psychological factors that are not constants but variables.

(Page 165-7)

We do not, and indeed cannot, find this source of ideas bone dry because we
are searching in an intellectual desert where the slightest drop of wisdom bearing on
our subject is a most precious discovery, for it reveals the presence of that which once
thrived and is now erased, seemingly forever. It is clear from the above quotation that
in his day the subject of which Ford speaks was a great field of enquiry that
influenced the minds of all those who were concerned with true knowledge far and
wide.
 We also see how a keen interest in our true cousins, not the apes, but the social
insects, played an important part in the genuine science of humanity, for these, our
fellow creatures, obviously shared a common nature with humans, that is a corporate
nature, by which we mean that the individual form is evolved to serve the creation of
an organic being at the level of social organization. Whether individual adaptation to
this social end is brought about through a proliferation of different bodily forms, or
through the evolution of a generalised body form capable of doing any task dictated
by an enlarged control centre, is completely irrelevant, in principle this is no more
than the difference between six and two threes or two sixes. The preceding quote
dealing with social forms is an excellent basis for us to tease out a valid scientific
argument by showing how Ford's argument is incorrect despite his close
approximation to the correct mode of thinking along biological lines. And in
discovering where Ford has gone awry we will see that the whole problem can be put
down to his segregation of the political organization from body of society as a whole.
The idea of species of States cannot be made the basis of a comparative
science of social organisms, whereby humans might be contrasted with insects and the
like because "State species while affected by racial influence are not confined by
racial lines." This is self-evident because a State invariably rules over a mixture of
races. But what about religion ? Religion does get a mention once or twice, but it is
never given the attention it deserves as a psychical factor crucial in the development
of social integrity.
As we raise the question of religion in the context of Ford's concluding
remarks we find ourselves back on track following the course of the war between
science and religion, we see that religion is excluded from consideration as an organic
factor involved in the formation of social organisms. It is however notable that Ford
makes no reference to a most famous author who wrote a book called Social
Evolution, and although nothing I have said so far lets it be known, the fact is that
social evolution is the exact idea that Ford has in mind as the central theme of this
work, it is social evolution as distinct from individual evolution that he keeps telling
us creates human beings.
 Chapter II

Religion

What is religion and why does it exist ? This question is asked in a scientific
sense where we accept the existence of religion as we accept the existence of anything
else we experience directly and demonstrably. But just as we do not accept witchcraft
in terms of its own definition, even though witchcraft exists, neither can we accept
religion on its own terms. Anything that exists as part of the normal fabric of
existence has to have a fixed relationship to reality. This applies to religion as much
as any other thing we know of and so we ask this question of religion meaning What
is the function of religion ?
Given that it is implicit in the line we have taken thus far that we favour the
now lost philosophy of the social organism which we have seen once prevailed over
all dimensions of the human sciences, it follows that when we ask what function
religion serves we are looking for a biological solution to this question. We are not
the first to ask this question, I even have a book written by scientists that pretends to
discuss the subject, The Biology of Religion by Vernon Reynolds and Ralph Tanner,
1983. These professional academics are from the new breed of sociobiologists
created just eight years prior to the publication of this work by the appearance of
Wilson's Sociobiology. The Biology of Religion, needless to say, is religious science
masquerading as real science, we see immediately that it is founded upon a dualistic
model of society, the first words which appear when we open the book are these ;

“ The Biology of Religion is concerned with the interaction between

human biological and cultural processes. Religion is very much a part of
culture since it is concerned with how we should conduct our lives. This book
probes the question, “How does religion affect the biological side of our
existence ?” ”
(Dust jacket)

So we need not trouble to go any further with the content of this book because
it has already told us that it is a piece of religious propaganda that has nothing to do
with an understanding of human society from a naturalistic point of view such as we
would expect to find in a science called sociobiology.
Once again we can liken this difficulty posed by dualistic science to the
problem that any sane person would have trying to understand how the role of the
brain in commanding the motion of the body could be separated from the fabric of the
body, whereby the nerve impulses and sensory signals carried through the nervous
tissue would be called cultural physiology, in contrast to the substance of the flesh
which might then be studied under the heading of biological physiology. This
particular dualism, the establishment of a cultural science, has been worked at for
decades and it strives to accommodate religion to science on the level of human
activity, so that in this particular case we merely see the fruit of this activity brought
home to roost where religion can be made a facet of human culture which is not in
any sense a natural phenomenon because it is subject to human will acting, if it so
chooses, in command over natural laws of the universe.
 Religion is biological. Religion is created by language, all culture is created
by language, or if I overstep the mark in stating this fact then I may correct myself by
saying that if some aspects are not truly speaking the direct products of linguistic
information then they are themselves linguistic in nature. Culture is language,
language is culture. Ford throws up all sorts of obstacles to the idea that society can
be regarded by science as the organism that he proves it must be. It beggars belief
that a person can write as he does, I mean, Why bother ? If this is all you are going to
come out with then why not just keep your mouth shut and your pen still ? The
answer is of course to keep up the ongoing pretence of inquiry.
The alternative is to actually take the argument to its natural conclusion, and
just imagine if Ford had done that and made it impossible for his ideas and religion to
exist at one and the same time. In order to do this Ford would of had to go beyond the
blinkers imposed upon him by his discipline and recognised that if humans form a
social organism created by nature, as he insists they do, then if the State cannot be
understood as that organism then the State is not that organism, and so the organism
must be something other than the State ! If we recognise these complimentary facts
we are then obliged to seek some social form that has all the authority and unity of the
State but that can be made sense of according to a naturalistic model. And so we
come to the book Social Evolution by Kidd whose title page appears here ;
 Kidd made the point that it is religion that acts as the basis of the social
organism's formation. This is the crucial insight, from this foundation religion can be
destroyed utterly and completely, and made quite impossible. It is hardly surprising
that Kidd drew an immediate attack from the priests working within the academic
establishment as we can see from this work ;
 Notice a professional priest presumes to comment upon Kidd's views as if
religious people have any right to comment upon anything other than their own sad
notions of belief. How can society progress when these people have such incredible
power that they are forever ready to pounce upon those who struggle out from under
the dead wood of religious ideas to challenge religious belief ? It cannot, religion
cannot be opposed. This fact we keep repeating because we must keep it in mind, we
are slaves of the priests and there is nothing to be done about it. But, as the slave
might say, “they cannot take our soul away from us if we keep in mind who we are
really.” But as much as we damn the theologian on this occasion he is helpful to us
because he actually sings Kidd's praises in so far as he sees Kidd's assertion that
religion is the supreme power in society as the great truth realised by Kidd, unlike any
other authors seeking to develop a science of humanity. And furthermore this enemy
of the freedom of knowledge goes on to rant and rave about the offensiveness and
stupidity of Kidd's ideas, and in doing so he indicates the good passages in Kidd's
work, and boy ! are they good ! And so the war continues.
But in common with all others who went before him Kidd's leap across the
chasm from enforced ignorance to wisdom is pointless, it fails completely. If Kidd
went further than anyone else had ever leaped toward a true science of humanity, he
still fell short. All that Kidd perceived when he saw through the veil of political
conceptions equating the social organism to the nation or the State, was a new image
of blindness as his eyes settled upon the veil of Christian myth. Pointless.
 It is for this reason that despite having owned my copy of this great work for
several years I have never selected it for reading in full. But every time I pick it from
the shelf to dabble in its stream of thought I love it, and last night was no exception.
After dipping into Sprague I decided to look for the relevant passage commented
upon there in Kidd, and to my delight I find he is focused upon the precise point I find
myself elaborating upon here, the war between science and religion. It can never be
possible to improve upon these passages in Kidd's work, it must be the greatest piece
of atheistic writing ever produced, no wonder it was so popular in its day and caused
so much consternation amongst the powers that rule over us. It is nonetheless tragic
that he could not find the solution, an omission which he states plainly was awaiting
resolution. Yet he had the solution firmly in his grasp, so we can but wonder why he
did not see what was staring him in the face. The difficulty can only be one of
attitude. Although having said that, the world today is a different place to the one in
which Kidd lived, we have had new lessons in life to helped us see further than
anyone in any preceding age, that I know of, ever managed to see.
I am so overwhelmed by Kidd's brilliant work that I shall reproduce two full
chapters from my copy, Chapter 4, The Central Feature of Human History, which is
the war between science and religion, and chapter five The Function of Religious
Beliefs in the Evolution of Society which poses the ultimate question of central
importance to any true science of humanity, since clearly determining what the
function of religious is is the key to performing the first duty of science, which is to
destroy religion. These two chapters span pages 81 to 117 inclusive, but as delightful
as I find this book he does have too much illustration and too little revelation for my
liking so I think I will trim his offering here and there ;

CHAPTER IV

THE CENTRAL FEATURE OF HUMAN HISTORY

THE outlines of the great fundamental problem which underlies our social
development are now clearly visible. We have a rational creature whose reason is
itself one of the leading factors in the progress he is making ; but who is nevertheless
subject, in common with all other forms of life, to certain organic laws of existence
which render his progress impossible in any other way than by submitting to
conditions that can never have any ultimate sanction in his reason. He is undergoing a
social development in which his individual interests are not only subservient to the
interests of the general progress of the race, but in which they are being increasingly
subordinated to the welfare of a social organism possessing widely different interests,
and an indefinitely longer life.
It is evident that we have here all the elements of a problem of capital
importance—a problem quite special and entirely different from any that the history
of life has ever before presented. On the one side we have the self-assertive reason of
the individual necessarily tending to be ever more and more developed by the
evolutionary forces at work. On the other, we have the immensely wider interests of
the social organism, and behind it those of the race in general, demanding,
nevertheless, the most absolute subordination of this ever-increasing rational self-
assertiveness in the individual. We find, in fact, if progress is to continue, that the
individual must be compelled to submit to conditions of existence of the most onerous
kind which, to all appearance, his reason actually gives him the power to suspend—
and all to further a development in which he has not, and in which he never can have,
qua individual, the slightest practical interest. We have, it would appear, henceforth to
witness the extraordinary spectacle of man, moved by a profound social instinct,
continually endeavouring in the interests of his social progress to check and control
the tendency of his own reason to suspend and reverse the conditions which are
producing this progress.
In the conflict which results, we have the seat of a vast series of phenomena
constituting the absolutely characteristic feature of our social evolution. It is
impossible to fully understand the spectacle presented by human history in the past on
the one hand, or the main features of the social phenomena, now presenting
themselves throughout our Western civilisation on the other, without getting to the
heart of this conflict. It is the pivot upon which the whole drama of human history and
human development turns.
If we could conceive a visitor from another planet coming amongst us, and
being set down in the midst of our Western civilisation at the present day, there is one
feature of our life which, we might imagine, could not fail to excite his interest and
curiosity. If we could suppose him taken round London, Paris, Berlin, or New York,
or any other great centre of population, by some man of light and leading amongst us,
we might easily imagine the anxiety of his conductor to worthily explain to him the
nature and the meaning of those aspects of our society which there presented
themselves. After all the outward features, the streets, the crowds, the buildings, and
the means of traffic and communication had received attention, we might expect our
man of science to explain to his visitor something of the nature of the wonderful
social organisation of which the outward features presented themselves. Our trades
and manufactures, our commerce, our methods of government, the forces at work
amongst us, and the problems, social and political, which occupy our minds, would
doubtless all receive notice. Something, too, of our history would be related, and our
relations, past and present, to other nations, and even to other sections of the human
race, would probably be explained.
But when our visitor had lived amongst us for a little time, he would probably
find that there was one most obvious feature of our life about which he had been told
nothing, yet respecting which he would, as an intelligent observer, sooner or later ask
for information. He would have noticed at every turn in our cities great buildings—
churches, temples, and cathedrals—and he would have seen also that wherever men
lived together in small groups they erected these buildings. He would have noticed the
crowds which periodically frequented them ; and if he had listened to the doctrines
taught therein he could not fail to be deeply interested. As his knowledge of us grew
he would learn that these institutions were not peculiar to any particular place, or even
to the people amongst whom he found himself ; that they were also a distinguishing
feature of other cities and other countries ; that they existed throughout the greater
part of the civilised world, and that similar institutions had been a characteristic
feature of human life as far back as history extends.
If, at this stage, he had ventured to ask his guide for some explanation of these
phenomena, he would not improbably begin to feel somewhat puzzled. For if his
guide had spoken as the spokesmen of science sometimes do speak nowadays, the
information given would probably not have been altogether satisfying. The visitor
would possibly have learned from him that the religious beliefs, which maintained
these institutions, were by some held to represent the survival of an instinct peculiar
to the childhood of the race ; that they were by others supposed to have had their
origin in ancestor-worship and a belief in ghosts. He might even have expressed his
own opinion that they belonged to a past age, and that they were generally discredited
by the intellectual class. Pressed for any further information he might have added that
science did not really pay much attention to the phenomena ; that she, in general,
regarded them with some degree of contempt and even of bitterness, for, that, during
many centuries these religions had maintained a vast conspiracy against her, had
persecuted her champions, and had used stupendous and extraordinary efforts to stifle
and strangle her. The guide, if he were a man of discrimination, might even have
added that the feud was still continued under all the outward appearances of truce and
friendliness ; that it was, in reality, only by her victories in applying her discoveries to
the practical benefit of the race that science had finally been able to secure her
position against her adversary ; and that in its heart one of the parties still continued to
regard the other as a mortal enemy which only the altered circumstances prevented it
from openly assailing.

[This is a telling part, where he notes that the war is continued under the
appearance of a truce. This is a sign that the war had been lost and science
was being brought under control by the forces of theocracy. The war against
humanity in the name of the priesthood never ends.]

Such a visitor could not fail to find his interest continue to grow as he listened
to such details. But if he had pressed for further information as to the nature of this
conflict, and had sought to learn what law or meaning underlay this extraordinary
instinct which had thus driven successive generations of men to carry on such a
prolonged and desperate struggle against forces set in motion by their own intellect, it
is not improbable that his guide would at this point have shrugged his shoulders and
changed the subject.
This is probably all the visitor would learn in this manner. Yet, as his
perplexity increased, so also might his interest be expected to grow. As he learnt more
of our history he would not fail to observe the important part these religions had
played therein. Nay, as he came to understand it and to view it, as he would be able to
do, without prepossession, he would see that it consisted to a large extent of the
history of the religious systems he saw around him. As he extended his view to the
history of other nations, and to that of our civilisation in general, he would be met
with features equally striking. He would observe that these systems had exercised the
same influence there, and that the history of our Western civilisation was largely but
the life-history of a particular form of religion and of wide-extending and deep-seated
social movements connected therewith. He would see that these movements had
deeply affected entire nations, and that revolutions to which they gave rise had
influenced national development and even to a considerable extent directed its course
amongst nearly all the peoples taking a leading part in the world around him.
As he inquired deeper he could not fail to be struck by the extraordinary depth
and dimensions of the conflict to which his guide had incidentally referred, namely,
that waged between these religions and the forces set in motion by human reason ;
and he would see also, that not only had it extended through a great part of the history
of Western civilisation, but that it was quite true that it was still in progress.
Regarding this conflict impartially, he could not fail also to be impressed profoundly
by the persistence of the instinct which inspired it, and he would doubtless conclude
that it must have some significance in the evolution which we were undergoing.
 His bewilderment would probably increase as he looked beneath the surface of
society. He would see that he was in reality living in the midst of a civilisation where
the habits, customs, laws, and institutions of the people had been influenced in almost
every detail by these religions ; that, although a large proportion of the population
were quite unconscious of it, their conceptions of their rights and duties, and of their
relationship to each other, their ideas of liberty, and even of government and of the
fundamental principles of society, had been largely shaped by doctrines taught in
connection with them. Nay, more, he would see that those who professed to entirely
repudiate the teachings of these religions, were almost as directly affected as other
sections of the community, and that whatever their private opinions might be, they
were quite powerless to escape the influences of the prevailing tone and the
developmental tendencies of the society in which they lived.

[The unwittingness of the social force that is focused upon, and operates
through the medium of religion, is described perfectly here.]

But the feature which would perhaps interest him most of all would probably
attract attention later. He would observe that these forms of religious belief which his
guide had spoken of as survivals, had nevertheless the support of a large proportion of
perfectly sincere and earnest persons ; and that great movements in connection with
the prevailing forms of belief were still in progress ; and that these movements, when
they were studied, proved to have the characteristic features which had distinguished
all similar movements in the past. He would find that they were not only independent
of, but in direct conflict with the intellectual forces ; that although they not
infrequently originated with obscure and uncultured persons, they spread with
marvellous rapidity, profoundly influencing immense bodies of men and producing
effects quite beyond the control of the intellectual forces of the time.
Such a visitor, at length, would not fail to be deeply impressed by what he had
observed. He would be driven to conclude that he was dealing with phenomena, the
laws and nature of which were little understood by the people amongst whom he
found himself ; and that whatever might be the meaning of these phenomena they
undoubtedly constituted one of the most persistent and characteristic features of
human society, and not only in past ages but at the present day.
If, however, our visitor at last endeavoured to obtain for himself by a
systematic study of the literature of the subject some insight into the nature of the
phenomena he was regarding, the state of things which would meet his view would
excite his wonder not a little. If at the outset he endeavoured to discover what all these
various forms of religion admittedly had in common, that is to say, the distinguishing
characteristic they all possessed, from the forms of belief prevalent amongst men in a
low social state up to those highly-developed religions which were playing so large a
part in the life of civilised peoples, he would be met by a curious fact. He would find
everywhere discussions on the subject of religion. Besides an immense theological
literature, exclusively devoted to the matter, he would encounter the term at every
turn in the philosophical and social writings of the time. He would find a vast number
of treatises, and innumerable shorter works and articles in periodical publications,
devoted to discussions connected with the subject and to almost every aspect of the
great number of questions more or less intimately associated with it. But for one thing
he would search in vain. He would probably be unable anywhere to discover any
satisfactory definition of this term “religion” which all the writers were so constantly
using, or any general evidence that those who carried on the discussions had any
definite view as to the function in our social development of the beliefs they disputed
about, if, indeed, they considered it necessary to hold that they had any function at all.
He would probably find, at a very early stage, that all the authorities could not
possibly intend the word in the same sense. At the one extreme he would find that
there was a certain class of beliefs calling themselves religions, possessed of well-
marked characteristics, and undoubtedly influencing in a particular manner great
numbers of persons. At the other he would find a class of persons claiming to speak in
the name of science, repudiating all the main features of these ; and speaking of a true
religion which would survive all that they held to be false in them, i.e. all that the
others held to be essential. Between these two camps, he would find an irregular army
of persons who seemed to think that the title of religion might be properly applied to
any form of belief they might hold, and might choose so to describe. He would hear of
the religion of Science, of the religion of Philosophy, of the religion of Humanity, of
the religion of Reason, of the religion of Socialism, of Natural Religion, and of many
others. In the absence of any definite general conception as to what the function of a
religion really was, it would appear to be held possible to apply this term to almost
any form of belief (or unbelief), with equal propriety.
If he attempted at last to draw up a list of some representative definitions
formulated by leading authorities representing various views, he would find the
definitions themselves puzzling and conflicting to an extraordinary degree. It might
run somewhat as follows :—

CURRENT DEFINITIONS OF RELIGION.

Seneca.—To know God and imitate Him.

Kant.—Religion consists in our recognising all our duties as Divine commands.
Ruskin.—Our national religion is the performance of Church ceremonies, and preaching of
soporific truths (or untruths) to keep the mob quietly at work while we amuse ourselves.
Matthew Arnold.—Religion is morality touched by emotion.
Comte.—The Worship of Humanity.
Alexander Bain.—The religious sentiment is constituted by the Tender Emotion, together with
Fear, and the Sentiment of the Sublime.
Edward Caird.—A man's religion is the expression of his ultimate attitude to the Universe, the
summed-up meaning and purport of his whole consciousness of things.
Hegel.—The knowledge acquired by the Finite Spirit of its essence as an Absolute Spirit.
Huxley.—Reverence and love for the Ethical ideal, and the desire to realise that ideal in life.
Froude.—A sense of responsibility to the Power that made us.
Mill.—The essence of Religion is the strong and earnest direction of the emotions and desires
towards an ideal object, recognised as of the highest excellence, and as rightly paramount over all
selfish objects of desire.
Gruppe.—A belief in a State or in a Being which, properly speaking, lies outside the sphere of
human striving and attainment, but which can be brought into this sphere in a particular way, namely,
by sacrifices, ceremonies, prayers, penances, and self-denial.
Carlyle.—The thing a man does practically believe ; the thing a man does practically lay to
heart, and know for certain, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious Universe and his duty and
destiny therein.
The Author o f ”Natural Religion”—Religion in its elementary state is what may be described
as habitual and permanent admiration.
Dr. Martineau.—Religion is a belief in an everlasting God ; that is, a Divine mind and will,
ruling the Universe, and holding moral relations with mankind.
 [Sprague went nuts about these definitions, complaining that they were all
taken from enemies of religion, that no authoritative theologian is represented
here, and how such an oversight can only smack of wilful bias : pretty rich
coming from a priest ! For my part I see nothing of merit in any of them, but
we can be sure that if we selected the best million alternatives that could be
provided by dedicated professional priests from all and any enclave, we would
get nothing any better than what we have here ; Sprague offers no definition
himself. No priest would ever be so foolish as to expose themselves to
ridicule by being definite about the nonsense they talk.]

The perplexity of our imaginary visitor at finding such a list grow under his
hand (and it might be almost indefinitely prolonged) could well be conceived. It
would seem almost inevitable that he must sooner or later be driven to conclude that
he was dealing with a class of phenomena, the key to which he did not possess.
If we can now conceive such an observer able to look at the whole matter from
an outside and quite independent point of view, there is a feature of the subject which
might be expected ultimately to impress itself upon his imagination. The one idea
which would slowly take possession of his mind would be that underneath all this vast
series of phenomena with which he was confronted, he beheld man in some way in
conflict with his own reason. The evidence as to this conflict would be unmistakable,
and all the phenomena connected with it might be seen to group themselves naturally
under one head. It would be perceived that it was these forms of religious belief which
had supplied the motive power in an extraordinary struggle which man had apparently
carried on throughout his whole career against forces set in motion by his own mind
—a struggle, grim, desperate, and tragic, which would stand out as one of the most
pronounced features of his history.
From the point at which science first encountered him emerging from the
obscurity of prehistoric times, down into the midst of contemporary affairs, it would
be seen that this struggle had never ceased. It had assumed, and was still assuming,
various forms, and different symbols at different times represented, more or less
imperfectly, the opposing forces. Superstition and Knowledge, the Ecclesiastical and
the Civil, Church and State, Dogma and Doubt, Faith and Reason, the Sacred and the
Profane, the Spiritual and the Temporal, Religion and Science, Supernaturalism and
Rationalism, these are some of the terms which would be found to have expressed,
sometimes fully, sometimes only partially, the forces in opposition. Not only would
the conflict be perceived to be still amongst us, but its dominant influence would be
distinguished beneath all the complex social phenomena of the time, and even behind
those new forces unloosed by the social revolution which was filling the period in
which the current generation were living.

[Note the array of dualisms discovered effortlessly in this social scientist's

study of the conflict between science and religion ; his central feature of
human social history.]

One of the most remarkable features which the observer could not fail to
notice in connection with these religions, would be, that under their influence man
would seem to be possessed of an instinct, the like of which he would not encounter
anywhere else. This instinct, under all its forms, would be seen to have one invariable
characteristic. Moved by it, man would appear to be always possessed by the desire to
set up sanctions for his individual conduct, which would appeal to be Super-natural
against those which were natural, sanctions which would appear to be ultra-rational
against those which were simply rational. Everywhere he would find him clinging
with the most extraordinary persistence to ideas and ideals which regulated his life
under the influence of these religions, and ruthlessly persecuting all those who
endeavoured to convince him that these conceptions were without foundation in fact.
At many periods in human history also, he would have to observe that the opinion had
been entertained by considerable numbers of persons, that a point had at length been
reached, at which it was only a question of time, until human reason finally dispelled
the belief in those unseen powers which man held in control over himself. But he
would find this anticipation never realised. Dislodged from one position, the human
mind, he would observe, had only taken up another of the same kind which it
continued once more to hold with the same unreasoning, dogged, and desperate
persistence.

[Sprague criticises Kidd's claim that the true subject of one central element of
human history is reason in conflict with religion. But we need to know what
the significance of certain words was at this time to fully appreciate this aspect
of the argument. The constant use of the word instinct in relation to human
thought is a very telling point, for instinct is supposed to be what applies to
animals, reason being the unique prerogative of man. Clearly Kidd is
deliberately choosing such loaded terms to turn the linguistic weapons
concocted by enemies of science against the denizens of priestly ignorance.
No wonder Sprague homes in on the meaning of such words which he
obviously, as a priest, assumes only he has a right to determine. The use of
the word instinct in reference to human religious beliefs is justified by the fact
that these beliefs are based upon some unwitting natural force, and have
nothing to do with human conscious will.]

Strangest sight of all, the observer, while he would find man in every other
department of life continually extolling his reason, regarding it as his highest
possession, and triumphantly revelling in the sense of power with which it equipped
him, would here see him counting as his bitterest enemies worthy of the severest
punishment, and the most persistent persecution, all who suggested to him that he
should, in these matters, walk according to its light. He would find that the whole
department of speculative and philosophical thought which represented the highest
intellectual work of the race for an immense period, furnished an extraordinary
spectacle. It would present the appearance of a territory, along whose frontiers had
been waged, without intermission, a war, deadly and desolating as any the
imagination could conceive. Even the imperfect descriptions of this conflict from time
to time by some of the minds which had taken part on one side in it would be very
striking. “ I know of no study, ” says Professor Huxley, “ which is so unutterably
saddening as that of the evolution of humanity as it is set forth in the annals of history.
Out of the darkness of prehistoric ages, man emerges with the marks of his lowly
origin strong upon him. He is a brute, only more intelligent than other brutes ; a blind
prey to impulses, which as often as not lead him to destruction ; a victim to endless
illusions which make his mental existence a terror and a burthen, and fill his physical
life with barren toil and battle. He attains a certain degree of comfort, and develops a
more or less workable theory of life in such favourable situations as the plains of
Mesopotamia, or of Egypt, and then for thousands and thousands of years, struggles
with varying fortunes, attended by infinite wickedness, bloodshed, and misery, to
maintain himself at this point against the greed and the ambition of his fellow-men.
He makes a point of killing and otherwise persecuting all those who first try to get
him to move on ; and when he has moved a step farther, foolishly confers post-
mortem deification on his victims. He exactly repeats the process with all who want to
move a step yet farther. ” (“Agnosticism,” Nineteenth Century, February 1889.) This
territory of the intellect would, in fact, present all the appearances of a battle-field,
stained with the blood of many victims, singed with the flames of martyrdom, and
eloquent of every form of terror and punishment that human ingenuity had been able
to devise.
And he would notice, as many of those who fought in the ranks did not, the
note of failure which resounded through all that region of higher human thought
which we call philosophy, the profound air of more or less unconscious melancholy
which sat upon many of the more far-seeing champions on the side of human reason,
and the—at times scarcely concealed—sense of hopelessness of any decisive triumph
for their cause displayed by some of these champions, even while their followers of
less insight were ever and anon hailing all the signs of final victory. [Hence : the
Forlorn Philosophy ! ]
There is not, it is believed, anything which is unreal or exaggerated in this
view of one of the chief phases of human evolution. The aim has been to look at the
facts just as they might be expected to present themselves to an observer who could
thus regard them from the outside, and with a mind quite free from all prepossession.
He would be able to perceive the real proportions of this stupendous conflict ; he
would be able to see that both sides regarded it from merely a partisan standpoint,
neither of them possessing any true perception of its nature or dimensions, or of its
relationship to the development the race is undergoing. If it is profitless for science to
approach the examination of religious phenomena from the direction in which it is
usually approached by a large class of religious writers, it is also apparently none the
less idle and foolish to attempt to dismiss the whole subject as if it merely furnished
an exhibition of some perverse and meaningless folly and fury in man. Many of the
ideas concerning the origin of religions, insists De la Saussaye truly, need only to be
mentioned to have their insufficiency realised. “ Such is, for instance, that formerly
popular explanation which regarded religion as a human discovery sprung from the
cunning deception of priests and rulers. Another opinion not less insipid, though at
present sometimes regarded as the highest philosophy, is that which declares religion
to be a madness, a pathological phenomenon closely allied with neurosis and
hysteria. ” (Manual of the Science of Religion, by P. D. C. De La Saussaye, translated
from the German, by B. S. Colyer-Fergusson, 1891.) The phenomena in question are
on such a gigantic scale, and the instinct which finds an expression therein is so
general, so persistent, and so deep-seated, that they cannot be lightly passed over in
this way. In the eyes of the evolutionist they must have some meaning, they must be
associated with some wide-reaching law of our social development as yet
unenunciated.

[Absolutely ! It is a great shame that up to the present time no human being

has ever realised what Kidd was able to state categorically so long ago. Wait a
minute ........ oh, of course, we are writing a history of a forlorn philosophy, it
is the history of ideas that are glaringly obvious to countless people, but which
are only ever rarely able to surface above the deposit of ignorance gushing
from the central structure of society led by the priest.]
 The one fact which stands out clear above it all is that the forces against which
man is engaged throughout the whole course of the resulting struggle are none other
than those enlisted against him by his reason. As in Calderon's tragic story the
unknown figure which, throughout life, is everywhere in conflict with the individual
whom it haunts, lifts the mask at last to disclose to the opponent his own features, so
here underneath these religious phenomena we see man throughout his career engaged
in a remorseless and relentless struggle in which the opponent proves to be none other
than his own reason. Throughout all the centuries in which history has him in view we
witness him driven by a profound instinct which finds expression in his religions
unmistakably recognising a hostile force of some kind in his own reason. 1
This is the spectacle which demands our attention. This is the conflict the
significance of which in human evolution it is necessary to bring out into the fullest
and clearest light. It is a conflict, the meaning of which has been buried for over two
thousand years under the fierce controversy (not less partisan and unscientific on the
one side than on the other) which has been waged over it. Goethe was not speaking
with a poet's exaggeration, but with a scientific insight in advance of his time when he
asserted of it, that it is “ the deepest, nay, the one theme of the world's history to
which all others are subordinate. ” (Vide The Social Philosophy and Religion of
Comte, by E. Caird, LL.D., p. 160.)

[Sprague railed against the madness of Kidd's interpretation of Goethe's

meaning taken from the passage quoted, but this criticism is little more
relevant to so momentous an argument as it would be to complain about bad
grammar or spelling.]
1
It is a remarkable and interesting fact that the two sides in this conflict, even under all the
forms and freedom of modern life where the fullest scope is allowed for every kind of inquiry, still
seem to recognise each other intuitively as opponents. Mr. Galton, as the result of his inquiries into the
personal and family history of scientific men in England, says that it is a fact that, in proportion to the
pains bestowed on their education, sons of clergymen rarely take the lead in science. The pursuit of
science he considers must be uncongenial to the priestly character. He says that in his own experience
of the councils of scientific societies it is very rare to find clergymen thereon. Out of 660 separate
appointments clergymen held only sixteen, or one in forty, and these were in nearly every case attached
to subdivisions of science with fewest salient points to jar against dogma.—English Men of Science,
their Nature and Nurture, by F. Galton.

[I would suggest Kidd does himself no favours by following this line of

thinking as it is my contention that science is necessarily corrupted by
religious people precisely through their ingress into institutions where they
have no right to be. Even Darwin was destined to be a clergyman until he was
diverted away from that line, so instead he became a religious insider, cloaked
in the appearance of a scientist, but as dedicated to the war against science as
any human being could ever hope to be. But we do learn from such flawed
observations just how utterly Kidd failed to appreciate the significance of his
own ideas, and hence failed to develop a scientific conception of the conflict
he describes so wonderfully in this chapter.]
 It is clear that Kidd is taking a very strident position on the subject of the
nature of religion, and it is always good to discover antagonistic sources that reinforce
this impression because we like Kidd’s hard line “extremist atheism” so much,
extremist atheism being atheism that tolerates no religion ; here is another example of
an enemy of reason that reveals the beauty of true atheism :

Again what we have here is a piece of religious propaganda insinuating itself

into our world under the pretence of being genuine knowledge. The war goes on, but
lets see what a resounding commendation Mackintosh gives Kidd.

PREFACE

THE historical sketch and criticism here attempted had its proximate
origin in two consecutive years' work with a senior class of sociology at
Lancashire College. In 1896-97 essays were prescribed on topics suggested by
Mr. Benjamin Kidd's Social Evolution ; while the seniors of 1897-98 attended
lectures covering rather more ground. The material thus collected has been
again revised and again considerably added to. The literature of the subject is
always growing. Some books of consequence, old or new, must have been
overlooked. Still, it is hoped that the subject itself has well-defined limits. The
 appeal to biology, outlined by Comte, newly defined and emphasised by
Darwinism, has now been stated in the most extreme form logically possible.
Mr. Kidd's book holds that significant position.
(Page vii)

By what right can a person who subscribes to a religious belief teach

sociology in any college worthy of the name ? it simply beggars belief. What chance
did a science of humanity stand where this charade was possible ? It is as if the police
force were to welcome with open arms every kind of vicious and insane criminal who
applied for a job within the force !
But there we have it, and this is of course perfectly normal in our society. To
complain about the presence of theists in places of intellectual study is like
complaining about the fact that cows eat grass, or the fact that the sun is up during the
daytime. This of course is just the point that Kidd’s work makes, only, tragically,
Kidd himself does not seem to recognise this fact, he seems to think that the conflict
between reason and instinct are some sort of Jekyll and Hyde game, a political
charade, he simply does not see that this is a natural phenomenon that makes perfect
sense once you have grasped the true conception of what human nature is ; human
nature being corporate as stated previously.
Needless to say Kidd in no sense realises the ultimate potential of biological
ideas as they can be applied to a biology to humans. Lets return to Kidd's work to see
how far he did get in this regard, for Kidd certainly did get further than anyone else,
before or since, has ever got ; the title of this next chapter alone is a superb statement
in its own right :

CHAPTER V

THE FUNCTION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS IN THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIETY

SINCE science first seriously directed her attention to the study of social phenomena,
the interest of workers has been arrested by the striking resemblances between the life
of society and that of organic growths in general. We have, accordingly, had many
elaborate parallels drawn by various scientific writers between the two, and “the
social organism” has become a familiar expression in a certain class of literature. It
must be confessed, however, that these comparisons have been, so far, neither as
fruitful nor as suggestive as might naturally have been expected. The generalisations
and abstractions to which they have led, even in the hands of so original a thinker as
Mr. Herbert Spencer, are often, it must be acknowledged, forced and unsatisfactory ;
and it may be fairly said that a field of inquiry which looked at the outset in the
highest degree promising has, on the whole, proved disappointing.
Yet that there is some analogy between the social life and organic life in
general, history and experience most undoubtedly suggest. The pages of the historian
seem to be filled with pictures of organic life, over the moving details of which the
biologist instinctively lingers. We see social systems born in silence and obscurity.
They develop beneath our eyes. They make progress until they exhibit a certain
maximum vitality. They gradually decline, and finally disappear, having presented in
the various stages certain well-marked phases which invariably accompany the
development and dissolution of organic life wheresoever encountered. It may be
observed too that this idea of the life, growth, and decline of peoples is deeply rooted.
It is always present in the mind of the historian. It is to be met with continually in
general literature. The popular imagination is affected by it. It finds constant
expression in the utterances of public speakers and of writers in the daily press, who,
ever and anon, remind us that our national life, or, it may be, the life of our
civilisation, must reach, if it has not already reached, its stage of maximum
development, and that it must decline like others which have preceded it. That social
systems are endowed with a definite principle of life seems to be taken for granted.
Yet : What is this principle ? Where has it its seat ? What are the laws which control
the development and decline of those so-called organic growths ? Nay, more : What
is the social organism itself ? Is it the political organisation of which we form part ?
Or is it the race to which we belong ? Is it our civilisation in general ? Or, is it, as
some writers would seem to imply, the whole human family in process of evolution ?
It must be confessed that the literature of our time furnishes no satisfactory answers to
a large class of questions of this kind.

[Excellent, we have a series of highly pertinent questions. But we do not have

the only question that matters, Is the social organism defined by our religion ?
The answer to this question is a categorical Yes ! But Kidd, despite the
attention he pays to religion, does not apparently see this. This omission is
truly amazing. Answering this question was the key to annihilating religion,
which his work implies he wanted to do more than anything else, he wanted to
win the war for science ; Didn't he ? Could even Kidd’s work be just another
blind in the eternal production of barriers generated by the theocratic structure
to prevent reality from being known ? On this occasion I am inclined to think
not, I can only see an error induced by the oppression of the theocratic
structure. But what of the Jews, why does Kidd not see that to be a Christian
is, organically speaking, with the idea of the social organism in mind, to be a
second order Jew in the physiological hierarchy of the Jewish social
organism ? ]

It is evident that if we are ever to lay broadly and firmly the foundations of a
science of human society, that there is one point above others at which attention must
be concentrated. The distinguishing feature of human history is the social
development the race is undergoing. But the characteristic and exceptional feature of
this development is the relationship of the individual to society. We have seen in the
preceding chapters that fundamental organic conditions of life render the progress of
the race possible only under conditions which have never had, and which have not
now, any sanction from the reason of a great proportion of the individuals who submit
to them. The interests of the individual and those of the social organism, in the
evolution which is proceeding, are not either identical or capable of being reconciled,
as has been necessarily assumed in all those systems of ethics which have sought to
establish a rational sanction for individual conduct. The two are fundamentally and
inherently irreconcilable, and a large proportion of the existing individuals at any time
have, as we saw, no personal interest whatever in this progress of the race, or in the
social development we are undergoing. Strange to say, however, man's reason, which
has apparently given him power to suspend the onerous conditions to which he is
subject, has never produced their suspension. His development has continued with
unabated pace throughout history, and it is in full progress under our eyes.
 [This is beautifully insightful. The development of the social organism
depends upon the relationship between the individual and the organism.
However he sees reason as being involved in the interaction between person
and society. This is ridiculous. Clearly the key is for the identity of the
individual to be made one with that of the organism, and identity is the most
irrational phenomenon it is possible to conceive of since a mere colour can
denote identity, as in the case of race. Paying homage to reason seems to be
the fatal flaw in Kidd’s thinking, it is a typical failure to get beyond the idea of
self existence which we may call individual ego.]

The pregnant question with which we found ourselves confronted was,

therefore : What has then become of human reason ? It would appear that the answer
has, in effect, been given. The central feature of human history, the meaning of which
neither science nor philosophy has hitherto fully recognised, is, apparently, the
struggle which man, throughout the whole period of his social development, has
carried on to effect the subordination of his own reason.

[This cannot be right, it makes no sense to say that the essence of the
evolutionary process acting on human society concerns the subordination of
reason, because whether we believe in black magic or Christ the end product is
the same, we rely on nonsense for our connection to society. Kidd’s statement
implies that reason is a given, and it must be suppressed to make us compliant
to social order. Nothing could be further from the truth, reason is a precious
gem that is extracted painfully and with difficulty from experience, and easily
lost. The rationality that science would recognise in this nonsense is that we
are connected via a cultural pattern which equates to a colour, and the essence
of evolution in society is therefore concerned with the evolution of complexity
in the social structure which runs hand in hand with the complexity of the
cultural pattern. But no matter how complex the pattern under which
individuals find themselves subsumed into a given social structure the degree
of irrationality must always be absolute because a pattern is a pattern is a
pattern, and can never be anything else but a pattern. Thus whether it is a
bone through a nose or a Norman cathedral, the meaning and rationality of the
two cultural forms, although immensely different in form and power, are
identical in terms of their nature as the representation of religious function in
society.]

The motive power in this struggle has undoubtedly been supplied by his religious
beliefs. The conclusion towards which we seem to be carried is, therefore, that the
function of these beliefs in human evolution must be to provide a super-rational
sanction for that large class of conduct in the individual, necessary to the maintenance
of the development which is proceeding, but for which there can never be, in the
nature of things, any rational sanction.

[Super-rational - what exactly is this phenomenon ? It must be just as

meaningful, real and functional as rational sanction or it could not act as a
vital alternative overruling the rational sanction of individual decision making.
Answer : it is the means by which individuals are inducted into the social
organism, primarily an emotional rationality of the kind that makes football
 fans adhere to their team and oppose other teams with varying degrees of
animosity.
Now we begin to tease out of Kidd’s argument the insidious dualism
which reveals that his work is yet another religious attack on science, for in
effect he is making the attribute of rationality found in the individual the
supreme quality of humans, thus he is making the individual an end in
themselves. So, there we have it, Kidd was a fraud as Darwin was a fraud, but
Kidd is a vastly more clever fraudster than Darwin because Kidd actually
tackles the most intimate question of human nature in society. Still, both
fraudsters are likely to of been so entirely unwittingly ; which is amusing in
Kidd’s case since he actually refers to the way that even the enemies of
religion cannot stop themselves defending religion.]

The fact has been already noticed that evolutionary science is likely in our day
to justify, as against the teaching of past schools of thought, one of the deepest and
most characteristic of social instincts, viz., that which has consistently held the
theories of that large group of philosophical writers who have aimed at establishing a
rational sanction for individual conduct in society—a school which may be said to
have culminated in England in “utilitarianism”—as being on the whole (to quote the
words of Mr. Lecky) “profoundly immoral.” (History of European Morals, vol. i. pp.
2, 3.) It would appear that science must in the end also justify another instinct equally
general, and also in direct opposition to a widely prevalent intellectual conception
which is characteristic of our time.
From the beginning of the nineteenth century, and more particularly since
Comte published his Philosophie Positive, an increasingly large number of minds in
France, Germany, and England (not necessarily, or even chiefly, those adhering to
Comte's general views) have questioned the essentiality of the supernatural element in
religious beliefs. In England a large literature has gradually arisen on the subject ; and
the vogue of books like Natural Religion, attributed to Professor J. E. Seeley, and
others in which the subject has been approached from different standpoints, has
testified to the interest which this view has excited. A large and growing intellectual
party in our midst hold, in fact, the belief that the religion of the future must be one
from which the super-rational element is eliminated.

[Conclusions of this kind derived from science cannot be true. Evolutionary

theory that reduces humans to the status organisms like any other does not
“justify” immorality, in accord with the scientific method evolutionary theory
must completely negate all bias, positive or negative, and therefore simply
does not perceive the value laden meaning of any human words, except in so
far as these values represent indicators of functional activity. Thus in
complete contrast to the founding principles of Macintosh's religious school of
sociology, a scientific sociology would completely refute the notion of “right”
and “wrong” as these values are understood on their own terms. Sociologists
must stand outside the flux of society and observe social action without
involvement, seeing what is called “right” and “wrong” and evaluating their
contrast but not thinking that what is wrong is “wrong” or that what is right is
“right”, but rather trying to understand why these dynamic contrasts exist.
Science negates religion, and that is all there is to it, it cannot prognosticate
that in the future a none spiritual religion must come into being. By reducing
 religion to its true basis as a medium of identity, science could indicate that in
the future a new basis of collective unity could arise based on the rationality
that is synonymous with individual consciousness.
Rational means knowing why we do what we do, and that is an
extremely rare kind of awareness that humans did not evolve to possess. To
make it clear what rationality is literally, as we can conceive of it in a strictly
scientific sense, we may consider two identical actions, one rational and the
other irrational, where the sole difference between them is the expression of
consciousness of reason. Thus if we wash our hands because we think
godliness is next to cleanliness then we avoid illness, and we are being as
irrational as it is possible to be because we do not know why this behaviour is
functional. Whereas if we wash our hands because we are aware of the
existence of unseen hazards that washing eliminates then we are being
perfectly rational because we know this is good hygiene that reduces sickness.
Both actions achieve the same positive end but they are vastly different
behaviours, and the difference between them is the driving force in the
intellectual war between religion and science in that the theist argues that their
insane ideas are rational because they are functional, which they are, but
needless to say these functional ideas are then imbued with a colour code, a
religious imperative, to make them politically functional too. It is the political
function that no science can take at face value, and thus science cannot accept
sound outcomes as evidence of rationality. And we can see an inherently
dualistic principle introduced by religion into knowledge, a dualism that of its
very nature demands that true knowledge should be mysterious in order that
political power can arise from its possession. Clearly science must negate this
socially motivated dualism in order to know anything for certain.]

Now, if we have been right so far, it would appear that one of the first results
of the application of the methods and conclusions of biological science to human
society must be to render it clear that the advocates of these views, like the adherents
of that larger school of thought which has sought to find a rational basis for individual
conduct in society, are in pursuit of something which can never exist. There can never
be, it would appear, such a thing as a rational religion. The essential element in all
religious beliefs must apparently be the ultra-rational sanction which they provide for
social conduct. When the fundamental nature of the problem involved in our social
evolution is understood, it must become clear that that general instinct which may be
distinguished in the minds of men around us is in the main correct, and that :—
No form of belief is capable of functioning as a religion in the evolution of
society which does not provide an ultra-rational sanction for social conduct in the
individual.
In other words :—
A rational religion is a scientific impossibility, representing from the nature of
the case an inherent contradiction of terms.
The significance of this conclusion will become evident as we proceed. It
opens up a new and almost unexplored territory. We come, it would appear, in sight
of the explanation why science, if social systems are organic growths, has hitherto
failed to enunciate the laws of their development, and has accordingly left us almost
entirely in the dark as to the nature of the developmental forces and tendencies at
work beneath the varied and complex political and social phenomena of our time. The
social system which constitutes an organic growth, endowed with a definite principle
of life, and unfolding itself in obedience to laws which may be made the subject of
exact study, is something quite different from that we have hitherto had vaguely in
mind. It is not the political organisation of which we form part ; it is not the race to
which we belong ; it is not even the whole human family in process of evolution. The
organic growth, it would appear, must be the social system or type of civilisation
founded on a form of religious belief. This is the organism which is the seat of a
definite principle of life. Throughout its existence there is maintained within it a
conflict of two opposing forces ; the disintegrating principle represented by the
rational self-assertiveness of the individual units ; the integrating principle represented
by a religious belief providing a sanction for social conduct which is always of
necessity ultra-rational, and the function of which is to secure in the stress of
evolution the continual subordination of the interests of the individual units to the
larger interests of the longer-lived social organism to which they belong. It is, it
would appear, primarily through these social systems that natural selection must reach
and act upon the race. It is from the ethical systems upon which they are founded that
the resulting types of civilisation receive those specific characteristics which, in the
struggle for existence, influence in a preponderating degree the peoples affected by
them. It is in these ethical systems, founded on super-rational sanctions, and in the
developments which they undergo, that we have the seat of a vast series of vital
phenomena unfolding themselves under the control of definite laws which may be
made the subject of study. The scientific investigation of these phenomena is capable,
as we shall see, of throwing a flood of light not only upon the life-history of our
Western civilisation in general, but upon the nature of the developmental forces
underlying the complex social and political movements actually in progress in the
world around us.

[In the above passage we have a statement that comes closer than any other
human being has ever come to defining the nature of humans, for he
recognises that the social organism is defined by its religious identity, and this
has massive implications. Although Kidd sees none of them. These
implications reverberated through society, being intimately connected with the
two world wars, and they echo on down to our time and are seen to be the
underlying force generating the ongoing social changes and conflicts of today,
including the war in Iraq and global terrorism. The war between religion and
science has its counterpart in social activity where real warfare is all about the
promotion and defence of religious identity ; as we would expect since
religion gives the superorganism its identity and war is the means by which
the superorganism grows and sustains its physical integrity in accordance with
its religious identity.]

But before following up this line of inquiry, let us see if the conclusion to
which we have been led respecting the nature of the element common to all religious
beliefs can be justified when it is confronted with actual facts. Are we thus, it may be
asked, able to unearth from beneath the enormous overgrowth of discussion and
controversy to which this subject has given rise, the essential element in all religions,
and to lay down a simple, but clear and concise principle upon which science may in
future proceed in dealing with the religious phenomena of mankind ?
 It is evident, from what has been said, that our definition of a religion, in the
sense in which alone science is concerned with religion as a social phenomenon, must
run somewhat as follows :—
A religion is a form of belief, providing an ultra-rational sanction for that
large class of conduct in the individual where his interests and the interests of the
social organism are antagonistic, and by which the former are rendered subordinate
to the latter in the general interests of the evolution which the race is undergoing.
We have here the principle at the base of all religions. Any religion is, of
course, more than this to its adherents ; for it must necessarily maintain itself by what
is often a vast system of beliefs and ordinances requiring acts and observances which
only indirectly contribute to the end in question, by assisting to uphold the principles
of the religion. It is these which tend to confuse the minds of many observers. With
them we are not here concerned ; they more properly fall under the head of theology.
Let us see, therefore, if this element of a super-rational sanction for conduct
has been the characteristic feature of all religions, from those which have influenced
men in a state of low social development up to those which now play so large a part in
the life of highly-civilised peoples ; whether, despite recent theories to the contrary,
there is to be discerned no tendency in those beliefs which are obviously still
influencing large numbers of persons to eliminate it. (Page 104)

(Page 106) Now, there is one universal and noteworthy feature of the life of
primitive man which a comparative study of his habits has revealed. “No savage,”
says Sir John Lubbock, “is free. All over the world his daily life is regulated by a
complicated and apparently most inconvenient set of customs as forcible as laws.”
(Origin of Civilisation, p. 301.) We are now beginning to understand that it is these
customs of savage man, strange and extraordinary as they appear to us, that in great
measure take the place of the legal and moral codes which serve to hold society
together and contribute to its further development in our advanced civilisations. The
whole tendency of recent anthropological science is to establish the conclusion that
these habits and customs, “as forcible as laws,” either have or had, directly or
indirectly, a utilitarian function to perform in the societies in which they exist.
Mr. Herbert Spencer and others have already traced in many cases the important
influence in the evolution of early society of those customs, habits, and ceremonies of
savage man which at first sight often appear so meaningless and foolish to us ; and
though this department of science is still young, there is no doubt as to the direction in
which current research therein is leading us.
But if, on the one hand, we find primitive man thus everywhere under the
sway of customs which we are to regard as none other than the equivalent of the legal
and moral codes of higher societies ; and if, on the other hand, we find these customs
everywhere as forcible as laws, how, it may be asked, are those unwritten laws of
savage society enforced ? The answer comes prompt and without qualification. They
are everywhere enforced in one and the same way. Observance of them is invariably
secured by the fear of consequences from an agent which is always supernatural. This
agent may, and does, assume a variety of forms, but one characteristic it never loses.
It is always supernatural. We have here the explanation of the conflict of opinions
regarding the religions of primitive man. Some writers assume that he is without
religion because he is without a belief in a Deity. Others because his Deities are all
evil. But, if we are right so far, it is not necessarily a belief in a Deity, or in Deities
which are not evil, that we must look for as constituting the essential element in the
religions of primitive men. The one essential and invariable feature must be a
supernatural sanction of some kind for acts and observances which have a social
significance. This sanction we appear always to have. We are never without the
supernatural in some form. The essential fact which underlies all the prolonged and
complicated controversy which has been waged over this subject was once put, with
perhaps more force than reverence, by Professor Huxley into a single sentence.
“There are savages without God in any proper sense of the word, but there are none
without ghosts,” (Lay Sermons and Addresses, p. 163.) said he ; and the
generalisation, however it may have been intended, expresses in effective form the
one fundamental truth in the discussion with which science is concerned. It is the
supernatural agents, the deities, spirits, ghosts, with which primitive man peoples the
air, water, rocks, trees, his dwellings and his implements, which everywhere provide
the ultimate sanction used to enforce conduct which has a social significance of the
kind in question. Whatever qualities these agents may be supposed to possess or to
lack, one attribute they always have ; they are invariably supernatural.
When we leave savage man, and rise a step higher to those societies which
have made some progress towards civilisation, we find the prevailing religions still
everywhere possessing the same distinctive features ; they are always associated with
social conduct, and they continue to be invariably founded on a belief in the
supernatural...........(Page108)

(Page 109) In the religions of the early Greeks and Romans, representing the
forms of belief prevalent amongst peoples who eventually attained to the highest state
of civilisation anterior to our own, we have features of peculiar interest. The religion
of the prehistoric ancestors of both peoples was in all probability a form of ancestor
worship. The isolated family ruled by the head, with, as a matter of course, absolute
power over the members, was the original unit alike in the religious and political
systems of these peoples. At the death of some all-powerful head of this kind, his
spirit was held in awe, and, as generations went on, the living master of the house
found himself ruling simply as the vicegerent of the man from whom he had inherited
his authority. Thus arose the family religion which was the basis of the Greek and
Latin systems, all outside the family religion being regarded as aliens or enemies. As
the family expanded in favourable circumstances into a related group (the Latin gens),
and the gens in turn into clans (phratriari), and these again into tribes (phylai), an
aggregate of which formed the city state or polis, the idea of family relationship
remained the characteristic feature of the religion. All the groups, including the polis,
were, as Sir G. W. Cox points out, religious societies, and the subordinate fellowships
were “religious with an intensity scarcely to us conceivable.” In the development
which such a system underwent among the early Romans—a system hard, cruel, and
unpitying, which necessarily led to the treatment of all outsiders as enemies or aliens
fit only to be made slaves of or tributaries—we had the necessary religion for the
people who eventually made themselves masters of the world, and in whom the
military type of society ultimately culminated.

[This passing observation whereby the brutal slave making propensities of

Roman culture are associated with its religious identity, is of a kind absolutely
critical to our understanding of the modern world in relation to its religious
identity. For it is by means of forced slavery that a global social organism was
created around Judaism acting as a core identity that uses cultural
substructures constituted on the basis of a legalistic form of social regulation
dispersed across the continent by the Romans. The extended and ostensibly
 none Jewish biomass is attached to the same mode of social regulation that the
Jews embody by virtue of their own course of social evolution, and in addition
the extended biomass is linked to the Jews through an infinite series of
subidentities that are all attuned to Judaism ; thus making possible the
evolution of a global superorganism. Kidd, amazingly, completely fails to see
the biological connection between Christianity, Islam, Judaism and the
emerging world order. Despite his best efforts when Kidd speaks of a social
organism he is not really thinking biologically, he is thinking politically. In a
Panorama expose on Scientology on BBC 1 last night, 14/05/07, the reporter
expressed disgust at how this lunatic cult had taken possession of the
holocaust, but it is essential that all Jewish slave identities attach themselves to
the master identity in such a highly charged and irrational way. The Nazis did
likewise by attacking the Jews, thus making Nazism a Jewish cult, and in
doing so they created the point of attachment from which the Scientological
Jewish slave identity is now weaving an extension to the Jewish social
organism. How else are we to understand the emergence of new religious
identities all firmly attached to Judaism ? This is how the Jewish identity
functions as a master identity, without this polarising mode of attachment the
Jews proper would be nothing more than just another mad cult, and as such
Jews would of died out thousands of years ago. It makes perfect sense that a
new Jewish slave religion should evolve to take advantage of a major Jewish
event such as the holocaust, indeed it would make no physiological sense if
this did not happen, this biological social development was perfectly
predictable from a scientific point of view the moment the last world war
ended. Science can therefore predict that the centrality of Jews in future major
world events will continue, and many more new Jewish slave religions will
develop over the course of this millennia in places where Judaism is not
currently well represented, such as China and Japan. This ongoing social
progress will almost certainly require the promulgation of at least one, and
probably more, nuclear wars to decimate the Asiatic biomass so that it can be
reorganised along more strictly Jewish lines, exactly as has just occurred in
Europe with the suppression of the science that was causing the Christian
slave identity to decay and the transfusion of the Islamic slave identity into the
continental biomass during the course of the twentieth century. This is why
proliferation of nuclear technology is currently progressing in countries like
Pakistan, India, Iran, and North Korea ; when the time is ripe these weapons
will be used and thus Judaism will be enabled to continue its march across the
planet. The Jews are the Chosen, they must teach us all how to live.]

But if it is asked, what the sanction was behind the religious requirements of
these social groups “religious with an intensity scarcely to us conceivable,” the
answer is still the same. There is no qualification. It is still invariably supernatural,
using this term in the sense of ultra-rational. The conception of the supernatural has
become a higher one than that which prevailed amongst primitive men, and the
development in this direction may be distinguished actually in progress, but the belief
in this sanction survives in all its force. (Page 110)

(Page 112) Coming at last to the advanced societies of the present day, we are
met by a condition of things of great interest. The facts which appeared so confusing
in the last chapter now fall into place with striking regularity. The observer remarks at
the outset that there exist now, as at other times in the world's history, forms of belief
intended to regulate conduct in which a super-rational sanction has no place. But, with
no want of respect for the persons who hold these views, he finds himself compelled
to immediately place such beliefs on one side. None of them, he notes, has proved
itself to be a religion ; none of them can so far claim to have influenced and moved
large masses of men in the manner of a religion. He can find no exception to this rule.
If he desired to accept any one of them as a religion he notes that he would be
constrained to do so merely on the ipse dixit of the small group of persons who chose
so to describe it. [A prime example of the kind of rational religious forms Kidd has in
mind here would be, I guess, Comte’s system of positive polity ; I do not understand
why people cannot give specific examples when they say this kind of thing, it would
make a more perfect appreciation of their ideas so much easier.]
When we turn, however, to these forms of belief which are unquestionably
influencing men in the manner of a religion, we have to mark that they have one
pronounced and universal characteristic. The sanction they offer for the conduct they
prescribe is unmistakably a super-rational one. We may regard the whole expanse of
our modern civilisation and we shall have to note that there is no exception to this
rule. Nay, more, we shall have to acknowledge, if we keep our minds free from
confusion, that there is no tendency whatever to eliminate the super-rational element
from religions. Individuals may lose faith, may withhold belief, and may found parties
of their own ; but among the religions themselves we shall find no evidence of any
kind of movement or law of development in this direction. On the contrary, however
these beliefs may differ from each other, or from the religions of the past, they have
the one feature in common that they all assert uncompromisingly that the rules of
conduct which they enjoin have an ultra-rational sanction, and that right and wrong
are right and wrong by divine or supernatural enactment outside of, and independent
of, any other cause whatever.
This is true of every form of religion that we see influencing men in the world
around us, from Buddhism to the Roman Catholic Church and the Salvation Army.
The supernatural element in religion, laments Mr. Herbert Spencer, “survives in great
strength down to our own day. Religious creeds, established and dissenting, all
embody the belief that right and wrong are right and wrong simply in virtue of divine
enactment.” (Data of Ethics, p. 50.) This is so : but not apparently because of some
meaningless instinct in man. It is so in virtue of a fundamental law of our social
evolution. It is not that men perversely reject the light set before them by that school
of ethics which has found its highest expression in Mr. Herbert Spencer's theories. It
is simply that the deep-seated instincts of society have a truer scientific basis than our
current science. (Page 113)

[In the preceding section we find ourselves engaging with the phenomenon of
new age religions that is familiar to those of us who lived through the sixties,
and something else that is very important today, new modes of imposing
moral sanction on an irrational basis, such as animal rights, which offers a new
way of forcing people to adhere to new laws and morals which amount to
nothing more than a religion infused into the secular mode of regulation. The
emergence of this new moral code is due to the urbanisation of the biomass
which contains within its nature the potential for a new tailor made emotional
hook that contemporary priests can make the basis of their effort to acquire
status in society, status which in turn can be coalesced into political power.
 This urban hook relies on a purely mystical notion of the countryside, devised
by people who have no more idea what the countryside is than Scientologists
know what science is. The whole mindset of society is being transformed to
reflect this new religion of animal sanctity, wealth is drawn from all quarters
toward animal welfare, political terror groups are founded to attack people
who use animals in experiments, and hosts of programmes sentimentalise
animals ; like the Meerkat soap opera in which these social animals have
names and their social lives are described in language that evolved to make
humans unique amongst animals. A law was passed last month, April 2007,
making it a legal requirement for pet, or dog owners, to have a duty of care
toward their animals. And why not ? we might think. But why now ? So
while science can never act as a super-rational basis for forcing social
conformity, secular regulation still manages to find means of extending the
reach of the religiously constituted priesthood by extolling a new variation of
its old super-rational ideas of life's sacred value as determined by divine
sanction.
Individuals care about the issues which we speak of as hooks drawing
them into a physiological dynamic, but neither the animal rights movement,
nor the Christian religion stem from each individual subscriber finding their
way independently and without influence toward the ideas culminating in the
dogma of these political organisations. The English language does not exist
because I speak English, I speak English because the English language exists.
The conceptual device that forms part of the linguistic programme with which
my brain is programmed causes me to think of everything as my personal
possession, the law in turn reinforces this artificial state of consciousness. But
it is the job of science to break this false consciousness down if science would
present a true naturalistic model of human society ; yes this model requires the
destruction of society as we know it, but better that than to live as an insect.]

(Page 116) In the religious beliefs of mankind we have not simply a class of
phenomena peculiar to the childhood of the race. We have therein the characteristic
feature of our social evolution. These beliefs constitute, in short, the natural and
inevitable complement of our reason ; and so far from being threatened with eventual
dissolution they are apparently destined to continue to grow with the growth and to
develop with the development of society, while always preserving intact and
unchangeable the one essential feature they all have in common in the ultra-rational
sanction they provide for conduct. And lastly, as we understand how an ultra-rational
sanction for the sacrifice of the interests of the individual to those of the social
organism has been a feature common to all religions we see, also, why the conception
of sacrifice has occupied such a central place in nearly all beliefs, and why the
tendency of religion has ever been to surround this principle with the most impressive
and stupendous of sanctions.

[Noticing the importance of individual sacrifice to the social being of which

they are a part is important because the Jews, as the foci of superorganic
identity, have been obliged to undergo continual sacrifice as the means of
retaining their central position by virtue of a rather strange inverted power, so
that the Nazi holocaust, for example, must be understood to of been an act of
 sacrifice which effectively made it impossible for works like this one of
Kidd's, which were revealing that the Jews were the true master race to which
all humanity are enslaved, to continue to be written. The Nazis saved the
Jews, and thereby saved the social organism that exists in the name of
Judaism.]

To the consideration of the results flowing from this recognition of the real
nature of the problem underlying our social development we have now to address
ourselves. If we have, in the social system founded on a form of religious belief, the
true organic growth with which science is concerned, we must, it would appear, be
able then to discover some of the principles of development under the influence of
which the social growth proceeds. If it is in the ethical system upon which a social
type is founded that we have the seat of a vast series of vital phenomena unfolding
themselves in obedience to law, then we must be able to investigate the phenomena of
the past and to observe the tendencies of the current time with more profit than the
study of either history or sociology has hitherto afforded. Let us see, therefore, with
what prospect of success the biologist, who has carried the principles of his science so
far into human society, may now address himself to the consideration of the history of
that process of life in the midst of which we are living, and which we know under the
name of Western Civilisation.

[This closing statement is perfectly correct but unfortunately Kidd equates

Western Civilization with Christian culture, and thereby he completely fails to
understand the first lesson of all that he has worked so hard to understand,
namely that to be Christian is to be Jewish, and the organism, and hence our
society, is not Christian it is Jewish. This is so blindingly obvious ; the issue
is not rationality or the lack of it, it is identity, and the force of language that
creates religion that matters.]

Discussion of Kidd

Society is an organism, of this there is no doubt, no one questioned this idea

once it was established, it was simply erased through the intervention of the Great
War which slaughtered the people who were the carriers of this idea, and selectively
destroyed academic institutions and their associated organizations, such as learned
societies like the Ethnological Society, which are essential to the preservation of all
knowledge. Without a war on this scale the science of humanity could not of been
eradicated. The process whereby the priests in the guise of professors took control of
the relevant departments of academia has left a thin trail revealing their method, but
anyone who takes the trouble to follow the trail, and who like me wants to see a world
without priests, a world ruled by scientific knowledge, will not be fooled by the thinly
disguised presentation of genuine intellectual rejection of the idea that society was an
organism to be compared with other social organisms found in nature, such as those
composed of ants and termites. However it would be a distraction to examine the
relevant evidence of the diversion of science into the realms of religious authority at
this point.
As an organism society must have a very definite structure. Religion, which
Kidd made the focal point of his argument concerning the evolution of the social
organism, is, especially as we know it, a product of language. The boundaries
between religion as we have it today and as it existed in pre-civilised societies blur the
role of language so that the more organic nature of religion as the binding agent of the
superorganic being comes to the fore in less sophisticated cultures where the objects
of supernatural veneration are taken from surrounding nature. But really the imputing
of divine powers to everyday objects of value in primitive cultures is no different to
the legally sanctioned sentimental veneration of animals discussed above in our
advanced cultures. There is a progression therefore in the development of social
structure which relates the complexity of linguistic conceptions to the complexity of
the social structures. A good deal could be said about this topic, but again our object
here is to bring to light a forlorn philosophy and it is not possible to delve into the
details of how this philosophy would look if it were still extant, or indeed how it
looked just prior to its suppression. Today religion provides the social structure of
our world. But that social structure is far more subtle and complex than Kidd was
able to envisage and describe in his book Social Evolution, which is clearly the most
advanced piece of social science ever written. The likes of Durkheim pale into
insignificance compared to what we have in this work of Kidd's. All the sociology
ever written could be trashed without loss as long as Kidd's work remained intact ;
except that the mass of accumulated knowledge from various fields is necessary to
show the validity of Kidd's ideas.
Why are there so many religious identities ? Why do they fragment and
proliferate ? This question was used against Kidd by Sprague, who said that ;

Coming to the merits of his proposition, the first objection is, that the
alleged struggle between reason and religion is not the “Central Feature of
Human History.” It is doubtful whether any such centre exists, for lack of
unity or continuity in the subject-matter of universal history. A hub may be the
centre of a wheel ; or the heart, of an organism ; or a principle, of a system of
philosophy ; because each of these is an independent whole. But since they are
unrelated they cannot have any common central feature. So the events of
universal history are for the most part unrelated, and the historian who
attempts to do more than narrate them, and explain the more immediate causal
relations, becomes a philosopher.

[This method of castrating the power of a historian to be a scientific

investigator, is precisely the same method that has been used to castrate the
power of science itself. Scientists are allowed to examine and interpret those
elements of existence that can be treated as items subject to direct
manipulation, but scientists are not allowed to speculate upon the fruits of
their activities in so far as such speculation takes them beyond that which can
be experimented upon directly. Of course if society is a social organism then
the hub of society is the same as for any other organism, it is the organism’s
identity, and the first object of any student of human society is therefore to
determine what kind of animal humans are.]

Mr. Kidd bears conclusive testimony against himself in this matter. He

says (p. 102) the social organism is “a type of civilization founded on a form
of religious belief.” There are, therefore, as many independent types of social
 organisms as there are religious beliefs. A central feature cannot be predicated
of these different organisms.

[This criticism makes no sense at all, Sprague is not trying to discover some
value in Kidd’s work, he is merely trying to destroy it. If we were told that
modern vehicles were a type of machine founded upon the basis of the heat
engine, we would not therefore argue that each type of vehicle, train, car, boat,
plane and so on represented independent types in the sense that we could not
treat the source of motive power as a unifying principle. Sprague is merely
using the art of rhetoric and the power of the theocracy to suppress knowledge,
and of course it was Sprague and not Kidd who won the day.]

Mr. Kidd, therefore, appears to have indulged in a superficial

generalization. Historians do not and cannot recognize any one central feature
as characteristic and controlling in all social organisms. A feature which is
central in one may lie at the circumference of another. If there is any central
feature of human history it is government, or the family, or conquest, or more
likely religion. Christian believers will regard it as the advent of Jesus Christ.
From Mr. Kidd's standpoint it ought to be the struggle for life. Indeed, he
elsewhere says, “ The distinguishing feature of human history is the social
development the race is undergoing ” (pp. 98, 99). Here would seem to be a
contradiction. If “social development” is the distinguishing feature of human
history, it cannot be the struggle between reason and religion. With this latter
“central feature,” however, our author does not long remain content. He says
again, “ The central feature of human history ” is “the dominance of that
progressively developing class of phenomena included under the head of
religions” (p.194). Thus our author's “central feature” of history is as shifting
as the color of the chameleon.

(Pages 64-6)

The argument put forward by Sprague here seems so mind-bendingly idiotic

as to be excruciating to read. He compares unlike things which have a central point
that can be called a hub, but says these things cannot be compared because they have
nothing in common ......durrrrr, you don't say ? Then he sort of says that things which
are identical, that is human societies, cannot have a common nature ! I say “sort of
says” because his mode of speaking is too weird for meaningful comprehension to
take place. He leaps from this gobbledegook phraseology which turns meaning inside
out to the assertion that religion cannot be the central feature of societies because each
religion is independent ! Why ? Why ? Why ? Why is each religion independent ?
No it is not, who could be so ignorant as to think that religions are independent of one
another in the sense of not being the same thing ? This is too stupid for
comprehension, but typical of priests who only want to win the war, they do not care
how they do it.
Of course Christian believers will regard the central hub of existence as the
arrival or JC, just as a zebra will regard stripes as the central hub of mammalian form.
But zebras, like Christians, would be wrong, the hub of mammalian form, both in
Christians and zebras, is the distinctive form of mammalian physiology.
 Still, Kidd does himself no favours for he does not pin down his argument to
clear principles demonstrated in the real world. What is more we have just seen that it
is good to have the critiques of Kidd to point out how the argument could be refined.
But Kidd makes no attempt to take up the arguments of critics when he does decide to
respond in an article written for the Nineteenth Century periodical in 1895. All he
says is that there is no point in responding because no one has dealt with his “central
argument”, which has been lost in all the fuss, so he restates it for us. Kidd makes a
claim which helps us see just how utterly mistaken he was in his interpretation of his
own brilliant insights into the nature of humans.
The 1895 article was rewritten for a third edition of Social Evolution which
had been expanded and was published in 1898, having 333 pages as compared to the
first edition quoted from above which has 229 pages. From A Reply to Criticisms we
have :

The principal conception of Social Evolution in reality runs through the whole
of the chapters. Everything therein is subsidiary to one purpose, namely, the attempt
to state in simple scientific terms, and without the necessity for starting with any
equipment of teleological assumption, that which has presented itself to the writer as a
natural law of human evolution hitherto unenunciated. If it should come to be that a
measure of success has attended this purpose, it will, not improbably, be difficult in
future to avoid the conviction that the whole drama of human history turns upon the
law so conceived. If the writer has succeeded too, however imperfectly, in
formulating such a law, whatever may be the measure of the success, or even of the
failure, of his own efforts to apply it, it will probably be hardly less difficult to avoid
the further conviction that the result will be ultimately much the same. It may be for
others, with wider learning and deeper knowledge, to do this latter part of the work as
it should be done. But there cannot be a single department of science concerned with
man in society which will stand exactly where it did.
A fundamental fact of human evolution that we have to recognise is that from
the very beginning we are concerned with a creature possessing two associated
characteristics not encountered anywhere else in life, the influence of which marks off
by a strict line of demarcation his evolution from that of all the forms of life that have
preceded him. The first characteristic is human reason ; the other, associated with it, is
the capacity which man possesses of acting under its influence in concert with his
fellows in social groups. It is evident from the outset that we shall have to witness, in
the era which opens with man, these two special endowments undergoing continual
development. .............(Page 336-7)
(Page 337) There is also a third leading factor in the situation upon which it is
necessary to fix attention. This new creature with whom we are henceforward
concerned remains, and must apparently for ever remain, notwithstanding his special
endowments, absolutely subservient to a fundamental physiological law which
appears to be as inherently associated with life as the law of gravitation is with matter
—a law too which, there is every reason to believe, has controlled the whole course of
the evolution of life at every point as directly as the same law of gravitation has
shaped the development of the solar system. Stripped of all the details and
technicalities with which modern biological science has necessarily enveloped it, this
principle of life may be briefly defined as the law of retrogression. Except on one
condition, the inherent tendency of all the higher forms of life appears to be towards
retrogression and degeneration. There is only one way, to all appearance, in which
this tendency has ever been held in check ; namely, by the prevalence of conditions in
which selection can prevail, and each form be enabled to carry on its kind to a greater
degree from individuals rising above the average to the corresponding exclusion of
others falling below it.
(337-8)

Cor, this last bit is enough to make your wince. This is Kidd's own bizarre
and twisted way of extolling Darwin's law of natural selection, except Kidd chooses
to invert the dynamic by asserting there is a law of retrogression which necessitates
the struggle of life which forces us all to progress ! What planet do these people come
from ? It is as if being faced with an apple on an apple tree and an orange on an
orange tree the botanist feels compelled to try and work out how the apple became an
orange and why the orange became an apple. In other words these people just conjure
up the most contorted difficulties seemingly for the sheer hell of conjuring up
contorted difficulties, as if they were going to get in the record books for producing
the most obscure and downright stupid explanation for a simple fact of life.
The trouble is Kidd's work is as good as it gets, and in places it is sheer genius.
These places tend to be areas where he is simply making observations concerning the
facts of life in society, such as the observation that there is an ongoing war between
science and religion. It is this idea, which he focuses on to a large extent, that is the
most significant part of his book because while other books examining the war
between religion and science exist, they never try to make sense of this eternal
conflict in terms of human biological nature, but this is exactly what Kidd is trying to
do. Thus he says later on :

We have in brief the two opposing but complementary terms which enable us
to enunciate with some approach to exactness some of the fundamental laws to which
human history is subject. On the one side, we have the factor of reason which, being
itself an element contributing to efficiency and success, is, other things being equal,
necessarily ever tending to be progressively developed. But always only on one
condition—that it continues to be the subordinate factor. For, the process of
evolution in progress having ultimately no sanction in the individual's reason, the
tendency of the rational factor, if uncontrolled, is always eventually towards
disintegration and the arrest of the evolutionary process. On the other side we have
the complementary factor in that system of ultra-rational belief with which the life of
every social system is ultimately united, the function of which is to provide the
necessary sanction for effort and sacrifice, without which the conditions of progress
cannot continue.
(Page 344-5)

I have highlighted the important sentence here, which reflects the factor which
is emphasised above all others in the ideas offered in the present work, wherein we
seek to explain why science is always annihilated by religion. But Kidd has
absolutely no idea what the nature of religion and rationality is, he fails to perceive
these two factors of life as organic phenomenon to be accounted for in purely
scientific, that is mechanistic-functional terms, wherein rationality must be seen to be
as unreal as morality. In a passage preceding the above Kidd argues that the unique
gift of human reason allowed humans to obtain the reward of success in life at the
level of the individual by overriding the natural law of retrogression :
 But now at last we have come to be concerned with man. A leading principle
of the difference between him and all lower forms of life appears to consist simply in
this. His reason has given him power to escape the effects of this onerous cosmic
process to which his progress is due. He may to all seeming suspend the process itself.
Yet he has never suspended it. Nothing, indeed, can be clearer when we come to
understand his development than that he has not so succeeded, and that there is in
operation a constant cause preventing his success. It is, in short, this same cosmic
process with which we are concerned from the beginning of life that has been
successful throughout human history, and down into the midst of our Western
civilisation. It would, however, be wide of the mark to imagine that man has never
attempted to suspend this condition which compels him to make progress. The history
of the world is merely the history of the attempt ever continuously but ever, on the
whole, unsuccessfully made. The condition of progress must apparently always be a
state necessitating constant effort and sacrifice. But the law of retrogression is
everywhere expressed in human history by a natural tendency to just the opposite
condition. The ideal of the average individual, as the programmes of political parties
constantly testify, is not effort and sacrifice but the desire to live in the greatest
possible ease and comfort with the least possible exertion. The history of classes
presents an example of the same tendency. The ideal of nearly all the ruling classes
that have arisen in history has been to obtain for themselves, at whatever expense to
their fellows, the maximum of ease, comfort, and security, with the minimum of effort
and sacrifice. In the great civilisations that have developed and declined, the social
ideal of the class into whose hands power has, for the time being, fallen has nearly
always been to obtain the highest possible standard of ease and comfort with the least
exertion, for the largest possible proportion of their number.
(Page 339-40)

Kidd is striving to balance two contradictory principles, reason versus super-

rationality, which are the essences of science versus religion. In order to do this he
must get beyond the labels by recognising that words are always just labels, and what
science does in terms of producing overall concepts is to rationalise the linguistic
system by reducing the labels to their bare minimum. Kidd says that man tries to
control the force of nature that obliges all life to progress by competing, we see that
man has made the effort by using his reason to impose regressive conditions as seen
throughout history, where there has always been a master class larging it at the
expense of an underclass. If it has always been the case that an elite exploits an
underclass then this is the natural state of affairs ; when studying nature “what is”
takes precedence of what we “think there is”, or what we “think there should be”.
So it turns out that in actual fact as fabulous as Kidd's ideas seem from the
point of view of a ruthless application of evolutionary theory to human society, and an
understanding of the nature of religion, in reality he is giving out the same old
religious message—man is unique and is not forced to obey the laws of nature. How
interesting it is to come to this unfortunate conclusion, no surprises there however, for
Kidd is right about one thing, no matter what, reason must always give way to nature
acting as an irrational, but functional force, and the account provided by Kidd is no
exception to this rule where he shows us reason feigning to discover the true nature of
humans. We can discover the true nature of humans, human nature is corporate,
meaning that individual form evolved to bring an organic entity into being at the level
of social organisation, but this knowledge cannot be publicised, and without going
public the achievement of reason in discovering the true nature of humans has no
effect. Let us remind ourselves of our scientific definition of reason provided above.
Reason is a perfect state of individual consciousness, wherein a person knows why
they are doing what they are doing. We are able to determine that a person has
achieved this degree of perfection when we know that the reason for their actions or
ideas cannot be extended. So washing our hands as a divine duty is irrational, but
functional, whereas washing our hands because we know about germs is functional
and rational, because we know precisely why we are doing this and it is not possible
to take the question any further, other than to ask for a verification of the knowledge
relating to germs. It is easy to see from this definition why irrationality should be
vastly superior to rationality as a mechanism of social force, because the difference
between accepting a divine command and accepting the validity of complex scientific
knowledge accumulated by thousands of people working over the course of centuries
is self evident.

Now lets stick with our theme of a ruling class as an essential and natural
element of a social organism's physiological make up, lets turn to one of our fellow
superorganic species, the ants. In doing this we will be emulating the supremely
scientific method beloved by the Victorians, by applying a comparative method to do
what will then be true social science, where we make all forms of society comparative
with one another.
 From the above work we will take the portions dealing with slavery :

CHAPTER XI.

SLAVERY.

EVERYTHING which has hitherto been related about ants, their behavior and their
characteristic qualities, their polity, their buildings and road-making, their storing-up
of provisions, their agricultural, malting, cattle-tending, and milking proceedings,
their acuteness in foraging for food, their division of labor, their power of inter-
communication, etc., is indeed most noteworthy, and is fitted to awaken in us respect
and admiration towards the little creatures. But all that has been told retires into the
background as to psychological significance in the intellectual life of these animals,
when we find or remember that the ants, as already said, for an unknown length of
time have had a politico-social institution which had played and still plays a great part
in the history of human nations and civilization. This institution, indeed, seems at first
sight to harmonise badly with the otherwise social-democratic tendency and
arrangements of the Ant Republic. But when we remember that slavery existed in the
republics of antiquity and not only well agreed with the rest of the polity, but was
even an essential support of the same, we can scarcely deprive the Ant Republic of its
democratic character on account of slavery. And this the rather since slavery among
ants is as mild, if not milder, than it was in Greece and Rome, where freed slaves were
often known to rise to the highest offices and dignities of the state, where as in Rome,
Greek slaves were the tutors and trainers of the young, and where slavery, odious as it
may be in and for itself, none the less contributed to the general advance of
civilization. Besides slavery among ants is on a very important point far superior to
that of man, and it may be said without question that in this respect ants think and act
more humanely than men themselves ! For instance, they never allow grown-up
members of their race, come to their full antly consciousness, to be enslaved, whereas
human slave-makers are known never to have the smallest scruple on this head. For
the ant-kidnappers only steal larvæ and pupæ, which they bring up as regular slaves
within their dwellings, so that these last have never tasted the condition and the
sweetness of freedom. Only quite young ants, one or two days old, recognizable by
their clear colour, which are not yet out of long-clothes and do not yet know what is
“manly (or womanly) pride before the throne of a king,” are tolerably often made into
slaves, and accustom themselves quickly and easily to their new position. The slaves
of the ants, however, do not seem to be conscious of the loss, or rather of the absence
of freedom, and as a rule work willingly and uncompelled in common with their
masters at all the tasks necessary for the maintenance of the colony, such as building
the dwelling, searching for plant-lice, tendance and feeding of larvæ and pupæ, and so
on, and even fight against members of their own species in company with their
robber-lords. They are regarded more as friends, brothers, or helpers than as real
slaves. They never think of escaping from slavery by flight, although Forel, as will be
told afterwards, once observed a revolt among them. This rule applies at least to the
Swiss species observed by Huber and A., while in the south of England colonies have
been seen in which the slaves never leave, or venture to leave the nest, and are thus, in
the true sense of the word, domestic slaves.
 [We see immediately recognise the perfect similarity between ant society and
human society at the very point raised by Kidd that is of most interest to us,
that of the eternal presence of a human elite ruling an enslaved biomass. In
our modern civilised societies the advanced state is achieved today exactly as
it is in the ants spoken of here, wherein humans once conquered become
enslaved to their new masters in precisely the same manner as ants who
become domesticated so as not know that their identity is imposed by the
activity of an alien master ; thus creating a social structure established through
a biological process. Hence first Europe, and now the world, has become
subject to Judaism in the form of the domesticate identities of Christianity and
Islam. And we love it ! We readily seek to kill anyone who would give us
freedom, we fight a ceaseless war against truth accordingly, or anyone who
would harm our slave masters, the most precious thing to our Christian society
is the existence of Israel, for which we will do anything ; witness the ongoing
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which are all about the domination of Judaism as
embodied in the state of Israel. Most importantly of course is that books like
this one by Büchner reveal that this organic connection between Jews and ants
must of been known at precisely the time when anti-Semitism was emerging in
Europe, and this eventually gave rise to the Nazi’s political expression of
racism versus Judaism which led to a ludicrous purge against Jews which
could only possibly serve to promote Judaism, as indeed it has—it was
perfectly obvious that the Jews could not be physically exterminated—while at
the same time creating a taboo against the kind of “anti-Semitic” scientific
knowledge that we are seeking to develop here once again because it is central
to a true science of humanity.]

As regards the slave holders themselves, we are acquainted with three kinds in
Europe (F. rufescens, F. sanguinea, and Strongylognathus), of which only the two
first are accurately known. The most interesting among them is the often mentioned
and famous Amazon (Formica or Polyergus rufescens) [the rufescent ant of Kirby,
TR.], whose noteworthy doings and habits were first exactly observed and described
by Huber. It is a large, strong, very active, shining-red ant, which behaves just as do
human lords as a rule ; namely, it does not work, but leaves everything to be looked
after by its servants, slaves, and labourers. It does not even eat by itself, but lets itself
be fed by its slaves, and behaves just like the Llama of Thibet, who also has food put
into his mouth by his slaves, because it is thought beneath the dignity of so great a
lord to serve himself. Do the Amazons think the same ? or do they follow the maxim
held by many men that work is shameful ? No—the ant has a far better ground for its
conduct, or a far better and more cogent excuse than its human examples or followers.
It cannot feed itself, and cannot discharge the regular duties of an ant, owing to its
long, narrow, and strong mandibles, which do not form a toothed edge, as in other
species, but run out into a sharp and strong point, so that they must be regarded as
regular jaws. These jaws are indeed admirable for use as weapons, and are specially
adapted to pierce the head and brain of an enemy, but make self-feeding and work
impossible. The Amazon is therefore entirely dependent on the goodwill of its slaves.
Without their help it would starve to death, and the whole colony would perish from
want of care and nourishment.

[Again the mode of existence of Jews is identical to this dependence of the

slave maker ants, where Jews cannot exist or survive without the support of
 their hosts. The Romans gave a special dispensation to the Jews just as the
British and Americans, as the leading military power in modern times, have
done likewise. These two latter nations only exist to serve the existence of the
Jewish nation of Israel, and it must be understood that neither these two, nor
their ancient counterpart, could of come into being without the guidance and
existence of the Jews, and if the Jews were to forsake them and favour some
others, the Chinese for example or the Russians, then they would wane as
world powers. The reason for this has to do with the special role of Jews
within a complex society that depends upon a level of operation diffused
throughout the biomass, which the Jews provide by virtue of their unique
position of integrity in dispersal which gives them the character of nervous
tissue within the superorganic physiology. All human history bears out this
claim but when people, like Sombart, have written about this they have been
labelled anti-Semites ; naturally, because they compromise Jewish organic
identity and hence their political position, which must be insulated from the
biomass within which they exist as an integral part. It will be worthwhile to
extract chapter two, The Shifting of the Centre of Economic Life Since the
Sixteenth Century, from The Jews and Modern Capitalism, by Sombart at a
later time.]

Huber placed a number of ants (about 30) with their larvæ and pupæ and some
earth in a box, and supplied them with plenty of food. After the lapse of only two days
some of the ants died of hunger, or rather of thirst, although, according to Forel's
experience, ants can live for four weeks without food, if the air or the earth is
sufficiently damp. The Amazons were neither able to feed themselves, nor tend their
young, nor work in the earth. Huber then put in a single ant of the slave species, and it
quickly put everything to rights. It fed young and old with the honey lying there,
began to build cells for the pupa ; and larvæ, cleaned them and so on. In order to
substantiate this observation Lespès one day put a piece of moistened sugar in front of
a nest of Amazons. It was soon discovered by one of the ants of the slave-species (F.
fusca, or small black ant [negro, TR.]. It ate as much as it could and then went back
into the nest. Other gluttons soon appeared, and the delicious meal was busily
devoured. At last Lespès noticed some Amazons come out. They first ran about in a
puzzled way, without touching the sugar, until at last they began to pull at the legs of
their duty-forgetting slaves, thereby reminding them that they should be served. This
was done and all parties seemed content.
Forel also never saw an Amazon eat alone. If one was hungry, it tapped a
slave on the head with its feelers, until the latter brought up or regurgitated a drop of
nourishment from its proventriculus and gave it to its master, mouth to mouth.
(136-8)

(142) Most interesting naturally is the description of the marauding

excursions and slave hunts themselves, undertaken from time to time by the Amazons,
in order to bring to their nests the greatest possible number of pupæ of the slave
species, which latter are destined to become regular slaves. These marauding
excursions, and especially the wars and battles of the ants, which will be hereafter
described, have so striking and surprising a resemblance to the wars and battles of
men, that it seems as though ants had taken men, or men ants, for a model. For, to
philosophers, standing above the strife of parties and contemplating men, the relative
circumstances are equally ridiculous and contemptible, although the animal stands
higher than the man in so far as it generally fights only for the sake of self-
preservation, while among men the paltriest passions often give rise to his continual
wars and quarrels, destroying the fruits of industry. Men will not emerge from their
half-animal past and reach the full development for which they are destined, until
everlasting peace and the universal brotherhood of nations shall have changed the
present sad state of things for the attainment of the general good.
Lespès describes as follows a marauding excursion of the Amazons watched
by himself: “ These expeditions only take place towards the end of the summer and in
autumn. At this time the winged members of the slave species (F. fusca and F.
cunicularia) have left the nest, and the Amazons will not take the trouble to bring
back useless consumers. When the sky is clear our robbers leave their town in the
afternoon at about three or four o'clock. At first no order is perceptible in their
movements, but when they are all gathered together they form a regular column,
which then moves forward quickly, and each day in a different direction. They march
closely pressed together, and the foremost always appear to be seeking for something
on the ground. They are each moment overtaken by others so that the head of the
column is continually growing. They are in fact seeking the traces of the ants which
they propose to plunder, and it is scent that guides them. They snuff over the ground
like hounds following the track of a wild animal, and when they have found it they
plunge headlong forward, and the whole column rushes on behind. The smallest
armies I saw consisted of several hundred individuals, but I have also seen some four
times as large. They then form columns which may be five metres long, and as much
as fifty centimetres wide. After a march, which often lasts a full hour, the column
arrives at the nest of the slave species. The F. cuniculariœ, which are the strongest,
offer keen opposition but without much result. The Amazons soon penetrate within
the nest, to come out again a moment later, while the assailed ants at the same time
rush out in masses. During the whole time attention is directed solely to the larvæ and
pupæ, which the Amazons steal while the others try to save as many as possible. They
know very well that the Amazons cannot climb, so they fly with their precious
burdens to the surrounding bushes or plants, whereto their enemies cannot follow
them. They then pursue the retreating robbers and try to take away from them as much
of their booty as possible. But the latter do not trouble themselves much about them
and hasten on home. On their return they do not follow the shortest road, but exactly
the one by which they came, finding their way back by smell. Arrived at their nest,
they immediately hand over their booty to the slaves, and trouble themselves no more
about it. A few days afterwards the stolen pupæ or nymphæ emerge, without memory
of their childhood, and immediately and without compulsion take part in all tasks.”

[The comparison we are looking for in this social science exercise is not of the
idiotic kind Sprague applied to different kinds of object that had a core—
wheels, bodies, ideas—we are looking for the evidence of a comparative
process indicative of a common nature, whereby a social organism is created
through the evolution of a complex social structure which shows comparative
organizational features. The key feature here is a hierarchical structure
dependent upon differentiation by way of identity. Although the captive ants
in question retained a species identity it was overridden by a cultural identity
imposed in conformity to the slave maker. And exactly the same position
applies in humans where race acts as an organic base equivalent to species in
ants, and race is then overridden by the imposition of a religious identity
through the same acculturation process that enslaved ants are subject to ;
 except humans are enslaved through the medium of language as in speech, as
compared to language as in pheromones. And therein lies the key to
understanding the subservience of reason to religion, religion is identity and
reason is the equivalent of the slave ant's obedience to instinctive behaviour
irrespective of whether they have been born into their own species community
or that of a slave maker nest. So we learn from this that what we call reason in
ourselves is the exact equivalent of instinct in animals which is why Büchner
has so much to say in rejection of the idea of instinct as having any meaning at
all, and instead prefers to talk about ant intelligence.]

They must gradually become accustomed to the war-expeditions and slave-

hunts of their masters, for, according to Forel, they at first try to hold them back
therefrom. They gradually come to regard them as a matter of course, and no longer
oppose them, but give their masters a bad reception if they come back empty handed.
Espinas (“Animal Societies,” German ed., 1879, p. 362) confirms from his own
experience the observation already made by Huber, “that Amazons which return
empty-handed from an expedition are badly received and pulled about by the dark
grey workers.” Sometimes the slaves permit themselves freedoms and impertinences
towards their masters which border on revolt and rebellion, but these are severely
punished if they pass a certain point. For a time an Amazon will permit the
importunity of its slave. But if it becomes too troublesome, it takes its head between
its terrible jaws, and the slave submits forthwith. If it does not yield at once its death
is certain. Forel one day saw an Amazon worried by six or seven slaves, pinched,
irritated, pulled by the legs, etc. It put an end to the game by catching hold of one of
them and piercing its head. A dry season often causes a rebellious disposition on the
part of the slaves, the Amazons requiring drink from them too often, and the slaves
being unable to meet such frequent demands. They become irritable and bad tempered
and would seriously attack their masters if they were able to overcome them. (144)

[I have no desire to stretch the comparison between humans and ants where it
need not be compared, but my understanding of anti-Semitism is that it also
breaks out in times of social stress, such as when plague hit Europe, or when
economic times are hard. When a society feels under pressure it looks for a
scapegoat, the Jews, being in the position of masters removed from the
common majority then become the focus of instinctive retribution, just as
politicians, as those overtly responsible, also do when things go wrong. Of
course the Jews do not fight back through direct force, their power is indirect,
but they always have other host havens to retire to, and then these alternative
slave territories becomes the favoured locations ; and gradually the Jews filter
back into the territories which reacted against them, as we see in Germany and
Russia today where new synagogues are being established to allow the masters
to do the work nature made them for, and without which Christians cannot
thrive.]

(149) The most terrible enemy of the Amazons is the sanguine ant (F.
sanguinea), which also keeps slaves and thereby often comes into collision with the
Amazons on their marauding excursions. It is not equal to it in bodily strength or
fighting capacity, but surpasses it in intelligence ; according to Forel it is the most
intelligent of all the species of ants. If Forel, for instance, poured out the contents of a
sack filled with a nest of the slave species near an Amazon nest, the Amazons
apparently generally regarded the tumbled together heap of ants, larvæ, pupæ, earth,
building materials, etc., as the dome of a hostile nest, and took all imaginable but
useless pains to find out the entrances thereinto, leaving on one side for this
investigation their only object, the carrying off the pupæ : but the sanguine ants under
similar circumstances did not allow themselves to be deceived, but at once ransacked
the whole heap.

[I have taken this passage just because it is important to note that the
evolution of the Jewish identity as a master identity is not in any sense unique
or unusual, although since Judaism has risen to rule the world it must be
reckoned to have unique qualities that have brought it to the fore ; as indeed
all organic forms must have unique qualities of some kind. Thus it is notable
that the Romans had an arch rival which they exterminated, the Corinthians,
whose culture was in fact, I think, Semitic, and therefore of a common origin
to the Jews. A key factor in human superorganic physiology is the law that
there can only be one. This law must apply to all life forms adapted to occupy
the zone of social potential, but the size of the mammalian superorganic
species means there are no niches for alternate species of human
superorganisms to occupy, as in the case of ants, for humans the planet
constitutes one territorial unit whose occupation awaits fulfilment. We see
this idea unwittingly referred to by Büchner when he says human potential
will not be realised “until everlasting peace and the universal brotherhood of
nations shall have changed the present sad state of things for the attainment of
the general good.” In other words, until the Jews have exterminated all
alternative expressions of humanity and turned all remaining humans into the
slaves of Judaism. Note the contrasting rational versus irrational interpretation
of the same functional action given in this last sentence, like that shown above
in the context of knowing why we wash our hands. Which version of history
do we prefer : to know we fought the world wars to eradicate freedom while
ensuring the ongoing unification of humanity under Judaism, or to know we
fought the war for freedom by defeating evil ? The latter is my choice.]

And so we come to a superb piece of writing, perfect :

 CHAPTER II

THE SHIFTING OF THE CENTRE OF ECONOMIC

LIFE SINCE THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

ONE of the most important facts in the growth of modern economic life is the removal
of the centre of economic activity from the nations of Southern Europe—the Italians,
Spaniards and Portuguese, with whom must also be reckoned some South German
lands—to those of the North-West—the Dutch, the French, the English and the North
Germans. The epoch-making event in the process was Holland's sudden rise to
prosperity, and this was the impetus for the development of the economic possibilities
of France and England. All through the 17th century the philosophic speculators and
the practical politicians among the nations of North-Western Europe had but one aim :
to imitate Holland in commerce, in industry, in shipping and in colonization.
 The most ludicrous explanations of this well-known fact have been suggested
by historians. It has been said, for example, that the cause which led to the economic
decline of Spain and Portugal and of the Italian and South German city states was the
discovery of America and of the new route to the East Indies ; that the same cause
lessened the volume of the commerce of the Levant, and therefore undermined the
position of the Italian commercial cities which depended upon it. But this explanation
is not in any way satisfactory. In the first place, Levantine commerce maintained its
pre-eminence throughout the whole of the 17th and 18th centuries, and during this
period the prosperity of the maritime cities in the South of France, as well as that of
Hamburg, was very closely bound up with it. In the second place, a number of Italian
towns, Venice among them, which in the 17th century lost all their importance,
participated to a large extent in the trade of the Levant in the 16th century, and that
despite the neglect of the trade route. It is a little difficult to understand why the
nations which had played a leading part until the 15th century—the Italians, the
Spaniards, the Portuguese—should have suffered in the least because of the new
commercial relations with America and the East Indies, or why they should have been
placed at any disadvantage by their geographical position as compared with that of the
French, the English or the Dutch. As though the way from Genoa to America or the
West Indies were not the same as from Amsterdam or London or Hamburg ! As
though the Spanish and Portuguese ports were not the nearest to the new lands—lands
which had been discovered by Italians and Portuguese, and had been taken possession
of by the Portuguese and the Spaniards !
Equally unconvincing is another reason which is often given. It is asserted that
the countries of North-Western Europe were strong consolidated states, while
Germany and Italy were disunited, and accordingly the former were able to take up a
stronger position than the latter. Here, too, we ask in wonder whether the powerful
Queen of the Adriatic was a weaker state in the 16th century than the Seven Provinces
in the 17th ? And did not the empire of Philip II excel all the kingdoms of his time in
power and renown ? Why was it, moreover, that, although Germany was in a state of
political disruption, certain of its cities, like Hamburg or Frankfort-on-the-Main,
reached a high degree of development in the 17th and 18th centuries, such as few
French or English cities could rival ?
This is not the place to go into the question in all its many-sidedness. A
number of causes contributed to bring about the results we have mentioned. But from
the point of view of our problem one possibility should not be passed over which, in
my opinion, deserves most serious consideration, and which, so far as I know, has not
yet been thought of. Cannot we bring into connexion the shifting of the economic
centre from Southern to Northern Europe with the wanderings of the Jews ? The
mere suggestion at once throws a flood of light on the events of those days, hitherto
shrouded in semi-darkness. It is indeed surprising that the parallelism has not before
been observed between Jewish wanderings and settlement on the one hand, and the
economic vicissitudes of the different peoples and states on the other. Israel passes
over Europe like the sun : at its coming new life bursts forth ; at its going all falls into
decay. A short resume of the changing fortunes of the Jewish people since the 15th
century will lend support to this contention.
The first event to be recalled, an event of world-wide import, is the expulsion
of the Jews from Spain (1492) and from Portugal (1495 and 1497). It should never be
forgotten that on the day before Columbus set sail from Palos to discover America
(August 3, 1492) 300,000 Jews are said to have emigrated from Spain to Navarre,
France, Portugal and the East; nor that, in the years during which Vasco da Gama
searched for and found the sea-passage to the East Indies, the Jews were driven from
other parts of the Pyrenean Peninsula.
It was by a remarkable stroke of fate that these two occurrences, equally
portentous in their significance—the opening-up of new continents and the mightiest
upheavals in the distribution of the Jewish people—should have coincided. But the
expulsion of the Jews from the Pyrenean Peninsula did not altogether put an end to
their history there. Numerous Jews remained behind as pseudo-Christians
(Marannos), and it was only as the Inquisition, from the days of Philip II onwards,
became more and more relentless that these Jews were forced to leave the land of
their birth. During the centuries that followed, and especially towards the end of the
16th, the Spanish and Portuguese Jews settled in other countries. It was during this
period that the doom of the economic prosperity of the Pyrenean Peninsula was
sealed.
With the 15th century came the expulsion of the Jews from the German
commercial cities—from Cologne (1424-5), from Augsburg (1439-40), from
Strassburg (1438), from Erfurt (1458), from Nuremberg (1498-9), from Ulm (1499),
and from Ratisbon (1519).
The same fate overtook them in the 16th century in a number of Italian cities.
They were driven from Sicily (1492), from Naples (1540-1), from Genoa and from
Venice (1550). Here also economic decline and Jewish emigration coincided in point
of time.
On the other hand, the rise to economic importance, in some cases quite
unexpectedly, of the countries and towns whither the refugees fled, must be dated
from the first appearance of the Spanish Jews. A good example is that of Leghorn,
one of the few Italian cities which enjoyed economic prosperity in the 16th century.
Now Leghorn was the goal of most of the exiles who made for Italy. In Germany it
was Hamburg and Frankfort that admitted the Jewish settlers. And remarkable to
relate, a keen-eyed traveller in the 18th century wandering all over Germany found
everywhere that the old commercial cities of the Empire, Ulm, Nuremberg, Augsburg,
Mayence and Cologne, had fallen into decay, and that the only two that were able to
maintain their former splendour, and indeed to add to it from day to day, were
Frankfort and Hamburg.
In France in the 17th and 18th centuries the rising towns were Marseilles,
Bordeaux, Rouen—again the havens of refuge of the Jewish exiles.
As for Holland, it is well-known that at the end of the 16th century a sudden
upward development (in the capitalistic sense) took place there. The first Portuguese
Marannos settled in Amsterdam in 1593, and very soon their numbers increased. The
first synagogue in Amsterdam was opened in 1598, and by about the middle of the
17th century there were Jewish communities in many Dutch cities. In Amsterdam, at
the beginning of the 18th century, the estimated number of Jews was 2400. But even
by the middle of the 17th century their intellectual influence was already marked ; the
writers on international law and the political philosophers speak of the ancient
Hebrew commonwealth as an ideal which the Dutch constitution might well seek to
emulate. The Jews themselves called Amsterdam at that time their grand New
Jerusalem.
Many of the Dutch settlers had come from the Spanish Netherlands, especially
from Antwerp, whither they had fled on their expulsion from Spain. It is true that the
proclamations of 1532 and 1539 forbade the pseudo-Christians to remain in Antwerp,
but they proved ineffective. The prohibition was renewed in 1550, but this time it
referred only to those who had not been domiciled for six years. But this too remained
a dead letter : “ the crypto-Jews are increasing from day to day.” They took an active
part in the struggle for freedom in which the Netherlands were engaged, and its result
forced them to wander to the more northerly provinces. Now it is a remarkable thing
that the brief space during which Antwerp became the commercial centre and the
money-market of the world should have been just that between the coming and the
going of the Marannos.
It was the same in England. The economic development of the country, in
other words, the growth of capitalism, ran parallel with the influx of Jews, mostly of
Spanish and Portuguese origin.
It was believed that there were no Jews in England from the time of their
expulsion under Edward I (1290) until their more or less officially recognized return
under Cromwell (1654-56). The best authorities on Anglo-Jewish history are now
agreed that this is a mistake. There were always Jews in England ; but not till the 16th
century did they begin to be numerous. Already in the reign of Elizabeth many were
met with, and the Queen herself had a fondness for Hebrew studies and for
intercourse with Jews. Her own physician was a Jew, Rodrigo Lopez, on whom
Shakespeare modelled his Shylock. Later on, as is generally known, the Jews, as a
result of the efforts of Manasseh ben Israel, obtained the right of unrestricted
domicile. Their numbers were increased by further streams of immigrants including,
after the 18th century, Jews from Germany, until, according to the author of the
Anglia Judaica, there were 6000 Jews in London alone in the year 1738.
When all is said, however, the fact that the migration of the Jews and the
economic vicissitudes of peoples were coincident events does not necessarily prove
that the arrival of Jews in any land was the only cause of its rise or their departure the
only cause of its decline. To assert as much would be to argue on the fallacy “post
hoc, ergo propter hoc.” Nor are the arguments of later historians on this subject
conclusive, and therefore I will not mention any in support of my thesis. But the
opinions of contemporaries always, as I think, deserve attention. So I will acquaint the
reader with some of them, for very often a word suffices to throw a flood of light on
their age.
When the Senate of Venice, in 1550, decided to expel the Marannos and to
forbid commercial intercourse with them, the Christian merchants of the city declared
that it would mean their ruin and that they might as well leave Venice with the exiles,
seeing that they made their living by trading with the Jews. The Jews controlled the
Spanish wool trade, the trade in Spanish silk and crimsons, sugar, pepper, Indian
spices and pearls. A great part of the entire export trade was carried on by Jews, who
supplied the Venetians with goods to be sold on commission ; and they were also bill-
brokers.
In England the Jews found a protector in Cromwell, who was actuated solely
by considerations of an economic nature. He believed that he would need the wealthy
Jewish merchants to extend the financial and commercial prosperity of the country.
Nor was he blind to the usefulness of having moneyed support for the government.
Like Cromwell, Colbert, the great French statesman of the 17th century, was
also sympathetically inclined towards the Jews, and in my opinion it is of no small
significance that these two organizers, both of whom consolidated modern European
states, should have been so keenly alive to the fitness of the Jew in aiding the
economic (i.e., capitalistic) progress of a country. In one of his Ordinances to the
Intendant of Languedoc, Colbert points out what great benefits the city of Marseilles
derived from the commercial capabilities of the Jews. The inhabitants of the great
French trading centres in which the Jews played an important role were in no need of
being taught the lesson ; they knew it from their own experience and, accordingly,
they brought all their influence to bear on keeping their Jewish fellow-citizens within
their walls. Again and again we hear laudatory accounts of the Jews, more especially
from the inhabitants of Bordeaux. In 1675 an army of mercenaries ravaged Bordeaux,
and many of the rich Jews prepared to depart. The Town Council was terrified, and
the report presented by its members is worth quoting. “The Portuguese who occupy
whole streets and do considerable business have asked for their passports. They and
those aliens who do a very large trade are resolved to leave ; indeed, the wealthiest
among them, Gaspar Gonzales and Alvares, have already departed. We are very much
afraid that commerce will cease altogether.” A few years later the Sous-Intendant of
Languedoc summed up the situation in the words “without them (the Jews) the trade
of Bordeaux and of the whole province would be inevitably ruined.”
We have already seen how the fugitives from the Iberian Peninsula in the 16th
century streamed into Antwerp, the commercial metropolis of the Spanish
Netherlands. About the middle of the century, the Emperor in a decree dated July 17,
1549 withdrew the privileges which had been accorded them. Thereupon the mayor
and sheriffs, as well as the Consul of the city, sent a petition to the Bishop of Arras in
which they showed the obstacles in the way of carrying out the Imperial mandate. The
Portuguese, they pointed out, were large undertakers ; they had brought great wealth
with them from the lands of their birth, and they maintained an extensive trade. “We
must bear in mind,” they continued, “that Antwerp has grown great gradually, and
that a long space of time was needed before it could obtain possession of its
commerce. Now the ruin of the city would necessarily bring with it the ruin of the
land, and all this must be carefully considered before the Jews are expelled.” Indeed,
the mayor, Nicholas Van den Meeren, went even further in the matter. When Queen
Mary of Hungary, the Regent of the Netherlands, was staying in Ruppelmonde, he
paid her a visit in order to defend the cause of the New Christians, and excused the
conduct of the rulers of Antwerp in not publishing the Imperial decree by informing
her that it was contrary to all the best interests of the city. His efforts, however, were
unsuccessful, and the Jews, as we have already seen, left Antwerp for Amsterdam.
Antwerp lost no small part of its former glory by reason of the departure of the
Jews, and in the 17th century especially it was realized how much they contributed to
bring about material prosperity. In 1653 a committee was appointed to consider the
question whether the Jews should be allowed into Antwerp, and it expressed itself on
the matter in the following terms : “And as for the inconveniences which are to be
feared and apprehended in the public interest—that they (the Jews) will attract to
themselves all trade, that they will be guilty of a thousand frauds and tricks, and that
by their usury they will devour the wealth of good Catholics—it seems to us on the
contrary that by the trade which they will expand far beyond its present limits the
benefit derived will be for the good of the whole land, and gold and silver will be
available in greater quantities for the needs of the state.”
The Dutch in the 17th century required no such recommendations ; they were
fully alive to the gain which the Jews brought. When Manasseh ben Israel left
Amsterdam on his famous mission to England, the Dutch Government became
anxious ; they feared lest it should be a question of transplanting the Dutch Jews to
England, and they therefore instructed Neuport, their ambassador in London, to sound
Manasseh as to his intentions. He reported (December 1655) that all was well, and
that there was no cause for apprehension. “Manasseh ben Israel hath been to see me,
and did assure me that he doth not desire anything for the Jews in Holland but only
for those as sit in the Inquisition, in Spain and Portugal.”
 It is the same tale in Hamburg. In the 17th century the importance of the Jews
had grown to such an extent that they were regarded as indispensable to the growth of
Hamburg's prosperity. On one occasion the Senate asked that permission should be
given for synagogues to be built, otherwise, they feared, the Jews would leave
Hamburg, and the city might then be in danger of sinking to a mere village. On
another occasion, in 1697, when it was suggested that the Jews should be expelled,
the merchants earnestly entreated the Senate for help, in order to prevent the serious
endangering of Hamburg's commerce. Again, in 1733, in a special report, now in the
Archives of the Senate, we may read : “In bill-broking, in trade with jewellery and
braid and in the manufacture of certain cloths the Jews have almost a complete
mastery, and have surpassed our own people. In the past there was no need to take
cognizance of them, but now they are increasing in numbers. There is no section of
the great merchant class, the manufacturers and those who supply commodities for
daily needs, but the Jews form an important element therein. They have become a
necessary evil.” To the callings enumerated in which the Jews took a prominent part,
we must add that of marine insurance brokers.
So much for the judgment of contemporaries. But as a complete proof even
that will not serve. We must form our own judgment from the facts, and therefore our
first aim must be to seek these out. That means that we must find from the original
sources what contributions the Jews made to the building-up of our modern economic
life from the end of the 15th century onward—the period, that is, when Jewish history
and general European economic progress both tended in the same direction. We shall
then also be able to state definitely to what extent the Jews influenced the shifting of
the centre of economic life.
My own view is, as I may say in anticipation, that the importance of the Jews
was twofold. On the one hand, they influenced the outward form of modern
capitalism ; on the other, they gave expression to its inward spirit. Under the first
heading, the Jews contributed no small share in giving to economic relations the
international aspect they bear to-day ; in helping the modern state, that framework of
capitalism, to become what it is ; and lastly, in giving the capitalistic organization its
peculiar features, by inventing a good many details of the commercial machinery
which moves the business life of to-day, and by co-operating in the perfecting of
others. Under the second heading, the importance of the Jews is so enormous because
they, above all others, endowed economic life with its modern spirit ; they seized
upon the essential idea of capitalism and carried it to its fullest development.
We shall consider these points in turn, in order to obtain a proper notion of the
problem. Our intention is to do no more than ask a question or two, and here and there
to suggest an answer. We want merely to set the reader thinking. It will be for later
research to gather sufficient material by which to judge whether, and to what extent,
the views as to cause and effect here propounded have any foundation in actual fact.

(Sombart, Pages 11-21)

We cannot help finding it in keeping with the sadness of the forlorn

philosophy that two of the greatest academics of the human sciences, Kidd and
Sombart, have both said of their own magnificent work that however well they may
have done, it must be for future scholars to take up where they left off, and to perfect
their first crude efforts. Living in a truly, but only momentarily, free society they had
not the slightest inkling that, in Kidd’s case in a few short years, and in Sombart’s
almost immediately, the curtains would come down on such freedom and a darkness
would fall over precisely those areas of interest which they had been able to
investigate freely in their day. Humanity fought to suppress freedom, by securing
their slavedom. Kidd might of been expected to anticipate such a tragedy, for he says
that the war between religion and freedom raged in his day as fiercely as at any time,
only that at that time the enemies of freedom were playing an underhand game rather
than levelling an all out attack against free thinkers, because for the moment the
priests were on the back foot ; a problem that was soon put right by the First World
War, and finalised by the second, to leave us today living in an absolute theocracy as
dark and oppressive as any that ever existed, dark precisely because it seems light, a
world in which there is so much knowledge, and yet a world in which we know
nothing.
As regards Sombart’s work, we must firstly place what he has to say about the
influence of the Jews in a broader context more befitting our subject matter, for we
are not concerned with one narrowly defined historical phase labelled “capitalism”,
but rather, we are interested in the entire existence of the human species, and we want
to relate the existence of the Jews to this broadest possible aspect of social studies.
The American edition of this work published in 1951 has an introduction which uses
the phrase “anti-Semitism” freely, as we might expect in the post Nazi period
regarding unbiased scientific studies dealing with the nature of the Jews. We have
already noted that the Nazis must be regarded as a Jewish cult whose primary function
was to protect the master identity from the revelations of a true human science ; a
function the Nazis serve to perfection.
At the same time Sombart is taking the role of a historian, he does not use the
organic idea of society as an social organism, he accepts the notion of “capitalism” as
a distinct phenomenon and approaches the role of the Jews in this context without
seeking to extend his ideas to a broader scientific perspective. But we are bound to
ask what capitalism is, and to answer that capitalism is merely trade taking place on
an especially sophisticated level. Thus when all is said and done, for us, all that
Sombart is doing is noting the part played by the Jews in trade. Accordingly we do
not want to confine ourselves to the modern period, we want to look at the same
question throughout the historical period. If we do this we will find that the Jews
have always played a special part in the array of societies with which they have had
contact, exactly as we would expect. However modern works dealing with this
subject are limited in number, and therefore we will not extend this enquiry further,
we merely present a selection from Sombart in order to illustrate the theme, plus the
added interest of this theme being taken up in this detached manner at this time,
indicating the vital need for a virulently anti-Semitic movement to force these ideas
back out of the public domain by bringing them into disrepute, expelling them from
the place where they could only serve to demystify the organic function of religion in
society and thus threaten the existence of society as we know it.

____

To return to our fellow creatures. So by studying creatures with whom we

share a common organic nature, a corporate nature, which means we evolved in
adaptation to the potential of social organization latent in any basic body plan, we find
that by using the comparative method of science applied to living systems, that the ant
reveals the solution to Kidd's dilemma, why is there an eternal conflict between
reason and religion, or as we should have it in the light of science, between reason and
identity.
If the ant in its own nest carries out a number of instinctive activates which
keep the social organism alive and then, when taken at the right stage, it is transported
to an alien nest where it carries out precisely the same instinctive duties, except in
service to its enemies who enslaved it, then we have an exact comparison with
humans in the simple context of a tribal society to which they are connected via the
genetic information of race, express their instinctive inclination to support the un-
divided group, to hunt, to gather, to defend, and to mate, and who then, when
evolution develops information routines whereby complex social organisms emerge,
so that people are capable of being taken from their genetically fixed social
environments, who then perform the same social life sustaining routines, then, once
the level of information has developed to the point where detachment to a genetic
social base is made weaker than the attachment to a cultural base, we have precisely
the same position in respect to humans as we have in respect of ants ; humans have
become domesticated.
It is interesting to see the kind of discussion about social structure which some
academics have engaged in that refers to the uniformity of social structures across the
globe. There is a section entitled The Structuralization of Space (In other words : The
Formation of the Exoskeleton.) in The Paradox of Social Order by Pierre Moessinger,
2000, in which he refers to a couple of authors who discuss the fact that all societies
have airports, taxis and such like features which emerge spontaneously everywhere in
the world. Naturally a subject like this dealt with by leading academics just seems
puerile and pathetic because they have no intellectual tools with which to address
such questions, and no real intention of dealing with their subject seriously ; they are
priests spouting words to earn status. But still they do raise the subject, and of course
it is a prerequisite that ants live in a social structure with basic universal elements if
there is to be the possibility of slave making strategies evolving. And thus while our
toy academics have no means of solving the puzzles they play with, in the hands of
serious investigators the solution comes naturally as we understand that human social
structures must have common foundations because they are physiological structures,
evolved biologically by way of a natural process that is subject to strictly
deterministic natural laws.
The process of domestication in ants and humans is natural and organic. The
polymorphism seen occurring in ants at the level of individual physiology is not
suited to a comparatively gargantuan mammalian physiology. But polymorphism
does exist in human society since it is clear that, as Kidd noted, humans have always
developed an elite ruling class that lords it over the masses, and the difference in life
style between a millionaire and a factory worker is vastly more divergent than the
difference between a slave ant that has a body capable of doing work and a master ant
that is capable of killing any opponent but cannot feed itself. This week, today being
14/04/07, there is a tourist spending a week in the space station, so this man is capable
of living in outer space, something no factory worker could do. Yes the factory
worker could live in space, but they have no more means of getting there than an
Amazon ant has of feeding itself. And this kind of difference is a structural attribute
central to the human organism, there is and must always be a master class and a slave
class, one that can do anything, and one that can only do what they must do, it is the
function of knowledge to ensure that individuals are attuned to this structural
necessity.
 I just want to comment upon the sentence where Sombart says that in the
middle of the seventeenth century the Jews regarded Amsterdam as their “grand New
Jerusalem”. I came across a reference to a sixth century English author the other day,
called Gildas, in Wood’s In Search of England, (Page 34), where England is described
as a latter day Israel. This reminds me of the manner in which the specifically
American slave Jews, the Mormons, spoke of America in the early nineteenth century.
This shows the link between the Jews and Romans, and Christianity as the slave
identity of Judaism, even at this early date, and we see that it is always when new
territory is being occupied that this emotive cry of possession is belched forth. This
shows how the Jews emit a theme which is picked up by slave humans inducted into
Judaism via their own tailor made version of the Jewish identity, creating diversity
that allows the physiological structure of the Jewish superorganism’s corporate being
to be organised.

As I am currently reading Mind in Animals I have selected a few passages as I

have gone along which I think indicate how people use to find in the behaviour of our
fellow corporate species that form social organisms, the same unique behaviours that
today we are told only apply to humans. We might note that Büchner wrote his work
in one piece and the titles are introduced by Besant, but they are useful.

CHAPTER XII.

SLAVERY—(Continued).

THE habits of the F. sanguinea, or sanguine ant, the second European slave-making
species, much resemble those of the Amazons. But there is the essential difference
between them that the sanguine ants are not, like the Amazons, wholly dependent
upon their slaves, for they are able to work and can feed themselves. They therefore
keep their slaves more as helpers than as servants, and do not require nearly so large a
number of them as do the Amazons. They can even do without them, for Forel has
often found a nest of the sanguinea quite without slaves, as in the Maloggia Pass at
the foot of Mount Tendre and elsewhere. The marauding excursions of the sanguinea
are also far less frequent than those of the Amazons and only take place in each
colony two or three times a year. The fusca and the rufibarbis, or cunicularia, here
also generally provide the slaves, which work in common with their masters at
building dwellings and roads, as well as attending the larvæ, pupæ, etc. ; occasionally
slaves are taken from other species.
The sanguine ants are generally fond of honey, and tear to pieces living insects
in order to lick up the juices of their bodies. They do not spare the slave-pupæ brought
in, and sometimes even eat their own eggs, larvæ, and nymphæ, as well as those of
other species which they do not generally enslave. They are quite able to distinguish
the nymphæ of the males and fertile females of their slaves from those of the workers,
and kill the former while they spare the latter. When Forel offered them a living wasp,
it was seized by four workers, sprinkled with poison and strangled. The corpse was
then torn in pieces. Amazons, which Forel had brought up artificially with sanguine
ants and four or five other species, showed none of their usual ferocity and were quite
peaceable, and all those brought up together lived happily with each other, giving
each other honey, etc. Even when Forel set them at liberty they remained together and
all betook themselves to their new dwelling. And then occurred the following
noteworthy episode. A little sanguine ant wanted to take hold of an Amazon and carry
it off. The carried ant, during the transit, generally rolls itself round the head of its
bearer, so as to lighten its weight as much as possible. But as the Amazon did not or
would not perform this duty, the sanguine ant contented itself with seizing one leg and
marching off towards the new nest. As the Amazon resisted, but did not try to bite, the
affair proceeded slowly. After a while the sanguine ant let its comrade go in order to
reconnoitre. Meanwhile the Amazon ran uneasily hither and thither. A chance passer-
by, a rufa, or hill ant, belonging to the community saw this, and tried on its part to
carry the Amazon on. But the latter still resisted, and as the hill ants are rather clumsy
it failed in the attempt. The sanguine ant now came back and touched the rufa several
times with its feelers. The communication must have been satisfactory, for the latter
let go and resigned the Amazon to its original bearer, which now pulled it along to the
new nest.
This artificial friendship between distinct and usually hostile species plainly
shows how much education and the first impressions of childhood and youth may
change and influence even inherited character and the pretended “instinct”.

I really only wanted the above passage because of the way it concludes, but
we need the context to make the story sufficient for its purpose. What is interesting is
that ants clearly, as social organisms, have a fundamental disposition to acquire an
alien culture, to be capable of education. Educability is the most fundamental quality
of human beings, it is the basis of our modem civilisation founded upon religion. How
is it possible for our modern so called professors of the range of human sciences to
ignore this feature of life laid out for us so blatantly in other species that share a
common nature with ourselves ? Providing an answer to this question is what a
history of the forlorn philosophy is all about, so clearly we want to take notice of this
comparative feature of social physiology, and by that means we will find we can
easily understand our own social activities with scientific precision of a kind our
priests only apply to other forms of life.
The establishment of complex ant societies composed of more than one
species living as one organic whole, where one species has been co-opted into the
social physiology in replacement of the element of the co-opting species’ own kind
that formerly must of served this purpose, is based upon an extension of the genetic
programme which creates the form of the individual's physiology. We see from
Büchner's synthesis of many accounts that there was a range of slave makers such as
the sanguinea who could feed themselves to the amazons who were entirely
dependant upon their slaves, and could not feed themselves. Thus we see a
progression, just as we see a progression in the form of engines created by ourselves
as we entered the industrial age, windmills gave to steam, then came petrol, giving us
first heavy machinery and transport, such as trains and ships, then light vehicles, cars
and planes. All living bodies must be based upon a form of engine that makes energy
available to them, the form of the body evolves in relation to the distribution of
energy, and the form of any engine is dictated by the nature of the fuel. When we
enter the domain of potential energy that is latent in the socialisation of individuals,
the individuals become the means of accessing that latent source of potential energy,
so that evolution must build an engine capable of accessing the latent potential of an
organism to be social. This process leads to what nineteenth century thinkers like
Kidd seem to of thought of as regressive evolution, because the independence of the
individual gave way to dependence upon the social whole. But this is a value laden
interpretation. We see from the ants that the method of extracting the latent energy of
individual physiology involves the ability to create a seamless link between
individuals in such a way that a social structure can be established. We also see that
this development takes place progressively, in stages. But although to our perception
the physical appearances predominate it is evident from the social experiments
conducted by Forel that the real secret of the social system lies in the underlying
physiological structure which creates the power of unification derived from
organizational behaviour, because Forel was able to create artificial ant societies that
would never appear in nature but which were stable once established. This is rather
like a chemist creating artificial compounds whose stability is ensured by the
scientist’s knowledge of his material.
Nothing could be more evocative of our modern human societies than these
features of ant society just discussed. The superficial facets of the process driven by
evolution occurring over tens of millions of years, much longer than humans have
ever existed, have not shown themselves in humans, who retain a relatively uniform
physiology across the range. There are however telling differences concerned with
inner features of organization which have a profound effect on the social behaviour of
individuals, which in turn has repercussions for the social organization.
Homosexuality is evidently a feature of internal physiology genetically
programmed. The consequence of a third gender arising in a social species where
gender, as in insect societies, plays a crucial role in the development of a hierarchical
structure, is of considerable significance, and it can be no accident that homosexual
men display personality traits of a highly socialised nature suited to a role at the
centre of attention in a social group. The important attribute, as we learn from our
cousins, the ants, is the underlying organisation of sociability, not the appearance of
distinct individual forms based upon outer physiological attributes.
This said, we are a young species, and while it seems we should reject any
suggestion that the different racial or cultural elements of which our modern super
massive social organism is composed may have genetically programmed differences
of a fundamental kind, we shall see shortly that the Jews have long been spoken of in
precisely these terms, as having special intellectual gifts. While the cause of these
ideas is based upon the evidence of history, this does not mean the cause of the
difference between Jews and the rest of humanity is based upon a genetic difference
as these ideas suggests. The power of education is the key to understanding these
differences, and the culture preserved in Judaism is the essence of Jewish power. The
Jews then are their culture, in the same way that the writing in a book is the story the
book tells. But, if we imagine our world continuing as it is now for a million years,
who is to say that the Jews will not evolve into a distinct species of human, forming a
caste in the society they serve as the master, just as the Amazon ant has evolved into a
distinct species of ant that exists as a caste within a social organism which it serves as
master ? A social body composed entirely of homosexuals would constitute just such
a master class that could not exist without their slaves, because they would be
incapable of reproducing, so we already have evidence of the emergence of true
polymorphism in humans, even though this is not manifested in bodily appearances
because homosexuals are still sexual beings. But they have evolved away from the
genetic component of sexuality, and become attuned to the exclusively social element
of the sexual dynamic. Thus homosexuality is itself an inner adaptation of the kind
Darwin made unique to humans when he made the evolution of the brain the mode
adaptation in humans. Of course the inner mental process of other animals are
something of a black box, and comparatively speaking the brains of insects like ants
are enlarged beyond the norm for none social insects.

Büchner : —

It was of the pratensis that Huber wrote the observations touching its
gymnastic sports which became so famous. He saw these ants on a fine day assembled
on the surface of their nest and behaving in a way that he could only explain as
simulating festival sports or other games. They raised themselves on their hind legs,
embraced each other with their forelegs, seized each other by the antennæ, feet, or
mandibles and wrestled—but all in friendliest fashion. They then let go, ran after each
other, and played hide and seek. When one was victorious, it seized all the others in
the ring, and tumbled them over like ninepins.
This account of Huber's found its way into many popular books, but in spite of
its clearness won little credence from the reading public. “I found it hard to believe
Huber's observation,” writes Forel, “in spite of its exactness, until I myself had seen
the same.” A colony of the pratensis several times gave him the opportunity, when he
approached it carefully. The players caught each other by the feet or jaws, rolled over
each other on the ground like boys playing, pulled each other inside the entrances of
their nest only to come out again and so on. All this was done without bad temper, or
any spirting of poison, and it was clear that all the rivalry was friendly. The least
breath from the side of the observer was enough to put an end to the games. “I
understand,” continues Forel, “that the affair must seem marvellous to those who have
not seen it, especially when we remember that sexual attraction can here play no
part.”
(Page 163)

This is a quirky passage but it is a good example of the wide spread feeling of
interest and intimacy that these Victorian intellectuals felt for the insect kind, and it
exudes the sense of a common nature that fascinated, and certainly did not invoke a
sense of offence, but rather one of admiration for our insect cousins, something that
modern academics are absolutely forbidden to suggest today, being always careful to
order us, the people, not to think of ourselves when our priests describe the life of
insects for our edification in one of their religious nature programmes. This
contemporary position is no accident, and it is clear that the academic world therefore
has some idea of how dangerous this knowledge is as a window offering us an
opportunity to understand our true place in nature according to a natural model of
human existence that is fatal to the theocracy that rules our world.

CHAPTER XIII.

FRIENDSHIPS AND ENMITIES.

THE capability of friendship, both social and individual, is as much developed among
ants as is that of war and enmity. Also quite apart from the slave hunts, already
described, and undertaken for the attainment of a special object, war and battle are the
universal watchword of almost all ant species, so that it may fairly be said that the ant
is the ant's worst enemy. Only some small and peaceful species, such as the
Botryomyrmex meridionalis, form an exception. As to the object of the continual and
usually very bloody wars, they seem often to be carried on just as among men,
without any decided ground and from mere lust of fighting and slaying. At other times
they are struggles for property and land, for soil and subsoil, plant lice, etc.; at other
times again they are robberies of pupæ which serve for food, or of stored up
provisions, as among the harvesting ants, or the conquest of a new dwelling.
Generally it may be said without exaggeration that all the dwellers in the same nest or
the same colony are friends, all inhabitants of strange or different nests or colonies are
enemies ; and if different species generally fight most frequently and eagerly, yet
often the most embittered battles occur between different nests of the same species. If
two hostile ants meet each other, they generally fly from or avoid each other, but if
one of them is much larger and stronger or knows itself to be supported by friends it
will then attack the other. If two friendly ants meet they either run silently past each
other, or else hold a conversation by means of their antennæ. Such a tapping of feelers
also takes place when each is in doubt whether it has to do with an enemy or a friend.
If the latter be the case and the friend finds that the abdomen of the other is well
filled, it begs, coaxing and stroking with its feelers, for a little refreshment by the
road, which is willingly given in the way described. According to Forel, mutual
feeding is a sure sign of friendship.
(Page 164-5)

Again we find those who devoted their lives to the study of social organisms
observed the same behavioural dynamics as we find commentators taking notice of in
humans. We almost feel as if we could simply replace the word “ant” with that of
“human” in the above passage ! It is a commonplace today to hear that humans are
the only creatures that commit murder or kill their own kind as an expression of their
normal behaviour patterns. But here we find this is not true, ants do likewise.
Certainly the wars occur between different species, but it is stated here that the most
ferocious conflicts occur between members of the same species. But for our purposes
the distinction is not critical because we are concerned to understand the basic
dynamics of social physiology, and we know that an important difference between
human superorganisms and insect superorganisms is that humans are all of one
species. However we have already recognised that in terms of the attributes of social
organisms the majority of the genetic structure that bears upon the formation of the
superorganism is concerned with underlying internal structures that are related to how
individuals are integrated into an organic being at the level of social organization.
Therefore it is details of behaviour and not the generality of physical appearances that
are of most importance in a comparative sociology of social organisms.
Taking notice of this fact we are reminded of the manner in which Darwin
saved his theory of evolution by natural selection, focused as it is upon competing
individuals, as brought to our attention by Ford, by making the distinction between
the subjection of individuals to forces of competition applied at the level of social
interaction into internal versus external alternatives, where humans, uniquely, became
differentiated through internal consequences leading to a massively empowered
mental capacity. But we see from our current discussion of fellow social organisms
that this differentiation is not true at all. The physical dimorphism of ants is a red
herring in terms of understanding the real basis of their organization, which is
identical to the real basis of human organization, the social form of both animals,
insect and mammal, being based upon the evolution of inner structure predisposing
them to function as units of a super being.
We see the overpowering presence of our brain all too easily, while in a
converse manner directly related to the massive impression our brain and its abilities
makes upon us, we fail to see the brain of the ant, despite the fact that the huge size of
the ant head comes in for much comment in Büchner's work. The comparative
difference in size between humans and ants makes the realisation that our brain is in
no sense exceptional impossible to grasp according to any ordinary sense of
comparison. In effect people are trying to understand facets of reality made manifest
in the macro world of everyday affairs akin to pre-civilised people trying to make
sense of illness without having any idea of the micro world of life which only became
know when lenses magnified the hidden creatures of which this micro world is
composed. Certainly had the theocracy not destroyed the forlorn science we are
seeking to uncover, science which threatened the theocracy’s existence, we can see
that nineteenth century science would very soon of arrived at the correct conclusions,
and placed humans within their true setting in the natural order of things, thereby
simply erasing religion from the face of the earth and thus setting humanity free in a
meaningful sense for the first time ever in our existence.

Büchner : —

If two hostile ants meet, each of which knows that it can reckon on the help of
its comrades, a murderous conflict generally takes place, in which mandibles, stings
(when they have them) and poison play the chief part. They also snatch at each others’
legs and try to pull each other into the hostile camp, wherein swift justice is dealt out
to the vanquished. The battle is decided most quickly when one succeeds in seizing
the thorax of its rival, and either pulls or bites off the head or at least destroys the
large nervous cord that runs down the middle line of the body ; each therefore tries to
the utmost to guard itself against this manoeuvre, so that it only succeeds either by
surprise or when one of the combatants is much larger than the other. Among ants
with bad eye-sight battles are much slower affairs than among those with good, as
they guide themselves almost only by their feelers. Sometimes the combatants or the
victors manifest a really infernal cruelty, which almost approaches the wickedness
shewn by man to man. They slowly pull from their victim, that is rendered
defenceless by wounds, exhaustion, or terror, first one feeler and then the other, then
the legs one after another, until they at last kill it, or pull it in a completely mutilated
and helpless condition to some out-of-the-way spot where it perishes miserably. Yet
some compassionate hearts are to be found among the victors, which only pull the
conquered to a distant place in order to get rid of them, and there let them go without
injuring them.
If a single ant be seized at the same time by several enemies it is, as a rule,
lost. For while it is held fast on every side, one of its opponents springs on its neck
and tries to bite through it. Sometimes it is only taken prisoner and dragged into the
hostile nest, there to be slaughtered in the cruelest manner. A vanquished ant in dying
often clasps itself so firmly round the limbs of its enemy that the latter has the greatest
trouble to get free. Often its comrades can only get the corpse away in pieces, while
the head is not seldom carried about for days, until decay makes it fall off. Only the
Amazons are able to avoid this misfortune by piercing through the head of their
enemies in the way already described, for the jaws of their enemy lose their strength
when the brain is destroyed.
 Among most ants their courage rises in proportion to the number of their
comrades or the size of their colony. The same ant which shuns no danger when
joined by many others, becomes anxious and timid when it knows itself to be alone or
surrounded by a few companions. Perhaps, also the tendency to self-preservation and
care for the safety of smaller colonies or societies lead to the avoidance of serious
danger and conflicts, while larger societies see no harm in sacrificing some of their
citizens.
(Page 166-7)

The words I have chosen the above passage for are highlighted in bold. And
Büchner's work continues thus in a like vein evoking the shared nature of ants and
humans ;

CHAPTER XIV.

WARS AND BATTLES.

THE wars and battles of the ants are sometimes waged between different nests or
different colonies of the same species, and sometimes between distinct species and
genera. They are also murderous in a sense in which the slave hunts, aimed at a single
object, are not, as a rule, and the slain, wounded and maimed are found in numbers no
smaller than those in the bloodiest wars of men. The irritation of battle also is not less
than the similar irritation in human struggles, and all the wild passions of human
nature, such as lust of blood and of slaughter, cruelty, etc., appear on such occasions
to be as roused and as real in the little ant as in the “crown of creation.” The warriors
sometimes become intoxicated with the heat of battle, until at last they are so mad that
they forget all prudence and often sacrifice or permit themselves to be killed in quite a
useless way. In such case infuriated warriors can generally only be pacified by a
number of their comrades holding them by the legs and stroking them with the feelers
until the fit of rage has passed over. An observation of this kind among the Amazons
has already been mentioned.

(Page 170)

The species observed by McCook in North America, such as the Texan cutting ants,
the Camponotus Pennsylvannicus, and the mound building ants in the Alleghanies
belong, according to his observations, to the soldier species, to those, namely, which
keep a standing army.
The military condition, however, is most perfectly developed among the so-
called white ants, or Termites, living in Africa, Southern Asia, South America, and
Australia ; these maintain just as numerous and well-disciplined an army as do our
large European military powers. Yet their finances do not suffer as much thereby, as
do those of human States, nor are their swashbucklers guilty of excesses against the
citizens who feed them and whom they ought to defend. Do not be angry, dear
reader ! They are only unreasoning creatures, following mere “instinct,” and cannot
rise to the height of human perfection.
 (Page 184)

A bit of sarcasm mocking those who deny intelligence in animals and insist
that only humans have the divine quality of reason, putting humans on a higher plane
than all other living things.

Büchner on termites : —

What a strange spectacle is offered to us in the organisation of these insect

communities ! Nothing analogous occurs among the higher animals. Social instincts
exist in many species of mammals and birds, where numerous individuals unite to
build common habitations, as we see in the case of weaver-birds and beavers ; but the
principle of division of labor, the setting apart of classes of individuals for certain
employments, occurs only in human societies in an advanced state of civilisation. In
all the higher animals there are only two orders of individuals as far as bodily
structure is concerned, namely, males and females. The wonderful part in the history
of the Termites is, that not only is there a rigid division of labor, but nature has given
to each class a structure of body adapting it to the kind of labor it has to perform. The
males and females form a class apart ; they do no kind of work, but in the course of
growth acquire wings to enable them to issue forth and disseminate their kind. The
workers and soldiers are wingless, and differ solely in the shape and armature of the
head. This member in the laborers is smooth and rounded, the mouth being adapted
for the working of the materials in building the hive ; in the soldiers the head is of
very large size, and is provided in almost every kind with special organs of offence or
defence in the form of horny processes resembling pikes, tridents, and so forth. Some
species do not possess these extraordinary projections, but have, in compensation,
greatly lengthened jaws, which are shaped in some kinds as sickles, in others as sabres
and saws. The course of human events in our day seems, unhappily, to make it more
than ever necessary for the citizens of civilised and industrious communities to set
apart a numerous armed class for the protection of the rest ; in this nations only do
what nature has of old done for the Termites. The soldier Termes, however, has not
only the fighting instinct and function ; he is constructed as a soldier, and carries his
weapons not in his hand, but growing out of his body.

(Page 203)

CHAPTER XXI.

MONARCHY, SOCIALISM, AND INSTINCT.

THE bee State has often been held up as the ideal and example of the system of so-
called constitutional monarchy, of that system which is now prevalent in most
European countries, and which is regarded by some as the highest political ideal, and
by others as a gross political sham. The Frenchman, Mandeville, as long ago as the
beginning of the last century, in his famous (or much talked-of) “Bee Fables,” held up
the polity of the bees as a model for human arrangements, although in a very
exaggerated way.
 As a matter of fact there is no small resemblance between the bee system and
that of constitutional monarchy in so far as the bees appear to lay no stress on the
person of their queen, and are perfectly contented so long as they have one, that is
someone capable of discharging the royal or rather maternal duties. They change the
sovereignty, as a rule, easily and quickly, and thoroughly admit the well-known
maxim of constitutional royalty : “Le roi est mort—vive le roi !” (The king is dead—
long live the king !) A chiefless hive, one robbed of its queen, either does homage, as
already described, to a fresh queen introduced into it just as to her predecessor, or
brings up a new sovereign by its own efforts ; while a hive, left long queenless, falls
into sloth and riot and sooner or later perishes. The queen, since all revolves round
her, is the necessary centre and bond of the hive, but without herself taking any
personal part in the business and proceedings. She therefore, in reality, exactly
answers to the foundation-stone of constitutionalism, and is what Napoleon I.
declared he would not be, in reply to the famous constitutional reproach of Sièyes :
“The prize pig of the nation.” She is indeed widely separated from her human
antitype in that she is not merely “representative,” giving to high and low merely an
empty show, but really discharges actual and essential duties, without which nothing
could exist. Apart from this, the queen in the simplicity and uniformity of her work,
and in the half, though respectful, imprisonment in which she is kept, is a complete
contrast to her intellectually and physically developed and active subjects, so that
here, as so often among men, it appears fair to say that stupidity or narrowness, or
perhaps only mediocrity, rules over reason.*
In any case this sovereignty, as we have seen, is much restricted by the
subjects themselves, and these seem to indemnify themselves for the compulsory
endurance of a monarchical head, by observing amongst themselves, on the other
hand, the maxims of the most extreme democracy, of the widest Socialism and
Communism. One is as good as another, the beautiful principle is unconditionally
obeyed : “One for all—all for one.” They have no private property, no family, no
private dwelling, but hang in thick clumps within the common room in the narrow
space between the combs, taking turns for brief nightly repose. The building,
cleansing and working are also carried on partially all through the night. All stores are
common ; there is only the state magazine, and all are fed from this without
distinction of person. If want and hunger enter, all die alike. The queen here is an
exception and has the privilege of dying last. The bees are, however, egoists enough
in such times of need, or in threatening famine from continued bad weather, to throw
the larvæ, the drone larvæ first, out of the cells. This also happens, on the other hand,
when lack of place for storing provisions occurs, owing to very successful foraging.
The larvæ are then thrown out, or the nursing narrowed down to the uttermost.
_____________________________________________________________________

* Espinas (“Animal Communities”) protests against the expressions “monarchy” and “queen”'
as descriptions of the bee State (although these expressions have always only been used figuratively),
because the queen exercises no real sovereignty, but only acts as mother, and the workers are not
subjects, but help as foster-mothers and nurses. He forgets that in the true constitutional system the
human being also does not rule, but only acts as the central point of the State, which lends him
harmonious support, and thus has the greatest resemblance to the position of the queen in the bee State.
Espinas himself admits this in another place, by calling a beehive a “moral organism,” or a real
consciousness, whose leading idea, or chief part, is the mother.

(Page 265-6)
 The first use of the term “social organism” is of major importance to our
studies since we deem this to be the most significant idea that any human being can
have in regard to the nature of existence. Comte seems to of been the first person to
refer to human society as a social organism, but in keeping with an emphasis upon the
importance of this terminology we should also be interested in the first expression of
the idea that other social organisms should be conceived of as an organism, and to this
end Wheeler is acknowledged as the first person to conceive of ants as forming an
organism. But what we see here is that Espinas' writing in 1877 had already
conceived of insects as forming an organism taking shape at the level of social
organisation. Unfortunately Büchner does not give us the page reference and Espinas'
book has never been rendered into English so I cannot take the matter any further in
this direction. As important as Epsinas' work was it is extremely rare to find
references to his work and we only find it mentioned here because the book in view is
of German origin. English academics have always been concerned first and foremost
to undermine science while defending religion, and accordingly they are selective
about what they facilitate through translation, this matter is mentioned in Desmond’s
Politics of Evolution in respect to Lamarck, and as we will soon see it is only through
anti-establishment efforts that we have the pleasure of Büchner’s work before us now.

Büchner : —

In matter of labor the bees have realised the highest ideal of Communism, for
it is perfectly free, voluntary and un-compulsory ; each does as much or as little as
seems to it good. But there are no sluggards among them, for the universal example
acts as an incitement, and in a society wherein all work idleness is really an
unthinkable and impossible thing, whereas on the contrary, in the much praised
opposite condition of human society, the idleness of the few is not only favored, but
seems to be absolutely unavoidable. Truly, in a communistic form of society the
individual must have the consciousness, as among the bees, that in so far as he is a
member of the whole, he is not working for others, but for the common good and
therewith for himself. This consciousness makes the bees such busy and eager
workers, that many of them work themselves to death in a few weeks during the
foraging season, whereas working bees usually reach an age of nine or ten months, so
that Virgil wrote truly :
“ Ofttimes in a mistaken flight they tear
Their wings, and even generously die
Before they drop the precious load, so high
The fame of getting honey, and so strong
The love they feel for flowers. ”
(Loc. cit. pp. 29, 30.)
The “instinct”-philosophers will probably say that this is only the result of an inborn
irresistible heaven-implanted tendency in the little bee minds, from which the insect
cannot voluntarily free itself, and that we therefore cannot here speak either of merit
or design. But in the first place it is not credible that instinct should dictate to an
animal to do that which will finally lead it to destruction, and secondly that opinion
agrees very ill with the already often-mentioned experience, that the inhabitants of a
queenless hive, which with their queen have lost the object of their society, cease to
work and fall into idleness and riot. These, in consequence of an event quite outside
themselves, the connection of which with their personal life-duties can only be clear
to them by a decided act of reflexion and deduction, have entirely lost the impulse to
work, formerly so strong in them, and this is impossible and incredible if this
tendency or impulse were instinctive, or unconnected with the volition of the
individual.

(Page 267)

Two points arise from the above, the first is the connection with Ferri’s
conception of the proper form of human society being like that seen in bee society as
described in his Socialism and Positive Science, and the second is the equivalence
between the perfection of bee society noted here and the argument for the
preservation of religion offered by priests in the mid-twentieth century when
Christianity was on the wane, when they asked what motivating power would replace
religion in human society. In other words religion is the “instinctive” impulse which
we see operating in bees under the influence of their queen, that is to say identity is
the unifying factor in superorganisms, be they insect or mammal.

CHAPTER XXII.

CELL-BUILDING.

THIS same point of view must be taken, as for all else, in studying the famous
pyramidal and hexagonal cell-building of the bees already described, although in this
people have mistakenly tried to find an irrefutable truth of an intelligence and a
mathematical knowledge impossible in them. We have seen that the bees often build
cells of other shapes as well, and that they mutually correct and improve each other in
the building itself. We know that they utilise, for the support and upholding of their
combs, bits of stick artificially introduced into the hive : yes, that they will use
artificially-prepared combs, or old ones emptied of their honey by human hands, as
though they were their own : or that they will continue combs artificially begun, as
though they themselves had commenced them. Different races of bees, such as
German and Italian, show considerable difference in their work, but it is surely
impossible that there can be a German and an Italian instinct.
But with all this, the remarkable shape of the individual cells, so exactly
agreeing with geometrical laws, is not itself explained, and on this point we should be
obliged either to confess our ignorance or to allow that the believers in instinct are
right, if we were compelled to admit that the bees have always, since the first origin of
their race, built such cells as we see to-day. But the great and important law of gradual
evolution, to which the whole organised world owes its origin, here again solves the
problem for us, and teaches us that the present shape of the bee-cells has arisen
gradually in perfectly mechanical fashion from pressure of space and mutual
flattening from the originally imperfectly shaped cells, and that the need of economy
in space and in wax was the impelling reason for the prosperity and propagation of
such hives as gradually advanced to the conception of the perfect cell form. That this
is no theory, but fact, is proved by the transition shapes and gradations between
perfect and imperfect cells among the nearest relations of the honey bees, such as
humble bees, mason bees, Anthophora, Melipona, wasps, etc., which are met to-day
in great numbers and variety. According to Darwin, the humble bees are at the
extreme end of the scale on the imperfect side ; these use their old cocoons or pupa-
cases for the reception of honey, sometimes adding short wax cylinders, and, in
addition, making a few separate irregular rounded cells of wax. These cells, which
may best be compared to eggs with the point cut smoothly off, or to the open end of a
narrow thimble, generally lie irregularly together, or are at the best laid on a short
horizontal platform, raised on pillars, so that a humble bee's nest in comparison with a
beehive is, to borrow Réaumur's expression, like an irregularly-built village compared
with a well laid-out city. “Regular order, beauty, and grace of form are just as little to
be found in our towns, where this house stands one way and its neighbor the other”
(Giebel).
Between these imperfect nests and cells of the humble bee and the perfect
ones of the hive, or honey bee, there is a countless number of gradations among the
various species of bees, as well as among their nearest relations the wasps, with their
numberless species and sub-species. Darwin notes among these gradations as
specially remarkable the architecture of the Mexican Melipona domestica, an
American species of bee, which makes an almost regular waxen comb in the
cylindrical cells wherein the young are tended. It also builds for the storage of honey a
number of larger cells of almost spherical shape, and of nearly the same size, which
are pressed so closely together that at the places of contact the rounded form is lost
and a flat sheet of wax forms the partition-wall instead ; this is the beginning of a
mutual flattening of the previously spherical cells. If the Melipona, like our hive bee,
made its spherical cells of the same size and at given equal distances from each other
and symmetrically in a double layer, and tried to save as much space and wax as
possible, its structure would then be almost as perfect as that of the hive bee.

(Page 273-5)

Both the bee hive and the human city can be reduced to a common term of
superorganic physiology which comes within the ambit of comparative sociology,
where the evolution of these social formations can be equated to the evolution of
mind, or collective consciousness, that is to say a uniform controlling idea manifested
in the exoskeleton of the living superorganism. Büchner goes on to describe how the
gradation of cell building can be seen to of developed by force of necessity until it
reached perfection. The same logic applies equally to human “cell” building where
we do not invent things but rather we discover the way to do the things that nature
forces us to do under the pressure to produce a mammalian superorganic form that is
most efficient given the potential of our genetically evolved form that is the basis of
the superorganism. There is no difference between bees, ants, humans and termites in
respect to the way we live or create our world, in each case nature is totally
responsible for the outcomes we experience.

We have drawn quite extensively from Mind in Animals in our social science
study of human society on the basis of a comparative method, this book offers us what
is an unusual view of insect societies today, but it was very much in keeping with the
times when it was written, which is the time when the idea of human society as a
social organism prevailed amongst those who followed the ideas of the age. Now lets
give a little thought to the book itself. As to its German production I have nothing
much to say except that it was the Germans who were at the forefront of the then
modern scientific movement, as we can see from the advertisement for the publishing
house found at the front of the volume ;

A D V E R T I S E M E N T.
___

IN issuing, under the name of the “INTERNATIONAL LIBRARY OF SCIENCE AND

FREETHOUGHT,” a series of books of which the present volume is the first, the
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY desires to place at the service of English
Freethought the weapons wielded against superstition in foreign countries as well as
those forged in England itself. The writings of foreign scientists are not as well known
in England as their merit deserves ; there are some valuable text-books—such as those
of Gegenbaur and of Thomé—which have their place on the bookshelf of the student ;
but the aim of the FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY is to issue such works as will
reach the general reader, as well as the scientific student, and render Büchner, Häckel
and others as well-known to the English public as are Huxley and Darwin. German
science is one of the glories of the world ; it is time that it should lend in England that
same aid to Free-thought which in Germany has made every educated man a
Freethinker. France will contribute to this new library some of the works of her
leading sceptics ; and Italy, also, has furnished help to Freethought which will not be
forgotten. English and American works will not be excluded, and it is hoped that a
real service will be done to progress by thus popularising in one country the
knowledge gained in many lands by the earnest searchers after truth.

The translator, Annie Besant, is a famous personage of the age and with the
leading statement of intent we are entitled to become excited at the prospect of at last
finding a source of true scientific endeavour, that has since been eradicated from our
consequently, comparatively primitive society. But our brains will salivate thoughts
in vain if we expect to get much from this source, and given that these people were
strident atheists committed to the eradication of religion from society via the advance
of science it is difficult to understand why the science of humanity which clearly
existed in full flow during the nineteenth century, and no longer exists at all today,
was not available to anyone who wanted to have it.
How do we make sense of this failure ? We must not allow our ideas to sink
into the simplistic style of reasoning that interprets all such outcomes in terms of
conspiracy theory. Conspiracy happens, Kidd used the term “conspiracy” to
characterise the eternal hatred felt for freedom of thought by all members of the
church throughout all time. But even here, in the inner sanctum of the enemies of the
church, we see the failure of these people serving any conspiratorial activities of the
church there might be, just as perfectly as any priest could ever wish for. Why ?
We would like to of seen the continental works extolling the idea that humans
were social organisms. In the pages listing items published by these freethought
publishers we find at least one work introducing the ideas of Auguste Comte, so
sociology and philosophy were favoured by these people. But why look at Mind in
Animals if it is not to lend credence to the idea that humans are, in terms of a shared
biological nature, part of the same series of insect superorganisms looked at in this
work ?
 I cannot say why these atheists failed to present a true science of humanity that
opposed the science produced by the establishment in the shape of Darwin's self-
evidently absurd ideas, self-evidently absurd in that they so conveniently sidestepped
the prevalent ideas that recognised human society was an organic phenomenon
created by nature, and instead focused upon the individual as an end in themselves.
But if we look at the likes of Besant and her associates we find they bear certain
characteristics of the age. Raised as devout Christians they lost their faith under
pressure from the scientific advances which made their religious social programming
insupportable. If Besant is anything to go by the religious instinct impregnated into
her was then sublimated into a fascination with super-scientific ideas where a pathetic
belief in new-age mystical ideas takes the place of traditional religious nonsense, and
in the political field it seems that the thoroughly unscientific ideas of socialism
provided the outlet for these people to express their energies along positive lines
expressing their new atheistic-cum-naturalistic faith.
So what we are saying is that the people who became the voice of freethought
had their intellectual ideas run to earth in a sterile fashion that obeyed the laws of
knowledge acquisition dictated by the language we speak which forces us to think of
our individual selves as animals living in our own right, while conversely making it
impossible for us to perceive the true condition, namely that we are cells within a
living being. If we look at socialist works of the period we come across the idea of
the social organism, but when this idea is used it is used in a political fashion to
represent a conceptual image of society, it is not used as a scientific model giving true
insight into the workings of human society. Indeed the idea of the social organism is
in many ways anathema to socialism, and when people pointed this out some socialist
academics set out to refute this suggestion because the naturalistic view of society
was too important at that time for anyone to be denied access to its benefits, just as all
priests have always defended their religion from science throughout the ages.
 Thus we end up with puerile political interpretations of social science such as
this from Enrico Ferri ;

And when all have given to society the work which best corresponds to their
innate and acquired abilities, each has a right to the same reward, because each has
contributed equally to the totality of labour which sustains the life of the social
aggregate, and, jointly with it, that of each individual.
The peasant who digs the ground performs a work in appearance more modest,
but quite as necessary and meritorious as that of the workman who makes a
locomotive, of the engineer who perfects it, or of the scholar who struggles with the
unknown in his study or laboratory.
It is only necessary that in a society all should work, just as in the individual
organism all the cells, for instance, the nerve cells, the muscle cells, or bone cells,
fulfil their different functions, more or less modest in appearance, but each equally
necessary and useful biologically to the life of the whole organism.
In the biological organism no living cell remains inactive, and it is only
nourished by material exchanges in proportion to its work ; in the social organism no
individual ought to live without working, whatever may be the form of his work.
Thus the greatest number of artificial difficulties which opponents raise
against socialism are swept away.
 (Socialism and Positive Science, 1905, first published in Rome in 1894.
Page 15)

The problem with this use of the idea of the social organism being, simply put,
that it is selective, it takes only those ideas from the model of a living organism which
suits the political concepts of society that this academic priest earns his living by
promoting. I personally wish it were not so for I was raised in a house that voted
Labour, and as such I have socialist sympathies, and hence every sympathy with the
communist ideal ; but the world in which I live does not sustain this illusion on the
literal plane, as it perhaps did in Ferri's day, and my concern is with science not
political competition.
So, beginning it would seem with Marx, the scientific movement was
subverted, as per usual, by a political interpretation. Hitler also became the
figurehead of a political interpretation of the same scientific ideas. The one thing that
we do not get in this age is a scientific interpretation of these scientific ideas ! The
problem is that, as observers like Ford and Taylor take note of in their treatise on the
subject of society viewed from the naturalistic perspective, you just cannot have an
abstract view of society because the first thing that will happen the moment such a
view is produced is that people will start employing that view to their own ends.
We are obliged to recognise that the crucial feature of a social organism is the
specialised activities of its parts, which puts us in a tricky position if we have an ideal
fixed in our minds that says independent individuals are the basis of a free society, for
this conception of society is not conducive to the organization of social fabric into a
structural body. In reality this dilemma plagues our political world, how to give all
the appearances of equality while making sure that there is no such thing in reality ?
If for example the Jews play a special role in the life of the social organism, as social
science proves conclusively they do, a role which equates to that of the nervous tissue
in the living flesh of the individual, then it is irrelevant what qualities any given Jew
has, it must first and foremost be their Jewish identity that determines the position
they find in society. A person must do the work that befits their organic identity
determined by their religion and social position in general, and be rewarded
accordingly. Ferri's childish bleat that each must do according to his abilities is sheer
drivel, it is contemptible because to come out with such nonsense is an insult to
anyone's intelligence, and this idea only forms the basis of the working class
movement because it is tailored to the political bias of the underdog that needs this
kind of delusion to give them heart. It is the carrot held before the power of collective
action which is the sole element of political power invested in the mass of the people.
But such collective power cannot belong to the people, it has to be tapped by a
priesthood, and that is what Marx, in what can only be said to be the classic organic
role of the Jew in a host society of none Jews, was doing.
Ferri's conception is real in a circumscribed sense, where its application is
contained within each social bloc defined by the broad definition of a social identity.
So each Jew must be rewarded according to his ability as a Jew within the world in
which Jews work. Each Christian must likewise be rewarded according to his ability,
each public school trained person must be rewarded according to his ability, each state
school child must be rewarded according to his ability. So you see the point ?
Society is divided up into functional blocs that determine what role and privileges
each person will have access to, and within all blocs the same rules will apply. There
will be overlap between the blocs too in terms of roles that people occupy, but in
general these categories of organic physiology defined by religion and such like must
be real otherwise we are left facing the reality of all this cultural diversity, that is by
far and away the most important thing in all our lives, yet having no reason for being
here !
Needless to say coming out with statements of this kind defines me as an
appallingly ignorant, evil extremist. But truth has its price and the priests have
exploited every device to create this taboo against the application of science to an
understanding of humanity, so if we want to be free we have to accept that we are
forced to fight a war against the society that has enslaved us to its crafted ignorance.
I have already said that we cannot have a free science so that the only point in
engaging in this kind of work is to offer knowledge to those people that must exist,
must exist because I exist, and it simply is not possible that of some six billion people
on earth I am the only one who wants to know the truth. Although, I have failed
utterly to find any other person with the slightest interest in knowing the truth. But I
am only one person, and it is extremely difficult to even attempt to contact people
with these ideas, the only place you might go to find such people is a university but
these places are the heart of enemy territory that exists expressly to suppress
knowledge and I am no longer a naive youth, and whereas in my day college
education was subsidised, today a person is made to pay through the nose for it, which
ensures that what the student wants is to be a priest, to obtain high status, and not
merely to discover knowledge. Just as we cannot have a free science, so we cannot
avoid “attacking” Jewish interests along with religion in general, such attacks are
unavoidable in any attempt to apply science to the study of humanity. Somehow then
we need to say what we have to say about Judaism whilst letting it be known that we
will not tolerate being called fascists or anti-Semites, or being attacked by the Jewish
machine of oppression, while also letting it be known that we have no animosity
against Jews, we just want freedom that is in keeping with the modern world, a world
whose fabric is built upon scientific knowledge. There can be no place for Judaism or
any other religion in a modern civilization. Religion has to go.

The problem between science and religion, which gives us the eternal struggle
at the heart of human history, is that when people bring forth a new conception of
existence which completely changes the self perception that people have of
themselves, then these new ideas have a political impact as the various elements of
the social fabric seek to reposition themselves according to the new ideas. In saying
this we need to understand that self perception is fed to individuals by leaders of
movements or established institutions, and so it is these defenders of the political
power base that engage in the struggle to reformulate the slave programme that they
are in control of, that is their job in the social organism. Socialism, communism, anti-
Semitism, Nazism and such like new mass movements can be related to the
undercurrent of naturalistic ideas which altered the popular perception of society in
the nineteenth century. It is for this reason that the theocracy that rules society has
destroyed the scientific knowledge of human nature that was undoubtedly responsible
for these anti-religious modes of self-perception. The trouble is, speaking for myself,
that I cannot live in a lunatic asylum in which our science is based on religious
morality and the stupid ideas written in the Bible that present the Jewish model of
self-perception as the one we must all live by. Yes, six billion other people have no
problem with this, but my life is worthless as long as I am obliged to suffer this
subhuman mode of self understanding. But then I am not a political creature, and that
is the crux of the matter. Religion can get away with being foisted on society even in
the modern age because all that matters to everyone is the result. People just want the
system to work, and part of that working process requires a pathetic model of reality
in which the imposition of inequality and unfairness can be rendered good because it
is essential. This is what religion achieves, because religion creates a division that
people accept as fair because it is religious. Thus, yesterday on The Wright Stuff, on
channel 5, the opening question in this morning chat programme asked if doctors
should have the right to refuse to carry out abortions on the basis of religious
objections. Thus we set religious identity up as a sacred mechanism allowing people
to circumvent our most vicious laws, laws that enforce absolute equality as their most
basic principle. So religion creates structure by setting people apart, in opposition to
the law which creates structure by bringing people together at a level that is
theoretically above all divisions. Thus we have individuals composed into discrete
blocs that are then built into higher order units, that is states, that are themselves only
components of a higher confederate order. In this way the human biomass is
organized into building blocks that can be united into a one universal superorganism
defined by religion.

I do not know of any scientific examinations of the idea of the social organism
that take a broad view of the phenomenon, bar one by another student of the ant
people, William Morton Wheeler ;

Unfortunately, also, the science of comparative sociology has remained undeveloped.

It has, in fact, fallen between two stools, because the sociologists have left the study
of animal and plant societies to the biologists and the latter have been less interested
in these societies as such than in the structure or individual activities of their
members. Apart from Forel and myself only a few investigators, like Espinas,
Waxweiler, Petrucci, Deegener, and Alverdes have evinced a keen interest in
nonhuman societies. Yet these, no less than human society, are as superorganisms
obviously true emergents, in which whole organisms, i.e. multicellular organisms,
function as the interacting determining parts. Owing, moreover, to the loose and
primitive character of the integration and the size of the components even in the
densest societies, it is possible to ascertain the behavior of the parts and to experiment
with them more extensively than with chemical and organismal wholes, since the
parts of the latter are either microscopic or ultramicroscopic and are always so
compactly integrated that analysis becomes very difficult and involves a considerable
amount of statistical inference. Experiments in subdividing, compounding, castrating
and grafting, and in introducing foreign elements with a view to observing their
effects on animal and plant societies as emergent wholes, can be carried far beyond
the limits of such experiments on the single living organism. For this reason, for the
reason that there is a much greater wealth of emergents at the social level than is
commonly supposed, and because the peculiarities of social emergence bear an
interesting analogy to those of mind, the reader will pardon me if I descend to a rapid
review of a number of biosociological details.
Social aggregates—if we employ the term “social” in its broadest sense—may
be divided into two great groups, the heterogeneous and the homogeneous, the former
comprising the associations of organisms belonging to different species, the latter of
individuals of the same species and therefore of common genetic origin. In either
group the simplest association obviously obtains between two interacting individuals,
the combined behavior of which may be said to form an emergent pattern different
from, though depending on, the functional peculiarities of the two component
organisms.
Among the heterogeneous association we can distinguish the innumerable
cases of predatism, parasitism, symbiosis and the biocœnoses, or animal and plant
communities, which constitute a vast series of emergents varying from those of very
low to those of very high integration. In predatism, the predator becomes structurally
and behavioristically adapted to the prey and the latter to the predator, at least to the
extent of modifying its habits of flight, concealment, defense or fecundity. In these
cases we can hardly speak of association in the social sense, but it may be noted that if
the predatory species indulges in too great an extermination of the prey, it must either
adapt itself to some other form of prey, or automatically cease to exist. In parasitism
this danger is the greater because the association of host and parasite is so close as to
be usually one of actual bodily contact. Moreover, the parasitic association which is
exhibited, either temporarily or permanently, by many thousands of animal and plant
species, tends to ever greater refinement through the selection of specific hosts by the
parasites. This type of association is unilaterally aggressive like predatism, but tends
in turn to lapse into a relation of mutualism, or symbiosis between the interacting
individuals, again giving rise to innumerable emergents exhibiting such diverse
behavioristic wholes as the symbiosis (helotism) of alga and fungus in the lichens, the
association of bacteria or Mycorrhiza with the roots of higher plants, the singular
associations of pollinating insects with flowers, between the yeasts or bacteria and the
tissues of plant lice and other insects, between ants and certain tropical trees and
shrubs, the cultivation of fungi by beetles, ants and termites, etc. Recent studies like
those of Raines (1922) on the rusts and their host-plants and of Melin (1925) on
Mycorrhiza and the roots of forest trees, show the various predatory, parasitic and
symbiotic associations as emergents in statu nascendi. Finally there are the
biocœnoses, or communities of plants and animals that live in particular
environments, such as swamps, deserts, rain-forests, etc. — veritable welters of
organisms of many species, all interacting with one another in complex predatory,
parasitic and symbiotic relationships, but forming wholes in which the experienced
field-naturalist can readily distinguish general adaptive patterns, though their adequate
description may be impossible. In the tropics a single species of tree may harbor and
nourish more than a hundred species of insects peculiar to itself and these may, in
turn, be the prey of many predatory insects, reptiles, birds and mammals and the hosts
of innumerable fungus, protozoan, vermian and insect parasites. We may truthfully
say that there is not on the planet a single animal or plant that does not live as a
member of some biocœnose.1
True societies are possible only when the components belong to the same
species, but the motives of their association may be very diverse. They may be said to
belong to three main types according as nutritional, reproductive or defensive
functions predominate in the emergent social behavior. Examples of the nutritional
type are certain Cœlenterates, like the Siphonophores, corals, etc., the tunicates,
tapeworms and the higher vascular plants. In all these cases the society, or colony, is
formed asexually by repeated budding from a single individual, and sexual
reproduction is restricted to the dissemination of the species and the formation of the
initial individual of the colony. Certain members of the colony may be specialized for
the purpose of securing food, but this is shared by all the vitally interconnected
individuals.
The sexual, or reproductive, type of society is more interesting. It starts with a
peculiar temporary cooperation, or mating of only two individuals, the male and the
female, and emerges with the growing up of the offspring in cooperative affiliation
with the mother or with both parents. A more or less permanent family is thus formed,
which may become very numerous either through the production of successive
generations of offspring by the same mother or through the consociation of a number
of genetically related mothers and their offspring. This is the type of society which we
find among the insects, and I have been able to show that it has emerged at no less
than thirty independent points during the phylogeny of the class. Some of these
colonies are very small and evanescent or feebly integrated, but others are very stable,
comprise many thousands of individuals (ants, honey-bees, social wasps and termites)
and are very highly integrated, with so pronounced a social division of labor among
the individuals that definite castes are produced (workers, soldiers, etc.) which are not
only functionally, but may even be morphologically differentiated at an early stage of
their post-embryonic development. Although the formation of the various castes is
primarily connected with the functions of nutrition and defense the main activities of
the colony center in reproduction, i.e., in producing and rearing as many young as
possible. That the social activities may present a very definite emergent pattern is
most clearly seen in the nests of bees, wasps, ants and termites. These structures,
though the result of the cooperative labor of most of the personnel of the colony, are
nevertheless true Gestalten, being no more mere sums of the individual activities than
is the diverse architecture of cities built by human hands. Not only does each species
have its peculiar type of nest, but the nest of every colony of a species exhibits its own
emergent idiosyncrasies.
The situation among the social insects may be complicated in a very
interesting manner by the tendency of their colonies to adopt alien insects as guests,
or nestmates. This is especially true of the ants and termites. These guests are really
social parasites and are to be regarded as component members of the colonies in the
same sense as dogs have for ages been effective members of human societies. But in
the case of the social insects the behavior of the guests may produce veritable social
diseases in the colonies that harbor them. As a result of their adoption even the
structure and numerical proportions of the castes may be modified, although there is a
demonstrable effort at social regulation on the part of the host, just as there is in the
single organism whose tissues have been invaded by bacteria or other parasites. This
tendency to consociation with strange organisms is carried even further in the union
of whole colonies of bees, wasps, and ants with colonies of alien species, and in these
so-called “mixed colonies” one of the social components assumes a predatory or
parasitic role, suppressing the fertile queen, or reproductive organ of the host colony,
i.e., indulging in what is known as “parasitic castration” among single organisms, and
controlling the activities of the whole, so that a new emergent arises—a super-
superorganism, or superorganism of the second degree.
The defensive colonies are represented by the schools, flocks, herds and bands
of fishes, birds and mammals and consist of individuals, sometimes of only one sex or
of the young, belonging to different families. While these congregations are usually
based on sexual reproduction, their primary social function is nevertheless the
protection of the individuals. There is often a vague differentiation of function as in
the stationing of sentinels or of more vigorous or more formidable individuals in
strategic positions when the herd is feeding or is otherwise exposed to danger. The
bands of monkeys, anthropoids and primitive men constitute loose social aggregates
of this pattern. We must, I believe, regard human societies above the level of the
primitive savage horde as still higher emergents, i.e., as super-superorganisms which
not only have their reproductive basis in the consociation of numerous families, but
have developed innumerable groups, or associations, all so inextricably interrelated
that a single individual not only has multitudinous relations with the members of his
own and other families, but may belong simultaneously to a number of different
associations. The total emergent functional pattern is here so amazingly complicated
that it altogether defies observation as a whole. Only in certain cases, such as
ceremonials and rituals, is it possible to observe emergent social patterns as wholes,
or Gestalten. A fine example of such a pattern, covering a wide area and many
activities and carried out by many individuals, though unperceived by the latter, is the
kula among the natives in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea as described
by Malinowski in his Argonauts of the Western Pacific.
Whereas nearly all insect societies possess an ontogeny, since they have their
inception in a single fecundated mother queen and exhibit a gradual growth,
integration and differentiation as new individuals are successively added from the
eggs of the queen till the colony attains a definite adult stature in a manner analogous
to that of the ontogeny of the single organism by division and differentiation of its
component cells, human society no longer possesses an ontogenetic stage but grows
indefinitely by a kind of interstitial swarming, which resembles that of the honey bee
only when contingents of individuals are sent out as colonies, as occurred in ancient
times among the Greeks and Romans and has been the practice of other European
nations during more recent centuries.
Now the various emergents which I have very briefly discussed indicate that
there is something fundamentally social in living things, and closer scrutiny shows
that this must be a characteristic of all life, since every organism is, at least
temporarily, associated with other organisms, even if only with members of the
opposite sex and with its parents, and every organism is at least implicated in some
biocœnose. This statement holds good even of such supposedly unsocial creatures as
lions, eagles, sharks, tiger-beetles and spiders. There are, in fact, no truly solitary
organisms. We may say, therefore, that the social is a correlate as well as an emergent
of all life in the sense in which Morgan speaks of mind as being both a correlate and
an emergent of life. And like the more complicated mental emergents, such as the
instincts and conscious activities, striking social emergents make their appearance
sporadically and often in unrelated groups of species, as I have shown among the
insects. Indeed, the correlations of the social—using the term in its most general
sense—even extend down through the inorganic realm to the very atom with its
organization of component electrons. And since reality is given as classes of elements,
each represented by innumerable similar, active entities, endowed with an irresistible
tendency to cohere and organize themselves into more and more complex emergent
wholes, association may be regarded as the fundamental condition of emergence. We
are, I believe, bound to assume that the organization is entirely the work of the
components themselves and that it is not initiated and directed by extraspacial and
extra-temporal “entelechies” (Driesch) “organizatory factors” (Eldridge), “deity” or
“elan vital” (Bergson). Such agencies are conceived as possessing remarkable
foresight, although the whole multimillennial course of evolution with its innumerable
impasses and culs-de-sac, its abject and tragic failures, would seem rather to be one
vast monument to their colossal and hesitating inadequacy, blindness and stupidity.
The resort to such metaphysical agencies has been shown to be worse than useless in
our dealings with the inorganic world and it is difficult to see how they can be of any
greater service in understanding the organic. The tender-minded may still delight in
assuming their intervention in the development and maintenance of unicellular and
multicellular organisms, whose integration is so exceedingly complicated and opaque
that we are probably still centuries removed from any adequate understanding of their
functional composition, but on the next level, that of the very loosely organized
social, or super-organisms, in which the actual play of the components is open to
inspection, it is not so easy to tolerate these ghostly presences.
I fail to understand why Alexander and C. L. Morgan select deity as the
supervenient level next to mind, since their general scheme of emergent evolution
most naturally demands the social as the next level in ascending order. As
I. A. Richards says (Science and Poetry, p. 60) : “Various emergent deities have been
suggested—by Mr. Wells, by Professors Alexander and Lloyd Morgan—but, alas !
the reasons for suggesting them have become too clear and conscious. They are there
to meet a demand, not to make one ; they do not do the work for which they were
invented. The revolution brought about by science is, in short, too drastic to be met by
any such half-measures. It touches the central principle by which the Mind has been
deliberately organized in the past, and no alteration in beliefs, however great, will
restore equilibrium while that principle is retained.” Were prophecy in order we
might ask what level may be expected to emerge beyond the social. Perhaps this may
be the end of the series, with supervenient extinction, also to be accepted by the race
with good cosmic manners if not with Morgan's “natural piety”. It would seem,
however, that the present very imperfect state of our society may allow for not a few
successive emergents in the form of greater solidarity and higher ethics. But here we
touch on a consideration which even Herbert Spencer felt to be ominous. Will this
prospective, more intensive socialization be analogous to that of the highest social
insects, a condition in which specialization and constraint of the single organism are
so extreme that its independent viability is sacrificed to a system of communal bonds,
just as happens with the individual cell in the whole organism ?
Within the groups of social insects, as we pass from the socially primitive to
the more specialized, or in the ontogeny of the single colony as we pass from its
earlier to its later stages, we actually witness a notable and increasing degeneration of
the individual. Holmgren has shown that the supraœsophageal ganglion, or brain, in
old kings and queens of termites shrinks to one-third, while the sympathetic ganglia
increase to three times their original size. And von Rosen finds that the eyes and optic
ganglia of aged royalty among termites also undergo marked degeneration.
Furthermore, the eyes, brain, thoracic structure and often also the pigmentation of the
workers in the most highly socialized ants are less developed than they are in the
workers of small primitive societies, which are more like the original solitary Vespoid
ancestors. There may even be a complete suppression of the worker caste and a return,
or dedifferentiation to what is, to all intents and purposes, a nonsocial life in certain
ants, bees and wasps (Anergates, Psithyrus, Vespa austriaca, etc.) which behave as
parasites in the colonies of other ants, bees or wasps. We also notice a concomitant
degeneration in pigmentation and other structures as we pass from primitive forms
like Calotermes, Archotermopsis and Hodotermes, with their small colonies, to
Termes with its huge colonies of highly specialized individuals. Many more examples
might be cited but these will suffice to show that evolution by atrophy certainly
accompanies an advance in social integration in the insects.
Turning to man we notice a similar regressive development of the individual
as civilization proceeds. There is a decline in the sense-organs (witness the number of
people with congenital or acquired defects of vision, hearing and smell), anomalies in
the epidermal structures (teeth, hair and pigmentation), the absence of any
demonstrable improvement in the brain cortex and intelligence during historic time
(possibly even some deterioration ! ), the greater activity of the visceral nervous
system and endocrine glands as shown by the higher emotivity, increasing insanity,
criminality, and mob-psychology in our larger cities, etc. Add to all this the atrophy or
subatrophy of our organs and tissues brought about by the ever-increasing
specialization in our activities, and we can hardly fail to suspect that the eventual state
of human society may be somewhat like that of the social insects—a society of very
low intelligence combined with an intense and pugnacious solidarity of the whole.
Even the intensification of nationality witnessed in existing human society has its
counterpart in the hostility of every colony of social insects towards every other
colony, even of the same species. A society of the type towards which we may be
drifting might be quite as viable and quite as stable through long periods of time as
the societies of ants and termites, provided it maintained a sufficient control of the
food supply.
Intersocietal hostility undoubtedly has its roots in the mutual hostility of the
individuals, both of the cells or tissues of single organisms and of the individual
organisms composing super-organisms, and this “hostile symbiosis” is the foundation
on which Morley Roberts has recently erected a very interesting theory of evolution.
The primitive predatism and parasitism from which symbiosis has emerged is not lost
by the individuals composing organisms or societies but merely abides in latency, as
the most casual observation of our species demonstrates, ready to flare up under
certain conditions with the most disastrous results, such as the death of the individual
(cancer and other malignant growths and variations) or the dissolution of society
(revolution). It follows from such considerations that the optimistic conception of
progress as an unceasing movement towards perfection in the human race may be
illusory. Roberts suggests that our enlarged fore-brain, the “specific organ of
civilization” (C. J. Herrick), with its ninety-two hundred million neurons, of which we
are so proud, may really have originated as a malignant overgrowth (tumor), and he
remarks that “in discussing the factors of evolution objections to our regarding the
encroachments of the fore-brain upon the animal function of the human body as
perpetual approximations to and recessions from a state of morbid overgrowth, on the
ground that to this we owe human progress, are wholly irrelevant. Progress, whatever
it may be, is obviously relative and a healthy Neanderthal or Cromagnon man, who
might as easily dispose of a modern athlete as any gorilla, could be held excused if he
thought his bald and almost jawless successor to be in the highest degree degenerate.
There can be no doubt that what we, perhaps in our blindness, call the upward
progression of the human race, has always been accompanied, especially when
advance seemed most rapid, by an increase in disease, and it would in no way be
surprising if we learnt at last that the remarkable increase in the fore-brain was not
only one of the causes of malignancy but was to be in the end one great cause of the
extinction of man. If that proved to be a fact, such a result would but class man as one
of the many races of animals which perished of special over-growths and a possible
lack of fertility.”
The degenerate or pathological character of civilization has been emphasized
by many authors, including Ruskin and Carpenter. The following is from the poet
Schiller (Ueber die ästhetische Erziehung des Menschen, 1795) and is quoted by Jung
in his Psychological Types, p. 91 : “I do not ignore the advantages which the present
generation, regarded as a whole and measured by reason, may boast over what was
best in the by-gone world ; but it must enter the contest as a compact phalanx and
measure itself as whole against whole. What individual modern could enter the lists,
man against man, and contest the prize of manhood with an individual Athenian ?
Whence then arises this unfavorable individual comparison in the face of every
advantage from the standpoint of the race ?” The philosopher F. C. S. Schiller is even
more explicit, when he says (in his brochure, Tantalus) : “It appears then that we can
extract no guarantee of progress from the nature of man or from the nature of human
institutions. There is no law of progress ! * * * Civilization, as at present constituted,
is very definitely a deteriorating agency, conducing to the degeneration of mankind.
This effect of civilization is nothing new;—its discovery, however, is very recent.” In
the writings of Starcke (“Psychoanalysis and Psychiatry,” Internat. Journ. Psycho-
Anal. 2, 1921, p. 361-415), who actually dubs the disease of civilization
“metaphrenia,” I find the following remarks : “Civilization seems then to be a disease
which is imposed on a certain portion of society in order to obtain a certain extra gain
whereby all profit. . . . Civilization from the individual point of view belongs to
neurotic phenomena. . . . We see the civilization of a people or a race built up in
cycles according to the mechanisms of the obsessional neurosis, until it becomes no
longer bearable ; then there comes about a limitation of the useful effect through the
return of the repressed material in disguised form, and a breaking through of
forbidden things in war and revolution, according to the principles of the manic
psychoses, while various ‘isms’ analogous to the paranoid fields are not lacking. . . .
Civilization demands regression,” etc.
Yet other considerations, to which the intelligence testers and psycho-analysts
have been calling our attention for some years past, indicate that as civilization
proceeds, most of us find it increasingly difficult to advance beyond, or increasingly
easy to lapse into juvenile or even infantile modes of thought, feeling and behavior. It
would seem that these tendencies must be due, at least partially, to the increasing
pressure of prophylaxis and protection exerted by the controlling classes of society on
all its members. We are succeeding so well in making everything “fool-proof” for one
another that even the baby termites might envy us our individual security.
The prospect is by no means pleasant. The reader will be delighted, I am sure,
that I refrain from further comment.
1
Classical examples of biocœnoses are the clover— bumblebee—fieldmouse—cat—spinster
community of Darwinian literature and the maize plant—cornroot aphis—ant—horse—man
community of our Midwestern corn-belt. For more intricate examples and an interesting discussion of
the biocœnoses from the ecological and sociological points of view, see Elton (1927).

(Emergent Evolution, 1928, Page 25-52)

This is a perfect piece of writing in terms of our scientific investigation of

human society. Yet it represents a nightmare because those who farm us and rule us,
and determine everything we can think, force us to be religious, and we in turn love
this imposition, so Wheeler concludes by saying that he knows his audience want him
to be silent. And so we need not be surprised that if Wheeler’s generation could
speak thus of their world they would find that progress has made ours vastly more
oppressive as television serves to plug directly into our brains, cameras watch us
everywhere, robot police in the form of speed cameras monitor us, machines that
investigate the very air we exhale detect our behaviour and crucify us for combining
mobility with socialising ; so that socialising is now only legal for people acting alone
within their own homes ! that is to say it is illegal for a single person to drink and
drive even though the farmers relentlessly destroy the drinking venues where we love
to go to meet and talk our talk. The farmers have their reasons for developing the
exoskeletal cells in which they contain us in this way, the drift is always toward ever
more termite like oppression ; and we love it because we love whatever our masters
force us to take from them. Humans make the perfect slave.
Of course when we edge toward the question of physical retrogression we will
find our owners reminding us of the horror of eugenics which, like the Nazis, makes
science directed toward a real examination of these questions taboo. Society is a
quagmire, where we can have two possible moves, either closer toward the nightmare
or stillness. If we talk about the nightmare of increasing civilisation then the priests
invoke a reaction that is so vile that the priests then have a reason to outlaw any such
discussion, so the nightmare proceeds unabated, it cannot be opposed. Global
corporations unify the world, as cameras unify the world, as laws unify the world.
The only thing that never changes is religion and war, these endemic horrors of our
existence are the life blood of our masters, and they treasure them and make sure that
these two social activities thrive. Blair, Thatcher, Bush, who more than these present
or recent leaders of our slave nation ever united war and religion better ?
 PREFACE

THERE are many well-intentioned people to-day who will tell you that the conflict
between science and religion is over. It is not so. What has been rather loosely called
the conflict between science and religion is just reaching its acute phase. Up to the
present the fighting has been an affair of outposts ; the incidents of Galileo and
Darwin were but skirmishes. The real conflict is to come ; it concerns the very
conception of Deity.
I say that the phrase “the conflict between religion and science” is a loose
phrase. It is a loose phrase because the conflict is not really between science and
religion at all, but between a certain kind of religion and some particular conclusions
of science.
There are in reality several conflicts. One is between a certain religious
tradition on the one hand, a tradition so encrusted with sanctity by long association
that it is mistaken for something essential to religion, and, on the other, a number of
actual facts discovered by scientific investigators. Another conflict is that between the
passion for getting at the truth that characterises some great minds, including the
highest type of scientific mind, which is indeed a religion of truth, and the tendency to
assert and believe what we desire which is found in so many human beings and so
many actual religious beliefs. Still a third conflict is between the overcautious or the
limited mind, scientific or other, and a certain too matter-of-fact kind of science,
which persist in denying the truth or the value of what they cannot see or understand,
and that side of rich human nature which is capable of a deep and vital religious
experience.
At the present moment, organised religion happens to be arrayed, on the
whole, against organised science. But the real conflicts are between bad, limited, or
distorted religion and pure and high religion ; and between limited and grudging
science and science full and unafraid.
The writing of this book has been no easy task. The chief purpose which I had
in mind in doing so was to try to convince my readers of the essentially accidental and
temporary nature of the present conflict between religion and science, and to bring
them back to fundamentals—to remind them that science is fundamentally a method
of interrogating and investigating nature, and religion fundamentally an attitude of
mind. Science would still be science if its materialistic or (in the narrower sense)
mechanistic views were completely abandoned : religion could still be religion
without retaining one single item of any Christian creed.

(Page 7-8)

Here then we have a typical piece of religious propaganda from the Huxley
priestly clan which operated on behalf of religion from within the temple of science.
Huxley’s opening remarks in this book are too contemptible for words and not worth
trying to respond to since they self evidently are aimed at protecting religion from
science. The value in quoting them however is that they deal directly with Kidd’s
central conflict in history three decades and one world war after Kidd made out the
argument we looked at earlier. So Huxley gives us a clear indication of the new
strategy being used by the band of priests trying to destroy science from within,
promoting the line that the war between science and religion is over, but as a religious
priest operating within science he is taking the opposite part of the religious priest’s
within religion. Here, in 1927, he is saying that the war is said to be over but it is not.
He is saying this because now religion is secure and science is dead, so the battle is
now over how science is to be made to conceive of God. He pretends that an
accommodation is necessary on both sides, but this insulting ruse is a liberty that the
victor can take in any war, since they dictate the terms and it is obviously necessary to
make it possible for the losers to save face so that the dictatorship can proceed
effectively. Elsewhere at about the same time either this Huxley or his brother were
making statements of the most supremely perfect scientific kind declaring their
commitment to a wholly uncompromised scientific truth, in which they believed
without reservation no matter what that science told us about ourselves or anything
else. Liars.
How else can the theocracy deal with science other than by developing an
official argument in which science and religion are set apart ? This is what Huxley
does in the above passage where he makes both science and religion the object of
blind fanaticism and ignorance obscuring the true essence of the two distinct kinds of
knowledge. But this is utter insanity. He claims that science ignores the value of
religion ; insane ! What right has anyone got to comment upon science who says
something like this. Put otherwise he is saying that while it is the very essence of
science to ignore all values of any kind and to look only at facts in terms of function
science is an outrage because it ignores values ! Insane. These statements by this
great philosopher of the time are nothing more than garbage, and he is a famous
person who published many volumes of such garbage. We live in a theocracy, and
there could never be any better proof of the fact than the publication of such rot by an
author of the greatest renown.
Of course the focus of the central conflict in history as Huxley represents it
could offer a perfect scientific battle line, because we would be perfectly happy to say
that indeed the question is now how to see God as a natural phenomenon, as the being
of the social organism. But Huxley is confidently basing his argument within the only
realms of comprehension that existed at the time of writing, the religious context
where people were seen as political entities and the notion of a natural history of
humans in society was erased from society by the devastation of the world war.
And thus we see that the war is continuing, but it has entered a new phase
where science has been utterly defeated and now it is only a matter of the appointed
priests keeping the messages coming that will keep up an outward pressure from the
theocratic centre of power, preventing any up swelling of scientific thought from
poisoning the minds of those making up the body of the superorganism.

But how is it always possible to maintain control over society in this way, why
is there an infinite supply of corrupt priests and a total absence of honest
professionals ?
There are two basic answers to this question. One, we evolved as individuals
to function in such a manner as to accommodate this situation, that is we were made
to act as a unit of a functioning society. Two, the counterpoint to number one is that a
functioning society develops an exoskeletal structure that accommodates the co-
operating individuals.
But I ask the question how conformity is possible, more on the level of
personal accommodation. How do millions of individuals manage to join the idiot
conspiracy without any conflict emerging in their actions even when they take on the
role of antagonists of the establishment ? How do professional scientists manage to
go along with the garbage science they devote their lives to without ever minding
what they are doing ? This behaviour is accounted for by the nature of knowledge
developed within institutions that form the core of the exoskeleton. People are
inducted into all knowledge as the dogma of the state, whether it is religion or science
makes no odds, the state, through the mechanisms of law that establish the
universities, has the power to pay the wages and appoint the academics so all is
ultimately controlled from the centre, and the centre is always the church, and the
identity of the church is always Jewish—from our point of view as Christians—and
the same applies to Muslims.
 Chapter III

Reason

What then is reason ? The ant displays the unique human quality that only
humans have when, upon emerging in a slave maker's nest, it goes about its normal
duties. Thus if we want to know what human reason is we must look to humans to
see the same action in human society, that is people going about the same activities
after an invasion and conquest as they went about before. Does this ever happen, can
we find examples of conquests where instead of a total extermination of the resident
population all that has proved necessary is for the invaders to eradicate the ruling
class so that then they not only get the territory, but the population itself that makes
the land worth having ? Of course we can, this state of affairs is the norm.
What then is this unique quality of human reason that so many other animals
also possess ? It is of course an illusion born of the information medium that
programmes the human mind. We saw earlier on that the key to the formation of
religious knowledge was dualism, and this key is developed from the language that
the elite develop as part of their own identity programme and then impose upon the
peoples they conquer. This is the key to the power of the Jewish identity. The Jewish
identity is a cultural programme written in linguistic code, where the language is
fashioned in such a way as to split humanity off from the rest of nature, and thus turn
people, in their own eyes, into a unique and self created animal. Hence humans have
the unique quality of possessing the power of creation that belongs only to the creator
of the universe, and hence Judaism teaches that man is made in God's image. But in
discussing these linguistic dynamics underpinning the Jewish identity programme we
are able to see the logic of the programme, which constantly discovers words for
human activities that were made unique to humans solely by virtue of there being a
word for them.
To the individual raised in society where it must acquire its means of engaging
in thought processes through the acquisition of its language, the act of acquiring a
language becomes akin to the ant taking up its self identity from the first experience it
has of the pheromone flux in its alien captor’s nest. While we do not know what
differences their might be in the formation of the pheromone message of identity in an
Amazon ant’s nest we can easily see that the linguistic identity we are exposed to in a
Jewish programmed society is vastly different to the message we would acquire if we
were raised in a pre-civilised society. So the Jewish identity is itself evolved to take
on the role of master identity, to act as the creative medium of a social body that
reinforces and develops the programme that the Jews themselves carry. And it is in
this context that we can make sense of human reason as the ongoing exercise of basic
life functions in all circumstances where social structure generates an infinite variety
of circumstances in common with a basic programme by developing a core identity,
personified in Judaism, but replicated structurally indefinitely through however many
identity variations prove to be necessary to extend the structure of the Jewish
superorganism.
What we are trying to get across here is the basic principle of reason as the
ongoing performance of instinctive life duties in alternative social settings, as we have
seen occurs in the ant. In humans this mechanism of continuance which represents
reason is projected to become the foundation of social structure on a vastly more
complex scale, because the structural fixation of organic evolution is built into the
exoskeletal structure of society itself, and not built into the bodies of the individuals.
Thus the Jews as the original masters have always craved an exoskeletal form of their
own, called Israel, and now they have it because the superorganism their programme
has created has reached that stage of growth where the time is right for this to happen
as the Jewish identity now rules the entire earth because the linguistic programme of
the Jewish identity has created a social structure that all the earth is subject to ;
Sombart’s work summarises the operation of this programme during the course of the
modern era. Of course the Jewish society is really Western society, the name Jew
cannot be applied to the society the Jews rule because of the nature of the power
vested in Jews, which is not meant to be known directly to the world, even though the
phrase Chosen People hardly amounts to a disguise. And this of course was obvious
to everyone before the two world wars, which is why the Germans produced the
alternative Chosen People, the Nazis.
Trying to track down the knowledge of Jewish identity understood through the
medium of natural science in the way we have just looked at it courtesy of Kidd’s
ideas, and the story of ant life as compared to that of humans, is next to impossible for
a layman like myself. I have simply been unable to find the slightest indication that
anyone working with these ideas ever realised that it was possible to find a link
between Christianity and Judaism. These two religions are taken by everyone to be
absolutely distinct, and in no sense whatever related to one another, in other words no
one imagines that the extermination of the Jews would mean the destruction of
Christianity, they think Christianity is a progression from Judaism and is independent
of Judaism, yet this fatal outcome is as certain as the death of the body with the
removal of the head, and again Sombart’s work makes this point too. Obviously it is
not possible that people did not know that there was somehow some sort of
connection between the Jews and the Christians, but as we can see from Kidd the idea
that Christianity had to be related to Judaism appears nowhere in his argument. He
does not use the idea of the social organism to make this link even though he does say
that it is religion which acts as the expression of force creating society. And we saw
that his detractors used this failure to link religions in this way to ridicule his effort
because, they said, the proliferation of religions meant religion could not be the basis
of society since each religion was unique. So Kidd should of seen this flaw in his
argument, and this failure is what he should of dealt with in his response to critics,
instead of pretending no one had dealt with his central argument, whereas the truth
was that Kidd himself had not dealt with his central argument ! It is as if an American
were to try and work out how it is that America had come to be the nation that it is
today and he were to write about the indigenous populations that occupied the land
before the Europeans came, and yet he simply was not able to make the connection
between the arrival of European culture and the sudden amazing transformation of the
continent’s people from hunter gatherers to modern industrialists. How could this of
happened, what was it that was so special about American culture ? he would ask
himself. Of course there was nothing special about American culture because there
was, and is, no such thing as American culture, except in the most superficial sense.
American culture is Jewish culture, just as European culture is Jewish culture, and
Christian society was Jewish society, it was when it was created two millennia ago, it
was when Kidd wrote in the 1890’s, and it still is today, and it always will be.

There is only one book I know of that approaches the question of Jewish
nature in a manner that is evocative of our understanding that the Jews are the master
race to which all humanity is enslaved. Not surprisingly this book, like that of
Büchner's, was German, and we have already used it. The Jews and Modern
Capitalism by Werner Sombart, published in 1911. This book asks what it is that
makes the Jews so special and important and comes up with answers that accord
perfectly with our conception of the Jews as the master race by virtue of their evolved
biological identity that is given expression culturally through the power of language ;

“Speaking generally, we may say in this connexion what we have

already remarked about capitalism and the Jewish religion, that the
fundamental ideas of capitalism and those of the Jewish character show a
singular similarity. Hence we have the triple parallelism between Jewish
character, the Jewish religion and capitalism. What was it we found as the all-
controlling trait of the Jewish people ? Was it not extreme intellectuality ?
And is not intellectuality the quality which differentiates the capitalistic
system from all others ? Organizing ability springs from intellectuality, and in
the capitalistic system we find the separation between head and hands,
between the work of directing and that of manufacturing. “For the greatest
work to be completely done, you need of hands a thousand, of minds but only
one.” That sums up the capitalistic state of things.”

(Page 274)

This mode of discussion is inherently anti-Semitic for it indicates that the Jews
are our masters and we are their slaves. This idea was, and is, fatal to our society, and
its public existence was consequently the spur which culminated in the Nazis who
eventually purged society of this idea as society was caused to offer a huge sacrifice
in the shape of two world wars which allowed the theocracy to eliminate this
scientific conception of humanity, and to put in its stead the religious science that is
part of our slave programme today.
In the introduction to the American edition of 1951 Bert Hoselitz says “the
book explicitly and frankly dealt with a delicate topic, whose very raising created
multiple repercussions in the politics of his day—and ours”. (Page xviii) He then
goes on to say that Sombart’s scholarship was suspect because while he was an
accomplished economic and social historian he was not a professional theologian, nor
did he speak Hebrew ! Oh, well that is it then, so only someone who speaks Hebrew
fluently can comment with authority upon the nature of the Jews ? This is how the
brotherhood works, it divides, conquers and takes possession of knowledge. Hoselitz
continues to undermine even the basic concept of the book, which is the basic concept
of our work too, by saying that “Finally, the methodological difficulties involved in
making such vast socio-historical generalizations, in relating religious thought and
ethics to economic practice, are very great.” (Ibid)

But the real significance of these insights for us is to understand that the Jews
are not political activists who have sort to take over the world, they are organic
entities that have been created by nature to form the greatest possible human
superorganism, and the principle that allows the Jews to exist and to function is that of
reason, or rationality, whereby each individual contained within their own
compartment by virtue of their localised social identity follows one universal
programme of operation which is dictated by their genetically programmed instinct,
exactly as the slave ant does when it is transferred from its home nest to a slave nest.
 Thus while I am no anti-Semite and I am simply following the dictates of my
own localised identity as an Englishman, raised in a society that promoted freedom of
thought and a secular political society in which science was to be our guiding light, to
a Jew the ideas I am resurrecting and developing here can only be regarded as pure
unadulterated anti-Semitism of the most vile kind. I am not a Jew and no Jew is an
Englishmen, for if a Jew were an Englishmen they would feel exactly as I do, and
they do not. But this is like asking whether a Moslem can be English, a very topical
question today. And we find that the religious identity trumps the national identity,
just as the religious identity trumps the racial identity. So if I play my Englishness
against an English Jew’s Jewishness then I am trumped and I lose. My identity
becomes non-existent, I become an alien in my own land, a person without an
identity, and the Jew gets to be both English and Jewish, while I become non-existent
because my English values are inherently anti-Semitic, because to be truly English in
any meaningful sense of the word English is to be an atheist. There is of course an
identity waiting for me to don if I will only accept it, I can be a Christian Englishmen,
that is I too can be a variety of Jew, but never a Jewish Jew. This hierarchical
structure in which types of identity have more force than others, so that one kind can
out class another, indicates the operation of that social force we implied existed earlier
when we spoke of society being like a quagmire in which things could only ever go
one way. We see here the basic dynamics of social organization which depend upon a
social force that derives from the mode of organization in relation to the type of
identity, where the Jewish identity is formulated by written language and it is written
law that builds the social structure that ensures that the Jewish type of identity will
always trump the natural identity associated with physical attributes such as race or
territorial affiliation. Here then we relate language to social structure, and thus reveal
that the social force that creates the social organism is a linguistic force, and of course
it is this force that is focused upon the Jewish identity and concentrated therein. And
it is from this concentration of social force upon the Jewish identity that the special
ability arises that leads to the effects Sombart so rightly observes. But what is of vital
importance is to recognise that these special abilities cannot be of any use without a
cultivated host that has been trained to obey the organizing operations of the Jews,
and it is as a consequence of host communities being so cultivated that we get this
withering and decay when the Jews are withdrawn from those places where they have
been active. It is perfectly obvious that a proper biological account of human society
readily accounts for all such observations.
But all the while that these identity fluxes galvanise portions of the
superorganic biomass into forming discrete elements, at the same time we all of us
obey the one underlying principle of our genetically programmed instinct, which we
recognise as our reason. This idea of reason does not conform to the scientific
definition of reason given above, but it does logically conform exactly to that
scientific definition for, like the idea of rationality used by theists, it masquerades as
consciousness of why we do what we do. So as a consequence there are as many
expressions of reason as their are types of identity, and we saw this logic reflected in
the idea that each religion was unique. When I want a well paid job I am expressing a
form of reason that is different from a black person wanting a well paid job, or from a
Jew wanting a well paid job or ......... Now then, this of course is most definitely not
supposed to be the case, we are all supposed to be equal, there are even laws that
make it a criminal offence to discriminate, even on what to many people might be the
very personal grounds of sexual orientation, never mind race or religion. But we do
not have laws forcing people to breath, or to eat, so the very fact that there is a law
dictating behaviour indicates the general tendency for people to act in a contrary
manner when left to their own devices. And if a law exists to force a situation then it
follows as a matter of course, where there is real advantage at stake, that the law will
be broken. But as with the formalised criminality of legal tax evasion, important
laws, like ensuring your class has an advantage, will also become highly organised.
The main way in which classes secure ongoing power over time is through education,
which acts as the foundation of elite power by providing an in crowd who gain access
to the machinery of power. Privileged education is not really about providing better
knowledge, it is about forming an exclusive coterie where one gains the advantage in
life based upon who you know and not what you know. Hence religious schools,
which are so precious to our masters who own, farm and rule our society, are
increasing and private organisations are being given ever more control over the fabric
of society, because by this means the religious organisations have a way to return our
modern so called democracies to the status of a medieval theocracy, instead of having
to suffer the inconvenience of running a covert theocracy.
So when we say that a Jew looking for a well paid job is different from a black
person looking for a well paid job, although both are only following the same genetic
programme that tells them to do best for themselves, that is they are acting in
obedience to intuitive reason, the real difference arises from the structural differences
derived from their respective places of derivation in society, and this structural
differentiation concerns the type of home and education that such people will be
likely to experience. Certainly the linguistic programme developed by the theocracy
imposes the notion of individuality, equality and all sorts of illusions which are then
given the semblance of reality by being made the subject of legal sanction, but the end
result is skin deep, while the tissue underlying these superficial appearances is
substantial and organised through the interplay between the instinct of reason which
makes all human behaviour act in obedience to common motives, while at the same
time paying homage to the dictates of religious programming that corrals individuals
into a complex structure of differentiated tissues, so that Kidd's eternal war between
reason and religion runs on unabated exactly as his thesis predicts it must, even if he
was foolish enough to think that his work had uncovered the basic laws of nature that
would mean in future all human understanding would be forced to adjust to his
revelation so that society at last would change.

We derive a definition of capitalism from Sombart in these two sentences, “is

not intellectuality the quality which differentiates the capitalistic system from all
others ? Organizing ability springs from intellectuality, and in the capitalistic system
we find the separation between head and hands, between the work of directing and
that of manufacturing.” But this is merely descriptive, it is a definition that any bloke
in the pub might put forth over the contents of a glass taken with a mate. From our
scientific point of view, wherein we recognise that society is a living organism created
by nature, the so called capitalistic system can only be an extension of organic
physiology as it has always existed. The part played by Jews has nothing to do with
such political self centred attributes as intellectuality or organising ability, any more
than the part played by the brain in the body can be discussed scientifically in the
form of some detached intellectual attributes associated with the brain.
The Jews are different to none Jews because their culture sets them apart, all
societies have to have an elite structure that commands order, and the Jews evolved to
be the highest expression of this physiological structure. It goes without saying that
they should have the qualities that Sombart attributes to them because they evolved to
be the master organ. What is of greater interest, just as it would be in the case of
brain function, is how the master social organ functions, via the behavioural system
we call capitalism, to control the whole superorganism. We only need look at how
our society has changed over the course of the last fifty years to see that capitalism,
like all systems driven by legislation, comes to possess the sinking sand effect of
characteristic of the social “quagmire”, as they always induce an osmotic pressure
forcing social action to operate through the exoskeletal structure in one direction only.
So the Jews do not need to be any different to anyone else as individuals, and indeed,
they are not, all they need do is be Jews, because Jews are so placed by their culture
that they are the focal point of the flow of energy resulting from the osmotic effect
just noted. Last week, today being 21/05/07, it was announced that some 2,500 post
offices will shut, these announcements come round regularly and always evoke the
same outcry because they mean the eradication of vital elements of the social
infrastructure. The same happens when banks close, and when the village pub goes
too. But the process of rationalizing the social fabric continues relentlessly because it
is dictated by one unswerving, all ruling principle, profit. This principle is the core
mechanism of capitalism, and profit is really the essence of money. Therefore the
capitalist system is, in truth, nothing more or less than a society in which money
exists. I have a few nice old dark coins beaten out of crudely cut, thin pieces of what
I take to be age blackened copper, but may possibly be bronze, which has been
punched with a symbol on one side, these I assume are pre-Roman British coins.
What were they used for ? Did lots of people have them and use them for buying
their shopping in the market ? No doubt there are academically validated answers to
such questions, but I guess there was little sign of a capitalistic impulse in the
societies that minted these beautiful little gems of history, and I suspect the academic
answer would be that these items have more to do with status symbols than units of
trade. For the Jews to evolve as a specialised culture adapting to the management of
society through the medium of knowledge, displaying an aptitude which Sombart
thinks is a natural gift of “intellectuality”, the basic model of societies managed by an
organised priesthood must already of existed. In time honoured evolutionary style the
environment prompts a form to adapt to exploit it, and then, in the case of humans,
that new form develops and extends the environment that brought it into being. With
the Jewish extermination of the Druid priesthood in Britain we see the Judaic modus
operandi whereby such established social organisms are simply decapitated and taken
over. This is why the Romans were so famously tolerant of alien religions, because
their sole objective as a Jewish mechanism of conquest was to take possession of the
territory along with its working population upon which the capitalistic mode of
organization could then be imposed. Exactly the same thing is seen a millennia and a
half later when the Jews invaded America, as described by Sombart, on this occasion
the northern Europeans that had been enslaved to Judaism by the Romans took the
part of the Romans by serving as the instruments of Jewish occupation.
If capitalism is distinct in any sense then it is in the degree of sophistication it
represents, and the consequent power it now brings to bear on the creation of the
social fabric. For our purposes the most interesting feature of this enhanced degree
power is not so much to do with the economic-cum-technological side, but rather the
manner in which the inner fabric of human individuals is transformed by the
capitalistic system, for this effect of capitalism is how the Jews come to manage the
host population in such a way that their hosts are turned into slaves of Judaism at the
very core of their being, so that they do not even know that they are Jews. This
transformation obviously concerns the creation and imposition of sub-Judaic identities
like Christianity and Islam, in all their manifold variations, but capitalism makes its
contribution to this process of transformation because it delivers the life blood of the
organism to its minutest degree. Thus if this life blood is delivered or withdrawn by
virtue of the osmotic pressure dictated by capitalistic principles, the result is a society
in which people live out their lives in obedience to the ebb and flow arising thereby.
And so we find that although the finely tuned structures of post offices, pubs, corner
shops, doctor’s surgeries and such like quaint localised services, is deeply desired by
the established population who want no change, nonetheless these services are drawn
inexorably into a conglomeration whose masters are far removed by virtue of the
organizing power of finance. Masters whose anonymous existence represents a black
hole at the focal point of the global human biomass that is sucking the life blood out
of the human biomass they rule over, leaving only the bare minimum to keep the body
efficiently alive. And in our global capitalistic world the true name of that black hole
is Israel, in which we see the incredible concentrated power of this extraordinary
state, one of the most powerful states on earth to all appearances, yet only sixty years
old, and in truth, the most powerful state on earth for America, Europe, China, Russia,
Japan or whatever, may come or go, but Israel is here to stay ; this we all know.
People’s lives are thus drained of their most precious tokens of value, their
elements of intimacy and personal community over which they have direct influence.
In their place we have the overbearing cloud of mass control, imposing impersonal
standards of uniformity for which today’s “modern capitalism” is renowned. But,
because of the place we all have within the capitalist economy in which the flow of
money is keenly felt, and to which our daily lives are finely attuned, we accept the
core principle of capitalism which says that things must pay their way, and so we
allow our society to be destroyed. But the truth is that we can do nothing about it
anyway, and the beauty of this fact is that it leads us towards the conclusion that
society is not made by people, but made by nature, for, if we wanted to try and stem
the flow of energy in society because we were conscious of the special values
embodied in our social fabric that we know will be lost otherwise, then all that
happens is that, like the French at this time, we find we become isolated by our
uneconomic social philosophy, so that the forces of nature penalise us by isolating the
social enclave whose way of life we wish to protect, and in the end the struggle must
be lost. The intimate and conscious connection we feel with the economic
imperatives driving us to accept the loss of our cherished way of life only needs to be
impressed upon a sufficient minority in order to create a head of steam that pulls the
entire biomass in the required direction dictated by the dehumanising system that has
no sense of value of any kind. In the recent elections in France the question came
down to modernise or preserve, and those who would modernise only just won the
day, but the consequence is that the whole of France must move toward more
capitalistic imperatives and away from more social ideals. There never really was any
choice, the practice of voting is really part of the political craft of diplomacy that
makes people feel that they have agreed to that which they are forced to concede. In
effect the Jews, as the supreme agents of business who have no absolute affinity to
any localised culture, are prevented from fulfilling their natural role in any society
that tries to preserve its culture in isolation from wider forces that are mediated by the
“international Jew”, as the Nazis loved to call the Jewish conspiracy, so they operate
where they can, where money talks. Thus the Jews do not rule like the wind by
huffing and puffing, they rule like the sun by acting as the focal point of social energy
that only needs to be appreciated. It is this passive mode of social rule that results in
anti-Semitic reactions often ending in pogroms, because the life power imbued into
the necessarily alien identity of the Jews operates by appeal, and therefore is prone to
rejection when the balance of social forces are unfavourable. The Jews then are at the
heart of this biological process, and that is the reason for their special status among
human kind.
In developing this organic idea of capitalism created and driven by natural
forces, in response to Sombart’s political model of capitalism as a system created and
operated by people, we reveal that just as the Nazis, in the guise of anti-Semites, must
be deemed the best friends of Judaism, as the Nazis politicised social dynamics rather
than revealing social dynamics, so we must say of Sombart that in so far as he may be
labelled an anti-Semite, he too serves the interests of the Jews by misdirecting the
interpretation of Judaism according to a political model of human history that
disguises the true nature of Jews and the society in which they live. It therefore
makes perfect sense that Sombart was part of the Nazi movement. But just as
Ptolemy observed the same stars as Galileo despite the wide divergence between the
validity of their cosmic systems, so Sombart observes the same features of Jewish
history as we need to take note of, and the crucial point is what place we occupy when
we interpret that history, and unlike Sombart we stand in the one true location, that
which derives from a scientific knowledge of human corporate nature. Sombart and
his ilk diverted science from its true path, we bring science back home.
But still, he is a delight to read because he deals with the central element of
the central feature of human history, an element which most people treat as utterly
taboo ;

Sombart : —

IV. IS THE JEWISH GENIUS NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL ?

What is the result of all our considerations in the previous section ? That in all
probability the anthropological character of the Jews, no less than their intellectual
attributes, has remained constant for thousands of years.
What does this prove ? Are we to conclude that the Jewish genius is rooted in
race ? Those who have a dogmatic faith in race unhesitatingly say yes. We, however,
who are trying to proceed scientifically, must say no. Nothing as yet has been proved.
A brief reference to the methods of some of the believers in the race-theory 574
—585 will show how unreliable their conclusions are. They start out with the
assumption that the Jews are a race. Since every race must have specific
characteristics, Jews have theirs. In other words, their specific characteristics are
rooted in their race. But for this there is no actual proof. If the truth must be told, we
know nothing whatever of the connexion between somatic or anthropological features
and intellectual capacities.
What the race-theorists have produced is a new sort of religion to replace the
old Jewish or Christian religion. What else is the theory of an Aryan, or German,
“
mission” in the world but a modern form of the “chosen people” belief ? All well
and good, but let no one be deceived into imagining that this is science. It is faith, and
faith and science had best be kept apart.
As we have said, there is no certain connexion between somatic attributes and
intellectual capacities. The constancy of each may be purely accidental ; it may arise
anew in every generation or may be carried on by the aid of tradition. And among a
people who were attached to tradition as the Jews were, this assumption seems likely
enough. The Jews were shut off from others, they possessed a strong love of family,
their religious practices were scrupulously observed, the Talmud was energetically
studied in every generation—all these supplied, as it were, the machinery for carrying
on certain peculiarities from one generation to another merely by education alone.
This is one view. Yet Jewish characteristics may spring from the blood. Again,
there are those who would trace them to environment. The Jewish religion, Ghetto
life, the dealing in money for so many centuries have all three been instanced to
account for the specifically Jewish type of character. There may be something in this.

(pages 320-322)

Sombart then concludes : “that the Jewish characteristics are rooted in the
blood of the race, and are not in any wise due to educative processes.” (p.322)
Which is certainly a fatal error to make, we can easily see how the logic of the Nazi
extermination programme might arise directly out of this idea, especially given the
preceding statement indicating that the Germans had already recognised the true
nature of the Jews as the master race, and they resented their role as the slave of the
Jews, and in turn wanted to be the new master race ; hence the reason why we must
view the Nazis as a Jewish cult, since they made themselves in the image of their
masters. It may well be that this mode of supplantation is capable of giving a positive
result in the right circumstances, this conflict between the Nazi would be Jews and the
Jews may be the clue to understanding the deepest origins of the Jewish master
identity, since it seems to run back to the origins of Western civilisation in the
Sumerian civilisation which appears to of been supplanted by the alien Semitic
peoples the Sumerians used as immigrants serving their own society. The logic of
this process might be further speculated upon by recognising the importance of
identity in differentiating the social physiology of human superorganisms, and thus
how it may require the convoluted interplay of subject peoples with a ruling elite to
bring into being the more perfectly adapted form of master identity that is so
obviously seen in Jewish existence. We may imagine that the Sumerians were fully
integrated into their own civilization, and not inclined to separate from it, while an
alien people coming into the same civilization at an appropriately low level of
sophistication, so that the basic machinery of statecraft is plain enough to see, and
who therefore have no special affinity to the civilization in which they find
themselves making a living, might extract the secret of power and then add to it that
special ingredient that makes that secret all powerful, that is to say makes that secret
universally applicable, by making the secrets of statecraft the basis of a special way of
life that makes the successful application of the secret dependant upon shifting from
one potential host community to another as dictated by the change in prevailing social
conditions, exactly as we are saying the Jews have done throughout their long
existence.
Lets just take the next section too for that is of some interest to our
investigation of the master identity of our living superorganism, as it deals with the
origin of that identity.

CHAPTER XIV

THE VICISSITUDES OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE

IF any one wished in a sentence to account for the importance of the Jews in the
world's civilization, and more particularly in economic life, he could do so by saying
that it was due to the transplanting of an Oriental people among Northern races, and
the culture union of the two. A similar assertion has been made regarding the
civilizations of the classical world, of the Greek more especially, and also of that of
the Italian Renaissance. It has been suggested that they resulted from the mixture of
Northern peoples, who had wandered into a Southern environment, with the
autochthonous inhabitants—a brilliant hypothesis, not without an element of truth in
it.
But the statement concerning the Jews is no hypothesis : it is an established
fact, capable of abundant proof. The capitalistic civilization of our age is the fruit of
the union between the Jews, a Southern people pushing into the North, and the
Northern tribes, indigenous there. The Jews contributed an extraordinary capacity for
commerce, and the Northern peoples, above all the Germans, an equally remarkable
ability for technical inventions.
It is clear, therefore, what we must have in view in our considerations of the
Jewish genius and its enormous influence. Not whether the Jews were Semites, or
Hittites, or of some other stock, not whether they are “pure,” or “mixed,” is the
important thing, but that they are an Oriental folk transplanted into an environment
both climatically and ethnically strange, wherein their best powers come to fruition.

(Page 323-4)

This description of the part played by the Jews in world history is purely
political, and as such not scientific, as Sombart likes to insist his work is, nothing
could be less scientific than this mode of analysing humans society, it is the method
used exclusively by state sponsored scientists today in conformity to the demands of
the theocratic authority that rules our world.
Just as the Ptolemaic astronomers of old did for the theocracy in their time by
observing the same material of reality, the same moon the same stars, as our true
astronomers of today observe, so our scientists do for the same theocracy today. Our
priests of academia observe the same material of reality, the social forms and
historical records, as we true scientists must look to for our correct scientific
interpretation of human nature, and all that goes with that biologically determined
nature. The Jews are an alien intrusion into the European biomass, so the question,
put in its most general terms, is What are they doing here ? Sombart does not address
this question at all, he just makes out that this mixture of people is a routine feature of
human affairs, but such mixing of populations is no more to be understood by seeing
it as routine than eating may be understood by noting it is a routine feature of animal
life. Bear in mind we are trying to be scientific and so we cannot, as scientists, just
ignore the all pervasive aspects of life that we are trying to understand and treat them
as self explanatory. According to the idea that humans are organic entities that
evolved on this planet in common with all other life forms, whereby we account for
our form as just one example of many examples of a social organism, we see in the
transplantation of the Jews into alien populations as a development of the most
profound biological significance, just as we cannot help but be fascinated by the same
occurrences taking place in ant communities. It is the significance of such radical
changes in the constitution of the superorganic biomass of the continent that we see
such massive physiological effects in terms of the political and economic conditions
which Sombart is discussing. But Sombart’s ideas support Nazi ideology precisely
because they are political ideas that are created by the Jewish mode of informing the
biomass of who and what it is. So we see that the Jewish programme that creates
Jews, in all their forms, creates the conditions that cause the Jews to suffer the
vicissitudes they suffer when their nature is caused to clash with that form of the
Jewish slave identity that creates a host population in which the Jews can mix and
conduct their “special” ways of organizing social life.
 Chapter IV

Some Precursors of Nineteenth Century

Human Science

Home : —

The colour of the Negroes, as above observed, affords a strong presumption of

their being a different race from the Whites ; and I once thought, that the presumption
was supported by inferiority in their understanding. But it appears to me doubtful,
upon second thoughts, whether the inferiority of their understanding may not be
occasioned by their condition. A man never ripens in judgement, nor in prudence, but
by exercising these powers. At home the negroes have little occasion to exercise
either of them : they live upon fruits and roots, which grow without culture : they
need little cloathing : and they erect houses without trouble or art. Abroad, they are
miserable slaves, having no encouragement either to think or to act. Who can say how
far they might improve in a state of freedom, were they obliged, like Europeans, to
procure bread with the sweat of their brows ? Some kingdoms in Negroland,
particularly that of Whidah, have made great improvements in government, in police,
and in manners. The negroes, particularly on the gold-coast are naturally gay : they
are industrious, apprehend readily what is said to them, have a good judgment, are
equitable in their dealings, and accommodate themselves readily to the manners of
strangers.
 I shall close the survey with some instances that seem to differ widely from
the common nature of man. The Giagas, a fierce and wandering nation in the heart of
Africa, are in effect land-pirates, at war with all the world. They indulge in
polygamy ; but bury all their children the moment of birth, and chuse in their stead the
most promising children taken in war. There is no principle among animals more
prevalent than affection to their offspring : supposing the Giagas to be born without
hands or without feet, would they be more distinguishable from the rest of mankind ?

(Page 29-30)

This work was first published in 1774 by Henry Home, who is regarded as
part of the Scottish enlightenment, and while the comment on the potential of blacks
has no direct relevance to this work it precedes a portion that does, and besides it is
interesting to take a commonsense statement on racism long before racism had
become a major source of power used by the forces of theocracy to galvanise its slave
population into actions which fractured society, thereby saving religion from science
by causing a clash to occur on the basis of the two equally absurd positions of religion
and race, so that only the superior religious position could reap the reward of
preserving its identity within the superorganism. This is how the core power in
society retains its power, by being part of a system that generates opposition in its
own image, opposition which is impotent from the outset and cannot triumph because
the religious identity of the Jews is secured within the host’s exoskeletal
establishment structure, so that no matter who loses the Jews always win. We might
note that despite his war on Judaism, Hitler was committed to the preservation of
Christianity even though he had to be perfectly familiar with the fact that Christianity
is a slave identity of Judaism because this idea was discussed by his contemporaries
who rejected all religion. The Jews can never lose because they are all there ever is.
We see exactly the same mechanism generating mirror images of opposition to core
authority at work in our political system, where all major political movements are
always brought under the common embrace of the Jewish identity. So the modern
socialist movement is led by a passionate Christian, despite the fact that it is no more
possible for a true socialist to believe in God than it is for a black man to be white ;
socialism is atheism, just as science is atheism, if not then what else is socialism ?
This is why communism was atheistic. Socialism is the rise of the individual against
God, that is against subservience to an unknown authority, because socialism invested
supreme authority in the individual worker, in theory. But the theory always was just
another ruse.
The bit I really like here is that which talks about the Giagas, the land-pirates,
because here we have a description of a culture that is exactly comparable to that of
the slave maker ants, in that here a society of humans is maintained purely from the
practice of slavery whereby the members of society are all taken in childhood from
superorganisms resident in an established territory, so that the slaves grow up to be
the masters living in a society, like the Jews, composed solely of masters, who yet are
slaves ! This results in a pure slave society exactly as our modern global society is a
pure slave society commanded by the Jewish identity through the medium of a
primary, secondary and tertiary identity structure, which attaches us all to the system
of economics that rules the modern world via the common thread of a slave making
identity. Does this mean that despite all that we have been saying about the Jews
being masters, and us being their slaves, that in reality we are all masters living in a
society composed exclusively of slaves ? It does get a little convoluted and I decide
this issue by making freedom of knowledge my determinant of freedom per se. The
mode of existence of the Giagas is loaded with the potential of an established master
race, such as we see brought to perfection in the Jewish culture. So we see that
human nature is evolved to bring the Jewish method of existence into being whereby
one superorganic identity exploits another, and this potential can even be expressed in
the economically simple hunter gather economies, all that has happened in the case of
the Jews is that they represent the perfection of this natural expression of human
nature occurring within a civlized setting where the exoskeleton can evolve into a
global superorganism.
We might note that the Africans we hear about in the news often seem to
follow a similar practice in the way they capture children and use them as soldiers, so
this ancient cultural method may be a true expression of African culture, and not the
monstrous aberration of social breakdown that it appears to be when we are shown the
children rescued from these conditions today. Without European interference this
way of forming a cultural flux could be a perfectly viable expression of human
corporate nature. Homes wonders at the veracity of these reports but thinks that the
common practice of infanticide amongst savages makes them plausible. But his
judgement comes from the point of view of civilised society which has a highly
developed idea of human command over nature personified in moral order. Whereas
the true driving force of all human culture is nature, and both the culture of a people
like the Giagas and that of our own society are simply expressions of functional order,
and as such no more moral or otherwise than arrangements among the ants are.

Home : —

The Greeks and Romans made an illustrious figure in poetry, rhetoric, and all the fine
arts ; but they were little better than novices in natural history. More than half of the
globe was to them what the Terra Australis Incognita is to us ; and imagination
operates without control when it is not checked by knowledge : the ignorant at the
same time are delighted with wonders ; and the more wonderful a story is, the more
welcome it is made. This may serve as an apology for ancient writers, even when they
relate and believe facts to us incredible. Men at that period were ignorant, in a great
measure, of nature, and of the limits of her operations. One concession will be made
to me, that the writers mentioned who report things at second-hand, are much more
excusable than the earliest of our modern travellers, who pretend to vouch endless
wonders from their own knowledge. Natural history, that of men especially, is of late
years much ripened : no improbable tale is suffered to pass without a strict
examination ; and I have been careful to adopt no facts but what are vouched by late
travellers and writers of credit. Were it true what Diodorus Siculus reports on the
authority of Agatharchides of Cnidus, concerning the Ichthyophages on the east coast
of Africa, it would be a more pregnant proof of a distinct race of men than any I have
discovered. They are described to be so stupid, that even when their wives and
children are killed in their sight, they stand insensible, and give no signs either of
anger or of compassion. This I cannot believe upon so slight testimony : and the
Greeks and Romans were at that time extremely credulous, being less acquainted with
neighbouring nations, than we are with the Antipodes. The Balearic islands, Majorca,
Minorca, Yvica, [Ibiza] are at no great distance from Sicily ; and yet Diodorus the
Sicilian reports of the inhabitants, that at the solemnization of marriage all the male
friends, and even the household servants, lay with the bride before the bridegroom
was admitted.

(Page 32-3)

The benefit of reading simple statements of this kind are the opportunity they
provide for us to try and develop a sense of perspective on the progress of knowledge
over an extended period of time whereby ideas of a like kind, in this case on the
nature of humans, develop under the influence of distinct conceptual limits, so that we
find ourselves living today under the influence of a quite different conceptual mind
set in respect to the understanding of ourselves as compared to that which applied just
a couple of centuries ago. In the case of the above thoughts expressed by Home, on
the same question concerning the changing ideas on human nature, we see he is trying
to place knowledge contemporary with his day in perspective relative to that which
had come down to his contemporaries from an earlier state of civilization, and we
seek to do the same, and for the same reason, that is to better evaluate the worth of
that knowledge which is handed down to us by our masters today. Overall we find
that all peoples tend to think that they are free and perfectly informed, while all are
equally well able to see how their forebears were neither free, nor well informed.
You would think that in today’s knowledge rich world we would finally be up to
scratch in this regard, but of course the continuing existence of religion proves beyond
question that nothing has changed in this respect, except the power and depth of the
deception. I have to say that it is an extraordinary delight to be able to reach back
millennia to lost ages of our own civilization in order to make comparisons of this
kind.
The development of knowledge is at the heart of the exercise in which we are
engaged here. Kidd has set the scene for our discussion by making the war between
science and religion the central issue of history, therefore if we generalise his idea we
must see that the subject is the development of knowledge over the extent of recorded
history. If knowledge is seen as information derived nature, from which information
is extracted in a raw state through experience, and then manufactured into a refined
product serving a social purpose through a process of selection by means of
communication which records some elements while losing others, and which also
acquires embellishment through a process of assimilation into a finished form that is
“knowledge” itself, then we can see how important it is to take samples of the
knowledge flux as it was perceived over time on route to becoming how we know it to
be today. From this description it follows that as we incorporate refined knowledge
into our social being that knowledge then becomes part of the information locked up
in nature that we extract in a raw state awaiting further refinement. Which explains
why even our own knowledge is never anything more than a reflection of organic
nature as it exists at a given moment in time, hence knowledge forever changes but
never becomes perfect because knowledge is an organic phenomenon that forms part
of the structure of a living being.
With this impression of the knowledge formation process in mind we can then
apply Kidd’s theory that knowledge is central to history, that is to human society, and
this centrality suggests a competitive dynamic for control over the finished product,
such that the raw unfinished impression of nature is forced to conform to the refined
organic form that is represented in the social structure created by those who get to
determine what the raw information means. Abstracted like this we see that the war
between religion and science becomes a struggle between society and nature. And if
we generalise this result we see that it is through the medium of knowledge that
society becomes a part of nature, so that we can relate this social process to the
emergence of any life form by saying that the evolution of a life form represents a
struggle for the expression of identity in competition with all other identities in nature.
Religion in other words is the identity of the superorganic being, so that the human
superorganism as we know it makes itself by developing a self image, just as any
other living form does. And this is why the war between science and nature is eternal
and is indeed, just as Kidd claimed, the central feature of history, not just human
history, but the history of life ; religion is the expression of the struggle to extract an
identity from the mechanistic forces of nature realised in the shape of human
existence.

What actually attracted me to the above passage was this ;

“ imagination operates without control when it is not checked by knowledge :

the ignorant at the same time are delighted with wonders ; and the more
wonderful a story is, the more welcome it is made. ”

which is delightful because in effect Home is saying that knowledge

suppresses inquiry. This is not his meaning, he means that without answers people
make up fantastic stories, but in the context of our examination of the war between
science and religion it is precisely this inclination to fill a void that is exploited by the
priesthood to suppress sane knowledge by creating institutions dedicated to the
proliferation of nonsensical knowledge masquerading as valid knowledge. Darwinism
is a classic example of such refined nonsensical knowledge, in this case acting as the
foundation of the modern life sciences which, as we can gather from Home’s interest
in the natural history of man, was a key issue in Kidd’s central feature of human
history. The purpose of this elaborate organisation of deception is to enable the
mythological knowledge of identity to be preserved as the real basis of identity,
because this religious identity provides the “colour” of the superorganism that exists
to be imbued into the individuals of which the superorganism is composed.
By reading an obscure author from a formative period in the history of the
human sciences we are able to get a fix on the initial attempts to turn raw information
into a refined product, ordinarily such early efforts are lost as the theocracy extracts
those polished ideas that suit its purposes best. The value of discovering the first
siftings in the formation of the false knowledge that rules our world today is that this
enables us to understand how the biological process allows highly refined nonsense to
come from the purest facts of reality via a process of amalgamation with established
false knowledge. It is clear that Home has no idea how to make sense of the vast
range of original material he has the joy to behold, as a devout Christian he is in the
position of a man under the handicap of having suffered a lobotomy. But all that was
required was that others should see these weak arguments and thereby discover the
thread they must follow in order to turn mumblings into resounding nonsense such as
characterises all refined mythology that is viewed in terms of reality. Once we see
this process of information refinement taking place we are in a position to understand
the emergence of a towering figure like Darwin, and thus to defend our argument that
Darwin was a total fraud, but not as a result of conspiracy, but rather as the natural
product of a physiological process that creates a human superorganism.
Home : —

Upon summing up the whole particulars mentioned above, would one hesitate
a moment to adopt the following opinion, were there no counterbalancing evidence,
viz. “ That God created many pairs of the human race, differing from each other both
externally and internally ; that he fitted these pairs for different climates, and placed
each pair in its proper climate ; that the peculiarities of the original pairs were
preferred entire in their descendents ; who, having no assistance but their natural
talents, were left to gather knowledge from experience, and in particular were left
(each tribe) to form a language for itself; that signs were sufficient for the original
pairs, without any language but what nature suggests ; and that a language was
formed gradually, as a tribe increased in numbers, and in different occupations, to
make speech necessary.” But this opinion, however plausible, we are not permitted to
adopt ; being taught a different lesson by revelation, viz. That God created but a
single pair of the human species. Though we cannot doubt of the authority of Moses,
yet his account of the creation of man is not a little puzzling, as it seems to contradict
every one of the facts mentioned above. According to that account, different races of
men were not formed, nor were men formed originally for different climates. All men
must have spoken the same language, viz. that of our first parents. And what of all
seems the most contradictory to that account, is the savage state : Adam, as Moses
informs us, was endued by his Maker with an eminent degree of knowledge ; and he
certainly was an excellent preceptor to his children and their progeny, among whom
he lived many generations. Whence then the degeneracy of all men unto the savage
state ? To account for that dismal catastrophe, mankind must have suffered some
terrible convulsion.
That terrible convulsion is revealed to us in the history of the tower of Babel
contained, in the 11th chapter of Genesis, which is, “ That for many centuries after
the deluge, the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech ; that they united
to build a city on a plain in the land of Shinar, with a tower whose top might reach
unto heaven ; that the Lord beholding the people to be one, and to have all one
language, and that nothing would be restrained from them which they imagined to do,
confounded their language, that they might not understand one another ; and scattered
them abroad upon the face of all the earth.” Here light breaks forth in the midst of
darkness. By confounding the language of men, and scattering them abroad upon the
face of all the earth, they were rendered savages. And to harden them for their new
habitations, it was necessary that they would be divided into different kinds, fitted for
different climates. Without an immediate change of constitution, the builders of Babel
could not possibly have subsisted in the burning region of Guinea, nor in the frozen
region of Lapland ; houses not being prepared, nor any other convenience to protect
them against a destructive climate. Against this history it has indeed been urged, “that
the circumstances mentioned evince it to be purely an allegory ; that men never were
so frantic as to think of building a tower whose top might reach to heaven ; and that it
is grossly absurd, taking the matter literally, that the Almighty was afraid of men, and
reduced to the necessity of saving himself by a miracle.” But that this is a real
history, must necessarily be admitted, as the confusion of Babel is the only known
fact that can reconcile sacred and profane history.

(Page 35-6)
 Home’s work is an interesting insight into the manner of research carried out
by men of his day. In the above he discusses the difference between authors writing
at first hand and those writing at second hand, and the badness of modern authors who
though claiming to write at first hand nonetheless bring forth the most fantastic and
unbelievable pretensions of their direct experience. He goes on to say that he,
implicitly acting the part of a second hand author, only uses the most believable
accounts. He talks of “discovering” as if he were out in the world seeking
knowledge, and yet he means discovering knowledge within books, which to our
modern mind seems odd as we are familiar with discovery taking place in the real
world. But in saying this we are perhaps enabled to reach for some means of
understanding how this man can take the Bible to be a scientific account of reality, he
refers to others who assert that stories such as that of the tower of Babel are
allegorical, but this he dismisses. To us the value of this author’s use of the Bible as a
basis for a natural history is pertinent to our investigation of the relationship between
science and religion, for if nothing else the fact that Home finds it necessary to defer
to the Bible in his attempt to deliver a modern synthesis of knowledge pertaining to a
natural history of man indicates why the application of science to the study of
humanity was bound to be fatal to the existence of Judaism ; thus necessitating the
work of Darwin to subvert the natural history of life and divert its revelations away
from any meaningful application to humans.
The mind numbing drivel about the truth of the Biblical nonsense being the
only way to account for what observations reveal is cringingly bad, and it is miserable
to find clear logic, as in the case of the argument against racist ideas applied to
negroes, alongside this kind of pathetic idiocy. However, it does show how religion
will not keep out of the domain of science, and indeed the necessity the church had to
find a way to bring science under control. We see here an earlier phase of the modern
form of the war between science and religion, modern as opposed to ancient wherein
the conflict revolved about the place of the earth in the heavens. The point of conflict
is already shown to be focused upon the place of humanity in living nature, a conflict
arising from the explanation of human origins provided by Jewish mythologists in
contrast to the reality of humanity’s place in nature as revealed by observation due to
the expansion of Jewish superorganism into hitherto unknown areas of the planet,
bringing a huge variety of new human societies into view. This conflict was resolved
by Darwin’s Origin of Species that removed humanity from nature by making society
a human invention that existed independently of nature, and due entirely to the
internal evolution of the human brain. And we need go no further than page thirty six
of Home to see an affirmation that it is society that makes humans human ;

“As the social state is essential to man, and speech of the social state, the
wisdom of Providence in fitting men for acquiring that necessary art, deserves
more attention than is commonly bestowed on it.”

So it was already perfectly clear a full century before Darwin published his
religious masterpiece feigning science, that above all else it was society that had to be
extricated from the scrutiny of natural scientists and diverted into a specially
formulated branch of science that was none scientific, that science being sociology,
the science of society.
Home : —

Thus, had not men wildly attempted to build a tower whose top might reach to
heaven, all men would not only have spoken the same language, but would have made
the same progress toward maturity of knowledge and civilization. That deplorable
event reversed all nature : by scattering men over the face of all the earth, it deprived
them of society, and rendered them savages. From that state of degeneracy, they have
been emerging gradually. Some nations, stimulated by their own nature, or by their
climate, have made a rapid progress ; some have proceeded more slowly ; and some
continue savages. To trace out that progress toward maturity in different nations, is
the subject of the present undertaking.

S K E T C H II.

PROGRESS OF MEN WITH RESPECT TO FOOD AND POPULATION.

IN temperate climates, the original food of men was fruits that grow without culture,
and the flesh of land-animals. As such animals become shy when often hunted, there
is a contrivance of nature, no less simple than effectual, which engages men to bear
with chearfulness the fatigues of hunting, and the uncertainty of capture ; and that is,
an appetite for hunting. Hunger alone is not sufficient ; savages, who act by sense not
by foresight, move not when the stomach is full ; and it would be too late when the
stomach is empty, to form a hunting-party. As this appetite belongs to every savage
who depends on hunting for procuring food ; it is one instance, among many, of
providential wisdom, in adapting the internal constitution of man to his external
circumstances. The appetite for hunting, though among us little necessary for food is,
to this day, visible in our young men, high and low, rich and poor. Natural
propensities may be rendered faint or obscure, but never are totally eradicated.
It is probable, that fish was not early the food of man. Water is not our
element : and savages probably did not attempt to draw any food from the sea or from
rivers, till land animals turned scarce.

(Page 39-40)

It is a remarkable thing that people felt competent to write books of this nature
expounding upon the nature of reality purely on the basis of speculation about what
seemed to them most probable. It was early days, and it is a sign of how isolated
people were from reality, so that the studies in which they worked had the quality of
ivory towers in which their ruminations took on a transcendence that made them self
evidently real. The closing paragraph of sketch one, as he calls his chapters, put me
off reading any further, but immediately I found some interesting material and I took
this page for reproduction to show the error of working from books rather than from
the field. Home makes bold about the relationship of fishing to early human
subsistence practices, and he could not be more wrong. In our time the importance of
field work has made this department of research a primary target of the priest so that
they can take possession of hard facts, such as fossil remains, and thus their
supporting religious organizations, the universities, publishers and documentary
makers, are able to promote these field scientists as the valid interpreters of the
material they rob from the earth to serve the purposes of the theocracy in the
subversion of knowledge according to the theoretical foundations laid by Darwin.
We now come on to some more interesting material, relating as it does to the
origin of Darwin’s inspiration, and as such following up on earlier remarks about the
role of social organization in the manner of understanding human existence by
indicating the process whereby the likes of Darwin are created by nature’s knowledge
refining process. If society is not accounted for in what passes for a natural history
of humanity then there is no natural history of humanity.

Home : —

The culture of corn was so early known in Greece, as to make a branch of its fabulous
history : in Egypt it must have been coeval with the inhabitants ; for while the Nile
overflows, they cannot subsist without corn. Nor without corn could the ancient
monarchies of Assyria and Babylon have been so populous and powerful as they are
said to have been. In the northern parts of Europe, wheat, barley, pease, and perhaps
oats, are foreign plants : as the climate is not friendly to corn, agriculture must have
crept northward by slow degrees ; and even at present, it requires no small portion
both of skill and industry to bring corn to maturity in such a climate. Hence it may be
inferred with certainty, that the shepherd-state continued longer in northern climates
than in those nearer the sun. Cold countries however are friendly to population ; and
the northern people, multiplying beyond the food that can be supplied by flocks and
herds, were compelled to throw off many swarms in search of new habitations. Their
frequent migrations were for many years a dreadful scourge to neighbouring
kingdoms. People, amazed at the multitude of the invaders, judged, that the countries
from whence they issued must have been exceedingly populous ; and hence the North
was termed officina gentium ; but scarcity of food in the shepherd-state was the true
cause. The north of Europe, in all probability, is as well peopled at present as ever it
was, though its migrations have ceased, corn and commerce having put an end to that
pestilence.
Denmark at present feeds 2,000,000 of inhabitants, Sweden, according to a list
made up anno 1760, 2,383,113 ; and these countries must be much more populous
than of old, when over-run with immense woods, and agriculture utterly unknown.
Had the Danes and Norwegians been acquainted with agriculture in the ninth and
tenth centuries, when they poured out multitudes upon their neighbours, they would
not have ventured their lives in frail vessels upon a tempestuous ocean, in order to
distress nations who were not their enemies. But hunger is a cogent motive ; and
hunger gave to these pirates superiority in arms above every nation that enjoyed
plenty at home. Luckily such depredations must have intervals ; for as they
necessarily occasion great havock even among the visitors, the remainder finding
sufficiency of food at home, rest there till an increasing population force them again
to action. Agriculture, which fixes people to a spot, is an invincible obstacle to
migration ; and happy it is for Europe, that agriculture, now universally diffused, has
put an end for ever to such migrations : the northern people find occupation and
sustenance at home, without infesting others. Agriculture is a great blessing : it not
only affords us food in plenty, but secures the fruits of our industry from hungry and
rapacious invaders.
That the progress above traced must have proceeded from some vigorous
impulse will be admitted, considering the prevailing influence of custom ; once
hunters, men will always be hunters, till they be forced out of that state by some
overpowering cause. Hunger, the cause here assigned, is of all the most
overpowering ; and the same cause, overcoming indolence and idleness, has
introduced manufactures, commerce, and variety of arts.

(Page 43-5)

Bear in mind that our objective is to understand how Darwin’s religiously

inspired notions of evolution expressed in Origin of Species came to be formulated in
the form of a pseudo scientific theory able to take the place of the genuine scientific
ideas that were emerging to threaten Judaism’s hegemony over the world at this time.
Therefore what we are looking for are indications of an emerging politically inspired
science of humanity, because politics and religion are one and the same thing, just as
wheels and engine are one and the same thing when that thing is a car, for both are
parts essential to the thing that a car is, and likewise religion and politics are core
elements of any society ; religion and politics go hand in hand, and as social elements
the one cannot exist without the other. But we need to explain the emergence of this
pseudo science according to an unwitting process where the force of human intent
ceaselessly imparts political interpretations that cause a false science to come into
being that is perfectly formed for the purpose of preserving religion by excluding a
true none political knowledge of reality.
In sketch two of his look at the natural history of humans Home considers
subsistence, and we immediately find him discussing the role of population in the
historical process. The first paragraph in the preceding quote is delightful for its use
of the phrase “throw off many swarms” in a manner that invokes a behavioural
uniformity between humans and bees, a fellow superorganism which shares a
common nature with ourselves. The word “swarm” is used descriptively but it has a
genuine biological significance once we know that humans are true superorganisms,
and this behavioural swarming response is part of human organic nature. Home’s
discussion unwittingly makes this behaviour an implicitly biological response, not the
subject of political intentions, even though he almost certainly thought of such
migrations as a political response to an emergency, for he takes a quote from an
author discussing the problem of northern hoards invading Roman territories and says
that people cannot be dammed up like water without being fed. From this intimate
interplay between superorganic physiology and its political interpretation we can gain
an insight into the means by which those who rule society are obliged to learn how the
superorganism works as a biological phenomenon and thereby obtain a position of
political power based on real organic forces by converting observation into
knowledge in the form of a political formula. A process of information conversion
into knowledge that both explains how the Jewish mythology which rules our world
today came to be formulated, and why political formulas must be imbued into
religious mythologies in order to make practical observations functional within the
organic being of a living superorganism, because here we are talking about
developing a centralised control over a mass of individuals.
In effect the Jews, by becoming dispossessed of a territory subject to their own
direct administration during the growth phase of the superorganism over which they
in reality have, and always have had, organic control, acting in conjunction with a
behavioural strategy enabling them to live as unwelcome aliens in other people’s
territories due to the interdependent relationship they have with those who manage the
mechanisms of direct rule, indicates the evolution of an ongoing built in response to
the impulse to migrate in the event of dire need, which we can see from Home’s
association of this need with the practice of farming is one of the fundamental
difficulties faced by nature in the production of a global human superorganism.
Sombart discusses the interdependent relationship between rulers and Jews in chapter
three of his book, which argues convincingly that it was the Jews who founded the
American colonies. Home makes farming the solution of the problem of population
instability, but in truth it is the development of enlarged societies based upon
agriculture which creates the problem that then demands a method of political control
that can manage the resulting agricultural resources in a sufficiently sophisticated
manner to prevent the increased population from being exposed to natural cycles.
Evidently it is the legally based culture of the Jews, carried by the Jews into the
biomass of the ostensibly none Jewish world, that has brought such a political system
of control into being with maximum efficiency.
So the Jews carry the formula for organizing society in response to problems
relating to the development of superorganisms based on agriculture within their own
cultural being, and in this way the Jews are able to stabilize those societies in which
they are insinuated. And conversely such societies become destabilised or relatively
impoverished or marginalised when the Jews vacate, also as described by Sombart.
Any ongoing response to an environmental condition must equate to a behavioural
adaptation to that condition, and as such this is one more aspect of the Jewish
biological constitution which we approach as we discuss the emergence of a pseudo
scientific model able to preserve Jewish identity in the face of emerging scientific
knowledge. By making the link between the basic biological parameters of
superorganic humans and the development of religious formulas we indicate at its
most basic level of operation the existence of the central element of history which
Kidd said was the conflict between science and religion. For we see that religion is a
political formulation of biologically imperative knowledge, so that if science starts to
unravel the nature of biological knowledge it cannot help but unravel the political
knowledge imbued into religious knowledge, and thus sciences causes the social
structure of which the superorganic body consists to become unstable and demands a
response from the social authorities.
We might liken the waves of immigrants into Europe today, or from Europe to
America a century ago, to this biological impulse to disperse in search of subsistence,
but in our modern world these organic impulses have become contained within the
exoskeletal structure of the Jewish superorganism through the extension of the Jewish
cultural model to the whole human biomass. The priests who farm society apply laws
in such a way that they are able to control the constitution of the superorganic being to
ensure it continues to be imbued with a Jewish slave identity, thus Muslims have been
drawn into Europe since the priests shattered the old exoskeletal structure through the
mechanism of war because the Christian slave identity was undergoing decay. Once
enabled to understand the manner in which the Jewish method of social management
makes use of a fundamental feature of superorganic physiology characteristic of the
civilised form, we cannot help but wonder if the movements of populations in pre-
ancient times in which the Jews were involved themselves prior to their shift toward
becoming universally dispersed throughout the expanding superorganism, and the
fluctuations relating to the period of Roman history, were not also managed through
the exoskeletal formation created via the method of regulation through written law
that still creates our living exoskeletal form today. Our conclusion has to be that there
is a direct link between the Jewish culture and management of society, and we are
entitled to surmise that the Jewish culture is somehow implicated in the origin of the
Romans who rose from obscurity to world dominance at the critical time when the
first Jewish slave identity of Christianity came into being and laid the foundation for
the Jewish superorganism to go global.

I have only just noticed that above each page in Home is the heading “ Men as
Individuals ” and the first part of the book bears the title “ Progress of Men as
Individuals ”. So we may note that Home is laying emphasis upon the critical
principle of any would be scientific natural history of man that conforms to the needs
of religious ideology. Science however must take the view that humans can no more
be individuals than bees can be understood as politically motivated individuals
seeking to create an organized society. Büchner’s account seeks to make out that bees
are intelligent creatures utilising intelligence to make active decisions according to
changing circumstances, and thus indicating that the bees make their social domains.
The value of Büchner’s approach is that it indicates the comparative method of
sociology applied as a true science. In the case of bees we must seek to make them
human, and in the case of humans we must seek to make them insectivorous, in the
sense that bees are seen to be nothing more than robotically driven insects. The
proper scientific description in both cases is that individuals of such true fully evolved
superorganisms are composed are genetically evolved to form superorganisms, and
the flexibility inherent in their capacity for decision making is necessarily bounded by
a robotic limitation, and any such creatures must operate within these two limits of
freedom cum restraint.
We have seen that Home is utterly imbued with an attachment to religious
dogma, to an extreme degree, and he takes it as a matter of course that humans are to
be understood as individuals. He does not at any point allude to this assumption, it is
implicit, and we can only assume the notion that humans might be thought of in a
scientific sense as somehow being like ants or bees simply never occurred to him
despite the previously noticed fact that he says humans are of their very nature social
animals. The usefulness of this observation is that we can see that for religious
purposes humans must be thought of as individuals, exactly as Darwin sort to
emphasise when developing his politicised version of a biological science. We may
take it that while Darwin wrestled with the problem of evolution and took inspiration
from Malthus to spur him onto his misguided political conception of organic life, he
was at all times determined to take the same stance that Home also assumed, that
humans must be understood as conscious beings that created their social world
according to their own desires while acting as free agents.

And so we come to Malthus who published his reputedly inspirational Essay

on Population at the age of thirty four, in 1798. The relevance to Malthus of the
preceding passage from Home is the second reason for taking this passage, the first
being the suggestive use of the word swarm. Published in 1774 when Malthus was
eight years old the somewhat vague and incoherent speculations of Home on the
subject of population are just the kind of subject matter that we might expect to of
inspired Malthus to develop a more rigid and consistent idea of the same subject, from
which Malthus was able to extract the idea of a natural law. Malthus’ projected law
was eventually shown to be false, but presenting what was in effect a political formula
about the core element of a projected natural law is a powerful strategy that gives bias
political ideas the air of unbiased scientific theory. In this way Malthus became one
of a number of celebrated authors who led the way toward a formulation of the
modern pseudo sciences that have enabled the theocracy to rule the technologically
scientific world we live in today. It is certain that this strategy was not lost on Darwin
for it is precisely this element of Malthus that Darwin says he got from the Essay on
Population, Darwin simply reinterpreted the political and economic law devised by
Malthus to create a form of biological politics. Once a key was discovered for
converting bias political ideas serving the theocracy’s mythological foundations this
key could be applied repeatedly, such is the nature of a key in relation to knowledge.
By the same token once we know that humans are a superorganic species we can
likewise apply this scientific key to all situations, and thereby deliver a genuinely
scientific account of human existence as we see from the above where we reduce the
Jews to a physiological element of the living superorganism. In this way science
reduces religion to science, whereas Darwin reduced science to religion.
The general nature of Home’s work, being a series of sketches, and as he says
not thoroughgoing histories, means that we find the origins of much of the material
that came to dominate the following era of academic interest. Home discusses
economics, and while attempting to account for the way relative value is determined
he mentions that some clever authors had sought to make labour the basic determinant
of value. Home shows this is simplistic but in the discussion we see the debate from
which Smith will of been enabled to formulate his famous economic treatise, and the
communism of Marx also makes labour the foundation of his political system.
Throughout the book we find references to savage societies which had become known
over the course of the previous two centuries and in Home’s commentary on the
progress of women we find an extensive use of this kind of anthropological material
leading to questions such as that regarding the nature of marriage, in which we find it
stated that many authors think that originally marriage was communal, where women
mated freely with all males as animals do, which anticipates a subject that nineteenth
century anthropologists like the Americans Morgan and Tylor would pay detailed
attention to.
That an eighteenth century philosophical composition should anticipate the
developed science of nineteenth century enquirers is to be expected, but we need to
trace the thread of ideas because our insight is that today science has been erased from
society by a highly sophisticated pseudo science that has been developed over the
entire course of the scientific era. We therefore need to indicate how this thread
makes itself known. We see the thread appearing in Home, we see that while he was
completely impregnated with the most absolute notions of religious dogma, he
nonetheless presumes to adopt a naturalistic approach to the interpretation of
humanity’s place on earth, so that he even uses the expression “God of nature” to
promote his religious dogma ;

“ The God of nature has enforced conjugal society, not only by making
it agreeable, but by the principle of chastity inherent in our nature. ”

(Page 158)

So from this overtly religious encroachment upon an emerging scientific

subject we find Kidd’s central feature of history circulating in the eighteenth century
in a relatively unsorted amorphous state. With the emergence of people like Malthus
and Smith who applied the notion of law to political ideas central to society, the
process of agglomeration sifted the scientific material out of this amorphous
naturalistic mix, to form discrete nodules of pseudo scientific knowledge imbedded
within a body of religious cement. This indicates how the natural process of
superorganic evolution managed the destruction of science and the preservation of the
slave dogma by means of which the Jews are enabled to continue to rule the human
biomass via the Jewish slave identities of Christianity and Islam which, from a bias
political point of view, from my point of view, degrade humanity to this day. Darwin
finally delivered the most critical formulation of natural law in conformity political
ideas that was necessary for the preservation of the religious slave identity. No
further formulations of this kind have been needed since Darwin, with the imposition
of Darwinism upon science the way was cleared for humanity to be completely
extracted from the natural history of life, and this task was achieved toward the end of
the nineteenth century, thus making the time ripe for a war to devastate society in
order to erase true science from the living fabric of the social body, so that the false
sciences could take their rightful pace in the exoskeletal structure of the living social
organism, from which the entire biomass could be impregnated accordingly for as
long as necessary.
By sketching out the process whereby a crude religiously inspired
interpretation of the raw facts of humanity’s place in nature is refined into discrete
subjects, that are then made sacred by association with renowned names, we discover
how it came to pass that Darwin was created. We justify our contention that Darwin
was an imposition by the theocracy upon science, but one created by nature, not by
conspiracy. Yet, in the end, the element of conspiracy is present, just as it is in the
instinctive defence of religious identity, but it is not present in the crude form so
beloved of conspiracy theorists, and by their detractors who like to accuse anyone
who suggests that there are hidden forces at work behind political movements of
being conspiracy theorists. We are not conspiracy theorists in any sense of the word.
 Chapter V

Peace ?

The natural question to ask is whether peace will ever reign over this eternal
feud between religion and science ? We know what the war looks like, Kidd gives us
a clear vision, and other studies of this war exist. Today the war is abeyance because
we are reduced to the status of abject slavery once again, this being the normal state
of affairs, and Kidd indicated the war was just ticking over at the time he was writing.
Naturally, being a free slave is not the same as being free, and this situation means
that it is inevitable the war must break out again, indeed it is my most earnest desire
that the war should break forth with all the force possible, as soon as possible. If we
want peace, then we must prepare for war, as the oppressor says, and if it works for
them then it must stand as the motto of the slave too.
What would peace look like ? Peace would be an atheist paradise, a world in
which no one would anymore think to call themselves a Jew, Christian, Muslim etc.
than anyone would be likely to call themselves a Druid or a witch today. In other
words religion would be extinct as a social force.

FROM

COMTE TO BENJAMIN KIDD

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY

Science offers to supersede religion as guide to conduct—In form of theoretical sociology —

Appealing to biology and evolution — Sociology distinguished from politics—From
economics—From social philosophy—Akin to evolutionary ethics—Our point of view ;
morality taken for granted

WHEN the French garrison left Rome in 1870, fears were openly
expressed that anarchy would break out, but the Italian troops were promptly
marched in, and all went quietly. Religion is supposed to be a retreating force
in modem life, and many, even of those who are no friends to religion, suffer
grave apprehensions as they look forward to a state of society emancipated
from all religious restraint ; but others tell us that science will find a remedy.
Religion may go off duty, but science will take its place. Never was this
conception more confidently advanced, or with more elaboration, than in the
first founding of sociology under its present name.

(Mackintosh, 1899, Page 1)

 It is perfectly obvious from Kidd's work reproduced above, that the war
between religion and science can only exist in a society where people are reduced to
the status of slaves subject to an omnipotent master that brooks no dissent. It is also
perfectly obvious from our own ruminations that we can refine Kidd’s focal point of
history to a war between science and Judaism, which can only mean that the universal
history of warfare recorded by our social history presents the image of a war between
Jews and the rest of humanity. But we note this as a passing observation that we seek
to make no further comment upon as the subject is too hot to touch ; let history speak
for itself.
The only difference between what we take to be an absolute dictatorship and
the situation we suffer in our “free democracies”, is that a dictatorship is made out to
be the political menace of one vicious person such Hitler or Saddam, whereas the
oppression we live under in a free society is unfocused, being diffusely spread
through the organization of social authority, and as such democratic dictatorship can
be disguised as a mythical phenomenon bound up with divine authority, to which we
all subscribe or not, as we choose, of our own free will. This is why the idea that
religious conviction is a question of individual conscience is so critical to our political
regulation and the philosophical representation of religion, because our commitment
to God must come from each of us willingly, or else it is obvious that this power is
indistinguishable from that embodied in an absolute dictatorship. Hence the idea of
individuality must be preserved, so that each person stands as an authority in their
own right. The power of this move is subtle, for by making it a matter of our
automatic logic that each person is entitled to their own opinion, anyone who seeks to
make their opinion of higher value on the basis of scientific fact cannot do so unless
they have the backing of others. This device fixing authority in matters of knowledge
upon the individual is crucial to the establishment of priestly power, political power—
it is the basis of political authority in slave democracies like ours—since freedom of
opinion makes it possible to isolate any nonconformist, and thereby ensures that no
one who has an opinion running counter to the theocracy has any means of expressing
themselves. How gorgeous is that ? freedom of thought is what makes free speech
impossible because it means anyone can say anything, and the only determinant of
valid ideas is that they are represented by a majority or by a social power base. Thus
religious authority is an example of validity drawn from a slave majority, while
academic science is an example of blatantly false knowledge imposed by an
overwhelming control of social power, power which itself is drawn from the slave
majority induced through religious indoctrination. Hence science serves religion,
which means that, in our society, science is religion, which is why it is something of a
misnomer to speak of a war between science and religion, we must reduce this battle
to its organic status, it is a war between Jews and all humanity. Keep in mind that
Christians and Muslims are Jews, and in reality all religious forms, all political creeds,
such as communism, are also expressions of Judaism in our world, if this were not so
they would not be tolerated. These variations of identity are subsumed into the
pantheon of Jewish identity through the operation of the law.
Try going against the grain and you will soon find out just what an insidious
piece of priestcraft the idea of opinion as a personal right is. What could be more
stupid than to say that everyone is entitled to their opinion ? So we are all entitled to
believe that the earth is at the centre of the universe, we are all entitled to think
negroes are subhuman animals ...... I do not think so.
This is the ploy, the pretence of authority vested in the individual, that gives
each person the opportunity to be a willing slave. Maintaining this pretence is what
makes it intolerable for science to present the idea that humans form a social
organism, which would reveal that God is the mythical representation of superorganic
authority that Jewish culture has evolved to represent. The diffusion of social
authority carried by religion is precisely what we would expect to find associated with
a particular cultural group that had evolved to embody a core authority establishing an
absolute dictatorship on the basis of an organic identity carried within the living fabric
of an organism. Intellectual dualism is therefore reflected in a physiological need to
focus identity while at the same time dispersing the attachment to the same point of
focus, so that there must be a balance struck between the focus and dispersion of the
same identity routine. The religious identity must be diffuse, touching all, but its
authority must be focused upon a discrete minority. This mirrors the form of the
nervous tissue that is both spread throughout the body and concentrated upon the hub
which is the brain. This further indicates why superorganic identity has to deliver a
macro triadic structure that allows the focus of identity, which is synonymous with
authority, to be represented diffusely, hence Judaism proper is followed by second
order Judaism in the shape of Christianity, and third order Judaism in the form of
Islamic identity.
From the preceding logic we can deduce the form that social structure must
take. All cultural or racial elements of society are bound to be more or less dispersed
through the population as a whole, notwithstanding that there are concentrations of
identity contrasting with identity voids in places. Dispersal arises because of the
nature of human society and the way people go about the business of organizing their
lives, only by taking special efforts to segregate can people be sorted along racial or
cultural lines. From a diffuse, organic form of dictatorship, all the political
appearances characteristic of representative social authority have arisen. Therefore
the free society in which we live, our democracy protecting our freedom of thought
and expression, is a direct consequence of the form of diffuse organic dictatorship
embodied in the Jewish identity. We may wonder why Jewish dictatorships like that
of Britain and America are forever establishing absolute dictatorships around the
world to serve as instruments in their jingoistic schemes. These arrangements create a
contrast between our physically free societies in which we have elections, and where
we are not tortured or thrown into prison indiscriminately, as compared to the
Western slave regimes where the basic state machinery is imposed by Western
invaders but then handed over to absolute rulers. When we say that there is no
difference between our free societies and absolute dictatorships we have in mind the
essence of society. We are free because we are so subdued that we no longer have
any memory of what freedom is, we only know what we are told, and if we are told
that we are free then we have no way to know that we are not free. But this
imposition requires a contrast that we can recognise, and that contrast comes from
physical appearances, as ever, from the contrast between individual experience. Thus
we learn that we are free because we do not suffer physically in contrast to those that
suffer brutality or oppression under other regimes, such as that existing in Iraq under
Saddam. The usual device is applied to the art of manipulation, our physical
individuality is made the measure of our existence, and the essence of our being as
individuals is made invisible, only to reappear in the mythology of our religious slave
identity. So what Judaism does is to extract the essence of individual, and concentrate
the essences accumulated from all those it enslaves into one identity pattern. The
separation of the political and organic sense of human nature achieved by the
historical representation of human existence is a reflection of this use of a dualistic
method to separate the person from their organic nature. History exists to make
political figures the focus of attention, thus distracting our attention away from the
true nature of human society and the real focal point of the forces that control us,
which are religious, because religion is the representation of organic identity. In the
above quote from Mackintosh this dualism is taken for granted by a friend of religious
fascism, he indicates that religion imposes a force of constraint, the loss of which
people are supposed to fear. But it is the religious zealot who commits the atrocities
that warrant this fear, if there were no religions then we would have no need of
religious dictatorships to impose order in the name of the devout who are
programmed to think they are the chosen to whom all must be obedient. But the
really significant point in the foregoing is that religion imparts power, and that is why
religious zealots exist. Religious power derives from human biological nature, which
evolved to bring a superorganism into being at the level of social organization, thus
the idea of God represents the superorganic of which we are all a part, the war
between religious factions is the struggle for control of the superorganism, or for a
place within that organism.
When we speak of democratic regimes setting up fascistic regimes to serve the
democracy’s militaristic ends, we are describing what happens in a loose political
manner, which, if left like this, is to be deplored by all social scientists. What we
need to take away from these initially crude observations is the fact that there must be
an underlying dynamic that causes political organization to develop in this manner.
The fact is that in all circumstances co-operative order reflects a higher state of
organization than enforced order. This is so when we contrast brute slavery with
wage slavery, or brute slavery with identity slavery induced through the imposition of
religious identity. And of course the imposition of identity works hand in hand with
induction into a system of wage slavery, the two together form the process whereby
slaves are drawn out of an abject condition and made part of the organized social
body. This process is seen developing openly in the Roman and America social
organisms, both of which social organisms are of the Jewish kind.
Here then we are describing two modes of slavery, one of which is called
slavery, the other being called freedom ! A distinction of this kind arises from a
compound of real and significant differences that have been exaggerated by linguistic
art. Freedom them is a comparative term justified by virtue of the fact that our social
conditions could be so much worse. The slave master race employs strategies at the
level of social organisation and articulate representation to develop their social
system. To make sense of these contrasts we must keep in mind that if we seek a
scientific understanding of human society, and existence therein, we must understand
that there is no place for ethical evaluation in our scientific schemes. We need think
no more of the fact that a human is employed as a slave than we need think of the fact
that a hydraulic cylinder is employed as a slave mechanism delivering power to a
clutch in a car. Needless to say this heartless description in no way compromises our
moral values as people, we benefit by understanding the nature of human existence
without bias, that does not mean we do not have the power to be bias as required by
the demands of everyday life. It is a notable fact that religious fanatics insist that we
must be fanatical about our values or we have no values. The trouble with this
approach is that we then have a licence to be fanatical on any grounds that suits,
which is precisely why all religions, and all movements based on morals, are so prone
to be utterly evil in their behaviour when their own pathetic idiosyncrasies are not
valued by others. As atheists we prefer to know why we hate what we hate, and we
therefore tolerate neither mindless hatred nor mindless love. We would not hate
homosexuals because they are sick degenerates, and we would not love homosexuals
unconditionally as if homosexuality were indistinguishable from heterosexuality. We
merely know homosexuals for what they are, and accept or reject their definition of
themselves accordingly. Atheist homosexuals ought to evaluate themselves as
homosexuals according to the same principles, and not set themselves up as being the
same thing as anyone else, being entitled to be treated the same as anyone else.
Homosexuality is a feature of superorganic physiology and as such, like it or not,
science proves that homosexuals are a different kind of physiological unit, in the same
sense that worker bees and fertile bees are different kinds of physiological units in a
bee superorganism. In our absolute theocracy it is impossible to accommodate this
kind of difference without coming into conflict with the organization of society,
because religious identities require the artificial imposition of laws that make all
identities equal so that religious slave identities can function as determinants of
physiological structure. These remarks about homosexuality are given as part of an
abstract discussion, not as a basis for political action. As things stand in our society
homosexuals have to be treated as identical to heterosexuals, being regarded as a
different expression of the same thing, even though this is self evidently not correct.
We might just conclude these observations on homosexuality by saying that
what makes homosexuals a special form of individual that evolved to serve the
physiology of the superorganism is that homosexuality is of itself a distinct identity.
Understanding identity as a natural phenomenon is the key to understanding
superorganic physiology, for this quality of identity to be real there obviously needs to
be a material underpinning to any given identity, and this is plain to see in
homosexuality, and of course this underpinning must consist of structural
consequences for society, as it does in this case. And we must not forget that the
Nazis were pure identity, identity without substance, which is precisely why they
emerged to serve a momentary purpose in the life of the Jews, only to vanish in an
instant to leave nothing behind but the essence of their purpose, as the saviours of the
Jewish identity which the Nazis plucked from certain oblivion. Why do Jews exist
today, what madness is it that such identities exist in the face of modern knowledge ?
The answer is here for the taking.

This passage from Mackintosh also indicates that at the time it was published
in 1899, the present conflict, in which we are still deeply entrenched, albeit science is
currently abject in the face of religion’s overpowering corrupting force, was reaching
a critical impasse. Kidd was nowhere near presenting a complete logical account of
organicist sociology, but he certainly appears to of gone further than any other person
acting in the capacity of an academic, anyone writing in English at least. It follows
that there should be other works taking the argument further, but we see that the
priest-academics already regarded the ideas found in Kidd’s book to be as extreme as
science could get in pursuit of a natural history of humans. But then, they would say
that wouldn’t they ; and indeed during this phase of the assault on science, when the
theocracy was ready to really go to war against society, other works take the same
line, such as Bristol on the sociologist Gumplowicz. (Social Adaptation, Bristol,
1915) Clearly it is an important part of the priest’s strategy to pretend that the flawed
works made publicly available are as good as their enemies can produce. This logic
in turn suggests that the likes of Kidd and Gumplowicz were just part of the battle
formation arraigned against science, but working within the academic camp as
sociologists. The fact is that it is difficult to imagine free academics existing in any
society at any time on earth, but that does not necessarily mean academics are acting
consciously as conspirators, and we prefer not to leap to such conclusions, but to think
of individuals as units existing within an organ which has inducted them into a
structure which forces them to produce ideas that serve the theocracy in whose name
all exoskeletal structure exists. The point is that the structure does evolve freely, up
to a point, in conjunction with the freely developing pseudo intellectual ideas serving
the theocracy. Then, periodically, the theocracy partially destroys its own exoskeletal
structure, in what is actually an act of cleansing. This removes the unwanted
scientific elements from the exoskeleton, and preserves those parts which are in
harmony with religion. Thus the war between science and religion is interspersed
with outbreaks of real open warfare occurring in society, this involves violent wars
that are in fact actual expressions of the intellectual war, which is exactly what we
would expect if the war between science and religion really is the central feature of
human history, because actual warfare is very much what appears to be the central
feature of human history. The index of contents under the chapter heading shows that
these pseudo academics, who would presumably have the audacity to call themselves
social scientists, think it acceptable to assert that “morality is to be taken for granted”.

“Every argument proceeds upon certain assumptions ; and it may be as

well to confess at the outset what is to be assumed in the following essay, viz.
the trustworthiness of the moral consciousness, or the reality of the distinction
between right and wrong.”
(Page 7)

This is to make religious ideology the basis of scientific investigation ! it is not

worth bothering to respond to such ludicrous claims, we find ourselves faced with a
power we just cannot resist. From a scientific point of view “right” and “wrong”
exist, these words have meaning, but if we are to regard these words as references to
social factors then the only possible valid scientific approach is that which asks What
are these two contrasting terms ? and then following on from there in a like vein of
enquiry. It is not possible for anyone to engage with social science from any other
point of view, obviously biology must be the basis of the answer wherein we begin
with the assumption that society is an organic entity, an organism.
In saying these things we are drawing attention to the fact that what was
necessary for the theocracy to reassert its control of knowledge at this point in time,
was for the idea of society as a social organism, an idea which saturated all fields of
inquiry concerned with the human sciences at the social level of investigation, had to
be removed utterly from the academic field. And this vital objective was achieved in
a very short period of time.
Kidd indicates that despite many years active application of the organic idea to
human society this approach had born no fruit. We see exactly the same remark made
by Ford at the opening to his Natural History of the State. In the decade following the
publication of Ford’s book we already find works appearing that declare the idea of
the social organism to be dead, it simply proved to be a barren idea, it took us
nowhere, it bore no fruit. How remarkable is this is. The very essence of the
scientific struggle with religion that was hated and despised by all enemies of
freedom, by all friends of abject debasement to religious belief, disappeared in the
twinkling of an eye, just at the point when it was building to a crescendo. Is there
anything about this time when we find these ideas pressing ever more forcefully upon
the bulwark of the theocracy, from the late nineteenth century up to the 1920's, a very
brief period in historical terms, a span of no more than two decades, for most of which
the idea was still rampant and dominant, as we see from Ford's and Taylor's
publications, anything at all that occurred that might of made a serious impact on
global society that could give us some idea how the theocracy had managed to pull off
this amazing feat of eradicating the one thing that threatened their existence altogether
from the face of the earth ? Anything ?
Wait a minute, something did happen about this time, What was it ? Lets see,
it would need to involve a wholesale massacre of people on an unprecedented level,
because the scientists were infused throughout the entire exoskeletal infrastructure of
the social organism. Millions of people would have to be killed senselessly in a futile
game of some kind. That is it, the Great War ! And what a Great War, never could
God of been more delighted than he must of been come the end of that conflagration.
Kidd thought the war between science and religion was a bloody affair in which one
side would stop at nothing to ensure its complete dominion over humanity. But Kidd
had no idea just how fiendishly brutal the priests could be. If we think the first round
was something to behold in the annals of unmitigated evil performed in the name of
religious order and authority, then we had a delight in store for us with the next bash,
the Second World War, really put the icing on the cake by giving religion a centre
stand in the demented action that took place.
What were we talking about ? peace ! Oh yes, what would peace look like ?

There can be no peace between religion and science, all we can do is to

understand what these things are. As to the notion that science can offer an
alternative to religion, that is a tricky question. It would be nice to think so but for
that to happen we have to go a good deal further than anyone else has ever gone in our
search for a true science of humanity.
So lets do that shall we.
 (Note : all title pages reproduced here are scanned in colour, in this
case what looks like a poor quality image actually correctly reproduces the
browning to the front edge of the pages in this eighty-six year old book.)

Once we have pushed our argument so far as to insist that the two world wars,
the rise of the Nazis and the instigation of their holocaust, all served but one purpose
within the physiological dynamics of the human social organism, namely to suppress
the rise of scientific knowledge applied to humans, and thus to protect religion, and
most particularly to preserve Judaism, we are forced to face a nasty question, How
were these military activities developed and initiated, and made to serve their
biological function ?
If we are saying that the Jews created society by virtue of their special place in
the organism, as we have argued with the aid of Sombart’s evidence, then it follows
that the Jews must also be the instruments of war. The trouble with this subject is that
while there are plenty of works from the approximate period that set out the argument
asserting that the Jews were indeed stirring up conflict, these books are near
impossible to obtain, and even if we do get to see these books they are overtly rabid
anti-Semitic treatises.
What to do ? Sombart’s work is unbelievably superb, he points out that the
Jews are said to be powerless because they do not run states, and so he sets out to
show how they are the puppet masters by virtue of their control of international trade.
These arguments concern the nature of Judaism and they obviously apply across the
entire range of human activities. What is most interesting about these virulently anti-
Semitic works from the period, that we can access without being state sanctioned
academics, is that they are written by passionate Christian propagandists. To the
uninitiated this seems utterly incomprehensible, but those who have the benefit of
science informing their judgements will know that Christians are Jews, therefore it
makes perfect sense that Jews, in the shape of Christians, should be the ones to create
a purge against Judaism where this is the only way that Judaism, and thus
Christianity, can be saved from the threat of their identity shield caused by free
inquiry. We are obliged to assume that this protective device inherent in Christianity
is built into the slave identity as part of the programming that makes people think of
themselves as Christians, even though Christians are self evidently Jews.
By taking notice of the role Christians have in protecting the Jews by stirring
up a pathological hatred of Jews as the enemies of Christianity, we find additional
support for our other provocative assertion that Nazis were the servants of Judaism,
and especially Hitler, for he too was as dedicated to Christianity as any person ever
could hope to be. We can no more call these voices of religious ignorance and
bigotry conspirators, anymore than we can call any animals that seek to promote their
own interests a body of conspirators. Religion is identity, that is all it is, the
variations in religions are essentially structural, being related to the physiological
structure of the superorganism, but it is the attribute of identity inherent in religion
that matters. It is identity that engenders the reactions we are discussing here when
we talk about the manner in which Jews function as masters, and consciousness of
personal identity must the factor determining the way Christians serve as a second
order structure keeping the hierarchy intact. Differences between identities must
support the structural differentiation seen in society, but this differentiation must
emerge spontaneously under the pressure of circumstances, which is why an endless
series of religious forms continues to emerge throughout human existence.

Webster’s theme is a bit too bizarre to grasp hold of by way of a cursory

perusal because she starts out by making the occult the basis of the conspiracy against
civilization, but the Jews are obviously in the thick of it, here is a sliver of her
reasoning ;

“That Jews belonging to both the revolutionary camps of Anarchy and

of State Socialism were now co-operating in their efforts to overthrow the
existing social system is seen from another passage in Mr. Hyndman’s works,
in which he describes a visit he paid to Karl Marx when the anarchist
Hartmann was present. That these two Jews both desired the downfall of the
country which so foolishly offered them hospitality is further evident.”

(Page 241)

The civilization Webster is so concerned for is Christian civilization ! What

does she think Christian civilization is if it is not Jewish civilization ? The function of
the Jews is to work Christian civilization, to farm it, just as the sheep farmer tends his
flock, without the love and care of the farmer the sheep cannot exist, exactly as
Sombart indicates in his account of the impact of Jewish migrations upon their
Christian host communities. It is not for nothing that the Jewish god which Christians
worship is personified as a loving shepherd tending his innocent children.
Religion does not, by definition, work by revealing its true self, it imposes an
identity that attaches people to a creed, where the detail of that creed sets up the
operational dynamics of the enslaved adherents. Does Webster really know this ?
Did Hitler know this ? Did Darwin know this ? Well how on earth can we know the
answer to these questions ? We are obliged to assume that the domesticated puppets
have no more idea that they are not real humans than domesticated sheep are aware
that they are not real sheep. Domesticated animals are artificially created by humans,
and domesticated humans are artificially created humans, in other words Jews create
Christians and Muslims so that they can farm them. But, this is not how we seek to
understand this process, we seek to see this outcome in terms of a natural process
dictated by human corporate nature that obliges humans to form a social organism at
the level of social organization.
There are good grounds for accusing the Jews as body of engaging in a
conspiracy, in the sense that they carry the idea that they are God’s chosen, and that it
is therefore their task to set an example to humanity as to how people should live, to
lead people in God’s ways. Thus we may imagine that Jews are taught to think of
themselves as having the role of a shepherd farming his domesticated animals. But
even here there is a limit to how far we are entitled to assume this consciousness
applies to all Jews, and the fact is that the elite Jew, and the elite Christian or Muslim,
are equally likely to be conscious of the role they are playing in creating a submissive
slave population, and equally likely to act unwittingly by virtue of the dictates of their
own implanted sense of self. Ultimately there is no reason whatever to think there is
any human alive, apart from me, who knows that humans are a superorganic species.
Even people reading what I write are extremely unlikely to know this, even though it
is all I say. No one I have ever spent hours talking to about this fact ever shows the
least indication that they know this. I might as well be talking to the proverbial brick
wall, I often do talk to the house walls as way of practicing the art of speaking, the
walls definitely show as much evidence of understanding as any person I ever spoke
to.
Try telling a person that it is a scientific fact that there is not such thing as an
individual. Tell them a thousand times over several years. What do you think will
happen, the next time you see them they talk about their individuality as if it were the
first time they had met you. Try telling people that all wars are about Judaism, or the
war in Iraq is about the place of Israel in the Middles East. Tell them every time you
see them, they are young and keenly interested and the next time you see them they
will tell you why the war in Iraq is going on, they know because of the news......and
so you tell them again ........
People cannot be told that they do not exist, because they are not capable of
comprehending the statement, and there is no way to get past the programming that
forces people to think they do exist. Thus they will never ask a question that takes
such ideas to task, so you are never invited to explain, they just stay silent, and the
next time you see them the same moronic noise comes out of their mouths. Were they
to ask I could explain that people did not start spinning round and fall over the day it
was proven that the earth, and therefore they too, were spinning. Nothing changes
when we find out what reality is, everything remains exactly as it was before, except,
potentially, our understanding of reality, and hence our relationship to that reality.
The revelation that there is no such thing as an individual is therefore not about a
person’s physical presence, or their superficial attributes such as their name,
profession or hair colour, it is about the subtle underpinnings of what individuals are
in terms of the reality of humans are when viewed in its broadest possible terms.
 Chapter VI

The Nature of Religion

Religion is identity, pure and simple, that is what religion is, it is identity, it is
no more than this, it is no less than this ; religion is identity.

Perhaps this does not seem quite enough. We have seen from Kidd the
mayhem that religion is responsible for. All this in the name of identity ? Well yes,
why not ? The main point is What identity ? To wit the answer is God's identity.
Now, if religion is the struggle to give God its identity, then it follows that whoever
succeeds in this struggle will themselves be God. So the war between religion and
science is a war to decide who will be God. This summation of the logic may be a bit
simplistic, but it carries the essence of the case and in doing so it makes it easy to see
what all the fuss is about.
We can add to this cursory statement as to just exactly what religion is, we can
say precisely what God is as he is perceived in a purely scientific manner, according
to a strictly biological conception of the subject. God is the social organism with
which we have found our authors so much concerned in the couple of decades before
their atheistic science of freedom was blasted from the face of the earth.

So there we have it, what more can we say ? Religion is the human
manifestation of God's political identity. What is startling from this standpoint is that
Kidd did not take us to this culminating point himself, it is blindingly obvious from
reading his work that God is the social organism, he all but says so himself. He says
society is a social organism and he says that each social organism is founded on the
basis of a religious creed. This mode of reasoning has within it the obvious idea that
the identity of the organism in question is synonymous with that of the deity which
lies at its core. But we do not get this information, instead Kidd states bluntly that we
have been unable to take the one remaining step toward our goal of scientific
enlightenment, and he hopes that this final insight will soon be forthcoming. Perhaps
the two world wars and all that went along with them was necessary to alter the
perception of people enough for them to see clearly what their place was within the
whole. In Kidd’s day the sense of superiority which he imputes to Christianity as a
religion existing in its own right looked so incontrovertible that no one, not even
Kidd, could see the wood for the trees, could see that Christianity is Judaism.
Science as religion :

§ 2. But now, stripped of fiction and illusion, what is the scientifically

ascertained fact, the sober literal truth respecting human nature ? We desire to know
what man really is ; we wish, if possible, to have the conjoint report of the several
sciences concerned, and, that the account be the more reliable, from those authorities
who have made a special side of man’s nature a special subject of study.
And in response to this desire, we have the latest reports on human nature, as
handed in from the several scientific sections, which, when put together, read to the
following effect :—Man is the superior and highly developed animal, with
intellectual, moral, social, aesthetic qualities, differing in degree but not in kind from
similar qualities existing in some of the highest of the lower animals. From the point
of view of comparative anatomy and physiology, man is of like bodily structure and
organization with the anthropoids, so much so that, as Professor Huxley concludes,
“The structural differences which separate man from the gorilla and chimpanzee, are
not so great as those which separate the gorilla from the lower apes.” Man closely
resembles the most man-like apes, only that his structure is slightly more complex,
and certain of his bodily organs are more highly and more delicately differentiated.
The difference between the hand and foot is more pronounced in man than in the
nearest resembling animals, his hand is more elaborately finished, his fingers finer
and more flexible ; and from this superiority of hand, the brain suggesting the idea, he
can make inventions,—tools, implements, weapons, complicated machines and
appliances, to serve his ends. Moreover, through the higher differentiation of the
larynx and tongue, he has the faculty of articulate speech in a much higher degree
than any of the other animals, and he can thus communicate with his fellows to an
extent that is quite impossible to them. Some of them, indeed, including his nearest
relatives, possess the faculty of speech in a low degree ; but man alone can convert
the vocal sounds which he can make in the greatest variety, into signs of his inmost
wishes and thoughts, and into general conceptions, by means of which he can think
and reason about classes and universals, the highest prerogative of the scientific
human intellect. Above all, the mass of man's brain is larger, its cells and fibres more
numerous and complicated, and he can thence make greater mental acquisitions,
which he can store away in the corpuscles of the brain, as in safe and secret closets,
for future use. He is, from this comparatively greater size and finer structure of brain,
a being of “larger discourse, looking before and after.” He can think more clearly, he
can see more deeply, he can feel more finely and variously, than any of his humbler
brute brethren. He is presented with a clearer and fairer picture of the universe than
the dull and confused apprehension of the brute can give. Moreover, his nerves are
more numerous and more delicately strung, thereby giving him not only a wider area
of pleasure and pain, but special emotional delights, in the cultivation and expression
of which man has become an artist, as by his general brain superiority he had become
an inventor and a thinker. 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 Hobbes's 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 him—
lest he should boast—a 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.*

* Spencer's Data of Ethics ; also, Principles of Biology, ch. xiii.

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 man”—his nearest type and true
representative—he 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 generations—a 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. Man's 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 say—a First Cause, even if
comprehensible, not being within the scope of her inquiries, and her only notion of
causation being constantly recurring sequence—but 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 Hume's and Mill's 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 farther 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.

* Huxley’s Life of Hume, p. 79 (“English Men of Letters” series) ; also Bain’s Mind and Body,
pp. 11, 140.

§ 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.

(Page 58-65)

I especially like the above because it makes an implicit acknowledgement that

humans share a common nature with bees and ants. Although this essay explicitly
denies that the social habit is the defining quality of human nature, it indicates that the
special qualities that do supposedly define our human nature only have meaning in the
social setting, which is a highly contrived way of manipulating facts that cannot be
denied other than by such ludicrous contrivances.

Again :

§ 5. Thus the development of the human species, the civilizations of humanity,

have not been accomplished by natural selection, as the Darwinian doctrine implies.
The development of the human spirit has come from an inner revelation to certain
privileged individuals—a revelation of truth, of insight, of inventive power, of duty,
of beauty ; visiting the soul unsolicited ; coming none can say whence, not even the
possessors, further than that it is from the Unknown, from the Purpose of the universe,
that thus means and wishes to declare and develop itself—from God and not from
Chance. Natural selection has clearly had nothing to do with the origin, with the
deposition of the first germs of morality, art, invention, science, or religion ; and it has
really had extremely little to do with the further development of any of these, or, by
consequence, of mankind. It has been through great individuals, men of higher,
deeper, finer, nobler natures, in mind, or soul, or moral purpose, that our human
species has been developed and lifted up to its present proud heights. It has not been
by natural selection that man’s soul has been differentiated and perfected, however
this be true of his bodily organization. It has been through the superior single souls,
and where none such have appeared, as amongst the savage races, man has still
remained but a few removes from the brute. It has been by the help of these great
ones, formerly held as demigods and heroes, that all the progress and development
which science rightly refers to as the special characteristic of our favoured species,
has been made possible. The accidental variation or departure from the average, that
occasionally occurs in the individuals of a species, and which gives to its possessor an
advantage in the struggle of life, which, according to Darwin, is transmitted to
posterity by inheritance, so as to become in time an attribute of the whole species by
natural selection,— this accidental variation corresponds to the appearance of the man
of genius, of superior insight, in the human species, save only that the rare differential
quality is scarcely ever transmitted by inheritance, and does not usually give its
possessor the victory in the combat of existence.
Human societies, then, have not been raised by natural selection. It has not
been in the manner implied in the doctrine of Darwin and evolution that man’s mental
and moral constitution has been developed, whatever be the truth as regards his
physical. It has not been by the superior man winning in the battle of life, and then
transmitting his genius to his children, who thus became the origin of a chosen race,
that the great man has profited either his species or himself. He has served his kind by
the communication of his special secret, new truth, superior insight, higher quality of
soul, to some of his brother men the likest himself, and these again to others, till in
time the whole mass of men becomes possessed of his idea, and leavened with his
spirit. He served men not by the hereditary transmission, but by the direct
communication, of his soul. Often the man of genius or hero did not win in the battle
of life, rarely or never he transmitted his genius to his children, even if he had any. He
did better ; he gave the benefit of it at once to all who could profit by it, and
ultimately to the human race. At least this is what the real and greatest benefactors of
their kind have done—the discoverers, inventors, philosophers, poets, lawgivers, and
founders of religions, if not the warrior-kings and conquerors. Neither Plato, nor
Mahomet, nor Columbus, nor Shakespeare, nor Newton, produced appreciable effect
on the world through the transmission of their peculiar qualities by heredity. They did
not thus distribute the germs of their genius at last through their countrymen and
mankind. The manner of their action on men was different ; but the result was more
speedy as well as more effectual. They delivered their message, did their work, and
the others found it directly profitable and acceptable to them. They lifted up the others
nearer to their own sublime heights ; and by such a process it has ever been that real
progress has been made—by the species as a whole endeavouring to expand itself to
the dimensions of these kingly spirits, who have been its true educators, improvers,
and benefactors.
§ 6. It is to be further observed that all these great men have expanded human
nature on those sides in which we differ chiefly from the lower animals—in our
capacities for invention, art, thought, morality, religion, which constitute our properly
human as distinct from our merely animal nature. They have developed the higher and
mental side, comprehending the intellect, the soul, the social and moral sentiments, as
distinguished from the self-regarding and sensual side of our nature, the animal
impulses and dispositions, which the brutes possess as well as we.

(Page 72-4)

This is really nice, it shows just how perfectly Darwin’s theory of evolution
served the priest’s need to be able to preserve the notion of humans being entirely
separate from the natural world, that Darwin’s theory so magnificently demonstrated,
to everyone’s horror, humans could not be separated from—PERFECT !!

That the triumphant idea that indicated that humans were just part of nature
and nothing more, should, at the same time, show that it was impossible to account for
humans as part of nature, is clearly exactly the formula that the theocracy had to find
to finally destroy the rise of scientific knowledge that was revealing that humans were
a part of nature. It is so transparent once it is seen. Amazing ! Who would of
thought it ? What a scam. Does anyone know this apart from me ? If not, how do
they avoid knowing this ? If so, then how do they manage and contain this
knowledge amongst themselves without letting the cat out of the bag ? Amazing.

What is also delightful in the preceding quote is the manner in which the
person of exceptional genius is made the nub of human evolution by acting as the
creator of the chosen people. This is fascinating for it makes it implicit that there
must be such a special group, as we recognise ourselves. But we know this special
quality is built into our biological nature and it will inevitably emerge from the fact
that human individual form evolved to cause a living organism to form at the level of
social organization so that it is irrelevant how pathetic of good organization is, there
will always be a master body. This idea is attributed to a famous Victorian
philosopher of our subject called Bagehot, who said that any kind of organization is
better than none, we can interpret this differently in the light of the fact that we know
religion is identity, so that we can say any kind of identity is better than no identity,
by which we mean corporate identity, and since the nature of human individuals is
corporate this means social identity. Thus any kind of religion is better than none, as
we see amply demonstrated by the plethora of utterly sick and contemptible religions
that rule our world today, Mormons, Scientologists and such like. Elsewhere in this
work we will see that a famous precursor of Bagehot, a German called Bluntschli,
made the same observation regarding the need for different identities to form the basis
of order in society, where, by order, he means hierarchical structure.
It is also interesting to note that despite Hugh Taylor appearing to be on the
side of science with his books promoting a naturalistic idea of the state, the lynch pin
of his Government by Natural Selection, 1915, is the idea of the ‘great man’, an idea
that we see from Graham is exactly what the priests want to preserve in order to keep
humans independent of natural forces.

Graham :

But in answer to this we are assured, not merely by the materialists, but by
scientific moralists like Darwin and Spencer, that from the circumstances and
necessities of the case, men themselves must have invented morality, slowly but
surely—a conclusion which is confirmed by Tylor’s and Lubbock’s researches into
the primitive history of mankind. The germs of all morality, we are told, are contained
in two primitive instincts—the instinct of self-preservation and the reproductive
instinct ; in particular social morality, or morality proper, implied in our obligation to
our fellows, is to be traced to the former. Morality is a necessary corollary from the
instinct to live, so much so that, being given three, or even two, social, not to say
human, beings agreeing to live together in any kind of union, however loose, morality
of some degree and amount, however slight, must result. Three men, three ants, could
not live and labour together without manifesting the essential elements of morality.
Union, besides allaying mutual fear and distrust, secures certain evident advantages :
two can obtain by their united labours more than double the amount of food and
raiment that each working separately could procure. Here the self-preserving instinct
comes into play. But they could not have the advantages of union unless there was
mutual trust, a fair division of labour and of its acquisitions ; and here we have the
essential germs of truth and justice. Further, if in a primitive tribe of men, as in a
colony of ants, there was not some zeal in individuals for the common good, the
society, as a whole, would not flourish, and the individuals themselves would be the
losers. So surely, in fact, as the primitive units in a state of isolation, under the instinct
of self-preservation, must act in ways that we could generally predict in pursuit of
food, so surely when they come together, though still at first under the guidance of
this instinct of self-preservation, or self-advancement, they will observe, in their
mutual intercourse, a rudimentary moral behaviour, which will in time become
customs and then recognised laws, with a power lodged somewhere to enforce them.

(324-6)

Graham is unashamedly religious in his sympathies, but his work is published

right at the time when religion was up against it in its struggle to bring science under
control, as a consequence this author is handling the ideas deemed to be at the
forefront of the scientific lobby, albeit that it is our contention that the likes of
Spencer and Darwin were ultimately the supreme enemies of science and free
thought ; though there is no need to suggest they knew that they were supporting
religion by subverting science, we only need accept that they were making what they
thought was a legitimate attempt to preserve the sense of human sanctity as self made
creatures living in an otherwise mechanistic world. The joy of this passage is the way
we see the direct association of ants and humans implicitly taken to be creatures
sharing a common nature. This was so pervasive at this time, it is something which
we have seen Darwin took account of, but which he thought was fatal to his whole
theory, which it certainly was, so he sort to provide the means to destroy this
scientific conception of human nature by providing a pseudo scientific model of life
that would allow humans to be made distinct from all other life forms, even those that
appeared to have a common nature. It is very difficult to find references of the kind
seen here that indicate just how thoroughly saturated human consciousness was with
these scientific conceptions of human nature. There are no scientifically oriented
accounts in English that take a scientific stance on human nature, all are entirely
religious in their form, like Darwin’s Origin of Species which is so concerned to keep
us focused on the physiological form of individuals to the complete disregard of
human nature as a species.

Bagehot :

In early times the quantity of government is much more important than its
quality. What you want is a comprehensive rule binding men together, making them
do much the same things, telling them what to expect of each other—fashioning them
alike, and keeping them so. What this rule is does not matter so much. A good rule is
better than a bad one, but any rule is better than none ; while, for reasons which a
jurist will appreciate, none can be very good. But to gain that rule, what may be called
the impressive elements of a polity are incomparably more important than its useful
elements. How to get the obedience of men is the hard problem ; what you do with
that obedience is less critical.
To gain that obedience, the primary condition is the identity—not the union,
but the sameness—of what we now call Church and State. Dr. Arnold, fresh from the
study of Greek thought and Roman history, used to preach that this identity was the
great cure for the misguided modern world. But he spoke to ears filled with other
sounds and minds filled with other thoughts, and they hardly knew his meaning, much
less heeded it. But though the teaching was wrong for the modern age to which it was
applied, it was excellent for the old world from which it was learnt. What is there
requisite is a single government—call it Church or State, as you like—regulating the
whole of human life. No division of power is then endurable without danger—
probably without destruction ; the priest must not teach one thing and the king
another ; king must be priest, and prophet king : the two must say the same, because
they are the same. The idea of difference between spiritual penalties and legal
penalties must never be awakened. Indeed, early Greek thought or early Roman
thought would never have comprehended it. There was a kind of rough public opinion
and there were rough, very rough, hands which acted on it. We now talk of political
penalties and ecclesiastical prohibition, and the social censure, but they were all one
then. Nothing is very like those old communities now, but perhaps a ‘trade’s union’ is
as near as most things ; to work cheap is thought to be a ‘wicked’ thing, and so some
Broadhead puts it down.
The object of such organisations is to create what may be called a cake of
custom. All the actions of life are to be submitted to a single rule for a single object ;
that gradually created the 'hereditary drill' which science teaches to be essential, and
which the early instinct of men saw to be essential too. That this régime forbids free
thought is not an evil ; or rather, though an evil, it is the necessary basis for the
greatest good ; it is necessary for making the mould of civilisation, and hardening the
soft fibre of early man.
The first recorded history of the Aryan race shows everywhere a king, a
council, and, as the necessity of early conflicts required, the king in much prominence
and with much power. That there could be in such ages anything like an oriental
despotism, or a Cæsarean despotism, was impossible ; the outside extra-political army
which maintains them could not exist when the tribe was the nation, and when all the
men in the tribe were warriors. Hence, in the time of Homer, in the first times of
Rome, in the first times of ancient Germany, the king is the most visible part of the
polity, because for momentary welfare he is the most useful. The close oligarchy, the
patriciate, which alone could know the fixed law, alone could apply the fixed law,
which was recognised as the authorised custodian of the fixed law, had then sole
command over the primary social want. It alone knew the code of drill ; it alone was
obeyed ; it alone could drill. Mr. Grote has admirably described the rise of the
primitive oligarchies upon the face of the first monarchy, but perhaps because he so
much loves historic Athens, he has not sympathised with pre-historic Athens. He has
not shown us the need of a fixed life when all else was unfixed life.
It would be schoolboyish to explain at length how well the two great republics,
the two winning republics of the ancient world, embody these conclusions. Rome and
Sparta were drilling aristocracies, and succeeded because they were such. Athens was
indeed of another and higher order ; at least to us instructed moderns who know her
and have been taught by her. But to the ‘Philistines’ of those days Athens was of a
lower order. She was beaten ; she lost the great visible game which is all that short-
sighted contemporaries know. She was the great ‘free failure’ of the ancient world.
She began, she announced, the good things that were to come ; but she was too weak
to display and enjoy them ; she was trodden down by those of coarser make and better
trained frame.
How much these principles are confirmed by Jewish history is obvious. There
was doubtless much else in Jewish history—whole elements with which I am not here
concerned. But so much is plain. The Jews were in the beginning the most unstable of
nations ; they were submitted to their law, and they came out the most stable of
nations. Their polity was indeed defective in unity. After they asked for a king the
spiritual and the secular powers (as we should speak) were never at peace, and never
agreed. And the ten tribes who lapsed from their law, melted away into the
neighbouring nations. Jeroboam has been called the ‘ first Liberal ; ’ and, religion
apart, there is a meaning in the phrase. He began to break up the binding polity which
was what men wanted in that age, though eager and inventive minds always dislike it.
But the Jews who adhered to their law became the Jews of the day, a nation of a firm
set if ever there was one.
It is connected with this fixity that jurists tell us that the title ‘contract’ is
hardly to be discovered in the oldest law. In modem days, in civilised days, men's
choice determines nearly all they do. But in early times that choice determined
scarcely anything. The guiding rule was the law of status. Everybody was born to a
place in the community : in that place he had to stay : in that place he found certain
duties which he had to fulfil, and which were all he needed to think of. The net of
custom caught men in distinct spots, and kept each where he stood.
What are called in European politics the principles of 1789, are therefore
inconsistent with the early world ; they are fitted only to the new world in which
society has gone through its early task ; when the inherited organisation is already
confirmed and fixed ; when the soft minds and strong passions of youthful nations are
fixed and guided by hard transmitted instincts. Till then not equality before the law is
necessary but inequality, for what is most wanted is an elevated élite who know the
law : not a good government seeking the happiness of its subjects, but a dignified and
overawing government getting its subjects to obey : not a good law, but a
comprehensive law binding all life to one routine. Later are the ages of freedom ; first
are the ages of servitude. In 1789, when the great men of the Constituent Assembly
looked on the long past, they hardly saw anything in it which could be praised, or
admired, or imitated : all seemed a blunder—a complex error to be got rid of as soon
as might be. But that error had made themselves. On their very physical organisation
the hereditary mark of old times was fixed ; their brains were hardened and their
nerves were steadied by the transmitted results of tedious usages. The ages of
monotony had their use, for they trained men for ages when they need not be
monotonous.

(Page 25-30)

This is a fine piece of work. This book is the only one I know of in which
there is the slightest indication that the sense in which we have described the Jews as
the master race to which we are all enslaved is hinted at directly. The hint is as
miniscule as it could possibly be, and I do not know where the passage is at the
moment, but all it says is that there is a reason why we care for the Jews but that he
shall not go into that now. Useless git !
The passage above however includes the, in its day, famous section in which
Bagehot provides the very important insight into the basis of human corporate nature
concerning the need for unity, and unity’s fundamental embodiment in the attribute of
identity which has formed such an important element in our present argument, in
which we acknowledge that religion is identity, pure and simple. As ever we are
obliged to indicate that we recognise that despite the perspicacity displayed here, and
the declared intent to apply a supposedly biological theory to the interpretation of
human history, we still have no true account of humans as organisms courtesy of this
most important author from the genre we so adore. All that Bagehot had to do to
perfect his argument was to join the dots he had already placed on the page, all he had
to do was to indicate that religion was the expression of the human superorganism’s
biological identity from which all social unity was derived, if he had said this he
would of cracked it.
The classic error of the age is displayed by Bagehot toward the end of the
passage where he identifies the necessity for authority and says that this necessity is
the reason why order is always imposed by a few from above, but, that in his world,
that is our world, this need has vanished as we have become truly free. Had his basic
principle been natural then he would of said that his understanding was of an eternal
natural process that could not change, but of course his work is political not scientific
and accordingly his conclusions are political and not scientific. Thus his own words
condemn his conclusion for had he been free he would of spoke the truth without
reservation or consideration.
 Chapter VII

Corporate Physiology in Sombart

This is superb, exactly the kind of material any sociologist would die for
today, but which, sadly, we are not allowed to have. Imagine being able to track
religious identity as an organic phenomenon created by nature today in order to give
the human social organism its physiological form. As long as religion remains an
active force in society it will always be utterly impossible to apply science to the
study of human society, and these two tables show precisely why that is given that
Sombart is said to of been a committed anti-Semite who supported the Nazi regime ;
what more could any Jews wish for than this his naive representation of their nature
and function, translated into a political attack upon them ? other than that people just
welcomed being their slaves and worshipped them without question !
 The above table is from page 113.

“What do these figures suggest ? Is the Jewish influence in the

industries named great or small ? I think it is very large, at any rate
quantitatively. Bear in mind that the social group which occupies almost a
seventh part of all the boards of directors, forms exactly only a hundredth part
of the entire population of the German Empire.”

(Page 114)

Physiologically speaking this imbalance whereby 1% of the population holds

15% of the economic power base, is exactly what we would expect if nature is
responsible for the creation of human society. Furthermore the achievement of this
dynamic imbalance indicates why the Jewish religion had to evolve, and why the sub-
Judaic Christian and Islamic slave identities had to evolve as they did, to be followed
by the emergence of a global Jewish superorganism. We can also see why periodic
pogroms are vital to keep the master race in their correct proportion relative to their
physiological substructure. The next chapter, chapter seven, “The Growth of a
Capitalistic Point of View in Economic Life” equates capitalism with the essence of
Judaism, or the spirit of Judaism, and this is exactly what we mean to say in a more
mundane way when we say that the global society in existence today is a Jewish
society, we say this because capitalism is synonymous with Judaism, in exactly the
sense that leads Sombart to say capitalism is the spirit of Judaism. Sombart’s book is
so good, so relevant, and so unique as a source of scientifically unbiased argument
detailing the role of Jews in society, that it must be provided in its entirety, but here
we select portions to give evidence relating to our philosophically constituted social
science. Sombart’s work is good as a source of information, but it does subvert that
information into a historical and political formula which serves Judaism and
undermines science, but this is what we always find as we live in an absolute
theocracy and always have done. When we say Sombart’s work is a good scientific
source we mean that it has much scientific material dispersed within it which needs to
be picked form its bones, it is necessary that works intended to subvert science pay
heed to science so that books like Sombart’s and those by Darwin have the scientific
gloss that allows their authors and exponents to pretend they are actually scientific.

Sombart :

Like the producers, the consumers also received attention. In a certain sense
the consumer received even more, for the naïve conception that all production was in
the interests of consumption had not yet disappeared. Hence the stress laid on good
wares, on the principle that commodities should really be what they pretended ; and
innumerable were the ordinances that were everywhere promulgated to this intent,
more especially in the 17th and 18th centuries.
It was long before the purely capitalistic notion gained acceptance that the
value in exchange of any commodity was what influenced the undertaker most. We
may see how slow its progress was from the conflicting opinions on the subject in
England in the 18th century. Sir Josiah Child appears to have been in the minority on
this, as on most other questions, when he formulated the demand that every
manufacturer should be allowed to judge for himself as to the kind of commodity, and
the quality, that he brought into the market. It is curious enough nowadays to read
Child’s plea for the right of the manufacturer to make shoddy goods. “If we intend to
have the trade of the world,” he cries, “we must imitate the Dutch, who make the
worst as well as the best of all manufactures, that we may be in a capacity of serving
all markets and all humours.”
In a world of economic ideas such as these, the theory of “just price” was an
organic element. Price was not something in the formation of which the individual
had a say. Price was determined for him ; it was as subject to religious and ethical
principles as everything else in economic life. It was to be such as would make for the
common good, as well of the consumer as of the producer. Different ages had their
own standard for determining it ; in Luther’s day, for example, the cost of production
was the deciding factor. But as commercial intercourse widened, the doctrine of the
just price was found to be more and more impossible, and the view that price must be
determined by the factors in the market found general acceptance. But be that as it
may, the point to accentuate is that price was based on ethical and not (as was held to
be the case later) on natural principles. Then people said that the individual must not
determine price at his own will ; whereas later the view was that he could not so
determine it.

(125-6)
 That fixed values precluding competition and ensuring a stable unchanging
social order represent an organic element in society is perfectly in accord with the
conception of society as a social organism. What we have here then is an interesting
allusion to the distinction between society conceived of as an organic entity and a
society conceived of as a political entity. It follows from our contention that humans
are a form of mammalian superorganism that no matter what humans do they will
always be powerless to do anything, because what they do, in terms of its collective
outcome, will always be dictated by nature. Therefore from the outset we must
assume that any apparent distinction between the two sets of circumstances described
here, though vast in terms of the mode of understanding and in their social
consequences, are nonetheless illusory. So while accepting the general description,
how do we account for the effects observed that Sombart uses to make out his none
organic explanation ?
Two points. Firstly we have the distinction between the religiously inspired
“organic” conception of society associated with fixed prices and social justice, as
compared to a free market economy subject only to the natural forces of supply and
demand which seem to be of a political nature. Then we have the consideration of the
radically different societies in which such modes of living exist, the one ruled by a
stable order, a utopian vision, the other ruled by nature, actually a purely Darwinian
model of economics. Given that we want to assert an organic model that would
appear to eject the religious model, in the sense that our model would be organic too,
and yet which must also refute the political model because it smacks of competitive
machinations, then we actually need to eject both ideas offered by Sombart, but each
for their own specific reasons.
In the first case we can say that we like the social model generated by old style
religious morality which has what Sombart calls an organic feel to it, because it seeks
harmony between the social elements to the exclusion of competition that is attuned to
the notion of human wilfulness, even if this competitive model is ascribed to natural
laws. This does not present a problem for us because we have consistently said that
the Jewish religion has always identified the organic realities that act on society and
rendered them in a mythologically functional form which dictates appropriate
behaviour, which is why, for example, we are able to prove that God does not exist by
showing that God is in reality the superorganism itself.
In the second case our approach is different. Here the conscious focus upon
natural mechanisms, such as we see guiding Darwin instinctively in his creation of a
pseudo scientific model of evolution, is accounted for in a similarly mechanistic
manner, except in our model instead of suggesting that nature acts competitively we
apply the intuitive knowledge of religious morality in a genuinely scientific manner
by noting that the shift from an organic to a competitive mode of economic
organization has to do with the growth of the Jewish superorganism to the radically
new point of critical expansion which for the purposes of biological science is seen in
the superorganism going global. Going global coincides with the emergence of the
capitalistic system, which only goes to show what we have already said, that the
historical method is part of the political priestcraft that captures physical phenomenon
and fixes them with words that it can then be used to render the organic process into a
political form that disguises the true nature of existence. Thus the transition from an
organic to a political mode of economics simply reflects the shift in the position of the
Jews as the master race from being the master in a series of discrete social units called
“sates” or “nations”, to the true status of being a global organ which required
economics to shift from a parochial format to an international format. This shift is
precisely what Sombart describes, and its ongoing unfolding is exactly what we have
become so familiar with in our lives today, a century after Sombart wrote his inspired
work.
Both modes of economic order, ethical price fixing and free market values, are
organic. But their application represents different levels of superorganic physiology,
the former suits second order physiological organization associated with Christian
Judaism, the latter serves the first order organization inherent in the Jewish identity
proper by allowing the universal extension of Jewish character to extend unimpeded
throughout all levels of the superorganic structure, which ethical restraint will not
allow. We can see why world wide warfare was necessary on these economic
grounds, in addition to any concerns we have emphasised at the level of religious
identity. The whole form of the superorganic exoskeletal structure as it was
composed of discrete nation states represented an obstacle to further expansion, and
the world wars can be envisaged as a kind of moulting operation breaking open the
old shell to allow a new body to expand toward a new skin covering the whole planet
and formed about the inner core of Israel. Yet while we can relate the twentieth
century conflagrations to the economic circumstances and the need for organic growth
in the superorganism, it is nonetheless to the war between science and religion that we
must turn to really understand the precise timing of these events, because the
economic shift had been generating endless wars for centuries before the world wars
occurred, and economic factors have continued to do likewise since that time. In
effect we are suggesting that the global outbreak of war was a special case of
superorganic activity that was triggered by a particular moment of conflict in the war
for control over the expression of superorganic identity. War is always about
superorganic growth but this growth has different modes of expression depending
upon whether it is concerned with internal reorganization, or total bodily
readjustment. Thus the world wars created Israel, now ongoing warfare manages the
process of organizing the physiology of the superorganism to bring the whole
framework into harmony with this radical new form.

The difficulties of singling out the Jews for this kind of attention needs no
elaboration to be felt in the aftermath of the Nazi holocaust, and therefore it is with
relief that we can go beyond pure theory in our contention that this “Jewish” trait is
only Jewish because the physiological body that evolved to perform this function is
called Jewish In pages 110-112 Sombart discusses the idea that Jews were not
always in the position of an exclusive elite, but rather that industrialization launched
the Jews on their career because it brought into being conditions perfectly suited to
their special gifts and circumstances. This is a wholly unsatisfactory explanation of
the situation that arises from the artificial historical method that presumes to segment
time according to discernable appearances and then make these distinctions
substantial by naming them “capitalism” and the like, and then history proceeds to act
as if these damn things appeared from nowhere and were some kind of autonomous
entity. Wrong !
If we look back to ancient history we find that the Greeks, for example,
complained bitterly to their Roman masters, who forced the Greeks to tolerate the
Jews living amongst them, for precisely the same reasons that people in the
capitalistic era complained about the Jews, namely because the Jews were aliens who
conducted themselves differently. Accordingly Jews were able to penetrate host
communities in the guise of a passive dependants of the military force that acted as
the agent of real authority, and then carve out a livelihood as the natives were unable
to compete because their traditional social etiquette and law prevented them from
doing what the newly introduced Jews were free to do. This explains why even to this
day the Jews preserve their own law in the countries they live within (This applies in
England, I am assuming it applies elsewhere.), a quite remarkable fact, imagine letting
French, Italian or Austrian communities set up law courts in England where they were
free to apply their own state laws ! Ridiculous. But this is a fundamental attribute of
the Jews that allows them to exist as a functional entity in their host communities, if
their alien status were not preserved in this way, through their own legal structure,
they would soon loose their special gifts. It is obvious that having people like the
Jews insinuated into conquered territories was a perfect way for a militaristic power to
obtain maximum influence at minimum cost, for this represents a very subtle mode of
infiltration which is minimally provocative, because it is none militaristic, and
maximally efficient, and as such it is essential to a globalising force. It also follows
from this description of the nature of Jews as organic elements that because the Jews
have the nature of a buffer culture they are bound to become victims of any inner
strife where order breaks down, as we see in the outbreak of pogroms. But this only
lays the foundations for global expansion, it was not enough, the host populations had
to be transformed into Jews if the process was to continue to grow a burgeoning
superorganic being, hence the evolution of the Christian and Islamic sub-Judaic
identities.
This then is the point, the Jews were aliens, that was the source of Jewish
power in the context of a complex supermassive superorganism whose physiological
structure depended upon the differentiation between religious identities. So all we are
seeing with the emergence of the Christian and Islamic Jewish identities is the
evolution of a more harmoniously formed religious substructure for the Jews to
integrate with. Today, with the realization of a global Jewish superorganism, even the
highly specialised attributes of Jewish identity have devolved upon other subidentities
so that in Britain, as an old colonial power, we know all about having alien religious
identities impregnate our biomass and start exploiting those areas of our wealthy
culture that are lying in wait to be exploited by anyone who does not value those
aspects of British culture that are precious to the natives. Crudely put this is seen in
the Asian way of taking on un-commercial shops by utilising their extended family in
a way we natives would not do, or by living with large numbers in a small house, or
by working all hours and all days of the week. Some of these ways of living have
now become the norm for us all, but they did not use to be, and they hint at the kind of
advantages that allow aliens to gain a foothold in a society. The value of this
association of modern aliens with traditional aliens is not to extend a racist agenda,
but rather to lance the racist invective inherent in any such mode of reasoning by
indicating that such dynamics are physiological in the social life of a mammalian
superorganism such as we humans are. And of course all the while our masters work
away at keeping us fed a suitable line of propaganda, new philosophies are developed
by the priests that farm us, such as multiculturalism, and we are continually
bombarded with programs that tell us how Muslims have always been part of Europe,
and really there is no such thing as an English identity, and so on and so forth.

Sombart :
 What light does contemporary opinion in the 17th and 18th centuries shed
upon the characteristic to which we have called attention ? There appears to be
universal agreement on the subject, which lends support to our theory. The Jew in
those days of undeveloped capitalism was regarded as the representative of an
economic outlook, wherein to obtain profit was the ultimate goal of all commercial
activity. Not his “usury” differentiated him from the Christian, not that he sought
gain, not that he amassed wealth ; only that he did all this openly, not thinking it
wrong, and that he scrupulously and mercilessly looked after his business interests.
But more awful things are related of Christian “usurers” who “are worse than Jews.”
“The Jew wears his soul on his sleeve and is not ashamed, but these carry on their
devil's trade with hypocritical Christian countenances.”
One or two more contemporary opinions must be quoted. “These people have
no other God but the unrighteous Mammon, and no other aim than to get possession
of Christian property . . . they . . . look at everything for their profit.” Such is the
verdict of the Rev. John Megalopolis, who wrote on March 18th, 1655. Another
judgment is harsher still. “No trust should be put in the promises made there (in
Brazil) by the Jews, a race faithless and pusillanimous, enemies to all the world and
especially to all Christians, caring not whose house burns so long as they may warm
themselves at the coals, who would rather see a hundred thousand Christians perish
than suffer the loss of a hundred crowns.” The statement of Savary, who was
amicably disposed towards the Jews, is also to the point. “A usurious merchant or one
too keen, who tries to get a mean advantage and flays those who have dealings with
him, is termed ‘a real Jew.’ People say ‘he has fallen into the hands of Jews’ when
those with whom a man does business are hard, immovable and stingy.” It is true that
a very Christian merchant first coined the phrase “Business is business,” but Jews
undoubtedly were the first to mould their policy in accordance with it.

And :

This profit-seeking, which the Jew held to be legitimate, will account for his
business principles and practices, of which complaints were so frequently made. In
the first place, he paid no attention to the strict delimitation of one calling or of one
handicraft from another, so universally insisted on by law and custom. Again and
again we hear the cry that Jews did not content themselves with one kind of activity ;
they did whatever they could, and so disturbed the order of things which the gild
system wished to see maintained. Their aim was to seize upon all commerce and all
production ; they had an overpowering desire to expand in every direction. “The Jews
strive to destroy the English merchants by drawing all trade towards themselves,” is a
further complaint of the Rev. John Megalopolis in 1655. “The Jews are a subtil
people prying into all kinds of trade,” said Sir Josiah Child. And Glückel von Hameln
thus describes her father’s business : “He dealt in precious stones, and in other things
—for every Jew is a Jack-of-all-trades.”

(Page 133-4)

These remarks on Jewish business practices sound extremely anti-Semitic, and

as such contemptible. However if we reach past this difficulty to the descriptive
element which indicates a definite distinction between Jewish and Christian practices
that are reflected in a state of tension between these two structural elements of
superorganic physiology, then we can see the functional nature of the differences
complained about here in this political diatribe. Once we have a scientific view of the
religious identity matrix within a superorganism then the kind of observations made
here can be discussed without the heavy lacing of judgmental invective. This passage
more than anything else indicates that Sombart was no scientist, no matter how much
he claimed this accolade for himself.

Sombart, on the success of the Jews in undercutting Christians in business :

The commonest explanation is that of dishonesty, and the conclusion was

arrived at in some such way as this. Seeing that the Jews have the same expenses,
seeing that the cost of production is also the same, if the price is below the current
one, everything is not quite above-board. The Jews must have obtained possession of
their wares by dishonest means. They were doubtless stolen goods. The bad reputation
of the Jews generally must have given probability to this explanation, and the low
prices must have lent support to the accusation levelled against them that they were
receivers.

(Page 144)

In pre-scientific times when ignorance abounded people knew all sorts of

things were out there, but knowing little more they concocted just what was ‘out
there’ according to their own experience of the problems arising from the unknown
factors influencing their lives. In like manner this accusation of dishonesty against
the Jews is based upon raw experience uninformed by scientific fact. Something was
giving the Jews an advantage over the Christians, But what could that be ? Just as
illness was accounted for in terms of the political actions of individuals that could be
understood, namely witchcraft, so Jewish success was accounted in the form of
political actions that could be understood, that is as thieving conspiracies. The unique
history of Jews, their longevity, their spawning of two major religious slave identities,
all goes to prove that there is some secret power invested in Judaism. The correct
solution to this mystery is of course that humans are a superorganic species which
must have a master, and the Jews have evolved to be that master, but even before this
scientific knowledge was discovered people felt the effects of its reality. And given
that the world wars were a product of the need for the Jewish theocracy to re-establish
control over the host population of Christians in the context of this reality being
revealed, we can see that there is always an urgent pressure upon the master identity
to devise ways of managing the host more efficiently, which is why the sub-Judaic
slave identities evolved. And we may suppose that the same organizing forces caused
capitalism to come into being too, for by this means the hosts have been inducted into
the methods of the Jews as masters, exactly as they were when they were transformed
into Jews via the Christian and Muslims slave identities. Find a way of life, get others
to adopt it, and you make them your slaves, as long as you keep the distinction
between creators and followers, and this is done mainly through the control of wealth
which Sombart makes the prime attribute of the Jew.

Sombart :
The silk weavers of Lyons tell the same tale : the Jews have ruined the silk industry
because, in order to be able to sell at low prices, they order goods of second-rate
quality only. So, too, the Governor of Bohemia in 1705 : “The Jews have got hold of
all manual occupations and all commerce, but as for the most part they make only
poor stuff, there is no chance for a profitable export trade to spring up.” The opinion
of Wegelin in the Swedish Parliament (1815), likewise referred to already, is only in
accord with the preceding. “It is true,” he said, “that the Jews alone engaged in calico-
printing, but they have completely spoiled this branch of industry because of their low
quality goods—the so called “Jews’ calico.”
This complaint, which started in the early capitalistic period, has not yet
ceased. The cry of the Christian manufacturers that the Jews cut prices has been
followed by the corollary that, in order to maintain low prices at all costs, Jews
lowered the quality of goods.

(Page 146)

This description of Jewish farming practices applied to host communities

suggests that a host community will be bound to have a limited life span before it
becomes unproductive, essentially because the parasitic culture is skimming off the
excess accrued through the host’s own self serving activities which involves
accumulating an excess of wealth to form its own resident master class. In effect the
Jews are a master identity specialising in the parasitism of resident master identities ;
which is precisely what is being complained about in the above passage. So the Jews
are an abstraction of the basic physiology of the master identity that must emerge in
any human superorganism that derives from farming. There was probably evidence
of this kind of abstract master class in the wholly separate superorganisms of Central
America, but I am not sure if the Inca and Aztec priests would fit this description as I
have not read up on them lately. If I remember rightly the Central Americans use to
take captives from a range of dependant societies, in which case individuals served as
a form of currency, that is of transferable surplus, which would be a comparatively
primitive representation of what we have in our Jewish organism.
The early history of the Jews as wanderers therefore has the appearance of
primitive social farming akin to slash and burn that soon leaves the soil unproductive.
With the emergence of a specially adapted cultural form in the shape of the Romans
who were committed to empire building we have the basis of a more permanent
structural extension to the Jewish superorganic physiology, and hence after the
Roman hegemony became established all that remained was for a Jewish subidentity
to be developed to apply to the masses of people who had been deprived of their own
local master identity. Once this evolutionary biological process had been achieved
the Jews had in place a far more stable social body, but still we see that there was a
constant need for Jews to discover new virgin territories in which to place their hosts,
while at the same time the Jews had to move from one society to another as in the
normal practice of farming land where areas are concentrated upon for a period and
then left fallow. Eventually when farming skills have developed to a high degree and
the most fertile areas have been identified a stable management can become
established on a long term basis. The emergence of a full blown capitalistic global
superorganism, which is still in its early phases of rationalisation, indicates the
realization of the Jewish global superorganism.
Sombart :

CAPITALISM is the name given to that economic organization wherein regularly two
distinct social groups co-operate—the owners of the means of production, who at the
same time do the work of managing and directing, and the great body of workers who
possess nothing but their labour. The co-operation is such, that the representatives of
capital are the subjective agents, that is, they decide as to the “how” and the “how
much” in the process of production, and they undertake all risks.
Now what are the mainsprings of the whole system ? The first, and perhaps
the chiefest, is the pursuit of gain or profit. This being the case, there is a tendency for
undertakings to grow bigger and bigger. Arising from that, all economic activities are
strictly logical. Whereas in the pre-capitalistic period quieta non movere was the
watchword and Tradition the guiding star, now it is constant movement. I characterize
the whole as “economic rationalism,” and this I would term the second mainspring of
the capitalistic system.

(Page 160)

This definition of capitalism is based upon the idea of a master organ served
by an extended social body. While this basic dynamic is perfectly suited to a
conception of society as a superorganism, Sombart’s description is entirely
unscientific and instead political, imputing to these dynamics an absolute impress of
human decision making and wilfulness which is clearly taken straight from the
lexicon of our Jewish master race that must have us oblivious to the true nature of the
human species, and must keep us obedient by making us think we do what we do
because we want to do what we must do. It is as if we were to believe that we eat
because we want to just because we choose what we eat or at what time of time we eat
it. Superficially it is possible to overlay the act of feeding with a layer of wilful
decision making, but the slightest scratch to this illusion soon leaves us with no doubt
that we eat because we must.

Sombart :

Above all else the undertaker must be an organizer ; i.e., he must be able so to dispose
of large numbers of individuals as to bring about the most successful result ; must be
able to fit the round man into the round hole and the square man into the square ; must
be able to give a man just the job for which he is best equipped, so as to obtain the
maximum of efficiency. To do this satisfactorily demands many gifts and much skill.
For example, the organizer must be able to tell at a glance what a man can do best,
and which man among many will best suit his purpose. He must be able to let others
do his work—i.e., to place in positions of trust such persons as will be able to relieve
him of responsibility. Finally, he must be able to see to it that the human factors in the
work of production are sufficient for the purpose, both quantitatively and
qualitatively, and that their relationship to each other is harmonious. In short, the
management of his business must be the most efficient possible.
 (Page 164)

Again we are treated to the language of human will so important to the

mythology of the individual, of the genius, and of their grateful masses. If the Jews
are a master class then all they need be is good organizers, it is irrelevant for the most
part what skills any individual has, what is needed most of all from the slave class is
obedience. We can all drive a car, what is important is that we drive when and where
we are told, as efficiently and as mindlessly as a robot serving its master can be. Thus
we see more evidence of the thoroughly Judophilic nature of Sombart’s work.

Sombart :

As a speculating calculator, he must buy in the cheapest market and sell in the
dearest. Which means that he must obtain his labour and his raw material at as low a
rate as possible, and not waste anything in the process of manufacture. And when the
commodity is ready for sale, he must part with it to the man whose credit is sound,
and so forth. For all this he must calculate, and he must speculate. By speculation in
this sense I mean the drawing of several conclusions from particular instances—let us
call it the power of economic diagnosis, the complete survey of the market, the
evaluation of all its symptoms, the recognition of future possibilities and the choice of
that course which will have the greatest utility in the long run.
To this end the dealer must have a hundred eyes, a hundred ears and a hundred
feelers in all directions. Here he may have to search out a needy nobleman, or a State
bent on war, in order to offer them a loan at the psychological moment ; there, to put
his hand on a labour group that is willing to work a few pence below the prevailing
rate of wages ; here he may have to form a right estimate of the chances that a new
article is likely to have with the public ; there, to appraise the true effect of a political
crisis on the Stock Exchange. In every case the trader expresses the result in terms of
money. That is where the calculation comes in. “A wonderfully shrewd calculator” is
a term common in the United States for an adept in this direction.

(Page 166)

More eulogising drivel making the speculator’s success due to their personal
abilities, but as ever in life success and power depends solely upon who you know not
what you know. If the Jews have any advantages in this department it is that they
have each other, to be a Jew is to be part of the most extensive integrated old boys
network in existence. Identity is of itself an old boys network ; except this definition
only makes any sense in a superorganism where structure is delineated by means of a
complex array of identities. Sombart is at pains to make sure no scientific notion of
the Jewish nature emerges from his work, he is hell bent on making the Jews out to be
a very special kind of race to whom we all owe our deepest gratitude. How anyone
could ever call this man anti-Semitic beggars belief ! You may as well say Darwin or
Ptolemy were scientists.

Sombart :
 CHAPTER X

THE OBJECTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE JEWISH

APTITUDE FOR MODERN CAPITALISM

Now that we know what a capitalist undertaker is our next question must be,
What were the outward circumstances that made it possible for the Jews to do so
much in shaping the capitalistic system ? To formulate an answer we shall have to
review the position of the Jews of Western Europe and America from the end of the
15th century until the present time—the period, that is, in which capitalism took form.
How can that position be best characterized ?
The Governor of Jamaica in a letter he wrote (December 17, 1671) to the
Secretary of State was happy in his phraseology. “He was of opinion,” he said, “that
His Majesty could not have more profitable subjects than the Jews : they had great
stocks and correspondence.” These two reasons, indeed, will account in large
measure for the headway made by Jews. But we must also bear in mind their peculiar
status among the peoples with whom they dwelt. They were looked upon as strangers
and were treated not as full, but as “semi-citizens.”
I would therefore assign four causes for the success of the Jews : (1) their
dispersion over a wide area, (2) their treatment as strangers, (3) their semi-citizenship,
and (4) their wealth.

(Page 169)

This I love, that is to say the four causes — YES !!

The first three are all of the same nature, being concerned with the structural
differentiation of the Jews as a social organ, while the fourth is somewhat spurious as
a cause since it is more of the nature of a result or consequence of the preceding three
structural causes. Even so I was mightily impressed when I reached this page and
delighted by the emphasis upon the structural nature of the Jews as a social element,
which is perfectly suited to the organicist model of society as a superorganism in
which the Jews exist as a specialised master organ which is widely dispersed and yet
isolated, just like the nervous fabric of an individual living body that receives
information and delivers commands.

Sombart :

The Jews, then, were everywhere colonists, and as such learned the lesson of
speedy adaptation to their new surroundings. In this they were ahead of the European
nations, who did not become masters of this art until the settlements in America were
founded.
New-comers must have an observant eye in order to find a niche for
themselves amid the new conditions ; they must be very careful of their behaviour, so
that they may earn their livelihood without let or hindrance. While the natives are still
in their warm beds the new-comers stand without in the sharp morning air of dawn,
and their energy is all the keener in consequence. They must concentrate their
thoughts to obtain a foothold, and all their economic activities will be dictated by this
desire. They must of necessity determine how best to regulate their undertakings, and
what is the shortest cut to their goal—what branches of manufacture or commerce are
likely to prove most profitable, with what persons business connexions should be
established, and on what principles business itself should be conducted. What is all
this but the substitution of economic rationalism for time-honoured Tradition ? That
the Jews did this we have already observed ; why they were forced to do it becomes
apparent when we recall that everywhere they were strangers in the land, new-comers,
immigrants.
But the Jews were strangers among the nations throughout many centuries in
yet another sense, which might be termed psychological and social. They were
strangers because of the inward contrast between them and their hosts, because of
their almost caste-like separation from the peoples in whose midst they dwelt. They,
the Jews, looked upon themselves as a peculiar people : and as a peculiar people the
nations regarded them. Hence, there was developed in the Jews that conduct and that
mental attitude which is bound to show itself in dealings with “strangers,” especially
in an age in which the conception of world-citizenship was as yet non-existent. For in
all periods of history innocent of humanitarian considerations the mere fact that a
“stranger” was being dealt with was sufficient to ease the conscience and loosen the
bonds of moral duty. In intercourse with strangers people were never quite so
particular. Now the Jews were always brought into contact with strangers, with
“others,” especially in their economic activities, seeing that everywhere they were a
small minority. And whereas the “others” dealt with a stranger, say, once in ten times
or even in a hundred, it was just the reverse with the Jews, whose intercourse with
strangers was nine out of the ten or ninety-nine out of the hundred times. What was
the consequence ? The Jew had recourse to the “ethics for strangers” (if I may use
this term without being misunderstood) far more frequently than the non-Jew ; for the
one it was the rule, whilst for the other it was only the exception. Jewish business
methods thus came to be based on it.

(Page 176-7)

More of the usual Hitlerian style drivel that speaks of the Jews as some kind of
special people instead of understanding that the Jews are a type of culture created by
nature in response to the biological corporate nature of human animals that causes a
social organism to evolve at the level of social organization. Sombart’s speculation
about the nature of the Jews is virtually pure mysticism. The irritating thing is
however that he is, like his supreme commander in waiting, Hitler, picking up on the
popular knowledge of reality with which the times were imbued and perverting this
real knowledge to form a degenerate political creed. His focus upon the Jews as
strangers is extremely important for this is the supreme quality of a master race that
functions by being infused into a alien society sufficiently to be there but not enough
to be submerged. Sombart does not account for the evolution of the Jews as strangers,
he does not discuss the fact that the European populations that have become enslaved
to Judaism making the ingress of Jews possible were formerly of a different kind that
would not of accepted the Jews and that it was only by means of the Roman invasion
followed by the settlement of Christian enclaves that the Jews were enabled to farm
these social territories after they had worn out their host lands closer to the
Mediterranean basin. He even goes so far, thought cautiously, to speak of the Jews as
a caste, this is absolutely gorgeous, I have searched high and low for this kind of
remark as it is vital to a proper scientific understanding of human society and only in
Hitler’s Mein Kampf do we get anything like it in the derogatory parts where the Jews
are spoken of as aliens and parasites. This type of diatribe was essential to the
preservation of the Jews in the face of social science revealing what human society
was and therefore what Jews are.
The dynamics of estrangement within a society are extremely important to the
workings of capitalism as they are to the farming of any culture for the reasons
Sombart has already considered that we have taken note of, namely the disregarding
of values that the indigenous population take for granted, this is the reason why our
modern societies are decimated and our lives made worthless by the capitalist pigs
who farm our culture and seek any means they can to destroy the traditional fabric of
our societies, our public houses and our beer being the most precious thing our society
has for it is the mans by which we preserve our independence from the state fed
alternatives of television news and stinking food forced on us via supermarkets and
the national chains that have taken over our pubs and changed the laws to destroy our
culture and force us to take there global model of social farming as our standard, no
wonder we are all turning into fat slobs with kids locked in cages. But if we knew
that we were a superorganic species for whom nature prepared this kind of outcome
then we could resist it, we could outlaw all forms of religion and make our societies
political democracies in which we all knew what we were doing and why, a world in
which we lived according to a tradition based on values instead of according to a
natural dynamic based on profit. This of course would be anathema to the Jews who
had to stop any such understanding at all cost, and this was stopped thanks to the
world wars and the rise of the Nazis which set religion beyond bounds and made the
nature of the Jew a taboo subject.

Sombart :

Here they might deal in wool, there they might not. Here they might sell leather, there
it was forbidden them. Here the sale of alcoholic liquors was farmed out to them,
there such an idea seemed preposterous. Here they were encouraged to start factories,
there they were strictly enjoined to desist from all participation in capitalistic
undertakings. Such examples might be continued indefinitely.
Perhaps the best is furnished by Prussia's treatment of her Jews in the 18th
century. Here in one and the same country the restrictive legislation for one locality
was totally opposed to that of another. The revised General Privileges of 1750 (Article
2) forbade Jews the exercise of handicrafts in many places ; yet a royal order of May
21, 1790, permitted the Jews in Breslau “to exercise all manner of mechanical arts,”
and went on to say that “it would be a source of much pleasure to Us if Christian
craftsmen of their own free will took Jewish boys as apprentices and eventually
received them into their gilds.” A similar enactment was made in the General
Reglement for the Jews of South-East Prussia, dated April 17, 1797 (Article 10).
Again, while the Jews of Berlin were forbidden (by Articles 13 and 15 of the
General Privileges of 1750) to sell meat, beer and brandy to non-Jews, all the native-
born Jews of Silesia had complete freedom of trade in this respect (in accordance with
an Order of February 13, 1769).
The list of commodities in which they were allowed or forbidden to trade
seems to have been drawn up with an arbitrariness that passes comprehension. Thus,
the General Privileges of 1750 allowed the Jews to deal in foreign or home leather
prepared though undyed, but not in raw or dyed leather ; in raw calf and sheep skins,
but not in raw cow or horse hides ; in all manner of manufactured woollen and cotton
wares, but not in raw wool or woollen threads.

(Page 179-80)

If laws restricting Jewish economic activity were arbitrary it can only mean
that as with the arbitrariness of religious regulations for conduct in daily life which
various so famously from one religion to another, the sole purpose of the civil law
regulating Jews must of been to emphasise the and maintain the identity of Jews as
distinct, and this must be attributed to the physiological nature of Jews within the
Jewish organism whose mass was composed of Jews identified as Christians. The
civil law therefore maintained superorganic structure just as the religious codes it was
based upon did likewise. The only reason Jews evolved was to bring into being a
definite form of superorganic physiology so it is necessary that this definition is
maintained, in the global capitalism of today this distinction is happily maintained for
the Jews, for us all, by Islamic terrorism without which the world would lose its
integrity and fall into chaos because its point of focus upon Israel would be lost. If
Islamic terrorism did not exist the Jews would have to invent it, just as the Jews
would of had to find someone to take the place of Hitler if he had not emerged of his
own free will.
It appears therefore that Christian masters who rule society knew that what
mattered most about Jews is that their religious definition must be maintained at an
economic level, the Jewish identity had to find some, any, but some, form of
expression at the level of social organization for as we have seen human nature is
corporate so that individual form evolved to bring a social organism into being at the
level of social organization. This principle of identity expression no matter how
arbitrary follows Bagehot’s rule that there must be some form of identity for a society
to exist, any identity is better than none. We may note that if Jews are restricted in all
societies then any society that goes against the trend and permits equality will still
obey the rule, except that the expression of the rule will become externalised as it only
applies in relation to the cellular elements, the national states that is, of which the
Jewish superorganism is composed. And as we have said once all cellular elements of
the global organism have established a level playing field for economic activity based
on religious distinctions then the expression of identity must go global and that is
what Islamic terrorism does, being based upon the most perfect expression of Islamic
faith, that the Muslims are the inheritors of the earth and no state has any right exist
except as a Muslims state, that is as a Jewish slave state.

Sombart :

But if exclusion from public life was of benefit to the economic position of the
Jews in one direction, giving them a pull over their Christian neighbours, it was
equally beneficial in another. It freed the Jews from political partisanship. Their
attitude towards the State, and the particular Government of the day, was wholly
unprejudiced. Thanks to this, their capacity to become the standard-bearers of the
international capitalistic system was superior to that of other people. For they supplied
the different States with money, and national conflicts were among the chief sources
from which Jews derived their profit. Moreover, the political colourlessness of their
position made it possible for them to serve successive dynasties or governments in
countries which, like France, were subjected to many political changes. The history of
the Rothschilds illustrates the point. Thus the Jews, through their inferior civil
position, were enabled to facilitate the growth of the indifference of capitalism to all
interests but those of gain. Again, therefore, they promoted and strengthened the
capitalistic spirit.

IV. THE WEALTH OF THE JEWS.

Among the objective conditions which made possible the economic mission of
the Jews during the last three or four centuries must be reckoned that at all times and
in all places where their role in economic life was no mean one, they disposed of large
sums of money. But this assertion says nothing about the wealth of the whole body of
Jews, so that it is idle to urge the objection that at all periods there were poor Jews,
and very many of them.

(Page 183)

It is an interesting, counter intuitive observation to make, that by excluding

Jews from playing a public role in state politics the Jewish master identity that made
the Jews the organ of global organization was preserved and enhanced.
This idea reveals a fundamental conceptual quality of human language, for all
words that contain a forceful meaning, of necessity, must have a value shifted away
from a neutral point that contrasts with a value shifted in the opposite direction to
allow the resulting polar meanings to invoke the required contrast. Thus we cannot
have the word up without its opposite down, because the meaning of the word up
requires an alternative concept as it is the contrast which makes the word up
meaningful. When the structure of our society is the subject, the same dynamic
applies. The interesting point we are trying to take notice of here is interesting
precisely because this contrasting dualism is ordinarily passed over as we select one
pole of potential meaning in order to make our observations purposeful. And when
we consider that language evolved as an extension of genetic information creating
social structure, that is superorganic social structure, it is the purely irrational function
of language derived from the mechanism of meaning derived from polar opposites
which is the essence of language. Irrational because all that is important in linguistic
meaning is the element of contrast that invokes meaning that in turn validates
structural elements, just as the words up and down validate the structural elements of
a brick wall, the same meaningful validation could just as well be achieved by using
colour codes—red = up ; blue = down—or biochemical codes, and as such language is
inherently irrational, in that language is no more the product of considered thought
than the genetic codes which produce living tissue are the product of a thinking agent.
What we call thinking is really a response to a self validating linguistic programme
that is made functional through the automatic acceptance of value laden meanings
which are validated by the social structure that the meanings themselves create. We
as individuals have no say in the process where meanings are fixed in language, we
cannot decide that we no longer wish to accept the common usage of words, we
cannot tell the decorator we want the flowers to hang in the ‘flidget’ because the word
‘flidget’ does not exist, we are forced to say what we mean, “in the top corner.” Thus
we have words for the honourable and the contemptible, and we find that these words,
which themselves create these differences, are shown to be valid by our observations.
Without words like ‘royalty’ and ‘criminal’ there would be no way to organise people
into social elements reflecting these meanings, because all people have elements of
good and bad within them, and these words are allocated to people at birth, informally
allocated in the latter case as there are always criminals in society yet the people who
become criminals are no different to those who become the most honourable, except
by virtue of their point of origin within the social structure ; black people are more
likely to go to prison than university they said on TV last week, today being 08/06/07,
in case you wonder what this last fact means. Language both acts as the means of
first creating, and then fixing social structure in place. Thus when we talk about
elements of society of which we approve we use a series of positive words that keep
the object in view in an especially respected position. Conversely when there is
something of which we disapprove we use negative words that ensure that what we
are talking about is always viewed with contempt, so that we have positive and
negative polarities of meaning reflecting the up and down of our social structure.
It is only by means of linguistic polarities that social structure can be
constituted on the basis of a linguistic identity programme such as Judaism. Today,
still 08/06/07, the chatter on the TV is about the use of the word “nigger”, the “n”
word as they say, on the Channel Four’s Big Brother show last night. Nigger is a
word used to insult black, or Asian people, it is based upon race and it has the same
kind of nasty invective that “bastard” use to have in the Victorian era when
Christianity held sway over social identity and therefore to be born outside wedlock
was an atrocious thing to do ! Because our farmers deliberately drew in millions of
aliens into our lands after they attacked the indigenous population of Europe in the
last world war, thus invoking a backlash against the alien race and the alien Islamic
religion, they have since been forced to introduce laws to vilify anyone who attacks
aliens on the basis of their race. In this way a truly significant physiological dynamic
arises within society that is mediated by the linguistic flux in which anyone who is
racist channels positive energy toward those they hate, and anyone who is antagonist
toward the indigenous population simply by being an alien, that is by being black or
Muslims, taps into that source of positive energy coming from their enemies. Thus
the authority of the state makes being black positive and being anti-black negative,
thereby setting up the polarity of the linguistic flux to accord with the social structure
the farmers have created. This is how social structure is both created and then fixed
by language, this process is not rational, it is biological, it makes no sense to hate
someone because of the colour of their skin anymore than it makes sense to invite a
massive horde of aliens whose values the indigenous population loath and despise to
become a major element of society, but these ongoing events of our lives have
nothing to do with sense, they are dictated solely by natural biological dynamics.
Needless to say the priests ceaselessly bombard us with a political rendition of
how these situations arise. Black/Asian people and Muslims came here after the war
to help us out because we were short of workers, and now they are here it is just plane
wrong to be nasty to them. Then again, thanks to Hitler, we all know how nasty race
can be and the government has a duty to stamp out any such politically based
movements. But this nonsense vaporises when we know that society is a living
organism that relies upon these dualistic contrasts to raise the value of a religious
identity into a privileged position, and that is why the farmers launched the world
wars against their cattle and why afterwards they imported a new breed of livestock in
the shape of Muslims to keep the biomass enslaved to the core Jewish identity. Quite
how far these people know in advance what they are doing is hard to say but we can
be sure they have a pretty good idea what they are about, even though the overall
programme is essentially self-sustaining.

So the polarity of meaning, as the fundamental essence of language, that gives

language its power to build social structure on a purely irrational biological basis, is
an extremely important subject in relation to a discussion concerning the nature of
Judaism, because Judaism is a product of the linguistic force arising from an evolved
biological structure. The elite power of Judaism derives from a focused inversion of
linguistic meaning that is concentrated by being attached to a cultural identity that
levitates those who have this identity fixed upon them, in this case the Jews, as one
social body, raising them above all other people by separating them from the people
amongst whom they live in a certain specific ways that firstly enforce identity
distinction, secondly concern the distribution of elements of superorganic physiology
vital to the life and growth of the superorganism, to which we apply the political term
wealth ; these modes of levitation are largely the subject of Sombart’s work. A
corollary of this separation and allocation of wealth management is that the levitated
identity core becomes the focus of purpose for the social body and as a matter of
course becomes a focus of behaviour management related to all aspects of social
activity that is thereby directed from a central point of social control, hence the
natural aptitude of Jews for acting, journalism, diplomacy and such like gifted skills
that Sombart mentions which are all about an elite presence, all about the farmers
managing a disempowered mundane body, exactly as we find in our global society
today that is dominated by the Jewish religion.
The origin of the Jew’s social power is therefore linguistic, and ultimately
biological, and hence physiological, because the power of speech is the mark of a
superorganic species just as the wings denoting an aerial species impart the power of
flight which is a biological and hence physiological power. The power of the Jews as
the master race contrasts with their physical circumstances in which we see them
being singled out as victims of oppression by the overwhelming power of the masses.
The inverted reality of the Jew’s physical circumstances arises because their social
identity, that is the essence of their being, of their nature, is based upon the reverse
polarity of linguistic meaning that creates elite identity in all social organisms by
allocating opposite attributes of superiority to one limited section of the biomass in
contrast with the mass of the biomass. In other words when the place of the Jews in
our social structure is discussed it is always from the point of negative polarity that
we, as none Jews, occupy, while in actual fact their actual place in our society is that
of the most positive polarity possible because it stands in opposition to ourselves yet
Jews live amongst us exactly as we have just seen the aliens today are automatically
placed in a position of positive polarity in our society by virtue of the fact that they
are the outsiders whom we all hate and want to attack and rid ourselves of, but we
cannot do so because the farmers introduced the aliens deliberately and they have
managed the linguistic polarities inherent in alien identities accordingly. The basic
form of our society and the various identities we are discussing here all derive their
constitution from the organization of linguistic polarities so the method of farming
humans on the basis of linguistic opposites, that we call politics, comes naturally, and
works. Indeed this mode of operation must be inherent in our linguistic ability and
this is what the Jews evolved in response to, and then went on to spread the Jewish
formula through the planetary biomass.
 The reversion of linguistic polarity could not be achieved in the material world
where what we see is what we get, but in our social organization the most powerful
necessarily form an extreme minority because nature functions by organizing animal
corporate beings according to the principle of a master organ directing an extended
biomass. Thus it is inherent in the nature of living beings, of which human society is
one kind, that the master organ will be in an extreme minority. It follows from this
that, given that we are conscious of who and what we are via a political conception of
ourselves and our society, nature is obliged to evolve a cultural matrix that allows us
to support a master organ which is in a minority. There are various forms of master
identity which rely upon brute force but these are overtly structural and they also
depend upon identity factors for their power. The special attribute of the Jewish
master identity is therefore its inverted logic, and in the above passage we see this
pointed out by Sombart in a political manner. But the fact is that all elite structures
could have their special status highlighted by shifting to the opposite pole of the
description we normally apply to them. So we can see that this week, today being
07/06/07, the American millionaire socialite Paris Hilton, in being sent to prison for
three weeks for driving while disqualified, was unable to go to prison with all other
convicts and had to have a prison especially arranged for her because she could not be
made part of the prison population because they would of been bound to of done her
harm. And as it turned out even this was not good enough for the little precious as
she was freed after three days, but then banged up again by the judge yesterday,
9/06/07. Thus this privileged women was not allowed to be a proper convict even
though she had earned that right as much as anyone ever did. Likewise the royal
princes will never be able to work twelve hour shifts in a factory for the minimum
wage, if they join the army they will never be allowed to take part in any warfare, in
Iraq for example, these poor people are deprived of all the privileges that most of us
take for granted ; oh yes ! of course, that is because they are the privileged, and these
things they cannot do are not privileges, they are nightmares the rest of us wish to
avoid.
Put like this we are suddenly made to see that in effect the Jews, as the master
race, were merely being made the victims of laws that forced them to be our masters
by precluding them from engaging in the activates of their slaves. The method of
forcing the elite to be privileged through an all pervasive host of linguistic tricks is so
facile it is pathetic, yet we do not see it very easily because the social system is a
product of this method of differentiation through regulation, and we are so dominated
by the identity that is imposed upon us by the social organism we are part of.

The idea that language is a social force that is responsible for the creation of
all social structure is hard to understand, but by identifying the basic mechanism of
differentiation which is the basis of social structure, the mechanism of meaning
polarity which separates attributes of behaviour into positive and negative concepts,
we can begin to see how our whole social fabric is made according to the basic
principles of language acting as a force that builds social structure. We know that the
organization of society requires many practical activities to be organized efficiently so
we understand that the job of government is a serious one. Yet our political system is
dominated by a division which perfectly reflects the notion of social polarity as we
have a two party system wherein the two parties are indistinguishable except in the
most miniscule and irrelevant details. An additional point of interest should be
mentioned in relation to the organization of social structure via the mechanism of
meaning polarity, namely the control of knowledge. We have noted this matter
already but is it of supreme importance and can be repeated in the context of meaning
polarity. The ruling authority is composed of both a positive and negative
representation of itself, itself is the core about which the two poles of divergence
become fixed, itself is always religious. In this manner the real alternatives to the
religious identity are ousted from the social flux, and this rejection is seen in all
departments of life as already discussed. Thus we have official religious science
based on Darwinism, and unofficial religious science based on creationism, there is no
place for science in our absolute theocracy which has Judaism at its core, because
science automatically annihilates Judaism by revealing that humans are a
superorganism and Jews are the master race. By the way, on a report on Channel
Four yesterday, 9/06/07, looking into how the wall built by the Jews in Palestine was
serving as a means of stealing more land, it was mentioned that a new town of 35,000
orthodox Jews ..... 35,000 deeply religious Jews in one place. Wow ! The world has
never seen anything remotely like this before. Soon there will be millions upon
millions of Jews in that neck of the woods, humanity is doomed, we will never be free
of the fascism of religious obscenity, what a strange place the world will be in a
thousand years time, horrific, it makes us shudder just to think about it.
The emergence of the Nazis in the Jews time of greatest need, when new
knowledge was set to make the Jewish master identity impossible to sustain, is only a
further demonstration of the linguistic force activated by the meaning polarization
mechanism which causes social structure to form at polar extremes centred upon one
core focus of social power, forcing elite power towards its all commanding position of
opposites. Once the crisis is over and the normal state of balance is secured the
extreme projection of polar meaning is able to recede into the background and the
established order can return to its position of supremacy unchallenged. This is how
we may account in scientific terms for the extremely bizarre, and to all appearances
utterly insane panorama of modern history, i.e. twentieth century history, which has
formed the basis for unbridled religious insanity at the dawn of the new millennium,
as revealed in the Jewish war of global terror carried out by the Muslim brotherhood
of Jews.

Sombart :

Money-lending contains the root idea of capitalism ; from money-lending it

received many of its distinguishing features. In money-lending all conception of
quality vanishes and only the quantitative aspect matters. In money-lending the
contract becomes the principal element of business ; the agreement about the quid pro
quo, the promise for the future, the notion of delivery are its component parts. In
money-lending there is no thought of producing only for one's needs. In money-
lending there is nothing corporeal (i.e., technical), the whole is a purely intellectual
act. In money-lending economic activity as such has no meaning ; it is no longer a
question of exercising body or mind ; it is all a question of success. Success,
therefore, is the only thing that has a meaning. In money-lending the possibility is for
the first time illustrated that you can earn without sweating ; that you may get others
to work for you without recourse to force.
In fine, the characteristics of money-lending are the characteristics of all
modern capitalistic economic organizations.
But historically, too, modern capitalism owes its being to money-lending. This
was the case wherever it was necessary to lay out money for initial expenses, or where
a business was started as a limited company. For essentially a limited company is in
principle nothing but a matter of money-lending with the prospect of immediate
profit.
The money-lending activities of the Jews were thus an objective factor in
enabling the Jews to create, to expand and to assist the capitalistic spirit.

(Page 189)

To get others to work for you without recourse to force is the very nature of an
organically evolved master-host social physiology, the evolution of which requires
above all else an absolute definition of hierarchical distinctions based upon identity,
in order that the master can know themselves and thus know who their host is that
they evolved to exploit ; exactly as a fox must be differently formed to a rabbit if the
one is to be the hunter and the other is to be the prey. In saying this we recognise that
underpinning a rigidly defined identity must be a distinct physiological structure, and
since law defines social structure the Jews must be programmed by different laws to
those that the people they live amongst obey, exactly as Sombart shows they are.
According to this rational, that money lending contains within it the essence of
capitalism, we can see that capitalism already existed in the ancient world, and this
fact allows us to understand how the Jews were able to act as a creative force bringing
into being a tailor made culture, a host culture, the Romans, a culture that was
preadapted to operate according to capitalistic principles that would exploit their
economically traditional predecessors, the Greeks.

Sombart :

CHAPTER XI

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION

IN ECONOMIC LIFE

INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

THREE reasons have actuated me in devoting a special chapter to the consideration of

the religion of the Jewish people and the demonstration of its enormous influence on
Jewish economic activities. First, the Jewish religion can be fully appreciated in all its
bearings from the economic standpoint only when it is studied in detail and by itself ;
secondly, it calls for a special method of treatment ; and thirdly, it occupies a position
midway between the objective and the subjective factors of Jewish development. For,
in so far as any religion is the expression of some particular spiritual outlook, it has a
“subjective” aspect ; in so far as the individual is born into it, it has an objective
aspect.

I. THE IMPORTANCE OF RELIGION FOR THE

JEWISH PEOPLE.

That the religion of a people, or of a group within a people, can have far-
reaching influences on its economic life will not be disputed. Only recently Max
Weber demonstrated the connexion between Puritanism and Capitalism. In fact, Max
Weber's researches are responsible for this book. For any one who followed them
could not but ask himself whether all that Weber ascribes to Puritanism might not
with equal justice be referred to Judaism, and probably in a greater degree ; nay, it
might well be suggested that that which is called Puritanism is in reality Judaism. This
relationship will be discussed in due course.
Now, if Puritanism has had an economic influence, how much more so has
Judaism, seeing that among no other civilized people has religion so impregnated all
national life. For the Jews religion was not an affair of Sundays and Holy Days ; it
touched everyday life even in its minutest action, it regulated all human activities. At
every step the Jew asked himself, Will this tend to the glory of God or will it profane
His name ? Jewish law defines not merely the relation between man and God,
formulates not merely a metaphysical conception ; it lays down rules of conduct for
all possible relationships, whether between man and man or between man and nature.
Jewish law, in fact, is as much part of the religious system as are Jewish ethics. The
Law is from God, and moral law and divine ordinances are inseparable in Judaism.
Hence in reality there are no special ethics of Judaism. Jewish ethics are the
underlying principles of the Jewish religion.
No other people has been so careful as the Jews in providing for the teaching
of religion to even the humblest. As Josephus so well put it : Ask the first Jew you
meet concerning his “laws” and he will be able to tell you them better even than his
own name. The reason for this may be found in the systematic religious instruction
given to every Jewish child, as well as in the fact that divine service partly consists of
the reading and explanation of passages from Holy Writ.

(Page 191-2)

In relation to this passage on the importance of religion to the Jews we may

note that from a biological point of view in which we understand that humans are a
superorganic species, religion and Judaism are one and the same thing, so that to be
an atheist is to be anti-Semitic in the most absolute sense possible, since to be an
atheist is to be committed to the eradication of religion from the earth. An atheist is
not to be defined as someone who does not believe in God, that is the priest’s
definition of an atheist, an atheist is a person who believes in the eradication of
religion, that is an atheist’s definition of an atheist. An atheist is a person who does
not believe in religion. Thus an atheist no more believes in communism than
Judaism, both are pure religious nonsense, and this passage on the importance of
religion to Jews which shows the all pervasiveness of religion indicates why we must
recognise that communism is merely the equivalent of the all pervasive element of
Judaism stripped of its abstract colour code that defines Judaism as a religion. It
makes no sense to say you do not believe in God but you honour those who do, as the
Humanist says. An atheist cannot help coming into collision with the Jews since
religion is the key to the Jewish master identity, without religion the Jews have no
means of enslaving humanity to their identity of divine chosenness.
In making this observation on the true nature of atheism we also elucidate the
nature of Jewish religion. That communism is not science, as Marx claimed, but
rather a religious doctrine without a religious identity code, is obvious enough. But in
saying this we make it plain what the two elements of the Jewish form of religion is
that Sombart is trying to unravel here, namely the combination of functional
regulation bound up with a fixed cultural identity. Marx adapted his Jewish
programming by calling himself an atheist and then proceeding to present a raw
version of Jewish economic principles adapted to the newly emerged industrial setting
which would allow the Jewish mode of dictatorship to continue to rule society as it
had done for millennia. Communism is not capitalism, but it is economics, just as
Judaism is not capitalism, but it too is economics. Along with the economic
principles comes an inevitable array of moral sanctions suited to the intended victims
of the master doctrine. In the case of Marxism the object was to create a body of
people who benefited from their power as an amorphous mass, whereas in Judaism the
authors of this creed sort to enable people to benefit from their exclusivity. The value
of communism was still to reduce people to the status of slaves subject to a
priesthood, exactly as we have seen has happened wherever this religious creed has
been adopted, as in Russia, China, Cuba and so on.
Had Marx truly of sort to liberate and empower people from capitalistic
oppression then he would not of spoke of ideals, he would of sort to unravel the
mystery of the Jewish religion exactly as we see Sombart pretending to do. The
communist slave identity smacks of the Christian slave identity and so we must
assume that this is the precise nature of communism, it mimics the high ideals of
Christianity which were created by Jews to serve as a means of enslaving the newly
emergent body of people existing in the aftermath of the Roman revolution which was
drawing the European biomass into its orbit to create a detached body of people that
had to be brought under the control of the master identity, Judaism. Communism, for
all its outward appearances of atheistic rigour, is just a phase of Judaism because it is
just a boiled down version of Judaic economics ; and for that reason it is a highly
unstable form of social identity that lasts a fleeting moment before being drawn back
into the orbit of strictly Jewish religious control under the auspices of a religious slave
identity. And from this it becomes evident that a religious identity stabilises the
economic regulation that makes a civlized superorganic physiology possible, and that
is why religion exists.

In addition to these general observations on the nature of the Jewish religion

coming from the above quote we can also see there is something of importance
regarding the nature of the people who form the living fabric of the Jewish master
organ. It is clear from the fact that Jews more than any other people, if we take
Sombart’s assertion as sufficiently correct for our purposes, are heavily indoctrinated
into their identity such that the Jews are as much slaves of Judaism as anyone else.
This is an important, albeit a curious point. Clearly Jews cannot be enslaved to
Judaism because they are Jews ! But given that the Jews have a history of suffering
persecution there is a sense in which the Jews have a price to pay for being the master
identity in the superorganism, and in paying that price the Jews express a degree of
subservience to their corporate identity that is as beyond their power to resist as it is
beyond the power of any Christian or Muslim to decide whether or not to be a
Christian or a Muslim. The importance of this observation has more to do with the
Jewish slave identities of Christianity and Islam, for while we can see that Jews are as
much slaves of Judaism as Christians and Muslims are slaves of Judaism, in that Jews
no more know that they are inducted into their religious identity via a cultural
programme than their lower orders have, for Christians and Muslims the requirement
is that despite the fact that they are obviously slaves of the Jews they nonetheless have
to be oblivious of this fact and to think of themselves as independent from all others,
and instead to think of themselves as masters in their own right. The question then is
how are the slaves to be made to think they are the masters ? The answer is warfare ?
It is the horror of internecine war within the Jewish superorganism that sustains the
definition between religious identities. This ties in with a comment in Sombart’s
book about the essence of capitalism being money-lending because money-lending
hold the key to getting others to be your slaves without using force. The illusion of
power invested in the religious authorities that rule society no doubt also serves the
same object as war, as governments of whatever kind think of themselves as Christian
or Muslim, but this is of minor importance compared with the ceaseless warfare
mounted by these governments against their own populations precisely to keep the
living fabric sufficiently motivated to value their own specific slave identity over any
other. These governments have no idea why they fight these wars, they think it is in
order to obtain freedom for themselves, but since they are the slaves of the Jews,
because they depend upon cash for their existence and this is all ultimately controlled
by the Jews as the agents of international exchange, these governments just act like
puppets serving the dictates of the one body that has no territory to fight over because
it makes all territory its own. Naturally with the coming of the global society and the
establishment of the Jewish master state this historical dynamic has shifted slightly.
Warfare then gives the social physiology its muscular definition by maintaining
religious differentiation. Without warfare no one would give a toss about religion.

An especially delightful and important idea is put forward rather casually here.
It is an ongoing matter of the first importance in our work that religion is made the
medium of superorganic identity, and that it is understood that the superorganism can
only have one identity and that that identity is Jewish. But, in order that the
superorganism can have a physiological structure, there is a need for a skeletal
framework and this comes from having a triadic Jewish master identity from which an
infinite host of further structural definition can be extended. Thus Christian and
Muslim religions extend the skeletal structure and as such are just as much Jewish as
is Judaism itself. Here we actually have the same idea put forward in a very limited
sense where Sombart recognises that Protestantism is just Judaism by another name.
This transmission of Jewish identity under different identities is of great
importance, and that Christian religious programmes should drift in and out of
synchronisation with the original seed is to be expected, as this dynamic serves the
functional operation of the superorganic physiology. Because of the political
viewpoint adopted by Sombart he has no means of fitting his observations into a
unified scheme such as we are applying here, consequently he only takes note of the
overlap between Christianity and Judaism when the issue is of central importance to
his subject, as in the case of economic activity discussed here, thus he sees that a
particular brand of Christianity can capture the qualities of the Jewish identity without
seeing that at all times all Christian identities are always wholly Jewish and only
distinguished by the variation in their physiological function dictated by variations in
their identity programme. We may suppose from this that there is always a tendency
to shift toward the Jewish master identity when occasion arises, as when there is a
power vacuum because Jews are not present in sufficient numbers to serve their
biological function within the superorganism. And we may therefore assume that this
is why the Jews must always be highly mobile and forever pushing into any new
territories that become available to the superorganism that consists of the host
societies in which Jews live.
This idea of organic evolution being due to the transformation of forms
through the tendency to adapt toward sources of energy, which is inherent in the to
and fro we are seeing in the phased overlap of economic activity occurring between
Protestantism and Judaism, matches exactly the theory of evolution we have
expounded elsewhere, usually when thinking in terms of the latent energy of
unexploited environments relative to a new type of biological engine that gives rise to
a variety of new species, a theory which inverts Darwin’s politically inspired notion
of point by point evolution fixed genetically through a competitive process focused
upon differentially favoured individuals. Darwin’s idea is self evidently absurd
because it has individuals that are as nearly identical as it is possible to be competing
with each other unwittingly by virtue of gifts arising randomly from nature. This
makes no sense whatever, it is as subtle as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In
the context of human society we are not concerned with the grand notion of emerging
new species, but with the seamless process of adaptation taking place under the
pressure of life forces, where an existing species composed of near identical forms,
making differences between individuals irrelevant, function as groups according to
closely matched, but different, operational programmes, whereby the motion of these
groups ebb and flow toward a common source of potential energy toward which both
are finely attuned. Thus we are making the fine tuning of social identity the
determining factor in the evolution of new kinds of social organism.
In looking at the interaction between religiously defined social bodies within
living societies we are therefore looking at the evolutionary process in the most
microscopic detail possible prior the species’ descent into the genetic domain of living
tissue where further definition of superorganic form is revealed. There is competition
between people in that the Protestants take on the role of master identity when Jews
leave a void to be filled, but this form of growth and evolution is not predicated upon
the basis of competition between individuals, but rather upon a passive operation of
already extant activity responding to fluctuations in the basic energy sources that fuel
these social forms, the organic simile can be evoked by thinking of the tree that falls
in a forest causing the saplings rise to the occasion. The Jews must keep the void
filled, so from the Jew’s commanding point of view there is an eternal competitive
dynamic in place, and from the point of view of those in command a competitive
model of evolution based on their own master perspective is therefore required to
justify the society they rule over, but that is a biased perspective and not at all
scientific or biological. And we must bear in mind that Christians are only Jews by
another name, and the likes of Darwin was a master slave, a master Christian, so he
too saw the mode of evolution according to the Jewish master viewpoint rather than a
detached scientific viewpoint, hence the Jews can always rely upon their Christian
and Muslim slaves to fight to preserve the Jewish master identity because the three are
one and the same thing.

Sombart :

The Talmud was the most precious possession of the Jew ; it was the breath of his
nostrils, it was his very soul. The Talmud became a family history for generation
after generation, with which each was familiar. “ The thinker lived in its thought, the
poet in its pure idealism. The outer world, the world of nature and of man, the
powerful ones of the earth and the events of the times, were for the Jew during a
thousand years accidents, phantoms ; his only reality was the Talmud.” The Talmud
has been well compared (and the comparison to my mind applies equally to all
religious literature) to an outer shell with which the Jews of the Diaspora covered
themselves ; it protected them against all influences from without and kept alive their
strength within.
We see, then, what forces were at work to make the Jews right down to
modern times a more God-fearing people than any other, to make them religious to
their inmost core, or, if the word “religious” be objected to, to keep alive among high
and low a general and strict observation of the precepts of their religion. And for our
purpose, we must regard this characteristic as applicable to all sorts and conditions of
Jews, the Marannos of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries included. We must look upon
these too as orthodox Jews.

(Page 194-5)

This passage is important for our purposes because it evokes the idea of a
protective shell which accords with our insistence upon the idea of all man made form
of whatever kind being recognised in biological terms as an exoskeletal form. We
tend to have in mind social fabric, but it is appropriate to see in the linguistic
programme fixed in writing the basis of the exoskeletal form that gives the resulting
superorganism its visual shape, and of course it follows that each slave identity must
have its own book, hence the Bible (New Testament) and the Koran. Although for the
most part we only trouble ourselves to mention the primary triad of Jewish identities
we do from time to time indicate that all people are Jews by virtue of the fact that the
Jewish superorganism has already gone global, so that every religion in existence is
modelled on the Jewish religion even if it existed before Judaism ! Central to this
coalescence of identity to one form is the possession of a book, which is why Sikhs in
India have a book and why Mormons in America have a book, because the possession
of a book is vital to access the power of the organic form made supreme in the Jew.
Language is a force which gives rise to all social structure and a religious book is a
unit of linguistic code that fixes identities imbued into the general morphology of the
whole exoskeleton. Here then we have a fine example of the chosenness the Jews
attribute to themselves, wherein they show all people how they must be.

Sombart :

I I I. THE FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS OF THE JEWISH

RELIGION.

Let me avow it right away : I think that the Jewish religion has the same
leading ideas as Capitalism. I see the same spirit in the one as in the other.
In trying to understand the Jewish religion—which, by the way, must not be
confused with the religion of Israel (the two are in a sense opposites)—we must never
forget that a Sofer was its author, a rigidly minded scribe, whose work was completed
by a band of scribes after him. Not a prophet, mark you ; not a seer, nor a visionary
nor a mighty king ; a Sofer it was. Nor must we forget how it came into being : not as
an irresistible force, not as the expression of the deepest needs of contrite souls, not as
the embodiment of the feelings of divinely inspired votaries. No ; it came into being
on a deliberate plan, by clever deductions, and diplomatic policy which was based on
the cry “Its religion must be preserved for the people.” The same calm consideration,
the same attention to the ultimate goal were responsible in the centuries that followed
for the addition of line to line and precept to precept. That which did not fit in with
the scheme of the Soferim from before the days of Ezra and that which grew up
afterwards, fell away.
The traces of the peculiar circumstances which gave it birth are still visible in
the Jewish religion. In all its reasoning it appeals to us as a creation of the intellect, a
thing of thought and purpose projected into the world of organisms, mechanically and
artfully wrought, destined to destroy and to conquer Nature’s realm and to reign itself
in her stead. Just so does Capitalism appear on the scene ; like the Jewish religion, an
alien element in the midst of the natural, created world ; like it, too, something
schemed and planned in the midst of teeming life. This sheaf of salient features is
bound together in one word : Rationalism. Rationalism is the characteristic trait of
Judaism as of Capitalism ; Rationalism or Intellectualism—both deadly foes alike to
irresponsible mysticism and to that creative power which draws its artistic inspiration
from the passion world of the senses.

(Page 205-6)

Capitalism is the enactment of Judaism, in other words capitalism is the

farming of humanity by the Jews. This makes perfect sense from the scientific
perspective that sees humans as a superorganic species. Sombart evokes an
evolutionary development creating Jews via a selective process subject to the
competitive test of achieving success in society by way of adaptation and
preservation. The description of Judaism as a religion like any other, that just
happened to benefit from the input of exceptionally gifted geniuses, is puerile, and
tells us nothing about what Judaism is, and how or why it came into existence. The
crucial point about Judaism is that it is a religion that evolved within the civilised
environment, and as such it was adapted to impart success to its inductees living as
members of civilised society. It follows as a matter of course that any identity
adapted to existence in civilised society must become the master identity in that
society, because it is the existence of a master class more than anything else that
defines a civilised society. It is true that some debate has been entered into as to what
defines civilization, it use to be decided by the possession of certain key factors of
which writing was a firm favourite, but with the discovery of New World civilizations
that did not have writing as we know it, or if we think of the great prehistoric
civilisations that built Stonehenge, the dependence upon writing as a determinant
became a problem. The fact is that academics are obliged to think in purely political
terms when attempting to determine such definitions, and it is only by thinking in
scientific terms that we can come up with a correct answer to a legitimate question of
this kind. Civlized societies are defined by one exclusive attribute which is unique to
them, and without which they cannot exist, that is the presence of a distinct master
class, be it royal, military, priestly or intellectual. This definition is validated
scientifically because it is determined by nature which caused human corporate nature
to come into being by giving rise to an individual form that meant a superorganism
had to come into being at the level of social organization wherein the true realisation
of the superorganic form necessitates the emergence of a master class.
Making such a claim does cause us to anticipate objections to the effect that
relatively simple cultures existed in places such as the Pacific Oceania which had
elaborate class structures but not the trappings of civilization such as we normally
think of, such as great monuments or cities. But it is easy to see in this circumstance
an artificially restricted potential due to the lack of space, where only the behavioural
trappings had the opportunity to gain full expression ; although the Easter Island
culture indicates that the capacity to express human corporate nature in monumental
form can be very forceful.

Sombart :

The kinship between Judaism and Capitalism is further illustrated by the

legally regulated relationship—I had almost said the businesslike connexion, except
that the term has a disagreeable connotation—between God and Israel. The whole
religious system is in reality nothing but a contract between Jehovah and His chosen
people, a contract with all its consequences and all its duties. God promises something
and gives something, and the righteous must give Him something in return. Indeed,
there was no community of interest between God and man which could not be
expressed in these terms—that man performs some duty enjoined by the Torah and
receives from God a quid pro quo. Accordingly, no man should approach God in
prayer without bringing with him something of his own or of his ancestors’ by way of
return for what he is about to ask.
The contract usually sets forth that man is rewarded for duties performed and
punished for duties neglected ; the rewards and punishments being received partly in
this and partly in the next world. Two consequences must of necessity follow : first, a
constant weighing up of the loss and gain which any action needs must bring, and
secondly, a complicated system of bookkeeping, as it were, for each individual
person.

(Page 209)

Yes but this religious formula must of been developed from the experience of
living in a civilised society, so that business like behaviour created a creed from
which a formula for ruling all humanity could be derived, which is expressed today in
what we call capitalism. Elsewhere Sombart asks whether experience created the
religion or religion created the way of life, but he concludes that this question could
never be answered ; not if he could help it that is for sure !

Sombart :

No consideration whatever is had for the personality of the sinner or his ethical state,
just as a sum of money is separated from persons, just as it is capable of being added
to another abstract sum of money. The ceaseless striving of the righteous after well-
being in this and the next world must needs therefore take the form of a constant
endeavour to increase his rewards. Now, as he is never able to tell whether at a
particular state of his conscience he is worthy of God's goodness or whether in his
“account” the rewards or the punishments are more numerous, it must be his aim to
add reward after reward to his account by constantly doing good deeds to the end of
his days. The limited conception of all personal values thus finds no admission into
the world of his religious ideas and its place is taken by the endlessness of a pure
quantitative ideal.
Parallel with this tendency there runs through Jewish moral theology another
which regards the getting of money as a means to an end. The conception is
frequently found in books of religious edification, the authors of which realizing but
seldom that in their warnings against the acquisition of too much wealth they are
glorifying this very practice. Usually the treatment of the subject is under the heading
“covetousness,” forbidden by the tenth commandment. “A true Israelite,” remarks one
of the most popular of modern “helps to faith,” “avoids covetousness. He looks upon
all his possessions only as a means of doing what is pleasing in the sight of God. For
is not the entire purpose of his life to use all his possessions, all enjoyment as the
means to this end ? Indeed it is a duty ... to obtain possessions and to Increase one’s
enjoyments, not as an end in themselves but as a means to do God’s will on earth.”

(Page 212)

This formula is perfectly adapted to the idea that human society is a social
organism for all that a religion must do to become pre-eminent is to be a programme
dictating functional behaviour to those inducted into its dogma, and then it will
become the creative medium of social form. Religion does not create social form in
these circumstances in the absolute sense in which religion implies society is created
through obedience to its God, religion merely takes possession of the social form it
creates, by imbuing the social form with its identity, the underlying potential was
created when evolution brought a superorganic species of mammal into being. In the
same way an author does not create writing when they write a book, but they take
possession of writing in their creation of a book. Thus a closed loop of creative
realisation exists between genetic and linguistic information so that by organising the
potential inherent in genetic form a religious programme creates a social expression of
that potential.

Sombart :

Doctrines concerning wealth such as these could not but encourage a worldly
view of life. This the Jewish view was, despite the belief in another world. There were
indeed attempts at ascetic movements in Judaism (e.g., in the 9th century the Karaites
combined to live the life of monks ; in the 11th century Bachja ibn Pakuda preached
asceticism in Spain), but none of them ever took root. Judaism even in times of great
affliction was always optimistic. In this the Jews differ from the Christians, whose
religion has tried to rob them all it could of earthly joys. As often as riches are lauded
in the Old Testament they are damned in the New, wherein poverty is praised. The
whole outlook of the Essenes, turning its back upon the world and the flesh, was
incorporated in the Gospels. One can easily recall passage after passage to this effect.
(Cf. Matt. vi. 24 ; x. 9, 10 ; xix. 23, 24.) “It is easier for a camel to go through a
needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.” This is the
keynote of Christianity on the point, and the difference between it and Judaism is
clear enough. There is no single parallel to the saying of Jesus in the whole of the Old
Testament, and probably also none in the entire body of Rabbinic literature.
There is no need to expatiate on the different attitude of the good Jew and the
good Christian towards economic activities. The Christian is forced by all manner of
mental gymnastics to interpret away the Essene conception of riches from his
Scriptures. And what anxious moments must the rich Christian live through as he
thinks of heaven locked against him ! Compare with him the position of the rich Jew,
who, as we have seen, “in the name of the Lord God” gathers gold as tin and silver as
lead.
It is well known that the religion of the Christians stood in the way of their
economic activities. It is equally well known that the Jews were never faced with this
hindrance. The more pious a Jew was and the more acquainted with his religious
literature, the more he was spurred by the teachings of that literature to extend his
economic activities. A beautiful illustration of the way religion and business were
fused in the mind of pious Jews may be found in the delightful Memoirs of Glückel
von Hameln, to which we have already referred. “Praise be to God, who gives and
takes, the faithful God, who always made good our losses,” she says. And again, “My
husband sent me a long, comforting letter, urging me to calm my soul, for God, whose
name be blessed, would restore to us what we had lost. And so it was.”

(Page 221-2)

For second Judaism to have any physiological function the Jewish god Jesus
had to be made to preach a slave ideology contrasting first order Jews with those who
were to be forced by the Romans to become the slaves of Judaism via the
implantation of a Jewish identity running a different programme to that of primary
Judaism. What Sombart says here is merely stating the obvious, though he has no
idea this is so because he does not know that humans are a superorganic species of
mammal. How tragic to be so stupid when you live in the very age of enlightenment
when this knowledge could be know by all, and was known by many ...... well, not
quite, they all knew about the social organism but none knew what this meant, none
saw beyond the idea of discrete identities realised in nationality, or in religion as
recognised on its own terms ; most frustrating !

Sombart :

The rationalization of life accustomed the Jew to a mode of living contrary to

(or side by side with) Nature and therefore also to an economic system like the
capitalistic, which is likewise contrary to (or side by side with) Nature. What in reality
is the idea of making profit, what is economic rationalism, but the application to
economic activities of the rules by which the Jewish religion shaped Jewish life ?
Before capitalism could develop the natural man had to be changed out of all
recognition, and a rationalistically minded mechanism introduced in his stead. There
had to be a transvaluation of all economic values. And what was the result ? The
homo capitalisticus, who is closely related to the homo Judæus, both belonging to the
same species, homines rationalistici artificiales.
And so the rationalization of Jewish life by the Jewish religion, if it did not
actually produce the Jewish capacity for capitalism, certainly increased and
heightened it.

VI. ISRAEL AND THE NATIONS.

 One of the causes to which the Jew owed his economic progress was, as the
reader will remember, the fact that Israel was for generations a stranger and an alien.
If we seek to account for this aloofness we shall find its roots in the ordinances of the
Jewish religion, shall find that this religion always maintained and broadened the line
of separation. As Leroy-Beaulieu, who has studied this aspect of Jewish history with
great success, has so well said, “La loi leur donnait l’esprit de clan.” The very fact
that they had their Law forced the Jews to live apart from the Gentiles. For if they
desired to observe the Law they needs must keep to themselves. The Jews created the
Ghetto, which from the non-Jewish point of view was a concession and a privilege
and not the result of enmity.
But the Jews wished to live separated from the rest because they felt
themselves superior to the common people round them. They were the Chosen Race,
a People of Priests.

(Pages 237-8)

Here we have the most strident anti-scientific position stated in absolute terms
that declare humans are self made and not created by nature. For an author to take
this line at this most precious of historical times when true scientific knowledge about
the nature of humanity was at its peak can only mean that he must of been deliberately
seeking to avoid the naturalistic line of reasoning which was so dominant. While
Sombart does not use the naturalistic idea of society as a social organism at all, his
argument reveals the influence of this all pervasive idea as it uses the phrase ‘social
organism’ once, (See page 241) and the organic nature of social groups enters the
discussion in places too ; this was possibly intended as a nod to the popular
conception of society rather an indication that he wanted to promote this truly
scientific conception of society since he makes no use of this line of reasoning
whatever, while nonetheless, like a typical Christian conartist who knows the sole
power of reason lies with science, credits himself with being a superb scientist. This
explains why we see no reference to contemporary scientific ideas about the nature of
society, such as those famously expressed by Kidd, which should of been the
inspiration of anyone attempting to understand the Jews in a scientific manner. This
book is therefore a classic piece of misinformation that shows us how Judaism was
protected by anti-Semitic authors whose efforts to protect Judaism culminated in the
magnificent work of Adolf Hitler, the ultimate saviour of the Jews ; magnificent from
an honest Jewish viewpoint, horrific to the rest of us.

Sombart :

And so they lived separate and apart all through the centuries of the Diaspora,
despite the Diaspora and (thanks to the bands which the Law laid upon them) because
of the Diaspora—separate and apart, and therefore a group by themselves, or, if you
will, a group by themselves and therefore separate and apart.
A group by themselves—they were that already at the time of the Babylonian
Exile, which in reality established the internationalism of the Jew. Many of them,
especially the wealthier ones, remained behind in Babylon of their own free will, but
they retained their Judaism and professed it zealously. They kept up a lively
intercourse with their brethren who had returned home, took a sympathetic interest in
their fortunes, rendered them assistance and sent them new settlers from time to time.
The bonds of union were in no wise relaxed in the Hellenistic Diaspora. “They
kept closely together in the cities and throughout the world. No matter where they
pitched their tents, their connexion with Zion was upheld. In the heart of the
wilderness they had a native land where they were at home .... By means of the
Diaspora they entered into the world. In the Hellenistic cities they adopted the Greek
tongue and Greek manners even if only as the outer garb of their Jewishness.”
(Wellhausen).

(Page 239)

The Babylonian exile established the internationalism of the Jews. The idea of
establishing the cultural attribute of internationalism is extremely important. If we
assume that Jews evolved from the outset as a cultural-race of priests whose
physiological constitution was dictated by the genetically evolved form of human
individuals, which evolved in order to bring a superorganism into being at the level of
social organisation, in accordance with human corporate nature, then this statement by
Sombart cannot be true. The vacation of Ur led by Abraham must represent the initial
projection of the global culture of the Jews from its point of origin, which occurred a
couple of millennia before the far more advanced stage of operation of the abstract
master identity giving rise to the enforced Babylonian act of relocation, or that of the
Egyptian phase where we see the master race attached to alternative host superorganic
biomasses in a fully functional condition. Sombart has no means of understanding
these deeper aspects of the question he is addressing because he has no scientific
conception of the idea of human nature, and therefore no scientific idea of what
Jewish nature might be either. Consequently he selects appropriate features of the
history of the Jews, but he does so on a more or less arbitrary basis that is determined
by the degree to which events stimulate his sense of political change.

Making remarks which involve definite statements of an historical nature

always puts me on my guard as I have no pretensions to be an academic and when
dragging ideas from long term memory I doubt my own precision. As a rule I do not
engage in precise historical criticism unless I am currently in touch with specific
ideas. When I made the remarks on the Babylonian exodus above I wondered
whether I was right and today, 15/06/07, as luck would have it, shortly after writing
the above I found myself reading the following ;

“ The crude speculations of our Hindu, Persian, and Babylonian

forefathers, regarding the origin of the universe, were carried from Ur of the
Chaldees by Abraham and the ‘Pilgrim Fathers’ to Western Palestine, and
fixed in ‘Genesis.’ ”

(Personal and Social Evolution, Anonymous, 1890. Page 101)

The author of this work was a professional theologian and we can see that his
thoughts on Ur, Babylon and Abraham also seem to run together, rather like
Sombart’s fixation of Jewish internationalism at the time of the Babylonian exodus.
This prompted me to consult a proper book where I expected to resolve the issue,
accordingly in a discussion of the origin of the flood myth I find “The answer (To the
question : For whom had the flood been an historic event ?) came thirty years after the
cuneiform writing on the Gilgamesh tablets had been deciphered. This writing had
shown that the original authors of the epic were not Babylonians, but Sumerians, a far
older people whose capital had been Abraham’s city of Ur.” (6000 years of the Bible,
G. S. Wegener, 1963, first published in German in 1958. Page 14)
Wegener goes on to say that in 1929 the British archaeologist Woolley found
the evidence of the flood at the site thought to be Ur, so the Gilgamesh tablets were
translated by about 1900. Still, I suppose we may say that the conflict with Sombart
occurred because the full account was not available to Sombart whereas for an
ordinary bloke like me working a century later the true account was common
knowledge. The general thrust of the idea Sombart is discussing here is not altered,
Jewish internationalism did emerge somewhere. But there is an immense significance
to the more precise detail that allows us to place the origin of the Jewish master
identity in the cultural setting of the Sumerian civilization, which makes far more
sense because Sumerian Ur looks like a more pristine point of origin for a cultural-
race of priests, who seem far more widely appreciated by the time we find the Jews in
Babylon. The significance of this matter has already been discussed above.

Sombart :

This conception must have been firmly rooted in those districts (e.g., in
Eastern Europe) where the study of the Talmud and the casuistry it engendered were
universal. The effect it had on the commerce of the Jew has been described by Graetz,
surely no prejudiced witness. “To twist a phrase out of its meaning, to use all the
tricks of the clever advocate, to play upon words, and to condemn what they did not
know. . . such were the characteristics of the Polish Jew. . . Honesty and right-
thinking he lost as completely as simplicity and truthfulness. He made himself master
of all the gymnastics of the Schools and applied them to obtain advantage over any
one less cunning than himself. He took a delight in cheating and overreaching, which
gave him a sort of joy at victory. But his own people he could not treat in this way :
they were as knowing as he. It was the non-Jew who, to his loss, felt the consequences
of the Talmudically trained mind of the Polish Jew.”
In the second place, the differential treatment of non-Jews in Jewish
commercial law resulted in the complete transformation of the idea of commerce and
industry generally in the direction of more freedom. If we have called the Jews the
Fathers of Free Trade, and therefore the pioneers of capitalism, let us note here that
they were prepared for this role by the free-trading spirit of the commercial and
Industrial law, which received an enormous impetus towards a policy of laissez-faire
by its attitude towards strangers. Clearly, intercourse with strangers could not but
loosen the bonds of personal duties and replace them by economic freedom. Let us
glance at this in greater detail.
The theory of price in the Talmud and the Codes, in so far as it affected trade
between Jew and Jew, is exactly parallel to the scholastic doctrine of justum pretium
which was prevalent in Europe throughout the Middle Ages. But as between Jew and
non-Jew, there was no just price. Price was formed as it is to-day, by “the higgling of
the market.”
Be that as it may, the important thing to observe is that already in the Talmud,
and still more distinctly in the Shulchan Aruch, conceptions of the freedom of
industry and enterprise, so entirely alien to the Christian law of Mediaeval Europe, are
met with. It is a subject deserving of close study and should be taken up by a
specialist.

(Page 246-7)

The cultivated objective of a trading people living amongst a host population

that was, as a matter of principle, to be treated as fair game, where the aliens had no
rules of conduct applying to their hosts beyond the obligation toward their own safety,
which therefore sanctioned any form of manipulation that could be achieved by the
craft of business dealings—which is the very essence of capitalism as we know it
today—is the most expressive indication that the Jewish cultural-race evolved
expressly to create civilised societies according to the dictates of biological laws that
lead inexorably toward capitalism. On this basis where Sombart extrapolates from
capitalism to Judaism, we must extrapolate from Judaism to Nature. Thus the
principles of capitalism are the principles of nature operating within the organic
context of human social physiology. Sombart makes much of the rationalistic and
hence counter naturalistic principles of capitalism, and hence of Judaism, capitalism’s
soul-mate. Conversely we are saying the exact opposite, we are saying that capitalism
is ruthlessly naturalistic since it is driven by force represented in the abstract principle
of profit. Sombart extends the logic of his argument that capitalism is rationalistic to
its counterpart, the naturalistic mode of business conducted in the pre-capitalistic age
of Christian integrity where it was a sin to seek profit from a neighbour and where
taking interest on a loan was deemed contemptible. But it is not until we have read
the full work and put ourselves in touch with the general thrust of the argument
presented here that we can focus in on this kind of contrast and try and make sense of
it and offer some appropriate criticism.
To read of the honourable non-capitalistic form of social exchange being
discussed in terms of an emotional organic sentiment that evokes a sense of eternal
continuity at one with nature and hence favouring cultural continuity and the certainty
of order in the social hierarchy seems at first to be neither here nor there, just some
kind of sentimental description of no significance. But when we get the connection
that is being by way of contrast with the supposedly ruthlessly rationalistic model
introduced by an alien culture ensconced within this naive traditional culture, then we
get the point ! and it all makes sense, this eulogising mythology is all about justifying
the idea of Jewish and hence capitalistic rationality and hence the rationality of human
beings as self made creatures. Suddenly the drivel about a traditional culture comes
to the surface and reveals itself for what it is, just an elaborate part of the
misrepresentation of human nature.
So where does that leaves us with regard to the question of rational versus
irrational modes of social activity ?
The first point to make is that we are being cornered here by the priest’s use of
the word rational and as such there is no reason why we should submit to this ruse at
all and why we should not dismiss the notion of rationality altogether. Even so this
should not be our first move as we ought firstly to deal with the manner in which the
priesthood has devised its terminology to develop its power base. The whole point of
all academic work in so far as it has an impact upon the nature of humans is to ensure
that a division is maintained between humans and nature so that humans can be
deemed to be responsible for their own actions. This is obviously of primary
importance in a world where a tiny elite of all powerful people decide every minute
detail of we all live our lives, and especially given that this elite are phenomenally
rich while the mass of us live in a state of utter degradation, not economically
speaking, but in terms of our miserable state of ignorance about the nature of our
lives. The trick is to make us believe we want to be miserable objects that we are, and
the trick requires first and foremost that we think that we are all free willed
individuals. So this split between irresistible force of nature and ourselves is made
real by being encoded in our language by means of the mechanism of meaning, and
the resulting linguistic code is then used to create finely crafted intellectual works that
develop powerful conceptual images demonstrating the reality of our self control.
Here then we have a fine example of the priestly craft of division, and just as
we saw that the nature of the Jew as the master involved an act of inversion via the
mechanism of meaning inverting the polarity of reality to make the master the slave,
so we see in Sombart’s work the same application of this method for he inverts the
true state of affairs by taking the highly artificial situation in which people have
creates a society on the basis of ideal principles that fly in the face of nature, which
Sombart calls naturalistic, and then he contrast this idealised social model created by
human will with the alternative model introduced by aliens which rips into the
artificial model and creams of the excess social fat accumulated by having an artificial
model, this invasive method that strips the stable society of all its excess wealth
distributed throughout the body and concentrates it in the alien body introducing the
new method Sombart then chooses to call man made and as such the product of pure
reason, whereas in fact this so called rationalistic method is an attack on a developed
rationalism that is in perfect harmony with human conscious will, and this
rationalistic method derives its power from being based upon a purely naturalistic
expression of force that seeks only to maximise development and cares nothing for
individual sentiment.
So we have revealed the refined art of the Jewish priest as it appears in
Sombart’s highly manipulative and artful piece of work. But we said we were not
concerned with the notion of rational versus natural because this was from the outset
an example of the priestcraft which develops on the back of the natural force of
language which has the meaning mechanism at it base which creates social structure
by inverting true meanings. True meanings are those that exist in reality. Thus the
true nature of Judaism is that of a master race or master identity. But the only
meaning we will ever find represented in any form of social reorientation is that of the
Jews as a dependant, inferior or slave race or identity. So from a scientific
perspective there can only ever be nature, both the traditional mode of existence is
natural and not rational, and the capitalistic mode of existence is natural and not
rational. The contrast is real, but the contrast, as we have just seen, is comparative
and not absolute, both modes of social organisation are of a like kind and are only
different in the sense of distinction between them according to a scale of energy
dynamics relative to material development which can be rendered in a wholly
naturalistic way by seeing the two modes of social activity as dictated by the
underlying corporate nature of humans which drives individuals to form a social
organism at the level of social organisation. Thus our own division, if we must,
seems to suggest a less bias intonation if we contrast the two modes of developing
social energy by calling one ideal and the other natural, where ideal is human, and
natural is perfect. Ideal because their form is heavily influenced by human ideas
dictated by personally felt values, perfect because nature always drives toward a
perfect state of being that pays no heed to any sense of ideal that we may have. The
perfect and the ideal may overlap, and we may suppose that if we had a naturalistic
view of society then we might try and achieve a balance between the ideal and the
perfect as we have defined these forms here. Religion effectively seeks to achieve
this balance between the ideal and the perfect by imposing moral standards but in
reality such a model of social development is extremely biased toward the naturalistic
end of the scale since we are obliged to regard the world as a mystery created by God
and the idealistic facets of religious doctrine are made a matter of obedience and as
such they have the same character as the perfect elements of religion which are
intended to force obedience according to a none ideal method by invoking ideas of
evil and punishment associated with the intransigent. With a scientific concept of
existence in which we accept that we are a superorganic species that is obliged to
operate according to natural laws we have the opportunity to consciously work out a
balance between the ideal life for the individual and the most effective expression of
force applied to the creation of a superorganic form, so that we might harmonise the
drive inherent in the social organism and the needs we have as individuals, which
otherwise constitutes an eternal source of conflict that Kidd noted seemed forever
destined to be a bane to our rational selves.

Sombart :

VII. JUDAISM AND PURITANISM.

I have already mentioned that Max Weber’s study of the importance of

Puritanism for the capitalistic system was the impetus that sent me to consider the
importance of the Jew, especially as I felt that the dominating ideas of Puritanism
which were so powerful in capitalism were more perfectly developed in Judaism, and
were also of course of much earlier date.
A complete comparison of the two “isms” is not within my province here. But
I believe that if it were made, it would be seen that there is an almost unique identity
of view between Judaism and Puritanism, at least, on those points which we have
investigated. In both will be found the preponderance of religious interests, the idea of
divine rewards and punishments, asceticism within the world, the close relationship
between religion and business, the arithmetical conception of sin, and, above all, the
rationalization of life.

(Page 248-9)

The idea that religious formulas are inspired by moral business codes makes
the biological connection between a mode of subsistence that involves a massive
society living of a surplus of basic goods, because this implies trade as a means of
constructive distribution. Thus by showing that the elements of Judaism tend to
emerge in sub-Judaic Christian slave identities we find there is an organic force
tending in this direction, and hence the immense impression made by Weber when he
first drew attention to the connection.

Sombart :
 Again, is not the English Sunday the Jewish Sabbath ?
I would also recall the words of Heine, who had a clear insight into most
things. “Are not,” he asks in his Confessions, “Are not the Protestant Scots Hebrews,
with their Biblical names, their Jerusalem, [and] pharisaistic cant ? And is not their
religion a Judaism which allows you to eat pork ? ”
Puritanism is Judaism.
Whether the first was influenced by the second, and if so, how, are most
difficult questions to answer. It is well known, of course, that in the Reformation
period there was close intercourse between Jews and certain Christian sects, that the
study of Hebrew and the Hebrew Scriptures became fashionable, and that the Jews in
England in the 17th century were held in very high esteem by the Puritans. Leading
men in England like Oliver Cromwell built up their religious views on the Old
Testament, and Cromwell himself dreamed of a reconciliation between the Old and
the New Testaments, and of a confederation between the Chosen People of God and
the Puritan English.

(Pages 249-50)

Almost perfect ! Christianity is Judaism, what could be more obvious, and

here we have the fact stated in complicated terms that make the similitude applicable
only to a passing phase of Christianity which took an especial interest in business
activity. This is idiotic, what makes Christians into Jews is the fact that they are both
part of one uniform and united religious mythology, Judaism. Whether Judaism
influenced Christianity is hard to say ! A statement as stupid as this beggars belief, it
is like asking if the American language has anything in common with the English
language, too pathetic for words. How can anyone deal with this topic in this manner
without saying all that we say here ?
These references to Cromwell must remind us of the work of the
contemporary anti-Semite Christian historian Nesta Webster whose 1921 publication
World Revolution drew my attention to Sombart’s book ; I cannot recall if I already
knew of its existence from another source but it was definitely leafing through her
book that made me order a copy of Sombart. I have not read her book but Webster
basically outlines the manner in which the Jews were behind all significant
revolutionary movements, which makes perfect sense since we see that the Jews are
the master race and that warfare is an essential means by which the farmers of society
manipulate the constitution of their attendant biomass by organizing the distribution
of identities, including their own, through the chaos caused by warfare.
It seems fitting to speak of the chaos caused by warfare but in actual fact,
given the idea we are expounding here, if we are speaking of populations being
orchestrated then it should be by means of the order caused by warfare. The chaos
caused in Iraq at the moment impresses itself upon us but when we realise that this is
all about creating eternal stability for Israel, which will last for millennia, we can see
that the chaos of a few decades, or even centuries, is in reality the means to real order
of a lasting kind ; but of course the perception of order as a product of such chaos is
dictated by adoption of the master viewpoint of the Jews who give us all our purpose
in life, the reason for human existence, as Sombart continually says in his work. The
ceaselessness of war proves beyond question that war is as necessary and healthy as
breathing, but since science obviously leads us to understand what the true function of
war is there is no possibility that official state sponsored scientists would be allowed
to provide an understanding of the nature of warfare. Webster’s account gives us an
insight into the nature of Judaism just as Sombart’s does but both these authors are
reviled by our masters today as anti-Semites, their kind were prominent for half a
century or more until Hitler came to the fore and put their political interpretation of
Judaism into a form of action that silenced all commentators upon Judaism for who
knows how long. Again this indicates how vital it is that humans are seen as self
conscious individuals engaged in selfish acts that require a political interpretation, if
social authority is to be maintained, and so as deranged as it at first appears that the
Nazis could be vital to the existence of the Jews, it is in reality perfectly obvious that
without the psychopathic acts of the Nazis perpetrated against the whole of European
society there would of been no way for the Jews to survive the intellectual uprising
against them.
It would seem an obvious move to read Webster’s book but the trouble with
someone like her is that she is so virulently anti-Semitic, and this in the name of
Christianity ! It is a most interesting book to be aware of and to own a copy of, but as
yet I have not been tempted to sit and read it. It is clear that Sombart is working with
an idea that has major implications for the idea of society existing as a social
organism, in which the Jewish identity acts as the binding agent. Webster’s
meanwhile has a bearing on this subject, but it is a literally historical piece, there is no
indication of any deeper interrogation of the subject seeking to unearth the nature of
the conflict between Jews and humanity. And of course we would not expect to find
such a philosophical effort occurring in a book written by an overtly religious
advocate because to seek to understand any kind of human behaviour in a purely
literal manner as opposed to a political manner, is to drive head on toward a collision
with religion which determines reality according to its own self serving logic. Thus a
historian assumes that what is is because it is, why it is ? what it is ? can have no
meaning outside of an historical method of political interpretation which seeks to use
historical evidence to impart an understanding of an historical process. But for
science there can be no historical process, a Evening Primrose does not undergo an
historical process whereby seeds produce a small plant one year that flowers and
produces more seeds the next year, this is a biological process. The conflict of the
Jews with humanity is a biological process too, that can only be understood properly
in biological terms, but the likes of Webster and Sombart are part of that biological
process, not commentators upon it, and as would be social scientists we must make
use of them accordingly.

Sombart :

CHAPTER XII

JEWISH CHARACTERISTICS

I. THE PROBLEM

THE decision to deal in a work of a scientific character with the problem

suggested by the title of the present chapter has not been arrived at without a great
effort. For it has of late become the fashion to seize upon anything even but faintly
savouring of the psychology of nations as the plaything for the lighter moods of
dilettanti, whilst descriptions of the Jewish genius have been hailed as the newest
form of political sport by coarser spirits, whose rude instincts cannot but give offence
to all those who, in our gross age, have managed to preserve a modicum of good taste
and impartiality. Unjustifiable juggling with categories in race psychology has already
led to the conclusion that it is impossible to arrive at any scientific results in this field
of study. Read the books of F. Hertz, Jean Finot and others and you will lay them
down with the feeling that it is useless to attempt to find common psychological
characteristics among any conglomeration of humans ; that French esprit is a myth—
in fact that there are no Frenchmen, just as there are no Jews. But cross the street, and
lo and behold, you are face to face with a specific type ; read a book or stand before a
picture and almost unconsciously you say, How very German, how thoroughly
French !
Is this only the imagining of our fancy ?
Nay more. If we think for a moment of human history we must needs
construct for ourselves the hypothesis of a sort of “collective soul.” When, for
example, we talk of the Jewish religion we are bound to connect it with the Jewish
people whose genius gave it birth. Or, when we say the Jews had an influence on
modern economic development, it follows surely that there must have been something
essentially Jewish that brought it about. Otherwise we might as well assert that it
would have made no difference to the economic history of Western Europe if
Eskimos had taken the place of Jews, or perhaps even gorillas would have done
equally well !
This reductio ad absurdum shows plainly enough that there must be some
specifically Jewish characteristic. But let us consider the matter from a slightly
different point of view. Let us glance at the objective circumstances in the Jewish
aptitude for modern capitalism. There was first, as we have seen, the dispersion of the
Jews over a wide area. Now without recourse to subjective forces the Diaspora can be
as little explained as the effects of the Diaspora. And one thing is evident. The
dispersion of a people in itself does not necessarily have either economic or cultural
results ; nay, very often dispersion may lead to fusion and ultimate disappearance.
It has been claimed—and with truth—that it was the dispersion of the Jews
which fitted them to become intermediaries. Granted, but did it also tend to make of
them negotiators and private advisers of princes, callings which have from time
immemorial been the stepping-stones of the interpreter to higher posts ? Were the
capacities essential to these new offices not inherent in the Jews themselves ?
We have admitted that the dispersion of the Jews was responsible for no little
of their success in international commerce and credit. But is not the postulate to this
success the fact that the Jews everywhere kept together ? What would have happened
if, like so many other scattered races, they had not maintained their bonds of union ?
Lastly, let us not forget that the Jews came among just those peoples who
happened to be mature enough to receive capitalism. But even so, if Jewish influence
was strong (and it is so still) in Holland, in England, in Germany, in Austria-Hungary
—stronger far than their influence on the Spaniards, Italians, Greeks or Arabs—it was
in a large measure due to the contrasts between them and their hosts. For it would
seem that the more slow-witted, the more thick-skulled, the more ignorant of business
a people is, the more effective is Jewish influence on their economic life. And can this
be satisfactorily accounted for except through special Jewish peculiarities ?
No matter what was the origin of their innate dissimilarity from their hosts, the
salient point is that this strangeness should have obtained lasting influence in
economic life. Once more it is impossible to fathom this without the assumption of
inherent Jewish characteristics. That a people or a tribe is hated and persecuted does
not furnish sufficient reason for spurring them on to redoubled efforts in their
activities. On the contrary, in most cases this contempt and ill-treatment but serve to
destroy morals and initiative. Only where man is possessed of exceptional qualities do
these become, under the stress of circumstance, the source of regenerated energy.
Again, look at their semi-citizenship. Does not the identical argument hold
good here also ? It is so obvious as to become almost a truism. Nowhere did the Jews
enjoy the same advantages as their fellow-citizens, and yet everywhere they achieved
economically much more than the rest of the population. There can be but one
explanation for this—the specifically Jewish characteristics.
On the other hand, the legal position of the Jews varied in different countries
and at different times. In some States they were allowed to engage in certain
occupations ; in others these same occupations were forbidden them ; in others again,
such as England, they were on a perfectly equal footing with the rest of the people in
this respect. And yet they devoted themselves almost everywhere to particular
callings. In England and America they began their commercial mission by becoming
bullion-merchants or storekeepers. And can this be accounted for in any other way
than by once more pointing to their peculiar characteristics ?
As for the wealth of the Jews, that alone will hardly suffice to explain their
great achievements in the sphere of economic activities. A man who possesses vast
sums must have a number of intellectual qualities in addition, if his money is to be
usefully employed in the capitalistic sense. That surely requires no proof.
Jewish characteristics must therefore exist. It remains only to discover what
they are.

(Pages 252-5)

Again we find the self proclaimed absurdity that this political author is writing
a scientific treatise.
Immediately following this offensive boast we find the most disgusting
perversion of scientific insight applied to human nature. Sombart takes the most
superb idea and rips it to shreds, mocking it he flushes it down the sewer of academic
thought. Yes a ‘collective soul’ derived from biological human nature exists, and
makes it irrelevant whether a people called Jews or Snooze ! became the leading
organs of biological development. Sombart takes this indisputable fact and from it
assumes the most fantastically insane proposition, the exact opposite of reality — that
only the Jews as a people of unique genius could of created the modern world.
BULLSHIT ! Certainly the Eskimos, being adapted to a highly specialised
geographical environment, could not become a cultural-race specially adapted to a
social environment. A self evident statement of this kind is akin to saying there must
be special qualities inherent in bats that made them the only mammals to become truly
aerobatic. This is like saying that the bricks at the top of a wall must have
extraordinary attributes which make them the only bricks at the top of the wall. Or
like saying that green grass must have special attributes making it green, or ........ like
saying that anything is extraordinary because it has qualities that belong to it. It is so
stupid it makes a person want to scream.
The man is utterly contemptible, a thoroughgoing priest just like Darwin,
determined to trash the science that was forcing itself upon human consciousness in
the age of freedom in which he had the rare privilege to live. He even harks to
Darwin by suggesting an ape could as well be substituted for the Jews if it were not
for some superhuman quality possessed by his beloved favoured race that accounted
for the Jew’s unique position in society and in history.
Were these qualities not inherent in the Jews ? NO !
The Jews, as this git has just been saying, were insinuated into all societies and
had privileged information on everyone ; any dickhead has the capacity to drive a car,
but only those with access to a car can drive a car ; anyone can exploit society if they
have special knowledge of exceptional value. I knew a Jewish millionaire in
Brighton, he had been a common nobody until, during the Second World War,
someone suggested he start buying houses. His son became a lawyer, after having a
private education, and a Tory MP, he showed me a picture of his son with Margaret
Thatcher. The number of Jews I have known could be counted on one hand, the
number of gentiles is beyond count, I have never in my life heard the like of the story
of this Jew’s life from anyone else I have known. Any dickhead can drive a car .... if
they have a car to drive ! Who told this factory worker to buy houses ? Where did he
get the money ? Why was he not fighting the Nazis ? How come his son was
catapulted in one generation from nowhere into the highest echelons of power ?
Because, according to Sombart, the Jews have special genetically evolved gifts that
simply are not present in other human beings. This is such demented gush as defies
any possibility of a reasoned response beyond a show of total contempt. And this is
supposed to be the work of an anti-Semite, I hate to think what tosh a Jew loving
author might of come out with—the Jew is God incarnate upon the earth, he can turn
stones into fish and bread, make the blind see, the crippled walk—wait a minute,
didn’t someone say just this of the Jews somewhere before .........
Sombart is dealing with the question What is a Jew ? by assuming that humans
are animals evolved on earth from other animals, and that as such varieties of humans
have come into being that are differentiated in the same way that species of animals
are differentiated, and that in humans this differentiation is defined by race of which
the Jews are one example. The correct solution is to think of humans as social
organisms just like ants or termites, which evolved to form a living being at the level
of social organization, wherein there is an implicit requirement for some form of
centralised authority which is bound to become more explicitly defined as the size and
complexity of the social organism augments, and hence the Jews are the consequence
of this process.
Why, when the idea of the social organism existed in full flood and dominated
ideas on the nature of society, did Sombart not see the value of this solution ? Given
his appalling error, which had the incidental value of saving religion from the science
it simultaneously served to undermine, How come this work, above all others, was
chosen for translation from German into English, and then republished to boot ? How
come no English academics recognised the terrible error Sombart had made in
overlooking the idea of the social organism, and the possibility that the Jews were the
master identity ? Oh dear, how did this string of impossible mistakes happen time
after time after time, for generation after generation, causing science to be erased
from society and religion to be saved from science and given a massive new lease of
life with the ingress of Islam into Europe ? Isn’t it extraordinary ? No, it is not !
We must note with some interest that Sombart’s mindless Judophilic dogma of
superior racial character is pure racism of the worst kind, except in this case it is used
to elevate the Jew onto a pedestal. This positive racism serves to justify the obverse
negative racism of the Nazi applied to the same object, the Jews. We have seen that
the control of knowledge depends upon the ‘meaning mechanism’ which takes an
artificial idea and opposes positive to negative interpretations that shut out any valid
alternative which would deny the basis of either representation of a false ideology
such as that of race superiority or inferiority. It follows from this that the idea of race
as a defining feature of human varieties was a political model of society, and since the
Jews are the master race then the existence of such a model must serve the interests of
the Jews, and as such this model must appear in both positive and negative forms in
order to serve such a political function by keeping at bay any alternative ideas of a
none race based kind, such as that which says humans are a superorganism where race
serves to define superorganic identity where, due to the linguistic force, race becomes
subsumed into a greater superorganic form based upon linguistically programmed
identities such as that of the Jews. Therefore Nazi anti-Semitism was the necessary
companion to the political interpretation of Jewish racial identity as a source of the
Jew’s special status. And we have seen how positive the negative interpretation of
Jewish qualities has been for Judaism taken as an organic attribute of superorganic
physiology. Race ideology is a political interpretation of a biological model of human
nature, and as such racial ideology has a biological basis, but a false biological basis
designed to serve political purposes. Thus race ideology was developed to serve
Jewish power and therefore its climax in the Nazi holocaust was a necessary and
important development in the process of social organization keeping the Jewish
identity secure at the core of social authority.
In physics it is the negative charge that imparts power, in other words it is the
negative charge which is positive, while the positive charge defines the stable
attributes of an element, in other words the positive charge is passive. The negative
charge derives from the electrons surrounding the protons held at the core of an atom.
In human affairs too it is the release of energy that causes dynamic change that we
often experience as a negative phenomenon despite the fact that the release of social
energy eventually leads to results that we come to think of as positive, the French
Revolution or the Nazi horror are cases in point, if we accept that the latter example
prepared the way for the foundation of Israel and we accept this outcome as positive,
which I do not, but which our masters, who decide these things, most certainly do.

Sombart :

The most valuable individual is the intellectual individual ; humanity at its

best is intellectuality at its highest. Listen to what a sensible Jew has to say when he
pictures the ideal man, the superman if you like, of the future. He takes it all as a
matter of course ; those who are differently constituted must surely tremble at the
prospect. “In the place of the blind instincts . . . civilized man will possess intellect
conscious of purpose. It should be every one’s unswerving ideal to crush the instincts
and replace them by will-power, and to substitute reflection for mere impulse. The
individual only becomes a man in the fullest sense of the word when his natural pre-
disposition is under the control of his reasoning powers. And when the process of
emancipation from the instincts is complete we have the perfect genius with his
absolute inner freedom from the domination of natural laws. Civilization should have
but one aim—to liberate man from all that is mystic, from the vague impulsiveness of
all instinctive action, and to cultivate the purely rational side of his being.” Only
think. Genius, the very essence of instinctive expression, conceived as the highest
form of the rational and the intellectual !
One consequence of this high evaluation of the intellect was the esteem in
which callings were held according as they demanded more “headwork” or more
“handwork.” The former were almost in all ages placed higher than the latter. It is
true that there may have been, and still may be, Jewish communities in which hard
bodily labour is done every day, but this hardly applies to the Jews of Western
Europe. Even in Talmud times Jews preferred those callings which necessitated a
lesser expenditure of physical energy. As Rabbi said, “The world needs both the seller
of spices and the tanner, but happy he who is a seller of spices.” Or again, “R. Meir
used to say, A man should have his son taught a clean and easy handicraft”
(Kiddushin, 82b).
The Jews were quite alive to their predominant quality and always recognized
that there was a great gulf between their intellectuality and the brute force of their
neighbours. One or two sayings popular among Polish Jews express the contrast with
no little humour. “God help a man against Gentile hands and Jewish heads.” “Heaven
protect us against Jewish moach (brains) and Gentile koach (physical force).” Moach
v. Koach—that is the Jewish problem in a nutshell. It ought to be the motto of this
book.
The predominance of intellectual interests could not but lead in a people so
gifted as the Jews to intellectual skill. “Say what you like about a Jew, you cannot say
he is a fool.” “A gallant Greek, a stupid Jew, an honest Gipsy—all are unthinkable”
is a popular saying among Roumanians. And a Spanish proverb has it, “A hare that is
slow and a Jew who is a fool : both are equally probable.” Who that has had dealings
with Jews but will not confirm that on an average they possess a greater degree of
understanding, that they are more intelligent than other people ? I might even call it
astuteness or sagacity, as was remarked by one of the keenest observers of Jews a
century or more ago, who characterized them as “intellectual and endowed with great
genius for things of the present age,”.

(Pages 259-61)

This is all very well but to believe in God is an insult to the intellect and the
most poisonous display of contempt for knowledge. Since the Jews are the people of
God we can only say that at best knowledge for a Jew is only a means to an end, a
means of making people their slaves and of ruling over people. This is natural
enough, it is epitomised in the early accounts of the Mormon Jews of America who
called upon their newly inducted slaves corralled in England to bring all the technical
books and scientific knowledge they could with them to the new world. Such
behaviour is not what I call honouring the intellect anymore than kidnapping women
and using them as sex slaves is honouring women, for all that its shows a deep
passion for the enjoyment of sex with women. And what else is modern science if not
a vast fraud perpetrated against knowledge for the sake of preserving Judaism ? A
fraud based upon an astounding intellectual effort to discover knowledge in order to
be able to pervert it to a purposeful end ?
And again we must state that the force of human nature caused an abstract
master identity to evolve in the shape of a cultural-race whose identity was aracial,
being linguistically derived. By definition this meant the cultural-race was of its
nature comparatively intellectual in contrast to its host elements of social being that
were racially constituted. This is why the master cultural-race had to give rise to
subidentities made in its own image, a son to obey the father, and these subidentities
had to be appropriately differentiated to enable a uniform mode of existence that still
bore a structural physiology enabling the master to function as the determinant of the
course of developmental activity.

“A belief in the unity of the family of men is essential to the higher

religious sense. Christianity has called all men to be the children of God. The
civilized States assume the unity of mankind and recognise a common human
nature even in the lower races and tribes. But, at the same time, the diversity
of races is of the highest importance for the State and for public law : for in
the State men appear in an order, and order cannot be imagined without
difference.”

(The Theory of the State, J. K. Bluntschli, 1901. Page 81. First

published in German in 1852.)

So what this famous author on the nature of the State says of racial
differentiation we may also apply to religious differentiation, and accordingly explain
the rise of a multitude of Jewish identities since the moment when Jews were first
spawned from the Sumerian city of Ur. This quote shows us a logic readily applied to
racial identity, where racial identity is made the basis of social structure, social
physiology that is, a logic we have been crying out for application to religious
identity, that we know never was for one single moment applied to religious identity,
a truly is bizarre failure. Someone somewhere, you would of thought, would of seen
the point of comparison between religious and racial identity as physiological
elements in a social organism, you would think the word identity would of given the
game away. But no, no one anywhere, to this very day, has the least idea that racial
identity is in any sense similar to religious identity. It is as if we wanted to get people
to realise that somehow it was possible to make a comparison between the wheels on
a cart and the wheels on a car, but because one is drawn by horses and the other
driven by an engine it was simply impossible for anyone to see that both were
nonetheless wheels.
We have laws that make attacking Muslims on religious grounds a criminal act
identical to attacking black people on racial grounds, but still no one sees that to call
yourself a Jew is just as racist as calling yourself white, if in saying you are white you
mean to claim to be something different to other people who are not white, and as
such you claim a right to be white and to preserve white identity along with any
associated privileges. What could be more racist than a religious identity ? Nothing,
religious identity is the basis of racism, without religion there could be no modern
racism since all modern racism is based on religious differences ; think of the Nazis
for whom the conflation of race and religion was the whole basis of their agenda.
What a nazty world we live in.
Without the idea of the social organism none of this material can be thought
about in a scientific manner because we have no basis upon which to organize our
thoughts in this direction, hence the idea of the social organism is the key to
understanding the nature of existence on the basis of human existence. All the priest
need do therefore is ensure that come hell or high water no one ever discovers the
nature of human nature, which is corporate, meaning that human individual form
evolved to deliver a superorganic being at the level of social organization. Once this
knowledge was discovered therefore it had to be eradicated and replaced, hence the
world wars followed by the organized ingress of aliens into the European biomass
where the knowledge was created, and then substituted with Darwinism. It is clear
now that Sombart was one of many leading workers repairing the wall whose decay
was delivering freedom from slavery to Judaism. But, contrary to what Sombart says,
Jews are not a specially gifted type of human sub-species created by a mode of
enforced isolation. Jews are a perfectly natural outcome of the evolutionary process
that created the human species, so the struggle of individuals for freedom from
slavery to Judaism is not really between humanity and the Jews, but rather it is for the
freedom of humanity from the mindless dictates of nature. Unfortunately we evolved
to be slaves and nothing horrifies us more than the prospect of freedom, so this is why
we are the way we are.

Moach plus koach, Jewish biological nature reduced to an aphorism evoking

the hierarchical nature of the social organism. Sombart says this dualism could be the
motto of his book but it could even be the motto of social science encapsulating as it
does the nature of the human species.

Sombart :

The Jew has taken all that is in Nature and made of it “the loose pages of a text-book
of ethics which shall advance the higher moral life.” The Jewish religion, as we have
already seen, is teleological in its aim ; in each of its regulations it has the ethical
norm in view. The entire universe, in the Jew's eyes, is something that was made in
accordance with a plan. This is one of the differences between Judaism and
heathenism, as Heine saw long ago. “They (the heathens) all have an endless, eternal
‘past,’ which is in the world and develops with it by the laws of necessity ; but the
God of the Jews was outside the world, which He created as an act of free-will.”
No term is more familiar to the ear of the Jew than Tachlis, which means
purpose, aim, end or goal. If you are to do anything it must have a tachlis ; life itself,
whether as a whole or in its single activities, must have some tachlis, and so must the
universe. Those who assert that the meaning of Life, of the World, is not tachlis but
tragedy, the Jew will reckon as foolish visionaries.
How deeply the teleological view of things is embedded in the nature of the
Jew may be seen in the case of those of them who, like the Chassidim, pay no
attention to the needs of practical life because “there is no purpose in them.” There is
no purpose in making a living, and so they let their wives and children starve, and
devote themselves to the study of their sacred books. But we may see it also in all
those Jews who, with a soul-weariness within them and a faint smile on their
countenances, understanding and forgiving everything, stand and gaze at life from
their own heights, far above this world.

(Page 266)

This argument concerning the nature of the Jewish creed continues to make
perfect sense according to a biological description of humans since it is functional for
evolution to cause a religious identity programme with these qualities to come into
being in order to create a social structure based upon an abstract authority that ignores
all parochialism vested in localised superorganic authorities, to rise above these
limited organic entities, and to regard all nature as substance from which one
organism can be made according to a supreme purpose, the will of God shown to a
chosen people.
But while the essence of the argument is sound in that it contains the
mechanistic elements of the biological imperatives that create our human world, the
actual mode of description forming a skin covering this functional framework is pure
fancy. Sombart makes the Jew supremely rational in their exploitation of nature and
accordingly abstract in their outlook, which is fixed solely upon the idea of a purpose
attached to all things. But there is no such thing as purpose. When people work for
generations to build farms to produce food so they can raise families and form
societies they no more express a purpose than the seeds of trees that take root, and
build forests filled with life, over the course of millennia. Purpose is a word
consisting entirely of meaning and no substance, like the word God, the word evil, the
word good, and in fact like most of our descriptive words. It is as if we were to feel
impelled to add a word to any number so like 2-blue, 68-pink, so that 34-bit + 5-wet =
39-blue. Why not just write the numbers as numbers ? We do of course, so when we
develop ideas about reality why don’t we do the same, why add superfluous words
that mean nothing ? Because that is how we are attached to reality in a functional
manner, a necessary thing because as superorganisms humans evolved to create the
social structure that is the fabric of their bodies, and in order to create this social
structure in which the individual units of the living biomass live, individuals must be
integrated into the fabric they are programmed to build. This requires that individuals
must be imbued with a sense of attachment, and the linguistic force that programmes
our consciousness forms this attachment by making us take possession of the material
world as we incorporate it into the body of the superorganism of which we a part. A
social environment, that is a living superorganism, cannot be made from nothing, so
the words that are composed of nothing by virtue of the fact that they consist of pure
meaning that has no object existing in reality, that is no object existing outside human
consciousness, actually represent the reality of the social structure that humans
themselves create. But these physiological words do not create social physiology in a
simple direct manner because they are largely involved in the organization of
structure composed of the individual living biomass which, as we have just noted, is
essential to the organisation of social order, as Bluntschli put it. The organisation of
social structure according to these physiological words denoting pure meaning is
experienced by us as competition for possession of the social fabric in which we live,
and requires that the method of taking possession through language is extended into a
code that attaches the users of the code to the social structure, which necessarily
prevents those not programmed with the same linguistic programme from being
attached to the social fabric that the ruling linguistic programme creates. This is why
the linguistic force gives rise to an infinite variety of linguistic formulas, and why as
one superorganism comes to the fore the variety of such linguistic formulations
declines. It is also why linguistic force creates religious identities which also have an
infinite potential to increase in their variety of expression while still using the same
logic of meaning, despite the absurdity of such a proposition from a mechanistically
logical point of view since all religions claim absolute validity for themselves, but this
exclusivity is essential for religion to function as an identity. A logic of meaning once
formed as the basis of a religious identity can be used to form any kind of knowledge,
all that is required is that the logic of social physiology used by the religion which
creates the superorganism be applied to that which is not actually already incorporated
into the social physiology of the superorganism. This method of extended application
of linguistic logic is in fact a method by which social organisms make environmental
structure part of their own structure, thus the whole of nature is currently undergoing
incorporation into the global superorganism as can be seen from wildlife programmes
where creatures are spoken of as if they were humans, thus we are currently taking
possession of wild nature, in other words we are domesticating wild nature.
What follows from this description of linguistic force as the means of creating
social fabric and organizing the allocation of living biomass to that fabric, is that
people who have any status in society must operate according to the central linguistic
programme. The importance of this observation is seen in the way science is made
religious such that we find ourselves condemning the work of one the greatest
scientists ever to of lived, that is Darwin, making of his work nothing more than
religious nonsense. And likewise we find ourselves reducing Sombart to the same
status until we reach the point where we are forced to conclude that all academics are
nothing but religious priests. The answer to this ludicrous sounding proposition is
that it is the language that all people of high status use that makes them a priest, they
all apply the empty meanings which are the linguistic mechanisms of attachment to
identity lying within the linguistic code derived from Judaism. That Judaism is a
linguistic code formed by the force of language which creates superorganic
physiology explains why the Jews should be the people of the book, as Sombart
rightly says they are. Thus it is not the substance of an idea that makes it religious, as
we have seen religion is pure identity, that is all that any religion is, a colour to mark
people as belonging to a social body. So it is irrelevant what subject we are
discussing as long as we are applying the same linguistic code carrying the baseless
elements of meaning that exist only to take possession of social structure, in that way
the language of purpose takes possession of whatever it is applied to in the name of
the religious identity from which such baseless terms arise. We can see clearly that
this is exactly what we find in the scientific work of Sombart and Darwin, both make
purposefulness a key part of their description ; in Darwin purpose in rendered in the
form of competition. By contrast in this work we use English but without paying
heed to the baseless meanings of social physiology, we constantly reverse the false
polarities of linguistic code used by official commentators so that we can remove the
mechanisms of possession and make the social fabric visible as a natural object.
We have to remember that language evolved to act as a medium of
information that would direct the flow of energy toward the construction of a social
environment, and as such words are units of information that compose a programme
which dictates the behaviour of the units of that social organism is composed of. The
Jews are functional not purposeful. The very idea of purpose is the height of
irrationality. Consider the last world war fought primarily by Christian Europeans for
freedom, a war that has destroyed all out great European cultures and let Islam into
our world, Could any avowed purpose ever of been more contradicted by the results
of its success ? Purpose is by definition a quality of consciousness so purpose must
always be known. The so called purpose inherent in the whole of existence that
Sombart says the Jews believe in makes no sense as this purpose can never be known,
it only makes sense in Judaism as an intuitive expression of the laws of nature which
of course could be known literally if the Jewish religion that dictates the way we
known things did not prevent us from applying the laws of nature to a literal
understanding of ourselves.

Sombart :
 It was in this spirit that the Rabbis counselled their flocks to pretend to accept
the dominant faiths in those countries where their existence depended on the
renunciation of their own. The advice was followed to a large extent, and in the words
of Fromer, “The Jewish race, by simulating death from time to time, was able to live
on and on.”
There are very few, if any, make-believe Christians or Moslems to-day.
Nevertheless, the remarkable power of the Jew to adapt himself to his environment
has more scope than ever. The Jew of Western Europe and America to-day no longer
wishes to maintain his religion and his national character intact ; on the contrary, he
wishes, in so far as the nationalist spirit has not yet awakened in him, to lose his
characteristics and to assimilate with the people in whose midst his lot happens to be
cast. And lo, this too he can successfully achieve.
Perhaps the clearest illustration of the way in which Jewish traits manifest
themselves is the fact that the Jew in England becomes like an Englishman, in France
like a Frenchman, and so forth. And if he does not really become like an Englishman
or a Frenchman, he appears to be like one. That a Felix Mendelssohn should write
German music, that a Jacques Offenbach French and a Souza Yankee-doodle ; that
Lord Beaconsfield should set up as an Englishman, Gambetta as a Frenchman,
Lassalle as a German ; in short, that Jewish talent should so often have nothing Jewish
about it, but be in accord with its environment, has curiously enough again and again
been urged as evidence that there are no specifically Jewish characteristics, whereas
in truth it proves the very opposite in a striking fashion. It proves that the Jews have
the gift of adaptability in an eminently high degree. The Jew might go from one planet
to another, but his strangeness amid the new surroundings would not continue for
long. He quickly feels his way and adapts himself with ease. He is German where he
wants to be German, and Italian if that suits him better. He does everything and
dabbles in everything, and with success. He can be a pure Magyar in Hungary, he can
belong to the Irredenta in Italy, and be an anti-Semite in France (Drumont ! ). He is an
adept in seizing upon anything which is still germinating, and bringing it with all
speed to its full bloom. All this his adaptability enables him to do.
I have already said that this peculiar capacity for adaptation is rooted in the
four elements of the Jewish character. But perhaps the rationalism of the Jew is
responsible for it to a greater degree than the other three. Because of his rationalism
he is able to look at everything from without. If the Jew is anything, it is not because
he must but because he determines to be so. Any convictions he may have do not
spring from his inmost soul ; they are formulated by his intellect. His standpoint is not
on solid earth but an imaginary castle in the air. He is not organically original but
mechanically rational. He lacks depth of feeling and strength of instinct. That is why
he is what he is, but he can also be different. That Lord Beaconsfield was a
Conservative was due to some accident or other, or some political conjuncture ; but
Stein and Bismarck and Carlyle were Conservatives because they could not help it ; it
was in their blood. Had Marx or Lassalle been born in another age, or in another
environment, they might quite easily have become Conservatives instead of Radicals.

(Pages 270-1)

This description of Jewish lifestyle is all very well but how is it possible for
Jews to function like social chameleons by taking on the colour of a supposedly alien
cultural background while retaining their true identity undiminished within, and, to
generalise the point, so that this behaviour is not viewed in a ridiculous and none
scientific fashion as an uniquely Jewish attribute, why is it necessary for any human
form to function in this deceptive manner, why indeed not just assimilate as Sombart
himself says most peoples do ?
Sombart gives us his thoroughly political, unscientific answers : Jews are as
they are because they are genetically superior to all other human species, as defined
by race, Jews are born geniuses. We have already railed against this Nazi style
ideology of Jewish superiority, it is absurd, there is only one species of human. We
may note that thinking there should be many species of humans is logical enough
given that all other animals diversify into a number of distinct species to suit the
environments they encounter as they disperse about the earth. However this idea
assumes that the individual animal is representative of the species, and thus individual
physiology is forced to adjust to significant changes in the environment, that is
individual form is the object of transformation to new environmental conditions, an
assumption which is indeed correct, and does result in the proliferation of species
from a common stock. In humans however this dispersion into different
environmental conditions only results in racial differentiation, and this is so precisely
because the human animal is a social organism, so that the social entity adjusts its
exoskeletal structure so that in the tropics people wear tattoos or earrings, while in the
arctic they where seal skins. All the human animal is required to do as it extends its
reach into new locations is to adjust its internal structure along with its external
identity, the species identity can remain the same because species are defined by the
ability of individuals to interbreed. In actual fact, if humans were recognised for what
they really are by science, as superorganisms, then we would see that human
individuals cannot interbreed, for interbreeding never takes place between distinct
social organisms, and if it occurs between errant individuals then the result will
always be none viable offspring because they would not be accepted by any social
organism. There is a good deal of fuss about honour killing in the news lately, today
being 20/06/07, because these primitive social customs so alien to our British society
have had no real law directed against them because they were introduced here along
with the Muslims who are drawn from an alien social organism which has been
enslaved to Judaism via the alternative Jewish slave identity to the one that has
matured in Europe to give a free society that is undergoing re-enslavement as part of
the process of global warfare launched by our masters last century. Honour killings,
understood in biological terms, are essentially about denying individuals the right to
shift between the social organisms to which they belong. The reason our
comparatively advanced social organism does not have this kind of primitive
behaviour is partly because we have different cultural roots, but also because we are
more developed according to the linguistic force of unification that seeks to create a
superorganism. The Muslim slave identity is of course the third order physiological
element of what we would think of as our social organism, so the Muslim slave
programme is bound to be different to our own, and as such it is more basic and
primitive in its authoritarian ideals than that which appears to characterise the
Christian slave implant which delivers the second tier of the Jewish physiological
hierarchy. The servile way of preying, the dogma of servitude, the idea of global
identity superseding all other local identities, all represent a perfection of the slave
identity as a slave identity, but these features of Islam lack the individualistic note
found in Christianity, and as we have seen in Sombart both slave identities lack the
individualism of Judaism, which is prevented from being self destructive by ensuring
that Jews always see themselves as unique and distinct from the rest of humanity, like
any good master race. But such mechanisms of separation as terrorising the
reproductive female units are obviously highly functional in terms of creating order
based on differentiation.
It is of some interest that much of what Sombart has to say about Jewish
behaviour is concerned with this mechanism of differentiation bringing the Jewish
superorganism into being. But in truth our current discussion on the definition of
species is makeshift because human society has moved beyond the racial bond so that
all we are doing here is making the definition of a species invalid, for it does not
accommodate humans because we live in a world where science is not allowed to
tackle the place of humans in nature. In humans then the only genetic adjustments to
the individual body form that we see are racial, plus incidental physiological
adjustments of a superficial kind, because the individual as a unit of a social organism
only need adjust their expression of attachment to the new superorganisms that comes
into being by occupying new territories, along with relatively minor physiological
changes reflecting the change in environmental conditions. Because the individual
person is only required to contribute a minor part of the organisms physiological
adaptation to a new environment race can serve as a medium of superorganic identity,
where some superficial adjustments to the occupation of a new niche impinge on the
animal physiology of the individuals. Any superficial change still retains the same
species identity because the physiology of the superorganism is exoskeletal, and as
such it is manufactured by the cellular units of the organism via a linguistic medium
of information that is cultivated and not genetic. The internal structure of a human is
what we call social structure, such as an igloo or a tribal hut, so the human organism’s
internal structure is our exoskeleton.
Our masters construct pseudo scientific stories to explain these obvious facts
according to the political agenda associated with religious authority, so that people are
made the free agents deciding to wear wool in the cold, and sweat in the heat. These
pseudo scientists never stop to think what the biological nature of an animal might be
that gives it such a magical degree of flexibility, they already know, it is divine. And
since the outcome in humans is the same as in any other animal in so far as such
material adjustments are concerned, why would nature bother to evolve an animal that
has to go through the rigmarole of figuring out how to skin a seal when it could just
grow its own blubbery skin ? Oh no, we don’t want to ask awkward question like
that, tut-tut. So the question Sombart asks likewise remains unanswered by him ;
unless we call a fart in a storm an answer.
Religion is the identity of the social organism, while state organisation is the
physiological structure of the social organism. A physiological structure is by
definition an ordered arrangement of differentiated parts serving the unity of an
overarching whole ; as indicated by Bluntschli when he says social order is
inconceivable without different types of people. So while states possess structured
identities of their own, whose basic form is most likely derived from the Roman state
structure, as suggested by a remark of Vico, (see Scott, page 137), which constitute a
personalised, that is national identity, they are all embraced by the overarching Jewish
identity of the social organism to which they all belong, exactly as Rome was, and
exactly as we are today. Rome was a skeletal representation of the kind of host
society that Judaism made supreme, which is why the Romans had no real identity of
their own beyond that derived from Roman law, they sort power for its own sake, they
built an empire, But what for ? The answer is for the Jews ! And when the Roman
empire fell the Jewish empire burst forth in the shape of the sub-Judaic slave identities
which had come into being under the protection of Roman statehood. Scott has it that
law is the binding agent of the social organism, (see page 156) which explains why
when he asks what the nature and origin of religion is on page 158 he is not able to
say simply—the identity of the living social organism, and instead says something
utterly moronic and worthless of the sort we might expect from anyone that has ever
published a book.
The state structure then is the tool of Judaism, it was personified in Roman
culture, so thoroughly based upon law as it was, and this model of state order then
became the unit of superorganic advance across the globe, so that nations formed the
exoskeleton of the Jewish superorganism. Which puts me in mind of ‘National Unity
and Disunity’ (Can’t use italics without losing the italics in the title) by George Zipf,
1941, as a study of the dynamics of states as organic entities, but we won’t go there
now. But all the while the Jews exist to form the brain and nervous tissue of the
organism, and as we know this material carries identity within and not without—our
skin is white or black so we feel white or black—thus our living identity has a
physical and a sensual duality. The same applies to the social organism where the
Roman, Christian or Muslim skins are linked to the nervous tissue within which is
Jewish, because of the nature of Jews, which forms the subject of Sombart’s account.
It follows from this that it will not do for the Jews to surface as an outer skin of
identity, the Jews must always remain infused within, connected by enervating fibres
of economic activity and information flow which informs all parts of the organism
according to the same purpose, which is ultimately focused upon the core identity of
the hidden nervous tissue which in society is preserved within the living fabric of the
Jews. Perhaps when we note the Jewish proclivity for dramatic performance which in
political terms we readily reduce to the art of propaganda that any master has to be in
charge of, we can think of this behaviour in biological terms by seeing the performing
arts as more akin to the surfacing of the Jewish identity, rising to the skin in a manner
akin to an act of blushing in an individual ; just a thought, I lose myself in these novel
ideas when I am writing. I have the whole domain of human science to myself, may
as well enjoy it.

_______

Vico : there’s a name you do not come across too often when searching for
organicist philosophy in the nineteenth century. As luck would have it a book on my
shelf, Holy Madness by Adam Zamoyski, 1999, approaches the rise of the nationalist
idea from a philosophical tangent, in it we find mention of a Giambattista Vico, born
Naples 1668, author of Scienza Nuova, 1725. And most conveniently we find Vico’s
view of human nature summarised in one very useful sentence that says “he extended
human nature to communities.” (Page 113) If we were not familiar with the
organicist idea of society as a social organism, the significance of this view would
undoubtedly escape us, but as it is we see and understand this snippet from early
organicist origins. Most useful, Zamoyski goes on to say that Vico anticipated Herder
in that he believed nations evolved and struggled for self-fulfilment, like so many
individuals. This is a theme which organicism never escapes, tragically, it is the
downfall of the human sciences even when science is properly applied to humans, the
failure to get beyond the view of nations as persons and instead to see the human
species as an animal that forms social organisms. But it is nice to track down some of
the earliest modern thinkers on this subject because I have not noticed any discussion
of these people coming from the likes of Bluntschli or Spencer where you would
expect to pick up this kind of trail. Some authors note the presence of the organicist
idea in ancient philosophy and then they leap to the seventeenth century and Hobbes’
Leviathan, before simply shifting on to the first nineteenth century philosopher
promoting the organicist idea yet to come to my attention, Comte.
Herder : we find is equally fascinating for our organicist philosophy. Johann
Herder we are told became intrigued by the organic nature of language as the basis of
culture, and its role as the medium of culture which he wrote about in a book on the
origins of language published in 1772. (Page 46) This is perfect for our cause, I
would like to see a copy of this book, whatever it is called, Has it been translated ?
It has to be said regarding the history of the idea of the social organism that
this is something which has never been attempted in any thoroughgoing way, and the
fact is that if an attempt is to be made to notice of all contexts in which this idea has
come to light then we would have a monumental task on our hands, such as that of a
person like Gibbon with his history of Rome. Given the absolute banishment of this
inherently scientific idea from society today its proliferation in past times is bound to
seem odd, but, on the other hand, upon reflection, the exact opposite is the case, firstly
because the idea that society is an organism is correct, and secondly, given that the
idea that society is the supreme scientific conception of society, it is inevitable that
the one age in which this idea could not be tolerated by the theocracy is an age in
which science predominates. Bizarre, but true ; think about it. To make the point we
will include a chapter based on an author who does give us a wonderful history of a
time and place wherein this idea ruled, Gierke.
________

Sombart divides humanity according to organic and political ideas and makes
the Jews the supreme example of the higher political attributes displayed in free
willed action. This is the exact opposite of the organicist sociology which revealed
that Jews had no choice but to be as their religious identity programme forced them to
be, this despite the fact that much of his argument is devoted to showing that the
evolution of Jewish law forced Jews to be as they are. Such a view of law equates to
the preceding discussion of the force of information pressing life forms against the
grid of environmental opportunity, only here that force had shifted from the genetic
mode to the linguistic so that it is the laws that are tested for their effectiveness, and
even this evolutionary mechanism is expressly noted by Sombart, yet still he wants to
speak of the Jews as free willed and self formed !
Sombart’s argument suggests that the Jews could of settled anywhere on earth,
and of lived in any society that ever existed. If the Jewish intellectuals had gone to
Central America in the twelfth century before anyone in Europe ever heard about this
part of the planet then, according to Sombart’s logic, they could of fitted in just as
well as they did after the Christians had gone there in the fifteenth century and
exterminated all the local authorities and established a Christian power base. Not
true, the Christian vanguard was essential to the ingress of Jews, the Christians had to
clear the way for their masters, just as the Romans had to do likewise when the Jews
were faced with the problem of establishing themselves within the northern European
territories of the Celts, whereupon the Roman’s had to take the role of Jewish
vanguard, as they surely did. Of course as long as people insist upon thinking of
Christians and Muslims as somehow different and distinct from Jews, as some kind of
independent cultural entity or society, there is never any chance of sociological
science making any headway in these matters, no matter what we say. Religion must
be eradicated from the face of the earth before these questions can be discussed,
which is why we are forced to insist that the Jews have no right to exist as they are
holding up the progress of humanity ; as Wells rightly said, even if he did not
understand the real cause of the Jewish problem.

The above passage from Sombart constitutes a telling observation on the

nature of the power seekers who are programmed to cloak themselves in whatever
cultural form they find advantageous in their pursuit of power. This habit is universal,
but the point Sombart is making is that Jewish culture synthesised the essence of this
behaviour and made it into a cultural imperative, teaching Jews to do well what all
had an instinct to do casually. This habit of mimicking any popular creed has been
discussed by me as a means of accounting for the inevitable corruption of all ideas, no
matter how ideal they may be. Even ideas as beautiful as communism, socialism or
trade unionism simply become, in their moment of triumph, the greatest obscenity
known, a source of utter misery and evil to the very people for whom they were
intended to bring heaven on earth. As the beauty and perfection of such simple ideas
has taken effect and drawn huge numbers to their centres of expression, so the priests
move in, cloak themselves in the ideology of the moment, and once insinuated into
the nuclear position within the new movement they ignite the furnace of social
upheaval, unleashing their evil poison so that, low and behold, we find all hell let
loose on the back of the beautiful ideas which should of been the saviour of all
humanity. War saves the day, the master takes over the slaves revolt, and soon all the
slaves are desperate to become obedient once again. Nature is remorseless and
without feeling, the Jew, as the personification of nature in this regard, cannot be
stopped, cannot be reasoned with, they will rule or they will exterminate, it is as
simple as that, as the history of the twenty and twenty first centuries makes
abundantly clear. So, sadly, it will not do to conflate science with ideology as Wells’
futile efforts sort to do ; science is not magic, its power can work wonders, but it
cannot perform miracles.
Nature made society to be as it is, nature makes war as nature makes digestion,
nature makes humans live to be slaves as nature makes humans with legs to walk,
when we get clever at making wheels we no longer have to walk, when we get clever
at making government we no longer have to be slaves. But such developments are an
illusion for all sorts of reasons : in the first place words are cut and dry, but the world
is not, and since slaves imply masters then all that finding ourselves in the position of
apparent freedom can possibly mean is that we happen to be in a superior to position
to some other poor sod. The only meaningful sense in which we can be free is when
knowledge is free, and this is something that has never been, and can never be. To
wish for freedom is to wish for a world without religion, a world without religion
means a world without Jews ; can you see it !!

Lassalle is an unfamiliar name but Webster talks of a Ferdinand Lassalle

described as an aid to Bismarck, a “ Jewish “Socialist” ”, “the son of a rich Hebrew
merchant, was born in 1825. Tormented from his youth by hatred of the Christian
races, whose blood even as a schoolboy he hoped to shed, Lassalle early embarked on
a revolutionary career.” (World Revolution, page 166) I am not interested in
considering the validity of Sombart’s remarks where they are essentially a matter of
speculative opinion, still we cannot help but notice that Webster’s description of this
radical suggests he was innately inclined to be a revolutionary, and besides, by putting
Socialist in quotes, and noting that Lassalle was an aid to Bismarck, Webster hints
that he was not a radical at all, this appearance was merely a cloak of convenience due
to contemporary conditions. Unlike Sombart her remarks make no attempt at
generalisation, they are simply descriptive of the individual, but the hint that Lassalle
was something other than he appears to be does accord with the argument that Jews
adapt themselves to circumstances in order to achieve their single objective of success
evaluated in terms of wealth, in whatever circumstances they find themselves. So that
no matter what form a Jew takes, radical, conservative, communist, anarchist, devout
Christian, he is always first, foremost, and last, a Jew. This quality is imperative if
Jews are the master race, as we know them to be because humans are a social
organism.
We are all created by the context in which we are raised, this is implicit in the
idea that there is no such thing as an individual, and that we are all enslaved to
Judaism as slave ants are enslaved to a slave maker ant’s nest by being taken as pupae
from their true home. Once again then we find Sombart utilising ideas about the free
willed nature of humans who exist as individuals to allow him to make wild and
wholly ridiculous remarks. Jewish nature cannot be evaluated on the basis of known
individuals, if we were talking about the unitary body of an uncivilised tribe then as
outsiders we could expect to take any one individual as a model and from that assume
we knew all members of the group, but it is of the nature of Judaism that it evolved in
response to the evolution of complex human superorganisms whereby no individuals
are any longer representative of all individuals. A modern individual understood in
terms of their social life history, their job, their crimes, their loves, their hobbies, is a
political entity, not a scientific model that can be generalised to reveal the nature of
their cultural type. Any general model of a modern culture has to be based upon an
abstract quality of humans to which a cultural type must be related. Jews as a
cultural-race however must have precisely the qualities Sombart identified, it is just
that this is a quality of the culture relative to the social organism, not a quality of the
individual who is part of the culture. If we took a Caucasian at birth and raised them
in China they would grow up speaking Chinese, if we took an Oriental at birth and
placed them in a Jewish ghetto they would grow up as Jewish as any Jew could ever
be, the Jewish quality is cultural not genetic. This cultural quality is all that matters in
terms of explaining the role we see Jews playing in history, for what this means is that
whatever kind of person is needed at any given time they will be found when the
occasion arises, because circumstances draw out the required kind and the Jewish
culture evolved to facilitate this political function. The individual Jew as a member
of a more fluid body of people with no fixed national culture is bound to be more
polymorphous than none Jewish individuals, or they will appear to be so because by
being less fixed in their cultural attachments compared to others they are by definition
more fluid. But this fluidity has to be to a purpose or it is worse than useless, so it
must serve to raise those possessed of it toward preferable areas of social activity.
The Jew is necessarily born into a culture within a culture which none Jews have no
idea even exists, and this must have some relevance, it must indeed be a very strange
experience, when I wonder about Jews this is the question I would most like to
interrogate a Jew about. I recall the first time I saw a Jew, it was when aged twelve
on a coach going to Switzerland on a school trip which included people from different
schools in the city, a girl at the back stood up and shouted out “I am Jew”. I was
fascinated, I stared and wondered, she did not look any different from anyone else.
But there we have it, as a Christian I had heard of these people, and of course I knew
all about the Nazis and the holocaust as my parents met while serving in Europe and
so the World War will of been talked of from time to time ; but what was it like to be
a Jew ?
 If social power is focusing on royalty royalist Jews will come to the fore, if
workers find their voice then Jewish trade union leaders will come to the fore, if
piracy becomes the primary means of gaining power then Jewish pirates will come to
the fore. The only relevance of such a discussion in relation to Jews is that Jews exist
to be masters, that is to say Jews are dispersed throughout all societies, but the
reference to wheels within wheels found in one of the preceding passages from
Sombart reminds us that the slaves of the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims, have
the same mix of personalities and contain an ever present number of people whose
only desire is to be a priest of whatever kind is flavour of the moment. We find with
Christians that they cloak themselves in whatever is fashionable, if atheism comes to
dominate the scene then a society of Christian atheists soon emerges, they cannot call
themselves atheists so they call themselves Humanists. If movements with an anti-
Christian tendency take shape, socialist or scientific for example, then we soon find
societies of Christian socialists or Christian scientists coming to the fore, and indeed
the modern New Labour party is in reality a Christian socialist movement, and this is
why the establishment finally allowed the people to vote for Labour, to oust the
Tories as the dominant party under Tony Blair, because at last the Christians had got
hold of the reins of power in what is an inherently atheist anti-establishment political
movement. Why perform this trick, why not just keep people voting Tory forever ?
Controlling a slave population in such a way that they know they are free is a highly
complex art that requires an immense amount of effort, allowing one party to have all
the power which forces people to vote for them is bound to erode the illusion of
freewill and a popular mandate. Businesses put money into the party that the people
will choose, the papers back the party that will be elected, and these tools of state
control will not do this until that party has become part of the religious establishment
committed to a Tory agenda, exactly as Labour did under Blair.
So the trick here is to retain the real identity of the Jew and merge it with
whatever other modes of social expression come along. This method is central to the
retention of control under the rule of an absolute theocracy at times when religion is
out of favour, as it has been for the last couple of centuries. After spending a century
or two in the shade, when the struggle to shift power and wealth away from the anti-
religious movements, achieved through the retention of control over state power
through highly stable national institutions such as the monarchy and the national
church, the usual work of unbridled religious indoctrination can begin again,
unashamedly. Which is pretty much the state we are in today, although the plans of
the churches to build hundreds of schools now they have organised state funding and
laws to allow churches to take control of these slave making institutions by making
laws allowing private institutions to fund education, have yet to be put into full effect
before society can take on the form of a true undisguised theocracy, which we are all
working hard to ensure happens as soon as possible, because nothing short of total
slavery will do for us. It is an interesting time to be alive, to have been raised in the
aftermath of a truly free moment in time, and to see the dark shadow of religion
drawing down slowly over society once again. We have seen from Kidd how one
hundred years ago the war between religion and science that had been raging for
much of the previous century was now simmering in the background of an uneasy
truce, while Wells tells us that fifty years later the war was said to be over, and now,
another half century on, we see the war is well and truly lost, science is dead and
buried, it had in truth been slaughtered by the time Kidd did his work, but an
individual cannot see the true meaning of such effects from within the dust cloud
kicked up by the struggle and that cloud has only dispersed to reveal the full horror of
the situation in recent years, a once proud society doomed to the degradation of
religious ignorance for aeons to come
What will the future bring ? Am I being pessimistic ? Well the fact is that
since our most incredible scientific advances, namely in the shape of Darwinism, are
now known to be nothing but lies and bullshit crafted especially to destroy science
while preserving religion, the prospects do not look good. If this fraud could be
achieved and settled, then how on earth is anyone to fight their way back out of the
dungeon in which this ignorance places us ? If enlightenment happens then surely it
will take millennia to occur and it will only come because new circumstances make it
inevitable, as the advance of the Jewish superorganism from Europe to the New
World made the scientific revelations that rocked religion inevitable. The only such
change I can think of that would be equally momentous would be the shift of humans
to other planets so that new forms of our kind are detached from planet earth and thus
liable to develop radical ideas about the nature of their own kind to suit the highly
unusual circumstances in which they find themselves living, this has to be a couple of
thousand years off however. I hate to think what living on this planet is going to be
like in the coming centuries, but I suppose people will be accustomed to it just like
any slaves that have ever lived. How weird must Rome of seemed to the people
dragged there, or indeed stone age people visited Europe a couple of centuries ago
and presumably coped with the culture shock, and on TV last month there was a
programme following the visit of some tribal people from Borneo on a trip to London,
its just another planet without going into space. However another planet that is in
space would be a whole new ball game, but is it possible ?

Sombart :

The purest form of capitalism is that wherein abstract ideas are most clearly
expressed. That they are part and parcel of the Jewish character we have already
seen ; there is no occasion to labour the close kinship in this respect between
capitalism and the Jew. Again, the quality of abstraction in capitalism manifests itself
in the substitution of all qualitative differences by merely quantitative ones (value in
exchange). Before capitalism came, exchange was a many-sided, multi-coloured and
technical process ; now it is just one specialized act—that of the dealer : before there
were many relationships between buyer and seller ; there is only one now—the
commercial. The tendency of capitalism has been to do away with different manners,
customs, pretty local and national contrasts, and to set up in their stead the dead level
of the cosmopolitan town. In short, there has been a tendency towards uniformity, and
in this capitalism and Liberalism have much in common. Liberalism we have already
shown to be a near relative of Judaism, and so we have the kindred trio of Capitalism,
Liberalism, and Judaism.
How is the inner resemblance between the first and the last best manifested ?
Is it not through the agency of money, by means of which capitalism succeeds so well
in its policy of bringing about a drab uniformity ? Money is the common
denominator, in terms of which all values are expressed ; at the same time it is the be-
all and end-all of economic activity in a capitalistic system. Hence one of the
conspicuous things in such a system is success. Is it otherwise with the Jew ? Does he
not also make the increase of capital his chief aim ? And not only because the
abstractness of capital is congenial to the soul of the Jew, but also because the great
regard in which (in the capitalistic system) money is held strikes another sympathetic
note in the Jewish character—its teleology. Gold becomes the great means, and its
value arises from the fact that you can utilize it for many ends. It needs but little skill
to show that a nature intent on working towards some goal should feel itself drawn to
something which has value only because it is a means to an end. Moreover, the
teleology of the Jew brings it about that he prizes success. (Another point of
similarity, therefore, with capitalism.) Because he rates success so highly he sacrifices
to-day for to-morrow, and his mobility only helps him to do it all the better.

(Pages 274-5)

The abstract nature of money and gold serving as mediums of exchange that
can represent anything is extremely important in terms of superorganic physiology.
As an abstract medium of anything money becomes a medium for transporting
energy, like the red blood cells that carry oxygen. We too would inevitably associate
this material abstraction with the abstract identity of superorganic authority exactly as
Sombart does by associating such abstraction with the Jews. This passage is therefore
most delightful, but like Hitler’s thoroughly political representation of this logic,
which effectively amounts to a Judophilic representation, such approximation to the
correct biological model can only be intended to protect the true nature of Judaism
from being known. Otherwise why go to the trouble of conjuring up such simplistic
notions of special gifts when these ideas can only be derived from the proper
scientific ideas of society as a social organism which dominated society at the time
when Sombart was formulating the ideas he presents here ?

Sombart :

So with the Jews. It may be difficult to class them, but anthropological

peculiarities of their own they surely have. When therefore one distinguished scholar
writes ; “ I recognize only a Jewish religious community ; of a Jewish race I know
nothing,” we must regard it as a hasty expression uttered in the heat of the moment.
The objection to it is that we can easily place a “Jewish national community” with a
common history beside the “Jewish religious community.”
So with anthropological characteristics which mark off the Jew from the non-
Jew. I am firmly of opinion that the Jews, no matter where they may be found, are an
anthropological group differing from, let us say, the Swede or the negro. “A religious
community” will not suffice.
After all, is it not a controversy about words ? Some will have it that there is
no Jewish race. Well and good. But they admit Jewish anthropological peculiarities.

(Page 291)

This discussion is of the greatest importance for the entire argument presented
in The Jews and Modern Capitalism because it depends entirely on the reality of their
being a Jewish race, otherwise the unique qualities of the Jews must be drawn from
elsewhere, and that can only be from the human species itself. Unless it can be
asserted that there is a Jewish race we cannot oppose Jewish power on the basis of
race. Therefore the assertion that a Jewish race exists is a vital precursor to Nazi anti-
Semitism, so without the idea of a Jewish race the Nazi could not be created to save
the Jews from revelation that society is a social organism that showed the Jews were a
master culture-race based on a common culture. Racism was crucial to the survival of
Judaism, it enabled an anti-Jewish movement to emerge to preserve Jewish status in
the face of the Jewish identity that was being corrupted by the advance of scientific
knowledge. We have already seen that the linguistic mechanism of inverted meaning
segregates and elevates the master identity from the biomass, it follows that only
revolution and warfare can perform the actual operation of segregation, and we have
seen that from the horrors of separation come the rewards of political oppression in a
free society making the Jew untouchable by science.
Of course there is no Jewish race, and the idea was always spurious, but just as
the void must be filled in any department of knowledge, so Darwin filled the void
where a science of humanity should be, race fills the void where an examination of
Judaism should go. There was no possibility of making Darwinism the basis of
oppression, Darwinists do not form a coherent social group, but Jews do, and in
making them scapegoats the false idea utilised to save the Jews could be safely
destroyed without any real consequences in terms of loss of knowledge since racism
was always a sham idea anyway. The same kind of dynamic applies wherever any
distinct group is singled out for attention, women, gays, blacks. While real
differences give these categories their initial definition it is the overlay of identity that
singles them out as victims that we have in mind when we think of such social
categories in terms of self sustaining identities. With Jews there is a special
complication because their identity has evolved to perform a physiological role in the
organism, and this is why Jews as a social organ perennially foster pogroms to secure
their place in the organism by making sure they preserve their sacred identity and do
not assimilate. A pogrom is one aspect of Jewish self definition, the gentile does not
create the pogrom, the Jew creates the pogrom. Sombart does not make this point but
he does say the host community did not make the ghetto to contain the Jew in
isolation and poverty, the Jew made the ghetto. However the highly contentious
claim that Jews are responsible for pogroms can only make sense when the autonomy
of the individual is denied. The autonomy of the individual is made out by priests to
be the basis of civlized behaviour, but this is not so, people behave according to the
linguistic programme that dictates the form of social structure. It is not individual
morality that dictates law abiding behaviour, it is the social instinct that comes with
being evolved to form a social organism. And likewise it is not immoral personalities
that cause law breaking, it is obedience to the linguistic programme that makes people
break the law. This is exactly what Sombart says, he says Jews are taught that it is
morally good to break all laws except those which serve the Jews interests.
Pragmatism is part of our social code, because we are all Jews, but of course we are
not supposed to say this, and any such suggestion has to be denied to the bitter end.

The immediately preceding discussion is tricky to get right. Put simply what
is being said here is that social identity is always self sustaining, it is its own
justification, and power has to be associated with any identity, so when that identity is
under immanent threat the power base must project the identity under threat into
another guise that can then be destroyed, leaving the original illusion, or social skin,
intact. The Nazis were a projection of the Jewish master identity, the Nazi identity
viewed in isolation came from nowhere, and meant nothing, its basis was racial
identity, but racial identity is meaningless and as such it constantly serves as a basis
for the creation of spoof images providing social monsters to be shot down. The
Nazis were a creation of Judaism, they served a positive role in the eternal struggle of
Judaism to remain alive, the Nazis took the heat, were vaporised, leaving the image
which they had reflected alive and well. It is clear however that without the Nazi
pogrom the whole charade would of been pointless, the Jews had to have a pogrom at
this time to derive the benefit of the Nazis, otherwise the Nazis were only one more
group saying what everyone was saying about the Jews, and so these things would of
gone on being said forever, until the Jewish problem was solved by the extinction of
the Jews.
Trying to understand human superorganic identities is like being part of a
creature that sustains its integrity by having the qualities of a chameleon or octopus
that can flash their colour changes through a series of ideological surges that become
excruciatingly difficult to keep track of, which is exactly the point ! There is a
comment in Gierke on just this topic that says once the core of identity has given rise
to a state then, like the heart which gives rise to a body, it can never stop beating.

Sombart :

I I I. HOW THE JEWISH GENIUS REMAINED CONSTANT.

The question of greatest interest in these anthropological considerations is to

discover whether any connexion exists between the somatic characteristics of the Jew
and his intellectual qualities. We want to make sure whether the latter are in his blood,
so to say, i.e., whether they are racial or no. To discover this it will be necessary to
see whether the characteristics we have observed in modern Jews were to be found
among Jews in ancient times also ; whether they reach back to their earliest history, or
whether they appeared at a later date, and if so, when.
The result will be that we shall observe that Jewish Intellectual qualities have
remained constant, that certain characteristics, certain peculiar features of the Jewish
soul may be traced as far back as the formation of the Jewish ethnical group.

(Page 292-3)

How does the existence of modern capitalistic Jewish traits in ancient times
prove these attributes are genetic rather than cultural when the Jews have been
defined by the ‘book’ for as long as they have existed ?
Humans evolve different racial types as new territories are occupied and give
rise to resident superorganisms. With the evolution of complex civilised physiology a
‘racial’ type evolved that was adapted to the new form of all embracing social
environment, that replaced dependence upon nature’s bounty taken directly from the
wild which supported human superorganisms that were simple mono-racial tribal
entities whose level of complexity, such as it was, existed in the mosaic of tribes
spread across a geographical domain where subsistence patterns supported a common
cultural link. Civilised society was a new kind of territory composed of primarily
human beings, and a human race inevitably evolved to occupy that territory, so that
just as humans domesticated none human Nature so, when the occasion arose, humans
went on to domesticate a human society that formed a new kind of physical
environment in its own right. But in order for humans to domesticate humans there
had to be some way of distinguishing between the humans that were domesticated and
those that farmed them. Such adaptation to the social environment could not follow
the ancient tribal pattern where a new territory imparted a geographical influence
upon the new comer’s physical appearance because the social environment was not
geographically differentiated. The same sun shines on all the people of which a
civilised society is composed, so race could not pick out a convoluted adaptation to
society. For such adaptation to occur a new identity was imperative, and since race
could not provide this distinction it had to come from elsewhere, and therefore a new
culture had to evolve to serve the function of a new racial identity adapted to the
exploitation of the human civilised environment.
The correct answer to the question Sombart deals with here, as to whether a
Jewish race exists or not, is to say that a Jewish race does indeed exist that is distinct
from all other human races, but that this Jewish race is a cultural form of race. The
answer is therefore yes and no at one and the same time, indicating the irrational
nature of linguistic meaning as it exists in our primitive form of naturalistic language.
Trying to make sense when discussing human affairs from a scientific point of view is
like trying to communicate in pheromones, we just have to splash emotive noises here
and there in the hope of attracting the desired kind of attention. What is poetry, what
kind of animal would communicate in verse ? What is that ! Not science, that is for
sure. But what language is Darwin’s Origin of Species written in ? Not scientific
language, that is certain, it may as well be poetry, like the ancient philosophers used
to write their science in, try reading what is left of Parmenides poem on the nature
existence, even modern professors of philosophy cannot make sense of it. Darwin’s
and Sombart’s works are no more rational, full of stupid notions of human
uniqueness, they make no sense whatever, and may as well be coded in poetic form if
it were not that they are intended to mimic a rational piece of prose and in effect those
so called scientists who honour Darwin in their scientific work are really only obeying
a modern of poetry disguised as prose for there is no real sense in Darwin.

Sombart :

Paul of Tarsus went so far as to say that the Jews “were contrary to all men” (I Thess.
ii. 15). In the Hellenistic period, in Imperial Rome—the same story of hate and
plunder and death. Philo and Josephus both record dreadful Jewish pogroms in
Alexandria in the first century of our era. “Hatred of the Jew and ill-treatment of him
are as old as the Diaspora itself ” (Mommsen).
Under the Cæsars their lot was no different : “I am just sick of these filthy,
noisy Jews,” said Marcus Aurelius. Then, in the time of Theodoric, massacres and
wholesale plundering were the order of the day, as later in the 7th century under the
Longobards. And the East was like the West ; the 6th century in Babylon was as dark
as the 7th in Northern Italy. Even in the Pyrenean Peninsula, where they enjoyed
much that was good, the end was bitter : Christian and Moslem both laid hands upon
them.
These instances might be multiplied. They are all expressions of hatred of the
Jew in Christian and non-Christian environments alike. Can the phenomenon be
explained without the assumption of the existence of Jewish characteristics, which
remained constant no matter where the Jew was placed ? The answer must surely be
in the affirmative. The hatred of the Jew could not have been the result of a passing
mood on the part of all these peoples.
 Then again, everywhere and at all times the Jews were semi-citizens.
Sometimes indeed they were not in this category because the law placed them there.
On the contrary. There were many cases in antiquity where Jews were assigned
privileged positions, by virtue of which they were excused certain duties of the citizen
(e.g., military service), or had exceptional advantages in regard to legal enactments.

(Page 294-5)

Firstly lets mention the English historian, whose name I always forget, that
was sent to prison in Austria recently for denying the holocaust, now being June 2007.
When he was in the news for his thoughts on this subject a few years ago a cut from a
very grainy video use to be shown on the news with him giving a lecture to an
audience of Jews in which he was saying that the Jews had been repeatedly attacked
down the ages and he could not say why, but it was so, and as such there had to be a
reason. This has infuriated me since I discovered the correct solution to this historical
fact, Why does this Cambridge historian get to write books bearing on this topic when
he is not even capable of working out this most simple of all problems ? What kind of
remark is this to make if you have no solution to it, may as well keep your gob shut.
Secondly we should just note the error here where Sombart asks if pogroms
can be accounted for without assuming there are fixed Jewish characteristics, and then
he says yes when surely he means no.

Consistent alienation indicates an essential quality, but not a quality of Jews as

such, but rather a quality of the human species which finds its most telling expression
in the Jews. The clash between Jews and others has two sides to it, not just one. If
you want to understand the effect of a bullet hitting a wall then you deceive yourself if
you think that the only factor in the equation is the novel attribute of a fleetingly
appearing projectile. The static element in the shape of the wall is just as much a part
of the equation even though our automatic bias toward events inclines us to see the
bullet but not the wall. The whole human population has to be taken into account,
something Sombart expressly refuses to do, focusing on the Jews and dismissing the
behaviour of the none Jews. We too find that Jews cause pogroms which they need in
order to retain their exclusive definition within the organism, but we mean this in a
biological, not a political sense. A biological sense automatically takes full account
of all known factors whereas, conversely, a political sense automatically selects
desirable factors while rejecting all others.
How Jews are able to live as aliens in other societies ? must be the first
question to address. This ability is always a direct result of warfare conducted by a
military power other than that of the Jews, without which it could not be done. The
Jew is therefore always associated with inter-superorganic incursion. Military
conquest is an event, it happens once and then changes everything forever, so the
Jews can only live in Europe today because the Romans invaded two thousand years
ago. We forget this fact because we take a short-sighted view of these things, our
priests train us to slice time into discrete portions managed by people as political
agents seeking to serve their own momentary ends. Thus while it is obvious that the
Romans smashed the Celtic power base in northern Europe which allowed the Jews to
enslave these territories no one would think to suggest there is a positive link with the
Jewish presence in Europe today and the Roman invasion. Yet that is precisely the
case, the link is exactly identical to the act of a mugger occurring today and the
spending of the victim’s cash on drugs tonight. It is clear however that the Jewish
slave implant of Christianity is vital to allow the work of the Romans to take effect,
otherwise when the Romans disappeared after their work was done the local
population would simply of reverted back to some none Jewish type, exactly as was
happening in the nineteenth century due to the impact of science, which caused the
social farmers to launch the world wars to purge the indigenous biomass allowing
them to inject an infusion of millions upon millions of Muslims into Europe to re-
attach the population to Judaism. Wheels within wheels, like a clockwork machine
whose complexity exists to do but one thing, tell the time.

The privileged position of the Jews applies especially to Roman society where
the Jews played a vital role in conquered societies by providing the military overlords
with a none military ally infused into the slave populations, where the Jews needed
the support of the Romans because when the locals, sometimes Roman authorities,
compromised the Jew rights the Jews called upon Roman law to protect them. This
gives us some idea of how the inevitably complex relationship between the master
identity and the biomass of the superorganism is arranged and works.
I have fleshed out this intuitively understood idea from a short essay entitled
Was there a Roman Charter for the Jews ?, Rajak, 1984. I am delighted therefore to
of discovered this afternoon, 23/06/07, in my first edition of Houghton and Mifflin’s
Mein Kampf a note discussing the same phenomenon recognised by the nineteenth
century scholar Mommsen, in his Roman History. The editors say that Mommsen
thought that the Jews “lived everywhere and served as links to tie Rome to the
provinces.” (Note : page 413) Which is exactly the point we are making too, only
from a biological point of view where we understand that the Jews function as the
nervous tissue in the social organism.

Sombart :

We have thus noted that many Jewish characteristics developed to their fullest
in the Diaspora. But
(2) Is the Diaspora itself explicable as a result of only outward
circumstances ? Does it not itself rather bear witness to special characteristics ? Or to
put the question somewhat differently, would it have been possible to scatter any
other people over the face of the earth as the Jews were scattered ?

(Page 296-7)

Could any other people of been dispersed as the Jews were ? No. Does this
fact serve as an indicator of something special ? Yes.
We have gone through this time and time again. Human individual form
evolved to exploit the energy of social organization latent in the potential of
mammalian physiology. All basic organic engines have the potential to enter each of
the four main environmental domains, sea, land, air and the social space that comes
into existence by virtue of the new type of physiology itself. As such a master organ
equivalent to that found in all superorganisms had to come into existence in humans, a
queen body providing a focal point of identity and purpose. The Jews are that master
organ, and they display the qualities we expect such an organ to display. Sombart is
trying to put the cart in front of the horses that pull it, trying to make the individuals
who are Jews the agents of Jewish uniqueness, but the individuals are brought into
being by the nature of the human species. Thus just as an idiot born into an upper
class English family would easily become a master of industry, a professor, a famous
author or major political figure, whereas being born into a working class family they
would be lucky to avoid prison by spending their life in monotonous slave labour in a
menial factory job, so the same dynamic applies to the Jew. Who ever met a Jew in a
factory ? well I did, he was one of the managers. On the news yesterday, 25/06/07, a
report said that social mobility in Britain was the worst in the world, and this was
linked directly to the access people had to private education, surprise surprise, What
do people think education is, education ? like hell, education is seen for what it is in
Huxley’s Brave New World, schools are incubators that place slaves in the
physiological structure of the superorganism.
I degrade my own argument when I speak flippantly by using the word “idiot”,
but this is not a scientific treatise, it is a philosophical work aimed at furthering the
science that no scientist would dare contemplate, and as such I like to show some
frustration, some mean attitude. The word idiot in the above context individualises
the focus of the point being made, and so we have to note that we are concerned with
the cumulative effect of being part of a group, the average result. It is the averaging
of the result that makes it possible for any one who is part of an elite group to take a
position within the elite structure irrespective of their genetic inheritance. As we said
before anyone can drive a car, and likewise anyone can run a huge corporation, make
millions on the stock exchange or write movies or books if they are from the right
background and sent to the right school. Taken on the average, it is who you know
not what you know. There was a good example of clever “idiot” on TV this morning,
26/06/07, in the shape of Mathew Wright of the Wright Stuff. A guest said that people
were being bombarded with free newspapers because other people in a position to do
the bombarding wanted to force their opinions on them, which is obvious, just as we
are all forced to watch adverts to force us to buy the products the advertisers make.
Wright responded by saying “Can we have opinions forced upon us ? I decide my
own opinions.” This moronic attitude is precisely what the Wright Stuff exists to
nurture, and so it is only natural that the host of the show should promote this
stupidity. He is no fool, he can be great to listen, and a pain to listen to, Can’t we all ?
But this show is part of the social matrix forming the illusion of democracy that says
we have a voice, a couple of callers get to speak on the show and this is proof that we
have a voice. It is a lovely idea, everyone would want to echo Wright’s assertion that
they make up their own opinions. But this is a delusion fostered by those who feed us
the idea that we make up our own opinions, and between us we all sustain the
illusion ; until some anti-social miscreant who has not heard about the universal scam
comes along and blurts out that it is all a load of shit. How can we make up our
opinions when we know nothing about the subjects in question because we are not
allowed to know anything about them ? Answer : We cannot. Thus, just like Wright,
we are all reduced to the status of clever morons ; and in a slave society like ours
there is no better thing to be if we want to get on in life, like Mr Wright.
Anyone, no matter how clever they are can be a moron, morons are vital to the
well being of society, but it is important that our leading morons are clever, being
quick witted and articulate. How, on the one hand can it be a matter of fact that in
reality our society, like all societies, applies the principle of starving certain groups of
the ‘oxygen of publicity’ as a tactic for suppressing undesirable ideologies with mass
appeal, if it is not possible to force opinions on people ? Clearly it is not. It is
important that people possess a false perspective, an artificial or ideal point of view,
from which they apply a key to the interpretation of social reality, this is what Wright
does, and that key is the idea of the autonomous individual as end in themselves. The
only way any of us can avoid being a moron is to have access to the real key which
tells us that humans are a superorganic species and there is no such thing as an
individual as an end in themselves, but the whole of our society is geared up to
ensuring that we cannot know this. Language is a natural force that creates social
structure, accordingly language produces a programme matching the structure it
creates, that programme has the key to its logic woven into it so that everyone
acknowledges the validity of the key as they obey the programme that created their
mind, and to do otherwise is to destroy the existing social structure.
As ever we find ourselves split in two along the lines of cleavage between two
divergent worlds of knowledge created by the occupation of two distinct points of
observation, one where we see humans as a superorganic species, the other where we
see the individual as being created by nature to be independent of nature, to be a
divine being existing in their own right. Thus the word “force” takes on a vastly
different meaning depending upon the point of observation we occupy. Wright says
that he determines his own opinions, we say he is forced to buy whatever advertisers
say he must buy, as he forced to think whatever anyone says he must think, and there
is nothing he can do about this because he does not even know it is happening.
Wright has a very different concept of the idea of force, he applies the word to acts of
oppression or violence or overwhelming influence that he is conscious off. The word
is constructed this way by the linguistic programme that creates the social authorities
that determine the meaning of words, and delivered to us accordingly, because our
language is a programme that dictates social structure including our thought and
behaviour. It would be unfair to criticise Wright for this blindness, just as it would be
unfair to ridicule the stupidity of a slave ant accepting the imposed identity of the
slave maker nest that is forced upon it. The ant’s physiology is what enslaves it to
this imposition and as an individual it is no more able to escape the social prison than
it would be able to escape a cage made of glass. And the same applies to our token
human moron Wright, as clever as he is he simply has no means of knowing how
wrong his ideas are, firstly because they are not his ideas, and what is more he has no
incentive to know this, and this last point is the critical one.

Force is not applied to the imposition of ideas, we are not forced to think
certain things, that clearly is impossible. Force is applied to the suppression of
selected ideas so that when we come to think about what is what we only have
available to us those ideas which are permitted. It is as if knowledge were an
artificially constructed landscape built by the social authorities, where we could
wander freely, but where our decisions about where to wander were dictated by gates
in the walls that, while they did not force us to go in certain directions as we went
freely about the place, left us no options other than those provided by the builders.

The word ‘force’ properly understood in a naturalistic sense, where we give

scientific meanings to words, has to be viewed expansively, as we have just done
where we speak of the ant as having being enslaved by having an alien identity forced
upon it even though in the political sense of the word ‘force’ nothing could be further
from the truth. The act of force was against its place of origin from which its pupae
was stolen, and the whole point of evolution separating the act of force from the act of
enslavement is so that the resulting social organism whose physiology is based upon
slave identities can be created as harmoniously as if it were based upon a true genetic
order, instead of a geno-linguistic order.
Force then, used in a scientific sense to apply to human behaviour, has to be
viewed in the same structural sense that we have just applied to the slave ant’s
behaviour, where there is no thought given to the behaviour of humans as conscious
individuals. Under these criteria, where we deny the existence of consciousness in
social behaviour, the social structure is by definition the determinant of individual
behaviour, in which we include conscious thought patterns such as opinions. Thus
free newspapers, as elements of the social structure, determine opinions, as the Ausie
git on the Wright Stuff said, these items constitute gateways in the walls where we
will only find very limited ideas of conformity to pass through our minds. This must
be the case if language is a natural force creating social structure, as we know it is.
There would be no other way to account for the spread of slave identities like those of
the Jewish family of identities. The objection screamed at us by a contemptuous
Wright would be that individual opinions vary and so they must be derived from the
individual acting as an independent authority, and where people do behave like sheep,
as when they become Nazis, racists or homophobic bigots, this is a mark of the
weakness of human nature that he and his crew, the priesthood, work tirelessly to try
and overcome ! Yeh, and the moon is made of cheese. Variation between individual
persons is as important as variation between individual cells in a body, without such
variation there can be no order, no structure ; and as noted by Bluntschli over one and
half centuries ago, this principle applies to social order. Of course the linguistic
programme tells us that our individuality is our personal gift to do with as we please,
but try using it as such, we never see Wright expressing personal opinions outside the
box. Would he ever suggest that having sex with a twelve year old is OK, like hell he
would ? Yet this law is a piece of social engineering that has become necessary
because of the manner in which our social organism has evolved so that adulthood is
delayed so much that people never really attain the status of independent adults in our
world, we are always subject to the paternalism of the state, witness the new law
banning smoking in places especially built to serve as places to smoke in, that is pubs,
which comes into force in two days time. Certainly we can appreciate the logic of the
laws dealing with the age of consent and thus take the considered opinion that they
are correct, but it is inconceivable that with under age sex rampant in our society that
there are no people who genuinely believe this age limit is wrong, but we never hear
their voice, and the idea that we would is inconceivable in our free society, you would
have to go to Holland’s free society to walk through that gate.

In the preceding discussion we have seen that in the development of social

structure the act of force underpinning social structure is displaced, so the pupae is
stolen in war and this allows the usual process of social growth to be based upon this
act of force located in an alternative society. The same applies in human society. We
are forced to look at adverts all the time as they are thrown into the middle of TV
programmes and packed into magazines, the method of continual reinforcement has
been adopted under the friendly logo used by disinterested people to indicate charity,
so that movies and serial programmes are fronted by sponsors whose message we are
forced to absorb hundreds upon hundreds of times. We have no choice, there is
absolutely nothing we can do about this, yet the likes of Wright would say they do not
buy what the adverts promote unless they want them. This may be true, it is true for
me, but the fact is that a bulge of people within the population exposed to these act of
force do obey the command imposed upon them by the advertisers. We are trained by
the linguistic programme that is beamed at us to separate acts of force like laws,
adverts, wars and so on into discrete events isolated in their own compartment of
purpose. Nothing could be further from the truth, these acts of force underpin social
structure, and the linguistic mechanism severing the act of force from its structural
purpose is all part of the complexity of a living social organism. When we bring
advertising into the discussion we reconnect with Sombart, and much of what he says
resonates with what we are saying now. He talks about the old ways when no one
would advertise, and how this contrasts with the capitalistic method that treats people
like cattle to be farmed. I love that discussion ; heaven on earth. Imagine a society
like that existing, unbelievable, so far advanced of the disgusting world we live in
today it is unbelievable, yet it existed just a few short centuries ago exactly where we
live now, amazing. But we see that his account is political, despite making links
between events and outcomes he does not have a structural model in mind, he makes
everything fit the political pattern, hence he says the Jews are genetically evolved to
be different to all other humans on earth, superior to all humans on earth. This sort of
idea riding on the back of Darwin’s work made the anti-Semitic movement inevitable.
Nonetheless without this relentless propaganda seeking to preserve the idea of the
individual as a sacred entity there would of been no Judaism, so this polarisation of
the political realities is necessary to keep the political identity in existence.
We will be singing the praises of Hitler’s Mein Kampf as a work of great
philosophical importance for the scientific view of society as a social organism
because his ideas are coloured by the organicist idea, and his political principles,
while necessarily not organicist, are nonetheless directly inspired by the intuitive
sense of society as a organic unity provided by the organicist philosophy which ruled
the age in which Hitler lived. In the light of our assertion that all our opinions are
forced on us we can select a perfect example of the kind of Hitlerian philosophy that
is such a delight to read because of the way it really does reveal the underlying
structure of absolute power which rules our world always, which is usually hidden
from us by our regular masters, but revealed to us openly by Hitler who evidently
understood the principles stripped of all their finery.

“Propaganda tries to force a doctrine upon an entire people,

organization embraces in its frame only those who for psychological reasons
do not threaten to become a brake to a further spreading of ideas.”

(Page 850, Houghton Mifflin, 1939)

The propagandists who rule us will teach us that this is a sign of Hitler’s nasty
attitude towards humanity. However the truth is that this is a sign of Hitler’s beauty
as a philosopher, for he tells it like it is. Certainly to try and base a society upon this
kind of attitude is regarded as cynical and fascistic, which it is, but like Machiavelli
Hitler is really only telling it like it is anyway. All that our free society does is to bury
these nasty modes of control in a matrix of sweet talk. The structure of this matrix is
dependant upon the conception of the person as an independent individual that must
be won over, and Hitler is applying the exact opposite logic to his arguments by
making the individual out to be an irrelevance. Thus our masters whom we love are
shown to bare faced liars, while those whom we revile are the voice or pure reason
and truth. But not quite. And this is the whole point, the liar and the truth teller are
both standing on the platform of individuality, the difference here is not to do with the
key to their formulas but rather the material of which the social structure is to be
constructed. Hitler makes the nation the structure in which the individual is to be
united where his enemy, the Jews, make God the point at which the individual loses
themselves and becomes part of the greater individual. These two points of view are
of the same kind and as such they can be judged comparatively with each other, and
then all the bullshit of our nice masters can be seen for the self justifying nonsense it
is. But the real truth is that humans are animals that evolved on this planet, and they
are nothing but animals, to be understood as a superorganic species where individual
form evolved to bring a living organism into being at the level of social structure. So
all that Hitler and our normal dictators are doing is playing with the rules of social
formation according to the dictates of nature, which require that bias creates social
structure so that bias competes with bias. According to the Darwinian myth evolution
is the product of competition between individuals, but we would not assume that the
active decisions taken by individuals mean that each species determines its own
evolution, and the same should apply to humans where the individual is the social
organism not the person.
Propaganda in our free society comes in the form of religious slave implants
which we all love and treasure, even when we are atheists, because we need the
cultural elements of unity that have been woven into the religious slave identities that
are imposed by acts of violence whose effects are displaced toward a future outcome,
as noted above. So from the above quote of Hitler we could derive a perfectly true
form applying to our own society as it exists today simply by substituting the word
‘propaganda’ with the word ‘religion’.

“Religion tries to force a doctrine upon an entire people, organization

embraces in its frame only those who for psychological reasons do not
threaten to become a brake to a further spreading of ideas.”

Religion is the purest form of fascism conceivable since it possesses us totally.

In-between writing philosophy I enjoy myself by turning the foreign works I

have been able to get hold of into text so that they are open to translation through my
computer, and I have just rendered into text a page from a famous book from the
genre of organicist sociology which happens to refer to religion and propaganda in the
same breath, so I cannot resist giving my jigged translation of the relevant paragraph
in conjunction with the above comments on religion as propaganda. (Taken from the
Italian translation as the original 1875 German edition is in Fraktur typeface which is
murderous to render into Latin script.)

“The preaching, the mission, the foundation, the caring for life, the
education of the youth, represent the institutional social activity of the Church,
in continuous service of the Christian revelation. It is the realisation of the
social awakening of divine purpose in the religious life ; the observably
functional activity based on the tradition of revelation serving as propaganda
for the Christian belief.”
 (The Structure and Life of the Social Body, Schaffle, 1881, page 582)

These are the kind of books that Hitler’s generation had available to them to
inform them what existence really was, indeed it was just this fact that made the world
wars so vital for the preservation of Judaism. I have no idea what Schaffle’s book
says, I cannot read it, but it is clear enough what its main drift is, and this is all I need
to know in order to know it is a book to be treasured, albeit that if I could read it I
might despise the author’s actual argument, just as I love Sombart’s book because of
the subject it deals with even though I despise his actual work because it is political
and not scientific, as he claimed it was. We can only ever hope to have books written
by priests dedicated to the perversion of science, hell look Origin of Species ! Today,
tragically, the beautiful science of humanity inherent in organicist thought is no more,
wiped out by the psychotic maniacs who would rather see the extermination of
mankind than the death of Judaism. We can discover these works still, just as a few
lucky individuals must of known of the magnificent work of scientists in ancient
Greece, work the priests destroyed when it revealed that the earth went around the
sun. Soon it will be impossible for anyone to discover this forlorn philosophy, and
how many dark-ages of abysmal ignorance will have to pass before any humans
worthy of the name human being come to light again ! An infinite number if the Jews
have their way.
 The master organ of Judaism, is an engine within the vehicle existing in the
shape of the global superorganism, so that it is human nature that we are seeking to
uncover courtesy of an examination of Jewish nature. The Jews are the supreme
expression of human corporate nature. The Jews had to be adapted for the
physiological purpose they serve, and the hosts had likewise to be adapted for the
reception of that purpose occurring in the shape of the Jews, exactly as we see in the
extraordinary phenomenon of the Diaspora. The only way to account for this social
arrangement is by assuming that humans are a superorganic species ; clearly humans
could not deliberately create this kind of arrangement because it involves fundamental
contradictions of a kind no human would ever seek to create, such as the pogroms that
we have already noted the Jews create. Left to their own devices there is nothing
people hate more than strangers, under no circumstances would any society ever
welcome people from an alien community to become part of itself. There is a passage
in a book by H. G. Wells which is mentioned below that talks about the hatred that
defines human communities, in the light of this the dispersal of the Jews seems as
weird as finding a land where shepherds let the wolves guard their flocks ! The Jews
do not create pogroms because they want them, they create pogroms because the Jews
are a physiological organ and pogroms are part of the physiological process that is
essential to the healthy functioning of that organ. The Jews have to have an
understanding of such an essential attribute of their culture as the pogrom, and this is
probably accounted for in the aspects of Judaism which deal with the arrangements
between God and the chosen whereby people have duties and sometimes suffer
penalties. The idea of sacrifice would also be useful here, there is no question that
from a political point of view the Nazi holocaust has to be understood as a sacrifice
suffered by the Jewish people in order that they could continue to exist within the host
body they rule. The holocaust cannot be viewed as of significance for the Nazis
because the Nazis do not exist ! only the Jews exist, and so the holocaust is a Jewish
phenomenon, not a Nazi phenomenon. Of course the historical method of splitting
social periods into discrete sections, like the strata of a finely layered geological
deposit, is deliberately designed to disguise and deny the functional continuity we are
seeking to bring to light here. History makes an event like the holocaust a specifically
Nazi event that only has significance as a Nazi event, but this is not so in any sense
whatever. Indeed the exact opposite is the case, considered as an event serving the
purposes of the Nazis the whole anti-Semitic programme seems completely
meaningless. The Nazis were supposed to of adopted the idea of hating the Jews for
the purpose of giving the down trodden Germans a figure of hatred to boost their
emotions and galvanise them into a stronger sense of unity, by seeing another group
as distinct we necessarily increase our own self-definition. But as everyone
commentating on the phenomenon at the time says, it was ridiculous, and since the
whole German program was ludicrous and makes no more sense than an act of
suicide, while at the same time it has launched the Jews onto the world stage, giving
them the state of Israel, and made the Jewish question taboo, we see that the Nazis
were Jews in the most literal sense possible.
There is a quote in a book by Wells, taken from a newspaper, that attacks
Wells’ anti-Semitic views, saying that without anti-Semitism there would be no Jews.
According to my book list I have a book called Travels of a Republican Radical in
Search of Hot Water which is where I think this quote appears, but I cannot find the
book so for now I will have to leave this observation as it is, except to say that to my
recollection this remark was only tantalising as it did not explain why the Jews would
become extinct without the hatred heaped on them by all humanity throughout their
existence.
On the subject of hating the Jews however, while looking for the Wells’ book,
I have just hit upon a most telling quote from Sombart in a book with a fantastic title
but without the contents to match, Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War by W.
Trotter, 1922, has this :

“We must purge from our soul the last fragments of the old ideal of a
progressive development of humanity. . . . The ideal of humanity can only be
understood in its highest sense when it attains its highest and richest
development in particular noble nations. These for the time being are the
representatives of God’s thought on earth. Such were the Jews. Such were the
Greeks. And the chosen people of these centuries is the German people. . . . .
Now we understand why other peoples pursue us with their hatred. They do
not understand us, but they are sensible of our enormous spiritual superiority.
So the Jews were hated in antiquity because they were the representatives of
God on earth”

(Trotter, page 177-8, first published 1916)

Wow ! what an amazing comment to find coming from the main author we are
focusing upon in this work. Given how we have noted the way Sombart places the
Jews on a pedestal this unequivocal statement that the Jews are a master race is
pleasing to find. But far more to the point is the way this view of the Jew is made the
means of placing the Nazis on that same pedestal, by ousting the Jews. As we have
noted all along Sombart is no scientist, his work is pure unadulterated political
diatribe. But neither is his work anti-Semitic, far from it, he is vindicating Judaism.
To want to be the ruler of a nation is not a rejection of politics ; the republican may
despise the monarch but in the end this is just a means of defining an alternative
power base, not a philosophical rejection of political power.
The next question we are bound to ask is how the Germans came to have this
view of themselves relative to the Jews. As we saw in the Advertisement written by
Besant that precedes Mind in Animals, “German science is one of the glories of the
world ; it is time that it should lend in England that same aid to Freethought which in
Germany has made every educated man a freethinker.” And it is in Germany where
the idea of society as a social organism was applied most thoroughly, as we see from
monumental works like Schaffle’s quoted from above. So it is not surprising that the
blindingly obvious reality resulting from the application of the life sciences to humans
should of made itself felt here. The realisation that the Jews were the master race was
transposed into the notion that the Germans should be the master race ; but this is not
a logical outcome, it is a political outcome, just as Darwin’s work is not a logical fruit
of scientific endeavour, it is a political product of science applied to humans. We
must try to think about how nations function as structural elements of the social
organism, just as the individual body made of living tissue is composed of different
organs performing quite distinct tasks, so we find that the same physiological
differentiation seems to apply in the case of the human superorganism. Why was it
that an Englishman produced the religious treatise which rang the death knell for
science ? Britain served the social organism by performing this task. But look at the
construction of the scientific fraud, it was based on the control of the world, Darwin
derives his authority from the voyage of the Beagle which gave him the materials
from which to justify his expertise as a true scientist. By contrast the Germans had
excelled in the department of intellectual pursuits and therefore their contribution to
the eradication of science was different, but equally vital to that of the British, as we
frequently note the Nazis simply could not of been created without the intellectual
foundations laid down by the religious work Origin of Species which kept science
rooted in the individual person, while the German translated their focus upon the
nature of society into a political interpretation of Darwinian individualism, so that the
idea of a Jewish master race could be made subject to the falsely conceived natural
laws of competition instead of the real natural laws of biology which invoke a
progressive evolution in which the master race is the physiological product of organic
processes not political processes. Leading to a master race that still ruled Germany
despite any appearance to the contrary, and in reality the works of Sombart, Hitler and
all the other exponents of Jewish internationalism, such as Nesta Webster, only go to
prove that the Jews did still rule the world, as all the evidence goes to show they
continue to do today. Fascinating stuff.
There was a piece of Jewish propaganda on TV this week, today being
30/06/07, where a young Canadian Jewish journalist who bore no behavioural
manifestations of his Jewishness decided to try and discover whether he really was a
Jew. I should of been interested in this programme but I was busy writing and these
interminable sycophantic pieces of Jewish propaganda eulogising poor old long
suffering Judaism, while vilifying the rest of the human species that the poor old Jew
has to put up with, gall me. But I did dip in for a moment when the presenter was
visiting Israel and the resident Jew pointed out that America was powerless against
the Jews, causing the presenter to say “That sounds like the Jews do rule America.”
Whereupon his subject naturally, and contemptuously, dismissed the fact he had
himself just indicated was undeniable ; that brought a wry smile to my face as my
fingers danced on along the keyboard.

The topic of the Diaspora as it is discussed in the last passage taken above
from Sombart connects with those portions of Mein Kampf where Hitler launches
himself into an equivalent discussion of the Jewish place in society.

“The life which the Jew lives as a parasite thriving on the substance of
other nations and States has resulted in developing that specific character
which Schopenhauer once described when he spoke of the Jews as ‘The Great
Master of Lies’.

(Mein Kampf, Murphy, page 173)

“The Jew’s life as a parasite in the body of other nations and states
explains a characteristic which once caused Schopenhauer, as has already been
mentioned, to call him the ‘great master of lying’.

(Mein Kampf, Manheim, page 277)

 “In the Jew’s life as a parasite in the body of other nations and States,
his characteristic is established which once caused Schopenhauer to pronounce
the sentence, already mentioned, that the Jew is the ‘great master of lying.’

(Mein Kampf, Houghton and Mifflin, 1939, page 420)

Mein Kampf is a fascinating book, I read it last summer and with its influence
fresh in my mind proceeded to write a work entitled There is No God, which referred
to the organicist influence on Hitler that I interpreted as the expression of the natural
linguistic force that created Hitler in order that the core identity of the Jewish
superorganism could be saved from the destructive influence of science by perverting
organicist science and bringing it into disrepute, so that science would be forever
banished from application to human society. Last week I received a first edition of
the American publisher Houghton and Mifflin, and today, 23/06/07, a copy of
Murphy’s translation arrived, I had hoped it too was a first edition but I was misled by
the dealer’s description and my own misplaced assumptions, still it is nice to have this
version to hand. There was a splurge of translations in 1939 that indicates the
significance of this work at that moment. There can be no other book like it in the
history of humanity. It is however not properly appreciated as the significant
philosophical work that it really is, while the author continues to serve as a monster
serving his Jewish masters, so that his ideas are regarded with contempt, being the
focal point of the taboo that protects Jewish identity from revelation by science
applied to humans. I had the pleasure of meeting a German women on her way back
from a conference in America via a wedding in town, in a pub in town run by the
family she was visiting. She was a neurologist, a person of science therefore ;
beautiful too. I immediately got onto the subject of German philosophy, and since I
had heard that it was forbidden to own a copy of Mein Kampf in Germany I asked
whether this was true, and she confirmed that it was, adding by way of explanation
that there was a resurgent neo-Nazi movement, especially in the east, but that the
book was nonetheless available, being sold under the counter. What this means in
effect is that neo-Nazis are able to read Mein Kampf but the majority of Germans are
forbidden from studying this important piece of their recent history. And since I buy
all my books from Abebooks, which is based in Germany, I too cannot get hold of
copies of this work from my primary source for literature, I have to go elsewhere.
Mein Kampf is regarded as a mission statement for the National Socialist
movement, and from the translations we see that Hitler himself so regarded it,

“In this work I turn not to strangers but to those followers of the
Movement whose hearts belong to it and who wish to study it more
profoundly.”

(Murphy, Author’s Preface, page 6)

“I do not address this work to strangers, but to those adherents of the

movement who belong to it with their hearts, and whose intelligence is eager
for a more penetrating enlightenment.”

(Manheim, Preface, page xlv)

 “With this work I do not address myself to strangers, but to those
adherents of the movement who belong to it with their hearts and whose
reason now seeks a more intimate enlightenment.”

(Houghton Mifflin, Preface, xv)

It will be apparent that while the Manheim and Houghton Mifflin translations
are close to one another, Murphy’s is more distinctive. The 1969 edition that I
distinguish by calling it after the translator Manheim (although I note that Houghton
Mifflin are shown as the copyright holders, 1943) has a good introduction which
summarises the printing history and tells us that Murphy was an ex-official translator
in Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda. (See page xvi) So this accounts for the
divergence since Murphy, being himself involved in the movement, will no doubt of
felt able to translate more freely than the we find in the other two books that will of
been subject to an academic imperative. The first Houghton Mifflin publication was
produced by a team, and the introduction says “We believe the translation cannot be
successfully challenged.” (Page viii) Which makes you wonder why they got
Manheim to redo the job four years later. The first edition has the novelty of
indicating important passages newly available, not having been included in the
hitherto only available form of an abridgement, in addition the notes are very much of
the time and maybe they sort to update the book for this reason, in a more exclusively
academic format.
I had noticed the different notes in Houghton Mifflin with appreciation this
morning, but I just discovered the appendix to volume one with pages of material
reproducing the leaflets that Hitler talks of so much in regard to his political activity
in the early days of founding his movement. When reading his account last summer I
had imagined these ephemeral items had been unlikely to of survived and how
interesting they would be, and here they are, superb ! What an excellent book. One
flyer, dated November 30, 1922, shown on page 555, bears the name of a party
member of München called Max Weber, who will be one of the speakers, Is this the
Max Weber of The Protestant Ethic fame ? No, he died in 1920.

The fuller introduction included in 1969 provides a discussion of the ways in

which the book had been of interest to academics, and the book was certainly not
noted for its philosophical attributes, we can imagine the reticence the establishment
would have for any such imputation of refinement regarding Adolf Hitler.
But of course there must be some philosophical outlook in such a work and in
his Translator’s Note Manheim implicitly says as much when he notes the influences
upon Hitler’s ideas. From our perspective however Mein Kampf is first and foremost
a philosophical work because it is as such that we find it of interest. We have been
seeking to resurrect a forlorn philosophy of science destroyed by the theocracy and in
making our attempt we have been obliged to understand the lost philosophy itself, but
more importantly we need to understand how the philosophy came to be lost. Thus
we have seen how those who might of been its greatest advocates, like Kidd or Wells,
failed it completely. Sombart has been a major find for our purposes since it is the
only book written with the express object in view of discovering the nature of the
Jews as revealed in the special relationship of the Jews to the wider society in which
they live. Much of Sombart’s work has a resonance with Mein Kampf but it would be
tedious in the extreme to seek to make the comparison at length, And to what
purpose ? But in this one selection taken above, that concerning the Diaspora we find
a happy point of contact illustrating the relationship perfectly.
Biological processes have the nature of chemistry about them whereby
catalysts act as a pump raising energy through a hierarchical series of interrelated
structures. As we are set on treating society as an organic structure it is appropriate
that we should find ourselves drawn toward a mode of transition which bears the same
mechanical form as a chemical catalyst. How do we get from organicist ideas such as
those delivered in a naive fashion by Spencer in his thoughts on the social organism,
to the vicious denunciation of the Jews as alien parasites that we see Hitler making in
the above quote which clearly echoes the organicist ideas we have been promoting ?
In Sombart we have an example of exactly the kind of clue to this problem that we
would expect to find. Sombart’s work is perfectly transitional between
straightforward nineteenth century philosophical ideas on society as an organic entity
and Hitler’s ruthlessly political interpretation of Jewish nature. We have seen this
transitional character time and again where Sombart continually evokes an organicist
idea of society while never failing to give the Jew’s role in society a political
interpretation. In addition we have noted that Sombart never once allies himself with
an organicist account of society, just as Darwin failed to do fifty years earlier, and yet
both these authors were working in a world dominated by such ideas so their failure to
deal with them proves absolutely that they were seeking to oust organicist ideas, not
to refute them, but simply to destroy them, just as we would expect a religious priest
to do with ideas that threatened their power. Priests do not discuss the truth, they
circumvent it by means of their absolute social control over all means of public
expression.
Taken as whole then Sombart’s work serves to make the break between
organicism as a scientific idea and organicism as a political creed. In Hitler we see
organicism expressed as a political creed, this is done through the more familiar
ideology of race, but race ideology is a politicisation of organicism for it
individualises racial identity to make race the basis of a political unit, making race a
political personality. Organicism destroys race ideology as it destroys religious
ideology. In recognising the dualism of race ideology and religion we illuminate the
dualism of Judaism whereby the good religion stands opposite the bad racism and
between the two of them the true science is ousted as the two opposites of a like kind
go head to head leaving one supreme identity, Judaism. And we have seen from
Trotter that Sombart did actually promote the same ideology of racial superiority that
Hitler utilised, something Sombart does not include within The Jews and Modern
Capitalism.
I was thinking that if it had been the Max Weber on the flyer mentioned above
then we might imagine his work, since Sombart actually names it as the inspiration
for his own work, should be seen as a further, and even more subtle, catalytic link in
the process gradually raising the organicist idea of society away from its biological
roots and transforming it into a political creed capable of building social structure, and
thus allowing social action to arise from emerging scientific ideas on the nature of
society that can be made to further the Jewish cause by focusing political energy on
the Jews, albeit in a highly negative manner ; as they say, there is no such thing as bad
publicity, though of course this aphorism only applies to certain kinds of people,
namely those who have an interest in being in the public eye from a professional point
of view, something which we may regard as being inherent in Jewish nature, as
applied to the Jews as a group, because we regard the Jews as specially evolved to
take a prominent role in society.
It was not the Max Weber, but if we think a little more deeply about the
situation we are attempting to visualise when we think of books as catalytic events
driving the social process in one specific direction so that we equate an intellectual
movement with an energy gradient, we will make our analogy take on an even greater
likeness to that which we find in a chemical reaction. In the growth process the
genome dictates the formation of living tissue, this is a biochemical process
presumably, and it involves directing mass along energy gradients. In society
linguistic code directs the formation of social structure by dictating the direction in
which mass will flow toward the formation of exoskeletal structure. The whole body
is filled with an ongoing life process, be it that of the individual person or the social
body. Every event, no matter how small, is of the same nature as our catalytic event
driving against an energy gradient according to a pre-existing pattern held in the
information code, be that code genetic or linguistic. And in terms of social activity
and thought, this is precisely what we see happening before our eyes, every single
idea, every action, that anyone at all thinks, expresses or takes, is also of the same
catalytic character as we have discerned in Sombart’s work. This is so because all our
ideas are acting in a given direction, they are not free floating ideas, our ideas are
purposeful, that is they are directed by the linguistic code that creates social structure
according to a pattern fixed in the language we speak.
So that the whole of society is alive with the fizz and pop of a linguistic
reaction driving social movement along fixed lines, so every thought and action
constitutes the socio-linguistic reaction shaping society. It is this socio-linguistic
reaction that creates works like that of Sombart, religions like Judaism, and
movements like that of the Nazis. The books, religions and political movements are
physiological structures formed according to the pattern dictated by the linguistic
genome, dictated by the structures that the linguistic genome creates. So language
creates a Bible and the Bible dictates the form that social structure takes. Bear in
mind that when we are speaking in an organicist context where we have in mind
society as a living entity created by Nature the term ‘social ‘structure’ does not just
refer to infrastructure like building and roads, it includes all human action and
behaviour too.
According to this more penetrating model of society material items like books
are physical building blocks constructed in stages dictated by the catalytic process.
But as mediums of the linguistic programme a book has the appearance of a catalytic
item in its own right, there are tens of thousands of rubbish books churned out down
the decades all falsely skewed in a set direction to serve a biological end serving the
social organism, these books have the nature of building blocks too, but the notion of
them serving as linguistic chemicals, or even linguistic molecules is also appealing.
It might be said that such musings are fanciful, for a start How about the
counter current productions, they must exist or else how is the main current defined ?
But this is incorrect, society is a living body and everything that occurs within the
body is of the body. A living body is evolved to contend with an ongoing alien
presence, it has its immune system constantly sweeping up alien elements corrupting
its healthy form. The impurities are not produced by the social organism’s own
systems, they are incidental to its life process and it reacts to them. When the body
finds itself subject to a virus it has structural systems that learn to recognise the
invader and attack it. Likewise in society a new idea milling about comes to the
attention of the systems that are in place to control the linguistic programme and a
defence is developed. There have never been any atheist, scientific or essentially true
books published, they do not exist, I know of none, I have never found any, although
of course I have heard of many hundreds, but all that exist are made according to the
skewed bias of the social organism, which in terms of a political entity is an absolute
theocracy because all knowledge is skewed towards the ideology of Judaism from
which the social organism derives its identity. I know of no book that applies the
simple idea of society as a social organism in a manner that conforms to the dictates
of the biological conception of society, except the ones I have written myself which
are unpublishable precisely because they tell the truth. Other such true books may of
been written and suppressed so that I have not discovered them, but I do have at least
one book of that kind, yet still I think if I had it translated into English I bet it would
disappoint, the author is certainly enamoured of Darwin and he did concluded his
efforts with a major attempt to define an alternative religion to the traditional religion
which science had destroyed, which sounds like the approach taken by Comte who
veered right of the rails of science and rushed headlong down the skewed road
dictated by the ever lasting linguistic programme that determines the form of all social
structure.
If then we are to reject any notion of anti-social phenomenon of any kind
existing in society, which does actually make perfect sense once we have conceived
of society as an organism, then how are we to account for what we perceive to be anti-
social ? The couple of centuries preceding the Nazi event were full of turmoil as
cataclysmic changes hit society, there was not only great intellectual transformation to
cope with, there were notable political events like the French Revolution, the
industrial revolution was an all enveloping transformation, we went from an agrarian
society to the brink of a space age society within the reach of these two short time
periods, two centuries.
The change then is undeniable, its radical nature seems likewise beyond
question. But is it ? Truth to tell, the miraculous part about the whole story is that the
utter imbecility of religious ideas that informed every thought anyone could take two
hundred and fifty years ago, still pervades our world today. But, there is a radical
difference between the world as it was in 1750 and our world today, it has been
summarised in our efforts without any elaboration whenever the matter arose by
stating that while formerly the absolute theocracy that rules our lives was overt, while
today it is covert. And that is the big difference, and the only difference in terms of
the linguistic programme that rules our world. It is however a significant difference,
for the eternal organ of authority that rules our world to shift from being overtly
religious to covertly religious is a major transformation, it is like the squirming grub
that turns into a crackly beetle, it is an exfoliation of outer form to reveal another
altogether different skin cloaking an animal with wholly new attributes
And this is exactly how we should regard the anti-social events that
characterised the two centuries prior to the Nazis event, not as anti-social, for that is a
political notion, but as metamorphose, for such social transformation is a natural
biological process that applies to creatures like humans that have an exoskeleton that
must be shed from time to time as the organism grows and reaches critical points in
those growth phases. When we think about it this makes perfect sense for what sense
of history do we get as we take in the great panorama of history recorded down the
ages ? We get a never ending impression of upheaval and challenge against the ruling
social authorities. And yet after countless numbers of wars, revolutions, and
economic upheavals absolutely nothing ever changes, the damned church comes
bobbing up to the surface of society like a ruddy cork bouncing back to the calm
surface of a pond that a moment before had frothed with a downpour of hailstones.
We can but ask, How does it do that ? How can something so obscene, so
pathetic, so contemptible as the church, as the repository of religion, remain forever
untouchable ? And here we have an answer that makes perfect sense, there never was
any uprising, there have been no revolutions, wars are not destructive—they are
displaced acts of force—they are constructive, just as the demolition of an old
building is part of the act of construction, not an act of vandalism. But all the while
the priests beam out the linguistic message that keeps our consciousness fractured and
blind, only seeing events as discrete occurrences each with their own explanation
rooted in the actions and ideas of the people that history shows were the actors taking
part in them. But historical events are not political events, they are parts of a
physiological process, and the individuals that history labels actors are units of
physiological activity, no more actors than a cell which excretes some biochemical as
part of the body’s activity is an actor.

With regard to the manner in which social organisms generate linguistic

programmes to suppress ideas that conflict with the organism’s social genome see
Niels Jerne, The Generative Grammar of the Immune System in Les Prix Nobel 1984.
The shared logic of these social and somatic protection systems is what we are
looking for, which demands an ability to respond to dynamic information processes
impacting on the structure of the organism at the level of its creative programme. The
first point to note from Jerne is that the defensive cells need to create clones of
themselves that replicate the defensive chemicals it has created, in logical terms this is
what we are continually saying occurs in society where the ruling order seeks to skew
all ideas according to its own code, and we saw this causes a people like the Jews to
come into existence who seek relentlessly to be involved in all aspects of social order
to turn ensure that all new structures always remain the same, there is never any real
change, if atheism comes along then it is turned into Christian atheism, that is
Humanism, if socialism comes along then it is turned into Christian socialism and
only then will the forces in society allow socialism to become a route to real power,
and this will only be allowed if there is a popular mandate that has to be appeased,
otherwise the more traditional overtly conservative platforms are supported. A book
like Origin of Species can be viewed as a creative immunological cell which
formulated a defense against corrosive knowledge whereupon from the time of its
publication millions of clones have been created on the basis of its Darwinian
principles to disperse the antidote to science throughout the body of the
superorganism to protect it from truth by ensuring that no one can discover the true
nature of existence, while at the same time making everyone feel as though they have
full access to the truth. So there is clearly a generative grammar involved in the
production of ideas, that leads us to call all ideas political, being formulated upon the
basis of the individual as an end in themselves. And hence as the Darwinian antidote
that creates a specific cure for biological science, has its cure based on the eternal
creative socio-linguistic mechanism imbued into the Jewish mythology from the
beginning.

Sombart :
 But to regard all Jewish dispersion as enforced is probably one-sided. We
cannot possibly explain so general a phenomenon, which moreover remains the same
through the ages, without assuming a voluntary migration. What precisely this was
due to—whether to a migrative instinct, or to inability to remain on one piece of soil
for long—does not much matter. But some special characteristic will have to be
associated with this people to account for their travelling so easily from land to land,
no less than for their settlement in large cities, a proclivity shown by the Jews already
in very early times. Herzfeld, who has compiled probably the most complete list of
Jewish settlements in the Hellenistic Age, draws attention to the striking fact that of
the settlements 52 are in towns, and of these 39 were wealthy commercial centres.
It would appear from all this that Jewish characteristics were by no means
developed in the Diaspora, or, as the Jewish historians assume, in the Middle Ages,
but that the Diaspora itself was the result of these characteristics. The characteristics
were there first, at least in embryo.
(3) So, too, with their religion. When it is asserted that the Jew of to-day is a
product of his religion, that he has been made what he is, almost artificially, by means
of a well thought-out policy of some man or group of men, and not organically, I am
ready to admit the statement. My own presentation of this very subject in a previous
chapter attempted to show what enormous influence the Jewish religion had, more
especially on the economic activity of the Jew. But I want to oppose the view
promulgated by H. S. Chamberlain with all my power. I want to make it clear that the
religion of the Jew would have been impossible but for the special characteristics of
the Jew. The fact that some man, or group of men, was able to give expression to such
wonderful thoughts necessarily postulates that the individual or the group was
specially gifted. Again, that the whole people should accept their teachings not merely
by way of lip-service, but with deep and sincere inwardness—can we explain this
except by the supposition of special national characteristics ? To-day we can no
longer free ourselves from the opinion that every people has, in the long run, the
religion best suited for it, and that if it adopts another religion it keeps on changing it
to suit it to its needs.
I believe, therefore, that we may deduce the special characteristics of the
Jewish people from the special characteristics of the Jewish religion. From this
standpoint many traits of the Jewish character adduced from Jewish legends may be
placed very far back, certainly as early as the Babylonian Exile. That I shall proceed
in this as the authors of anti-Semitic catechisms do, and infer from the somewhat
questionable story of Isaac, Jacob and Esau, and their cheating of each other, a
tendency on the part of the Jews for swindling, need not be feared. No one, I hope,
will think so badly of me. Cheating is an element found in all mythologies. We need
only cast our eyes on Olympus or Valhalla to see the gods cheating and swindling
each other in the most shameless fashion. No. What I mean is that the fundamental
characteristics of the Jewish religious system which we have already examined—
Intellectuality, Rationalism, Teleology—are also the characteristics of the Jewish
people, and they must have been in existence (I would repeat, at least in embryo) even
before the religion was developed.
(4) My next point is the remarkable similarity in the economic activities of the
Jews throughout almost all the centuries of history. In asserting that this is a proof that
Jewish characteristics were constant, I am setting myself in opposition to the
prevailing views. I differ not only from those who believe that the economic activities
of the Jews have changed in the course of time, but also from those who agree with
me that it was a constant factor in their development. From the latter I differ because
we do not agree as to what those activities were.

(Page 298-300)

The Jews being a specially evolved ‘cultural-race’ about which complex

superorganisms composed of a multitude of racial identities were organized more
efficiently, explains why they should be both forced to relocate and choose to
relocate, just as workers may be forced to work or choose to work according to
prevailing social conditions. Sombart cannot see this because he has no basic
conception of human nature to apply to the unique character of the Jews, in other
words he does not have the key to understanding human behaviour and form.
Nonetheless this is lovely to read because he does make observations from which he
derives correct questions, namely regarding the peculiar nature of a Diaspora which
must be indicative of something extremely special underlying this activity, and we
must be able to discover the answer to just what it is that causes this extraordinary
animal behaviour.
The idea that the ‘characteristics’ came first and the Diaspora was a
consequence is very important, and absolutely correct, but he has not the least
conception of the correct solution as to what the nature of these ‘characteristics’ is.
He is focused upon the Jews, but the solution lies at a far deeper level, at the level of
human nature. It is corporate human nature that evolved to create a living organism at
the level of social organization that demands a focal point of authority centred upon
an identity which imparts purpose to the organism that made it inevitable that the
Jews, in some form or other—but always with the same basic characteristics—would
come into being somewhere on earth when subsistence shifted from hunter gathering
to farming so that massive societies came into existence and racial identity no longer
retained its ability to act as the primary unifying social force. We see from the quote
found in Trotter that Sombart did develop an abstract conception of a master race
representing God on earth, the Jews having once been the beacon carriers of God, and
now in the modern era the Germans were to be the new representatives of God. And
this man presumes to speak of his work as science ! whereas we can see from this
quote that he has no more inclination toward a scientific explanation of Jewish
characteristics than any regular priest would have, his sole means of understanding
the Jews is by virtue of his belief in the Jewish God ! We simply could not hope to
find a more Judophilic writer, and yet he is condemned as an anti-Semite ! He is
supposedly anti-Semitic therefore simply because he wants the Germans to be the new
Jews ; hardly a basis for calling him anti-Semitic, this is just a perfectly ordinary
expression of political competition. The crucial point being that, as we can see from
our own use of the idea of the social organism, we soon figure out the true nature of
our kind, and thus reveal the true nature of the Jews as the current master identity. It
seems inconceivable that the Germans did not also see this at the time, yet what we
see here is that the only voices that came forth were those who wanted to make out
that the Jews were past masters, and then, courtesy of the Nazis, parasites. Where
were the scientific thinkers, the sociologists ? They had been ousted by the theocracy,
leaving only the voices of disingenuous priests ruling academia. The final result
being that once the anti-Semitic movement had run its course the true science of
human nature was extinguished and the domination of the Jews was back on track.
The idea that Jewish characteristics were present in embryonic form is very
good, this utilises a biological concept suggesting the unfolding of a preordained form
contained within a seed. The Jewish conception of themselves as the chosen people
who would one day inherit the earth, an idea thousands of years old, formulated long
before those who formulated this idea could have the least notion of what the earth
was, as compared to our complete idea of what the earth is today, is without doubt the
remarkable, and beautiful, idea within Judaism The reason being that the Jewish
mythology expressed poetically the literal scientific truth regarding their own nature,
the Jews were, from the outset, the embryonic form of the global superorganism that
has only recently come into being, and has yet many centuries to go before it
complete realisation as one social organism ruled by law, a society in which there is
no war. Certainly the Jewish conception is bigoted and egotistical, and as such ugly
and offensive, viewed politically, but the beauty of the underlying idea is what
informs their ugly expression. This applies to all politics and religion, all such ideas
are ugly and sickening, only science can be beautiful, only science can be true. It is
offensive to suggest that beauty can be expressed in a lie.

Point number three is an extremely important point, he states categorically that

Judaism is not a natural feature, but a political feature ; just imagine if he had given us
references to authors that had stated the exact opposite, such works are our holy grail,
if they ever existed, nice to see the question of a biological origin of Jewish
characteristics actually considered though. In this paragraph then we see precisely
how he performs the separation of religion from nation in such a way that made it
possible for Hitler to be at one and the same time the supreme friend of Judaism, in
that he fought to preserve the Christian slave identity as the religious identity of the
German people, while also taking the part of the supreme enemy of Judaism through
his virulent and overt anti-Semitism. It is truly astounding that Christians and
Muslims, who are unquestionably the salves of the Jews, are capable of perceiving
themselves as independent of the Jews, this severe mental myopia says everything
about the nature of human intelligence, it is nonexistent. However if human society is
to be formed as ant society is formed then this blind stupidity transfixed on implanted
identity is obviously the key to forming the necessary complex social physiology.
Politicians never make themselves, they are always only faces, it was the backing of
big business that made Hitler, conservative business, and as this whole work of
Sombart is seeking to indicate, the Jews are business, which means it was these
peculiar contradictions in Hitler’s programme that made him their favourite choice.
Business, whether it is superficially Christian or overtly Jewish follows strict
principles, this is capitalism, so that when Christian businesses act on society to
secure their interests they cannot help serving the requirements for preserving the
integrity of society that the continuing existence of the Jews as the master race in
society requires. It is perfectly obvious that for the Jews to survive in a Diaspora
where they are dependant upon a host community that they must have some
underlying structural connections with the societies in which they live, and it is the
economic features acting as the sinews of the exoskeletal structure created in
accordance to Judaic ideology of the kind we see Sombart talking about when he
speaks of the Jew being told to think only of wealth as the means of honouring God
that have been made integral to Christianity and Islam too that establish this linkage
and make it impossible for the slaves to escape their master without first destroying
themselves, and there could never be a better example of this fact than Hitler’s own
story as he tells it in Mein Kampf. The economic principles of the Jews are made
essential to the Christian religion by forbidding Christians to take the same attitude
and as the Jews to wealth and thereby forcing Christians to accept the Jews within
their communities since someone has to take on the role of banker, and the Islamic
slave identity gives trading activity special status in its behavioural programme.
Precisely how the resulting dynamics work out I do not pretend to know, but that they
do work out is clear for all to see, and here all we are seeking is a general sketch of
such patterns.

Yes. The characteristics of the Jewish people existed in embryo before the
Jews existed, just as human nature existed in their anthropoid ancestors millions of
years before humans existed. Jewish characteristics existed in the nature of humans
that was determined by the force of evolution acting on mammalian form to produce a
superorganic species of mammal physically adapted to the latent potential of social
organization. Sombart does not mean to say this, but it is very nearly what he does
say ; no one would think this meaning was inherent in his thinking unless they were
looking for this meaning, but we are, and we have found it here in his logic expressing
the pre-existence of the nature or essence of identity expressed in extant forms. It is
very curious the way he manipulates the abstract phenomenon of Judaism with its
triad of characteristics in opposition to the substantial reality of the Jewish race which
coincidently happens to have the same triad of characteristics. What kind of thought
process would make an intellectual, a professor of economics no less, construct such
contorted illusions which are so obviously ludicrous ? Well, the answer is perfectly
simple, this form of deception is exactly what academics are trained to perform, that is
how the academic structure serves the social organism by controlling information.
Here Sombart is merely setting up a circular logic that contains the question within
political bounds. To be scientific he would need to break this loop operating between
the nature of Jews and the nature of their religion, by seeking a deeper explanation
arising from qualities found beyond the existence of Judaism itself, and beyond the
existence of the Jews as well. This is perfectly easy to do, but it would of led toward
the destruction of Judaism. According to the 1951 edition of this work Germany at
the time of publication was rife with anti-Semitism and the book was condemned by
both facets of the theocracy, those promoting Judaism and those promoting anti-
Semitism. This almost implies that the book was a triumph of its kind, since in such a
polarised debate a work that succeeds in infuriating both extremes must be doing
something right, must be finding some moderate middle ground. But as we have
seen, nothing could be further from the truth and despite making this observation the
publishers still declare Sombart to be an anti-Semite, indicating, I suppose, that the
recently concluded Second World War resulted in the final victory of the Jews-cum-
liberals and the total eradication of the anti-Semites, an outcome that was always
inevitable because these two opposites are merely polarisations of one and the same
thing. Sombart’s book is as we have already noted a catalytic package of information
serving to fuel the social dynamic that keeps science at bay while allowing religion to
run free. If this were not the case then we can be certain that the priests would of
translated the book into English.

Homosexuality and Judaism, and their Common Origin in

Human Corporate Nature

We have seen that Judaism was inherent in the evolution of humans as a

mammalian superorganic species. From the earliest appearance of a bipedal, tool
using anthropoid a couple of million years ago it was implicit that the Jews would one
day rule the world. The details respecting how this outcome would be expressed were
infinitely variable in superficial respects which appear to us as all important. It was
implicit that the Jews would have to have a Bible, but it was by no means
predetermined that the Jews would use the language that Jews do use, so, if for some
reason the Jews had not emerged in the Middle East then they may of emerged from
the Central American civilizations, and of spoken accordingly and called themselves
by another name, or from people coming a few thousand years later in some other
region. But the basic outline was dictated by the basic mechanics of life. To realise
its full potential the human organism had to have a race especially evolved to fulfil
the function of a brain, a master race, serving the global superorganism capable of
carrying life beyond the planet in an evolved form, bearing in mind that basic
essential ingredients for life came from beyond the planet and it is therefore only
logical to regard outer space as a legitimate environment for life to occupy if it gets
the opportunity. Debate about the seeding of life on earth by carbonaceous meteorites
is not decisive in validating the preceding statement since the fact that higher
elements manufactured in stellar furnaces were integrated into the planet at the time
of formation is sufficient for my point to have the same meaning, even though the
aforementioned seeding would be an even more exquisite affirmation of the sentiment
expressed here.
We have applied this logic of predetermination based on the biological science
of evolution in regard to the human species with respect to the mammalian engine of
physiology. We said that once this new kind of life engine came into existence the
whole planet became devoid of life relative to the new kind of physiology, because
this new engine represented an ascent up an energy gradient, and in terms of life
environments are energy platforms so that a new form of physiology—defined as new
in terms of its increased ability to exploit available energy more efficiently—
represents a bulge in life’s energy map of the planet so that the return to equilibrium
dictated by physics will only occur once this bulge has receded, which means once the
new life, the new engine, the mammals, have dispersed into all available niches,
which means, most importantly, once mammalian physiology has produced forms
adapted to the four main environmental zones of land, water, air and self organization,
the latter meaning adaptation to the social potential latent in any basic life engine, a
potential that is expressed by evolving forms adapted to social organization. So, in
short, we said that once mammals evolved seventy million years ago its was
guaranteed that humans would arrive some time. This predictability is a basic
scientific principle, it applies in all departments of science, indeed such predictability
is the essence of science since it merely indicates that we understand the underlying
mechanics of the structures with which we are concerned in a naturalistic manner. To
say mammals meant humans, and humans meant Jews, is no more remarkable than
saying baby means child, child mean teenager, teenager means adult and so on.

The same remark regarding the origin of the Jews in the opening sentence of
the previous paragraph applies equally well to homosexuality. The fact that we are
driven by the idea of the social organism to see Jews and homosexuals as elements of
organization, specially evolved to constitute a master organ within the social
organism, means that both these exceptional, but perfectly natural, features of the
human animal are derived from exactly the same natural force.
This thought occurs to us naturally and spontaneously immediately we get our
minds in touch with a true conception of human nature, but I am induced to insert this
comment on the relationship between homosexuality and Judaism now because I had
the rare experience of engaging in conversation with two homosexual men in a local
pub at the weekend, today being 05/07/07, which has brought the subject to the
forefront of my mind. These youths told me that there was a highly active gay
community in the small town I have been living in for twenty years, but I knew
absolutely nothing about it. This obscurity, one might even say this occult
characteristic inherent in homosexuality, is of course perfect from a physiological
point of view, where the superorganism needs some basis upon which to differentiate
itself so that it can develop a structure that will allow it to become organized and
grow. Once we know that a community within a community exists, but a community
unlike a school, church, youth club, theatre group or sports fraternity, a community
determined genetically by the biology of its members, just like a racial grouping, one
that is forced to keep itself submerged and highly secret, we see that the inherent
nature of the homosexual is to generate a secret society. The gender of homosexuals
is a tricky subject, for if homosexuals men are men then what are heterosexual men ?
Certainly heterosexual men and homosexual men are two entirely different kinds of
men, just as different as different categories of ants or bees ; which is exactly what we
would expect to find once we have determined that humans are true, fully evolved,
mammalian social organisms. A naturally induced fraternity of homosexual men
existing as a minority within a society is more akin to a minority racial group than a
gender, because while the homosexual group, like the racial group, is defined
genetically, the resulting distinction has no overt biological significance. The only
biological significance racial minorities and homosexual fraternities have is covert,
concerning the formally unrecognised organization of social physiology. Whereas the
attributes of gender taken at their ordinary level of understanding are primarily
concerned with the reproduction of the species, so that the gender dichotomy only
serves superficially as a simplistic basis for social differentiation ; hence in modern
times this function has atrophied, like a disused appendix, in what is regarded as a
bold social advance brought about by the determination of the feminist movement ; a
thought which might lead us on a further exploration of homosexual influences, but as
yet I am bereft of any useful knowledge along those lines—I have never knowingly
known a lesbian since they never try to hit on me and lesbians do not have the
flamboyance of queeny queers—and since it is the male gender that has served as the
basis of all elites throughout all time I feel the lesbian strand is an elaboration on the
masculine version and can be regarded as such for our philosophical purposes. The
risks I take to advance our researches, next week, if I am not careful, I’ll be getting a
kicking in the shit house for talking to queers, damned by association, not being bent I
am not equipped with the necessary strategies for avoiding such trouble, I’ll just have
to make do with my regular skills as a rebel.
As I read what I wrote in the morning session immediately after my first mug
of tea and before my second mug and toast, I am reminded of a favourite idea of mine
that I have expressed elsewhere concerning the origin of prehistoric cave art. The
assertion that homosexuality evolved as an expression of the essence of human nature,
whereby racially defined social organisms could acquire a basis for more complex
structural organization derived solely from the genetic force of creative information,
precluding any necessity for elaborate linguistic social programming, this
development has to be viewed as a very ancient adaptation of the human superorganic
form, just because the nature of evolution demands such a view, evolution’s timescale
demands such a view. Art, we may note, possesses the essential ingredient of a
sophisticated linguistic social programme, Judaism is nothing more than a symbolic
representation of the human condition reflecting the sophistication of the society in
which this representation evolved, so we could regard cave art as the Bible of the day.
Knowing what we do about the way people are organized we must associate cave art
with an elaborately established priesthood, for it is clearly a refined cultural
phenomenon that must of been passed on as a craft, and it must of been created by
specialists, not necessarily so specialised as to form a separate caste, but possibly,
although no doubt it would be said that these people were practicing hunters, yet
given our knowledge that humans are social organisms there is no reason to
emphasise the individual role of the hunter in our interpretation of the meaning of
cave art. I have seen speculation about whether women took part, or if families sat
and watched the painters, and how the art was a way to capture the prey species spirit,
or a way of teaching children about hunting. But all of these ideas smack of a naive
fairy tale mentality suited to the kind of ignorant people we are today, where all are
allowed a voice to spout their self aggrandising twaddle with an equal sense of value.
But science explains why human societies have a tendency to evolve ruling
priesthoods, we live in an absolute theocracy in which there is no freedom of thought
or expression, because we are not allowed to know what we are. So when we see the
likes of cave art, we can take it that this was a precursor of the megalithic culture
which obviously had a priesthood because stone monuments indicate society was
huge and organized, and if the features associated with size were not yet in evidence
in cave art such art was nonetheless all about the concentration of social power where
the setting served perfectly well as prehistoric cathedrals capable of invoking an
appropriate sense of awe, reverence and fear. It would be fascinating to know how
these societies were organized, And were the priests arse bandits ?
Now I have touched on the topic I cannot help exploring a little. I have a book
from our period (when the idea of the ‘social organism’ was still alive, pre WWI) The
Beginnings of Art, Ernst Grosse, 1899, first published in German 1893. Unfortunately
I see no mention of prehistoric cave art, Grosse concerns himself with the art of
‘primitive’ peoples which was very much in the public eye in the nineteenth century
because being recently discovered by the Jewish social organism the job of erasing
them from the face of the earth to make way for slaves of Judaism had not quite been
completed at that time. What then is the nature of art ?

“ Art appears among all peoples and in all periods as a social

manifestation, and we renounce at once the comprehension of its nature and its
significance if we regard it simply as an individual phenomenon. In the
following studies we shall, as we have said regard exclusively the social sides
and relations of artistic production. We shall consider the art of primitive
peoples as a social phenomenon and a social function. ”

(Page 50)

And in conclusion :

There is no people without art. We have seen that even the rudest and most
miserable tribes devote a large part of their time and strength to art—art, which is
looked down upon and treated by civilized nations, from the height of their practical
and scientific achievements, more and more as idle play. And yet it seems wholly
inconceivable, from the point of view of modem science, that a function to which so
great a mass of energy is applied should be of no consequence in the maintenance and
the development of the social organism ; for if the energy which man devotes to
æsthetic creation and enjoyments were lost in the earnest and essential tasks of life, if
art were indeed only idle play, then natural selection should have long ago rejected
the peoples which wasted their force in so purposeless a way, in favour of other
peoples of practical talents ; and art could not possibly have been developed so highly
and richly as it has been. We have therefore been convinced from the first that
primitive art, besides its immediate æsthetic significance, possesses also a practical
importance to the hunting peoples, and the results of our research have confirmed
this conviction. The primitive arts affect primitive life in diversified ways.
Ornamentation, for example, pre-eminently promotes technical skill. Personal
adornment and the dance play an important part in the intercourse of the sexes, and by
means of their influence on sexual selection they have probably, as we have shown
in the appropriate place, contributed to the improvement of the race. On the other
side, personal decoration rises, because it frightens the enemy ; poetry, the dance, and
music, because they inflame and inspire the warriors, the bulwarks of the social
groups against hostile assaults. But the most efficient and most beneficent effect
which art exercises over the life of peoples consists in the strengthening and
extension of the social bonds to which it contributes. Not all the arts are equally
adapted for this effect. While the dance and poetry seem to be predestined for it by
their essential property, music is for the same reason almost entirely excluded from it.
Besides these inner reasons, outward circumstances also have a part in deciding by
which art the socializing function shall be predominantly exercised among a given
people at a given epoch. The dance, for instance, loses its influence as soon as the
social groups become too large to unite in a single dance ; and, on the other side,
poetry owes its present incomparable power to the invention of printing.
Consequently the hegemony passes, in the onward course of the development of
civilization, from one art to another. We recognise the most powerful social influence
among the hunting peoples as vested in the dance ; to the Greeks, sculpture
incorporated the social ideal in its most effective form ; in the middle ages,
architecture united bodies and souls in the halls of its gigantic cathedrals ; in the
Renascence, painting spoke a language that was understood by all the cultivated
peoples of Europe ; and in the modem age the soothing voice of poetry resounds
mightily over the clash of arms of hostile conditions and peoples. But although the
social significance of individual arts has thus changed in the course of ages, the
social significance of art has continuously increased. The educational influence
which it has exercised on the rudest tribes has steadily broadened and risen. While the
highest social function of primitive art consisted in unification, civilized art, with its
richer and more individually executed works, serves not for unification only, but
primarily for the elevation of the spirit. As science enriches and elevates our
intellectual life, so art enriches and elevates our emotional life. Art and science are
the two most powerful means for the education of the human race. Thus art is no idle
play, but an indispensable social function, one of the most efficient weapons in the
struggle for existence ; and consequently it is destined to be even more and more
richly and powerfully developed by means of the struggle for existence ; for while
artistic activities were exercised by the peoples first for the sake only of their
immediate æsthetic value, they have been kept up and developed through history
mainly on account of their indirect social value. A consciousness of the importance
of art to social welfare has, moreover, existed in man in all ages. We could invoke a
long array of philosophers, artists, and statesmen who have pointed out in clear words
that art serves or has served for the education of the peoples. We have in fact a right
to demand of art that it work in the direction of a social purpose—that is, morally ;
for art is a social function ; and every social function should serve for the
maintenance of the social organism.

(Page 312 - 315)

Boy ! excruciating. My mind bounces from pillar to post as I make my way

through this maze of self conflicting ideas, which I love to read because they are
imbedded in the assumption that society is a social organism. I suppose this is a fine
example of the kind of mind set that made the task of the priest dedicated to the
protection of religion from science so easy. Darwin’s poisonous influence is seen to
be at the heart of the problem as it enables the elements of the social organism to be
dismembered into independent parts serving men’s needs. I love the observation that
while the nature of art remains the same, as we would expect, the extent of the
biomass induces different art forms to come into the ascendancy on purely practical
grounds. But all of this reasoning should follow a biological scheme in which art is
reduced to an abstract representation of the natural social force that changes its
modality as the biomass augments, in precisely the same way that the colours we
perceive are abstract representations of the wavelengths of light that change their
appearance as the wavelength alters. Our physiology is responsible for colour
abstraction, it creates the perception of colour, and exactly the same occurs in the
social organism, its physiology is responsible for the abstraction that we experience as
art that is simply an information medium galvanising the mental apparatus of the
social units to respond to a common rhythm. Dance, architecture, poetry and music
are all structural elements of the superorganic exoskeleton. Tribal people do choose
to dance, they are born into a superorganism whose physiology consists of dance
routines, and neither did ancient Greeks choose to build fabulous architecture, it was
part of their evolved superorganic form. Today we make cars, but we do not make
them by choice any more than we make our kidneys. Cars are part of our
superorganism’s physiology, there is nothing we could do that would allow us to stop
making cars no matter how much we might want to, to stop global warming for
example. Car manufacture will stop when nature determines car manufacture will
stop, just as major coal mining ceased in England when nature decided it should, just
as railway closures were introduced under Beeching in the sixties when nature
decided this must happen ; and as it happens a piece on Countryfile this morning,
08/07/07, talked about how people fought like crazy to stop the Edinburgh to Carlisle
line from being axed by Dr. Beeching, and now they are fighting to stop it being
reinstated ! Nature decides these things because the social structure obeys natural
laws that force us all to do what the uniformity of the structure demands. And when
all is said and done the fact is that this reality is what Sombart’s book examining the
nature of the Jews in relation to modern capitalism is all about, even though he has
not the slightest inkling that this is so. Once we start down the path of making society
a part of nature there can be no end to this logic. Did the Bank of England want to
raise bank rates another quarter percent this week, the fifth consecutive rise ? No, this
causes havoc for people with huge mortgages and risks a wave of repossessions, but
the bank had no choice because the economy is overheating, we are borrowing too
much — whatever. Point proven, we are powerless to decide even the finest detail of
how we live our lives, it is predetermined for us by nature. Could people, for example
forestall the need for the rate increase by reducing their spending, sounds reasonable,
everyone would say “yes” to this question, but the true answer, amazingly, is “no”,
people cannot decide to stop borrowing money. Why not ? Because the exoskeletal
structure which insinuates borrowing into the minutest fabric of our personal lives, i.e.
credit cards, has evolved in recent decades and we are no longer in charge of these
structural features of the social organism, they control us and can only be managed
from a central point of control, hence the rises just mentioned. Such centralised
decisions are not decisions at all, they are biological reactions of the organism that
maintain a homeostatic norm. Applying such physiological terms to social behaviour
may seem an elaboration on what nineteenth century thinkers did in the same cause by
way of analogy, so that telegraphs lines might be deemed nerves. But our model is
way beyond such simplicity and any such appearance is due entirely to the difficulty
of using a linguistic medium specifically evolved to politicise information while
denying access to a correct understanding of humanity as a natural phenomenon.
But this idiot Grosse makes the variations in art forms into a political scheme
that serves the spiritual realms of that sacred animal, man, who is yet a social
organism. This is sheer aggravating insanity, it is as if everyone accepted that our
society was a democracy in which all people were equal and they made endless
speeches discussing the million and one ways in which there is no freedom and how
inequality is rife, while concluding each paragraph with the statement “and thus we
preserve our egalitarian democracy” ! What the hell is the point of calling society a
social organism unless you mean society is an organism ? The answer is that people
like Grosse were following the popular trend based on scientific insight in an attempt
to subvert it by breaking the meaning of the word ‘organism’ away from its scientific
foundations, in exactly the same way Darwin broke the idea of ‘evolution’ away from
its biological roots created by the likes of Lamarck and gave it a political gloss based
on competition between individuals. Let’s face it, the method works.
In Grosse’s work the phrase ‘social organism’ applies the word organism
facetiously, for it is implicitly used in an analogical sense, it is used as a hollow word
without meaning, or rather, as a word whose meaning is deliberately ignored. It is as
if the word ‘organism’ were used like a silent letter ‘h’, except of course there is no
official place in language for ‘silent’ words, therefore when they appear they
evidently have a special purpose to perform in terms of creating the grate that the
brain is to be exposed to in order to connect with the programme that we call our
mind which is fixed in our brain by our education. Reduced to a piece of
programming a work like this by Grosse can be made to appear like a computer punch
card where the words whose meaning is ignored can be likened to the holes
interspersed between words whose political meaning is thereby emphasised, so that
the receiver only sees the political message, which matches perfectly the keys written
into their brain. How else do we account for the stunning idiocy of humans in respect
to religious belief and knowledge in general ? And since silent expression is the
common mode in which ‘social organism’ was used at this time we can see how
academics acting as a collective were able to poison the very core of scientific logic
from within, causing the science of humanity to rot from the inside out. Where
organicists were condemned by enemies of science for using stupid analogies to make
society prone to scientific ideas, the truth is shown up here, it was the enemies of
science infiltrating the territory of human science, as all were free to do in an open
society—hence the reason why society was open at this time—who produced the
nonsensical analogies that were then rightly condemned by commentators as being
puerile, because they were. As ever the priests act in unison, taking opposite parts in
any intellectual struggle in order to eject any truth tellers from the forum so that two
bands of charlatans remain, one pathetic and the other, such as Durkheim, irresistibly
refined.
I set out to copy this passage for the straightforward purpose of using it
because of its extraordinary excellence as an example of just the kind of science we
are looking for, science promoting the understanding of humans according to biology.
Fact is, for much of his discussion presented here Grosse does do just this, which is
why my mind bounces from pillar to post as I delight in the statements insisting that
we must think of all social phenomenon in purely physiological, that is functional
terms, only to then discover that he is not doing that at all. He reasons physiologically
in a simplistic manner, in line with Darwin’s bullshit notions of evolution, so that he
says art must be functional otherwise nature would not permit art to dominate our
world, but then he says art is functional because we like it ! instead of saying art is
functional because it bonds society ; he twists his own logic. Thus once again making
his own statements hollow, not just words are used silently here, but whole
statements, so that he says art bonds society because it makes us acquire higher moral
standards ! Moral standards are a symbol of our freewill, not of nature’s mechanistic
control of our behaviour, for such autonomic reactions would be the antithesis of
morality. Art bonds society because we are robots united by a social programme
which is initiated by our genome, which makes us susceptible to symbolic
programming. Art is symbolic programming, and linguistic programming is refined
artistic programming personified in religions such as Judaism. We just cannot win, it
is very depressing. How is it possible for people to be so moronic ? Simple, they are
the priests working to destroy science and protect religion as the social organism
demands they must. Evolution ensures that people who undermine the programme by
revealing its true nature have no voice, the intellectual grate such a person must
produce does not mesh with the programme burnt into most people’s brain so that the
majority of people are no more able to see scientific meaning applied to themselves
than a colour blind man can see the colour red.
Grosse says that music has no capacity to unite the fabric of the biomass ;
interesting. I often think how dominant music is in doing just that today. It was only
this week, today being 06/07/07, that the sons of Princess Diana organized a bash at
Wembley in her memory which was said to of been watched by some half a billion
people world wide ! Phenomenal. And quite apart from this dramatic example of the
power of music to unite the fabric of the Jewish social organism it is in any case
perfectly obvious that music is by far and away the most potent expression of the
bonding force of information today. So the baton of art has shifted since Grosse’s
day. Why does he say music had no bonding power ? I have not looked. Today
music has the bonding power it has for one very simple reason, the communications
revolution, so we might assume the limited extent to which music could be made
accessible was the problem, as Grosse noted, poetry, which is for the aficionados only
today, was all the rage in his time because of the dominance of the printing press as
the primary means of mass communication.
What is evident from a discussion of this kind is that, as we would expect, the
cells of the social organism are susceptible to whatever means of control the farmers
of society, acting as the brain of the superorganism, have at their disposal. People do
not choose to like dance, then painting, then poetry, then movies, then pop music.
People like what they are given, and are powerless to do otherwise. If this were not
so then it would not be possible for a social hierarchy to exist, as it always has
existed. But needless to say, as ever, the priests invert the dynamic, saying the people
demand what the poor public servant must then provide, and the slaves will not let
anyone take away from them the freedom of choice that they do not have, because
they know perfectly well that they do have it. Try going to the pub for a few decades
to look at the young girls getting out enjoying themselves. Every year they all appear
dutifully in exactly the same clothes, sporting precisely the same hairdos, the same
shoes, carrying the same bags and so on. Each women has freely chosen to dress
exactly as she chooses solely to please herself, and herself alone, and none would
have it any other way. I have noticed that in the early part of the twentieth century
some anthropologists gave some thought to fashion, but I have not been inclined to
buy their works to see what they said. It is just not tenable to tell people that they do
what they do because they are robots that have no choice. In actual fact the correct
way to express this otherwise distasteful idea is simply to acknowledge that as
individuals we get pleasure in life from one thing, and from one thing only, we get
pleasure from other people, even an out and out loner like me knows this. Hence
while many people do not follow fashion slavishly, the fact is that having a fashion to
follow is a great joy, it is a fun thing to do, by means of which people can revel in the
delight of each other sharing a new experience, and the same can be said of shared
poetry readings, going to a dance or sharing a passion for music. Just as there is no
such thing as an individual person so we must realise that in trying understanding
human behaviour the specific arts are not the key, people do not have within them a
tuning fork that will chime when their favourite art form comes along, what they do
have is a tuning fork that resonates to any kind of social vibration that sets up a
harmonic in the biomass. Grosse makes a remark slightly along these lines except he
makes it apply uselessly to the quality of the artist, because he is a charlatan trying to
make science apply to humans viewed as individuals, just as Darwin did, but humans
are not individuals, humans are social organisms and individuals are cellular units of
the organism. Art then is the manifestation of the social resonance of the biomass, a
susceptibility to such a resonance is a consequence of human corporate nature that
enables a mammalian superorganism to come into being at the level of social
organization. We have art then for the same reason we have a bipedal gait, dextrous
hands, homosexuality, speech, war, religion and so on.
This would suggest that the cave art that first set us off on this sidetrack
should of been public art if it was to serve as a bonding agent for the biomass.
However it would seem that the unifying power of art that Grosse discovered on open
display in primitive social groups and modern society, could be possessed by an
exclusive elite who then used art as a private medium of bonding a priesthood, for we
find this exclusive us of art in highly organized societies run by priesthoods, such as
that of the ancient Egyptian. I have a book that I think mentions an author somewhere
who reckoned the cave paintings revealed symbolic connections with the most ancient
art of Europe, to do with animal worship I think, I have tried to find the reference in
The Masks of God : Creative Mythology, Joseph Campbell, 1968, but I cannot find
any discussion of prehistoric art or cave paintings. The idea is interesting since it
suggests that there is a strand of continuity concerning social power lasting tens of
thousands of years, which is perfectly logical if social organisms are real, as they must
be, and this view aids the perception of a Jewish superorganism lasting thousands of
years displaying a continuity that transcends many and various social transformations.

I do not like to interfere with the appearance of a quote since the usual purpose
of inserting a quote is to offer a sample of work relevant to the discussion in hand, but
upon reading the above quote inserted last night I decided to pick out elements that
struck me as indicative of the criticism I make above where I say that Grosse
politicises the scientific idea of the social organism in a manner that has us bouncing
from one pole to the other, politics—science—politics—science—politics.
Accordingly I highlighted in bold words which personalised the nature of art, and in
one case I underlined the highlight for here Grosse states bluntly that art is a pure
unadulterated product of human invention that has nothing whatever to do with the
social nature of man as given by nature, even though he makes the existence of art
entirely due to a social value sanctioned by evolution. So what is being said here is
that man created society by inventing such things as art, the exact opposite of the
biological reality that is inherent in the concept of the social organism, which means
that nature caused man to make art as one mechanism involved in the evolution of a
human superorganism. The other bold selections link to this illogical logic,
expressing the political, that is conscious, manner in which people have used art to
help them develop in the struggle for existence.
All we can really say in the light of this travesty of sociological science is that
it is such a supremely gorgeous piece of scientific work that we should be delighted to
find it, as the crazed Steve McQueen in the movie Papillon delighted in finding huge
centipedes he could crush in his tin mug with a little stagnant water, defying the
bastards who sort to blot him out of existence. Grosse may indeed be gross in the
extreme as a piece of scientific work, but what a delight to see sociology even veering
in the direction of biology at all in the exploration of its subject matter ! Today of
course sociology is wholly unequivocal, it makes no bones about the matter, humans
have no debt to nature whatever, they do as they damn well please, something any
scientist of any kind supports 100 %. Richard Dawkins, the supreme scientist-cum-
atheist, demonstrates this perfectly with his total conviction that humans are free from
all subjection to natural laws, the sole entity in the universe so endowed, humans can
determine precisely what their world will be like at given moment in time. This may
slightly exaggerate Dawkins’ view of human freedom, but why split hairs, he states it
in black and white and repeats it endlessly on TV that humans have free will, and you
cannot get more religious than that, some atheist, With atheist like that on the loose
who needs priests to fuck things up ? But then of course he is a priest, he is the
guardian of the theocracy, the Gatekeeper.
The couple of phrases in red are selected thus just because they carry a tiny
fraction more scientific charge in their meaning because of their place in the matrix of
the message, the red highlight indicates scientific meaning left in isolation, to be
subverted by the overall tenor of the message because the whole piece is one long
ambiguity, intentionally so, obviously, otherwise why try to accommodate science at
all by the use of a scientific phrase like ‘social organism’ if it is not to obscure its
significance by surrounding this phrase in the jargon of political bias. The use of the
phrase ‘social function’ is scientifically charged and in the first red selection the
reference to a ‘socializing function’ implies there is a natural force independent of
human will that is carried by behavioural activity that creates physical structure in
order to express that function. So this is very much as we would seek to speak about
all human activity being an expression of the life force as it appears in the human
species whose nature is evolved to produce an organism at the level of social
organization. In the second case the conjunction of ‘social function’ with ‘social
organism’ makes the former phrase have a scientific bias despite the fact that any such
loading toward science occurring momentarily in the structure of the piece is
massively suppressed by the heavily charged political emphasis which dominates the
whole piece.
 Now select the whole passage, copy, paste and remove all my highlighting and
read it again, and see if you can see the selections I find in this piece. My expectation
is that no one could see what I see, everyone on earth but me is mind blind. Think of
those opticians cards using dots of many colours that test if we are colour blind, the
numbers stand out plain as day to me, but to those whose wiring causes them to
register red as brown and so on, the numbers most of us see simply are not there
because the clever artists who design the test have imbedded the numbers in the
matrix of colours in such a way that in order to see the pattern you must see the
wavelengths of light as the red that most of us register as red.
Something of a similar kind is apparent in a piece of intellectual work that
imparts meaning through its linguistic structure when we perform an exercise such as
the one I have just conducted on the quote from Grosse. There is nothing exact in my
analysis, and there was nothing exact in Grosse’s construction of the illusion either.
Exactitude in these matters is liable to be difficult to formulate, it would be contrary
to the function of language as a medium of social force because exactitude would
make it easy for anyone to decode the words of authority, whereas we know that
trying to get the better of authority is like trying to turn back the tide by standing in
front of it with your arms out and wishing.
What the exercise tells us however is that our understanding of the meaning of
words determines how we understand a message coming from any given source. It is
often the case in heated conversations that a person might say something which
provokes a sharp demand to know if what is being said is personal or general, the
difference is critical. We are trained to think in personal terms and in addition we are
disposed to think in personal terms, so when we read a piece of political propaganda
such as that quoted above from Grosse that is masquerading as science our brain acts
like a conceptual grate that allows the meanings in the message to pass into our
consciousness according to the political intentions of the author and in harmony with
the bias programmed into our brains, so that we see red as red.
But the whole point of our work here is to indicate that the social world we
live in is constructed by nature in such a way that it is ruled by a priesthood that
fabricates the knowledge we have available to us and conditions us to the message the
priesthood broadcasts. So we want to be able to see red as brown, we want to be
colour blind, or mind blind, we want to see political statements as scientific data. We
want to see the priest’s message as a wavelength of information untainted by any
interfering filter inserted by the structure of the social organism that we are part of
into our brains, we want to see through eyes not possessed by the Jewish
superorganism, we want to see through our own eyes ; we want to destroy God.

So, to repeat, all that is in bold is selected because it is politicising the

argument which is presented superficially as an overall scientific analysis of society.
So we have picked out words to show how the subtle fraud is perpetrated in such a
way that the deception takes place at a subliminal level by being attuned to the
linguistic programme that is written into our minds from birth by our acquisition of
language. This integral invasion of our being explains why in a society in which the
individual genuinely counts for nothing all appearances should be to the contrary, so
that as this small passage can be analysed to show that its pretended scientific form is
nothing of the sort, so we can turn to society itself and see exactly the same fraud
perpetrated on a gargantuan scale where the whole of society is one massive
deception evoking freedom which does not exist. And all to make the cells of the
living superorganism feel a sense of physical integrity in place of a sense of reality.
 ________

After an excursion into art we can pick up our tracks once again.
We were saying that homosexuals evolved to be priests, they were not
distracted by mundane activities concerned with winning females and bearing
offspring. In addition to these inherently exclusive attributes of homosexuality, it is a
plain fact that the natural gifts associated with priestcraft are to be found especially
associated with homosexuals. This is not to say that musicians, poets, painters and so
on are all gay, but rather that gays are disproportionately represented in this class of
person compared to their presence in the population as a whole ; a statistical argument
we see Sombart use in his evaluation of the role of Jews in their host society. Given
our observation that homosexual men are as a minority always under some pressure to
preserve their privacy from heterosexuals, except under certain conditions where their
class has emerged as a potent social force able to dominate the majority in some way,
the descent of gifted artists into underground caverns in the earliest expression of
what might be equated to the propensity for cultivated living such as we associate
with civilization, has all the makings of the conditions we would predict for the
development of a priesthood based upon the exclusivity of the convoluted male
gender. If the magnificent cave art of Europe could be associated with the coming of
a new variety of human, perhaps white races, with a loading of homosexual weight in
the population and a corresponding increase in the intelligence quotient as defined by
the social qualities we have just said homosexuals have in abundance, this would be
expressed as a small percentage of the biomass and as such represents an evolving
social brain, this may suggest how a white race evolved, and why they were the
progenitors of civilization : so, we are not making out a crude theory of race based
superiority here, we are trying to suggest a subtle displacement of valuable qualities
associated with a major racial divergence, but where the element of subtlety is all
important because it is focused upon the social organism and only has significance as
an expression of superorganic attributes. After all there is no doubting that white
people evolved from black people, and white people have achieved the greatest
expression of human potential thus far. Hence it is a useful exercise, if our
explorations of human nature should allow it, to try and express a way in which this
extremely significant fact can be accounted for realistically while acknowledging the
relevance of race without making the significance of race the be all and end all of the
subject.
Racial identity associated with different qualities only becomes a problem
when the priest is allowed to pervert ideas by fixing their interpretation upon the
individual as an end in themselves. Where the individual is negated and the social
organism made the true individual the attributes of race become diffuse and worthless
as the basis of a political ideology, for the fact that the white race evolved as a
superior race to the black races in no way suggests that all individual units of one
organism are superior to all individual units of the other, anymore than the fact that
humans have a superior brain to all other life forms means that human kidney cells are
somehow superior to the kidney cells of a donkey, for example. Whites were superior
to blacks because they had an enriched quotient of homosexual males, perhaps, but
this does not make white individuals genetically superior to black individuals where
all other circumstances are even. Racism is made by the priest to protect Judaism,
racism is a Jewish ideology, just as Darwinism is a Jewish ideology, we live a in an
absolute theocracy in which there is no freedom of thought, and the theocracy is
Jewish. Remember, Hitler was the greatest saviour of the Jews ever to exist, without
Hitler the Jews were doomed by the advance of science that revealed what humans
were, and thus what Jews are.

In making the above observations on homosexuality, white races, and Judaism

we emulate the observation made by Grosse in respect to the function of art as a
binding agent, whereby the continuity of an artistic medium varied in its expression in
relation to the constitution of the superorganic biomass in which unity was induced.
Thus as dance goes to architecture, architecture goes to art, art goes to poetry, and
poetry goes to music, so homosexuality goes to race, race goes to religion and religion
goes to Judaism. This makes perfect sense. Our compilation of related attributes is
very poorly assembled because we are like the blind feeling their way along a
passage, we have a good idea of what to expect but we are so hampered by the dark,
in this case in the shape of ignorance imposed by the elite, that we struggle to find the
real details, but we do know exactly what we should be looking for, that is continuity
through change that relates to the eternal thread of unchanging human corporate
nature which evolved to bring an ever greater mammalian superorganism into being at
the level of social organization.

The homosexual is not a shy or self effacing creature, much to the annoyance
of straight men, if my own feelings about the brashness of gays is at all typical. Thus
the presence of a genetically induced secret society, ever present in all human
societies, composed of people who carry a keen desire to be at the forefront of
society, sets up a state of tension whereby the social potential of the hidden
homosexual group must constitute a latent potential. And sure enough we know
perfectly well that this is so. There have been major societies run by homosexuals in
the past, Sparta, and the ancient Greek and Roman world seems to of been heavily
based upon this core quality of superorganic physiology. In our own time we have
seen the homosexual emerge from being outlawed to being in total command of our
society to the extent that heterosexuals are powerless against the homosexual in key
areas of public concern over individual rights. The homosexual is the sacred cow, the
heterosexual the degenerate pig who either owes honour and respect to the man who
would fuck him, or had best keep his mouth shut. It seems a truly remarkable
turnaround, but not once we know what humans are, and thus know what
homosexuals are.
Of especial interest to me in terms of the affinity of homosexuality and
Judaism to each other as expressions of the essence of human corporate nature, is the
similarity that occurred to me regarding the flexibility of both groups relative to the
executive structure of society. Sombart makes much of the flexibility of the Jews and
I have extended the idea myself to the quality of the priest in general where I have
indicated that it is always a primary of objective of Christians to corrupt every popular
movement so that even if atheism comes to the fore the Christians waste no time in
producing a highly elaborate organization consisting of atheist Christian priests,
Humanists, who are in deepest awe of the Lord, even though, supposedly, their
defining motivation in life is to deny belief in the Lord.
It occurred to me, as it is with the Jews, as it is with priests in general, indeed,
as it must be with any category of people that are especially formulated upon the
principle of focusing social power upon themselves, so it is with homosexuals. The
best example of this is the attitude of homosexuals have to the church. The church
has been their number one enemy for millennia, but the moment they get the chance
homosexuals want to become part of it, no animosity, no concern that the organization
is evil in any sense, only the desire to be included, “give us that”, and we are happy,
“we just want our place in the shindig”, is the evident message. Note, while I
condemn this amoral outlook personally and politically, seeing in it the menace of
homosexuality as a phenomenon in society aiding the fascism of the priest whose sole
concern is the possession of power, putting aside my own sensitivities, the fact is this
disposition is inherent in the identity of the homosexual as a minority outsider, and by
the same token it must also be inherent in the Jew as a special cultural entity which is
always experiencing life as a minority outsider relative to the dominant structures that
rule society on the public stage. By recognising these social dynamics we can
insinuate our thoughts deeper into the core organ of human superorganic physiology
and feed our attempts to understand the features of society we would like to
comprehend from a scientific standpoint.
Mind, what goes for the gays goes equally well for women. Fact is that while
our society is declared free and open today because it includes many types formally
outcast, all that has happened is that all categories are now included in the same old
fascistic priesthood in which none of us have any say whatever. And thus we get the
worst bleeding Nazis in history ruling us, the like of Margaret Thatcher, and whoever
it was that introduced the damn law against drink driving. What right have women
got to pass laws against behaviour that women do not engage in ? It would be like
men passing laws controlling women’s right to abortion, outrageous. But this is how
society works, by making a host of variegated types of people subject to a common
machinery. If there were a communistic society in which all were meaningfully equal
such organization would be impossible, society would be impossible beyond the most
basic level of organization.

Taking up an earlier strand of reasoning regarding the manner in which

identities are generated by linguistic force which polarises sections of the biomass
according to a single common idea, we give ourselves food for thought by seeing the
relationship between Jews and homosexuals in terms of two elements of society
evolved to act as a core organ of organization. We have seen very dramatically that in
reality as horrific as the Nazis history is the plain fact is that the Nazis were created in
direct response to a vital need the Jews had to survive a period of intellectual
transition in society which brought attention to bear upon the nature of the Jews, and
this could only end in the slow death of Judaism if some cataclysmic alternative did
not save them, as it did. So the Nazis served as a temporary anti-Jew modelled
exactly upon the Jew as we see most clearly from Sombart’s words taken from
Trotter.
It is perfectly clear that race precedes religion as a means of generating
collective identity, and this is so because religion based on a linguistic programme can
include any race, so religion always trumps race, and this simple fact indicates that the
racist basis of Nazis ideology was always facile, and it is extremely difficult to
believe that a man of Hitler’s intellectual abilities did not know this perfectly well.
But how do we pursue what is implied in that observation ? Anyway, by the same
token it has long been known to me that there must be some logical relationship
between the form of Judaism and the existence of homosexuality as a dominant
binding force in the organ of authority ruling ancient society, such that we may
imagine that just as a religion had to evolve that realised the potential of language to
create a social identity superseding racial identity so, at the same time, this new
identity would need to deal with the competition inherent in homosexuality that, like
race, was genetically evolved to organize the structural physiology of the
superorganism. Thus Judaism had to compete with race and homosexuality, and so
Judaism had to be averse to homosexuality, and it seems that a major feature of the
Jewish religion is its aversion to sexuality per se. From this we discover a logic in the
linguistic programme that is Judaism in respect to the highly moralistic outlook
toward sex. It is not possible to single out homosexuality exclusively for
condemnation because, as we know all too well in our currently permissive society,
the fact is that in generating an ever present inclination for a minority of males
sexually attracted to males, it seems that evolution blurred the expression of sexuality
to an excruciating degree, making humans prone to all sorts of obsessions and thus
leaving the only possible solution for any would be ruling body seeking to contain the
latent potential of homosexual unity with the only alternative of promoting a highly
stylised conception of sexual behaviour that rules out all activity except that expressly
sanctioned by the programme, that is procreative love within marriage.

Sombart :

The time has really arrived when the myth that the Jews were forced to have
recourse to money-lending in mediaeval Europe, chiefly after the Crusades, because
they were debarred from any other means of livelihood, should be finally disposed of.
The history of Jewish money-lending in the two thousand years before the Crusades
ought surely to set this fable at rest once and for all. The official version that Jews
could not devote themselves to anything but money-lending, even if they would, is
incorrect. The door was by no means always shut in their faces ; the fact is they
preferred to engage in money-lending. This has been proved by Professor Bücher for
Frankfort-on-the-Main, and the same may be done for other towns as well. The Jews
had a natural tendency towards this particular business, and both in the Middle Ages
and after rulers were at pains to induce Jews to enter into other callings, but in vain.
Edward I made the attempt in England ; it was also tried in the 18th century in the
Province of Posen, where the authorities sought to direct the Jews to change their
means of livelihood by offering them bounties if they would. Despite this, and despite
the possibility of being able to become handicraftsmen and peasants like all others,
there were, in 1797, in the southern towns of Prussia, 4164 Jewish craftsmen side by
side with 11,000 to 12,000 Jewish traders. The significance of these figures is borne
in upon us when we note that though the Jewish population formed some 5 or 6 per
cent. of the whole, the Christian traders totalled 17,000 or 18,000.
It may be urged, however, that the practice of usury, even when it is carried on
quite voluntarily, need not be accounted for by special racial attributes. Human
inclinations of a general kind will amply explain it. Wherever in the midst of a people
a group of moneyed men dwell side by side with others who need cash, be it for
consumption, be it for production, it soon comes about, especially where the legal
conditions governing money-lending are of a primitive kind, that the one class
becomes the debtors and the other the creditors.

(Page 310-11)

We are told that Jewish activity had been constant throughout their existence,
not as traders or farmers but as money lenders. This idea is perfect for the biological
position that the Jews constituted a special organ of social organization storing energy
and distributing it, with all that this implies for the function of the Jewish organ as a
social brain.

Sombart :

A brief reference to the methods of some of the believers in the race-theory

will show how unreliable their conclusions are. They start out with the assumption
that the Jews are a race. Since every race must have specific characteristics, Jews have
theirs. In other words, their specific characteristics are rooted in their race. But for this
there is no actual proof. If the truth must be told, we know nothing whatever of the
connexion between somatic or anthropological features and intellectual capacities.
What the race-theorists have produced is a new sort of religion to replace the
old Jewish or Christian religion. What else is the theory of an Aryan, or German,
“mission” in the world but a modern form of the “chosen people” belief ? All well
and good, but let no one be deceived into imagining that this is science. It is faith, and
faith and science had best be kept apart.
As we have said, there is no certain connexion between somatic attributes and
intellectual capacities. The constancy of each may be purely accidental ; it may arise
anew in every generation or may be carried on by the aid of tradition. And among a
people who were attached to tradition as the Jews were, this assumption seems likely
enough. The Jews were shut off from others, they possessed a strong love of family,
their religious practices were scrupulously observed, the Talmud was energetically
studied in every generation—all these supplied, as it were, the machinery for carrying
on certain peculiarities from one generation to another merely by education alone.
This is one view. Yet Jewish characteristics may spring from the blood. Again,
there are those who would trace them to environment. The Jewish religion, Ghetto
life, the dealing in money for so many centuries have all three been instanced to
account for the specifically Jewish type of character. There may be something in this.
Only possibly, as I have tried to show, these influences instead of being causes may
be results.
I propose in the next chapter to analyse the Jewish genius, laying special stress
on the following points in the order given : (1) The original aptitudes of those races
from which the Jews sprang as exhibited in their mode of life. (2) How the various
elements mingled. (3) Which of these aptitudes survived under the influences of
Jewish history. Finally, if these considerations should prove insufficient, we shall
venture the hypothesis : (4) that certain characteristics grew up in the course of
history. We shall see, however, that there will be no need to have recourse to this
hypothesis, since the Jewish genius can be adequately explained along the first three
lines. If this be so, then one result will have been established : that the Jewish
characteristics are rooted in the blood of the race, and are not in any wise due to
educative processes.

CHAPTER XIV

THE VICISSITUDES OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE

 IF any one wished in a sentence to account for the importance of the Jews in
the world's civilization, and more particularly in economic life, he could do so by
saying that it was due to the transplanting of an Oriental people among Northern
races, and the culture union of the two. A similar assertion has been made regarding
the civilizations of the classical world, of the Greek more especially, and also of that
of the Italian Renaissance. It has been suggested that they resulted from the mixture of
Northern peoples, who had wandered into a Southern environment, with the
autochthonous inhabitants—a brilliant hypothesis, not without an element of truth in
it.
But the statement concerning the Jews is no hypothesis : it is an established
fact, capable of abundant proof. The capitalistic civilization of our age is the fruit of
the union between the Jews, a Southern people pushing into the North, and the
Northern tribes, indigenous there. The Jews contributed an extraordinary capacity for
commerce, and the Northern peoples, above all the Germans, an equally remarkable
ability for technical inventions.
It is clear, therefore, what we must have in view in our considerations of the
Jewish genius and its enormous influence. Not whether the Jews were Semites, or
Hittites, or of some other stock, not whether they are “pure,” or “mixed,” is the
important thing, but that they are an Oriental folk transplanted into an environment
both climatically and ethnically strange, wherein their best powers come to fruition.

(Page 321-4)

It is delightful to see Aryanism contrasted directly with Judaism as a religion

seeking to supplant the ‘chosen people’. This cautionary note on the part of Sombart
is seen to be highly disingenuous when we also have the quote from Trotter which
indicates that Sombart believes the Germans are indeed the new ‘chosen people’
representing God on earth ! Bearing in mind that we do not expect to find genuine
pieces of work examining the true nature of humanity, it is nonetheless surprising that
these priests felt able to bandy phrases about without ever giving any serious thought
to the true significance of what these phrases meant. In Trotter’s quote we see that
Sombart’s simplistic interpretation of the meaning of the phrase ‘chosen people’ was
based simply upon the notion of cultural excellence. Yet this is a very naive and
human interpretation of reality, a bit like believing in tree spirits just because you are
part of an aboriginal tribe who live in a jungle where you simply have no means of
seeing the wood beyond the trees which, from your myopic perspective, are very
much a part of the living world that you are part of. It should be obvious that the
position of the Jews is incomparable with any other culture that ever existed, and to
make the comparison between the Jews and the Greeks is the height idiocy that brings
the frame of Sombart’s intellectual integrity into absolute contempt ; although of
course no academic would last a moment if they had the least grain of intellectual
integrity, just like any priest whose job is to serve the agenda set by the theocracy.

We have decided that the Jews are a cultural-race, where an educative process
has supplanted by the genetic process of racial differentiation by creating a linguistic
genome in the form of an identity imparting literature. It is interesting to see Sombart
state categorically that the Jewish characteristics are purely genetic and in no sense
whatever cultural. This view is absolutely essential to the preservation of Judaism as
a religious identity, and it is also supremely anti-Semitic and could only possibly lead
toward the rise of the Nazis, if the Jews were to survive.

The Jewish religion, living in ghettos and usury have created the Jewish
characteristics, some are said to argue. But Sombart says, no, these so called causes
could be results ! My my he is a clever boy ; shame he does not recognise the
inversion of causes and consequences in other places where he likes to put the
individual before the social organism.

The emphatic support for the race theory of Jewish origins makes the Jews
into a wholly new kind of people, instead of the only other alternative idea which is to
view Jews as a special adaptation to the superorganic nature of the human species.
But this latter interpretation of Jewish nature would mean accepting the Jews were the
true master race, and as we have seen Sombart believed that this attribute was now
defunct and the Germans were the new chosen. How convenient for the Jews, their
cover was on the brink of being blown, when up came some complete idiot and saved
the day, while not one other person emerged to point out the simple truth, certainly no
Jew revealed it, they just revelled in the anti-Semitism which washed over them just
as they were doing in The War Against Britain’s Jews last night, just as they always
do, cooking up anti-Semitic conspiracies instead of telling us who they really are, or
just letting us find out for ourselves. It is so easy to see why Jews need anti-Semitism
to protect themselves from any free discussion of what Jews really are, How else
could they protect themselves from free and open discussion of Judaism given that
their power rests upon the subversion of culture to their own ends by means of their
own adaptation to the organic dynamics of superorganic evolution ?

This last part of the above quote providing a summary analysis of the fact that
Jews exist as a cultural intrusion into alien cultures is utterly pathetic. This aspect of
Jewish culture is the functional essence of Jewish biological nature that makes the
Jews an abstract master identity evolved to act as the brain of an appropriately
adapted, physiologically differentiated cultural body. Sombart’s drivel is pure
political Judaism at its worst, and the very antithesis of science.

Sombart :

In olden times the characteristics of the Northern climes were even more
strongly marked than to-day. The Romans’ picture of Germany shows us a rude land,
covered with bogs and dense forests, a land of leaden skies, with a misty and moist
atmosphere, whose winters are long and wildly stormy. For thousands of years
peoples and races (our ancestors) dwelt in the damp woods, the bogs, the mists, the
ice and the snow and the rain. They hewed down the woods, made the land habitable
and pitched their tents where axe and plough had gained for them a strip of the wilds.
From the very first they seemed to be rooted in the soil ; from the very first it would
seem that tillage was never quite absent. But even if we try to imagine these Northern
folk as “nomads,” theirs is a very different kind of life from that of a Bedouin tribe.
We feel that they are more tied to the hearth than even an agricultural people in an
oasis-land. The Northerners are settlers even when they only breed cattle ; the
Bedouins are always nomads, even though they till the soil.
 This is so because man is brought into closer touch with Nature in the North
than in the hot countries. Man is part and parcel of Nature even if he only beats the
woods as a huntsman, or as a shepherd breaks a path through the thickets for his
flocks.

(Page 336)

A poetic expression of the positive and negative dualism inherent in the

linguistic force that we said creates social structure by generating just this kind of
artificial, that is purely linguistic kind of contrast. Sombart is reinforcing the
inversion which created the Jews from the uniformity of human nature by selecting
the simplistic environmental contrasts between north and south, in effect he is
applying the pseudo scientific logic of Darwin’s theory of evolution which pitted the
varied individual against the uniform, selecting environment. The Jews are different
to others, but not inherently so, the evolution of a Christian and Muslim Jewish slave
identities indicates that we can all be turned into Jews, as we have been. It is just this
point that we were discussing above in relation to Jews, homosexuals, women and
priests in general, we are all capable of adopting any political strategy as long as it
assigns common privileges to the category to which we belong. The Jews are the
original category, and that is all that is unique about them. Anyone could become the
master race, but not in the facile way envisaged by Sombart through taking a leading
role in the production of the overt trappings of material life. Indeed the replacement
of the Jews is the one thing which I must concede in my relentless war on Judaism,
that without Judaism I have no idea how we can exist ; but, I want knowledge, I
believe in knowledge, I have faith, in reality. First religion must go, only then can we
know what might be possible without religion.

Sombart :

The intellectuality of the Jew, we saw, was his most striking attribute, the one
which embraced many others. It can be very easily accounted for when we recall that
from the very earliest period of their history, when they tended their flocks beside the
still waters, the Jews never had to perform hard manual labour. The curse that fell on
Adam and Eve when they were expelled from the Garden of Eden, that man should
eat bread in the sweat of his face, did not at any time bear heavily on the Jew—that is,
if we take the words in their literal meaning and exclude mental worry and anxiety.
Shepherd life calls for care, combination and organization, and all subsequent
vocations which the Jews adopted (whether voluntarily or forcibly is of no
consequence) demanded but little bodily work, though much mental effort. The
family history of most of us leads through two or three generations to the plough or
the anvil or the spinning-wheel. Not so with the Jews. For centuries and more they
were for the most part never peasants or craftsmen, never makers of anything, but
only thinkers—brain-workers. It was therefore only to be expected that certain gifts
and capacities should be developed in them in the course of time. Given the Jewish
mode of life, an exceptional intellectuality cannot but be deduced from it.
But more than this : the special Jewish intellectuality is of a kind associated
with sandy or stony deserts. The Jews are rational, are fond of abstraction. Once more
we are reminded of the contrast between desert and forest, between North and South.
The sharp outlines of the landscape in hot, dry countries, their brilliant sunshine and
their deep shadows, their clear, starlit nights and their stunted vegetation—cannot all
these be summed up in the one word abstraction ? The opposite to this is surely what
is concrete, as all things of the North are, where the water flows abundantly, where
the landscape is as varied as it is rich, where Nature is prolific in wood and field, and
the earth, sends up its fragrance. Is it accidental that astronomy and the art of
reckoning first arose in the hot lands where the nights are ever brilliant, and was
developed among peoples whose pastoral pursuits taught them to count ? Can we
think of the Sumerians who invented the cuneiform script as a Northern people ? Or,
on the other hand, can we imagine the peasant of the misty North as he follows his
plough, or the huntsman chasing deer in the forest, as either of them able to conceive
the abstract idea of numbers ?
So with rational thinking and searching after causes. That also leads us into the
world of the South with its artificially produced, never natural vegetation, with the
eternal insecurity of Bedouin life as the dominating factor of existence. And
contrariwise, tradition is associated with the comfortable, secure and peaceful
existence of the Northern farmer and with his misty and mysterious surroundings.
That the appreciation of life and growth should be able to develop, or at least to
develop more freely, among the luxuriant Nature of the North than among the dead
vegetation of the South is not at all unlikely. And as the desert, so the town, in
depriving man of his piece of fruitful mother earth destroys in him the feeling of
communion with all living things, breaks the bond of fellowship between him and
animals and plants, and so deadens all true understanding of organic Nature. On the
other hand, the city sharpens his intellectual capacities, enabling him to search, to spy-
out, to organize, to arrange. To be constantly on the alert is the nature of the nomad ;
to have to be constantly on the alert was what their fate forced on the Jews—to be
constantly alive to new possibilities, new goals, new combinations of events ; in a
word, to order life with some end in view.

(Page 339-41)

Boy does he go on and on talking meaningless drivel sometimes, we can sure

see how Hitler built up lots of his mystical bollocks about earthy living and peasant
ideals to contrast with Jewish manipulative ways. But which came first here, the
myth or the political desire, and what role did the likes of Sombart play in creating the
Nazi myth of human nature ?
This passage is not idle bullshit, it is vital to inculcate the sense of psychology
existing as an inner mental state that develops in people, it is a political poetry
implying that man makes himself, denying that nature makes man. This is religion,
not science, which is why it has been published and translated, then promoted by the
priesthood. Sombart’s work is the negative polarity of Judaism. Judaism and anti-
Semitism are both equally expressions of Jewish social power, they are the negative
and positive forms that rotate about Jewish identity and culture, thereby expelling all
that is not Judaism from existence in society. If this were not so then the Jews would
not be so keen to produce their endless diatribes on anti-Semitism, two examples of
which we have seen on TV this last fortnight. Either way the Jew wins, either we
have religion, which is pure Judaism, or we have condemnation of criticism of
Judaism, which again is pure Judaism. What we never get is the voice of none Jews
condemning Jews, or atheists criticising religion ; nor will we ever hear such voices in
this slave land we call home, Great Britain, my England ! the land where slaves are
made.

__________

I finished the above review of Sombart today, 11/07/07, and a nice little piece
of anti-Semitic literature arrived from America, Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin, by
Dietrich Eckart, 1966. This is a short pamphlet produced by what appears to be a
neo-Nazi group, it was first published in 1924 and as such predates the writing of
Mein Kampf. It is a dialogue between the author and Hitler, useful for our purposes
here in that Sombart’s book is referred to three times, indicating that Hitler was very
familiar with this work ; none of the references being of any great significance
however.
Items of an overtly anti-Semitic kind are extremely rare and difficult to locate.
This piece is rich in footnotes but the most interesting book mentioned is that by
Sombart. I had hoped there might be some mention made of authors who were
favourable to the anti-Semitic cause but writing as academics, since I would dearly
love to find a work that takes the same genuinely scientific stance we take by basing
our ideas on the conception of society as a social organism. The tenor of the piece is
very much that which we find in Mein Kampf but it is different because it is more
casual.
The opening passage is a delight, it begins with Hitler viewing society as a
natural phenomenon subject to a variety of social forces. He evokes the idea of an
astronomer discovering perturbations unaccounted for by his knowledge of the
heavens, who thereby assumes there is something present that is not known directly,
and he sets out to reveal the unseen object.

“But what does the historian do, on the other hand ? He explains an
anomaly of the same type solely in terms of the conspicuous statesmen of the
time. It never occurs to him that there might of been a hidden force which
caused a certain turn of events. But it was there, nevertheless ; it has been
there since the beginning of history. You know what that force is : the Jew.”

(Dietrich, page 2)

Dietrich responds enthusiastically, “but to prove it, to prove it !” (ibid.). This

unseen effect of the Jew has been obvious for fifty or a hundred years, or longer,
perhaps before the birth of Christ, he declares. To which Hitler responds by calmly
affirming the excited outburst, he talks of Strabo saying, about the time of Christ, that
Jews were to be found dominating every spot on earth, dominating he reiterates, not
just living in.
On page nine Hitler refers to the idea that the Jews instigated the First World
War, “The resolution of the Jewish high command many years ago to unleash the
World War is well authenticated,”. In a footnote the translator expands on this idea,
and indicates that the objective of such turmoil was to force the British to hand over
Palestine to the Jews, which is of course precisely what did come out of part two of
this conflagration.
 One of the more subtle points of interest in this conversation is the way Hitler
makes it plain that none Jews are forever gullible, eternally falling prey to the ruses of
the Jews. On pages 11 and 12 we have a eulogy to Christ ! This is quite something :

“But we want Germanism, we want genuine Christianity, we want

order and propriety, and we want these things so firmly established that our
children and grandchildren can remain satisfied with them.”

(Page 12)

If this is not the very height of gullibility I cannot imagine what could be. On
page 14 this pair bewail the gullibility of their own kind. On page 17 they appear to
be discussing how the Jew conned the Christian. A portion of this short work seems
to be concerned with how Jesus came as the true messiah only to have his mission
waylaid when the Jews, seeing the power of his influence, infiltrated themselves into
the new movement, in the guise of Paul discussed on page 14, and thus Christianity
was corrupted so that, in effect, the Christians were made the slaves of Judaism as the
Old Testament promised, according to the quotes on page 17.
A most amusing quote from Hitler appears thus, speaking of Luther :

“The greatest German the unsuspecting cause of the German collapse ;

Luther, the mighty opponent of the Jews, the one who most disastrously paved
the way for them — incomprehensible, I tell you, incomprehensible.”

(Page 18)

And in his own day Hitler performs the same service. Here, in the midst of
decrying this incomprehensible behaviour he actively performs the service he descries
by seeking to draw a line between Christianity and Judaism. Thus Hitler works out a
way in which the obvious fact that Christians are the slaves of the Jews can be
accounted for by a trick performed by the Jews in order to bring about just this result !
The mind boggles. It is as if here Hitler shows us the true gift of the master in
performing the art of lying as levelled against the Jews by Schopenhauer, as Hitler
likes to keep telling us. How perfect that a supreme liar working unwittingly on
behalf of the Jews should endlessly repeat a warning against the lying Jew !
But what we need to bear in mind here is that the best liar is one who does not
know he is lying, one who takes a stance in good faith, but who has no idea what is
true. All academics are this kind of liar. Does Richard Dawkins know he is the
Gatekeeper of the Theocracy ? I doubt it very much, he almost certainly is a
thoroughly decent and scrupulously honest man who believes his ideas make sense,
How could he have any idea that this is not so ? He has followed the training, he has
become a professor, all he ever hears reaffirms his stupid notions of evolution based
on Darwinism. Did Darwin know he was the supreme enemy of science ? I doubt
that too. The same applies to Hitler, and indeed to all Christian racist fascists, such as
we may guess the people are who have made available this translation we are
enjoying the use of now. What is interesting for us then is to discover what the
logical pathways were that informed Hitler of his insane ideas, and why he was able
to perform his duties as a slave of Judaism dedicated to the defence of the Jews such
that he could become one of the greatest saviours of the Jews of all time, even as he
believed himself to be a committed anti-Semite dedicated to the destruction of the
Jews.

Given the nature of American society today this is just the kind of piece we
would expect to come from there. I discovered this work by taking some names from
the fliers reproduced in the 1939 copy of Mein Kampf and running searches for them.
This skimpy item is all I found, and there was only one copy. Because it was by a
racist organization, the publishers being White Power Publications, I wondered if the
dealer would prove to be a sympathiser and if I would get any offers of more anti-
Semitic works, and lo and behold in the middle of the booklet a card exclaiming The
White Race is Becoming Extinct ! was inserted that appealed for people to become
members of the National Socialist Movement, which is the Nazi party ! Can you
believe that ? I did not know it was still in existence. And what is more there is a
website ; goodie goodie. What delights might we find there, fingers crossed. On the
bill the first line of the address is “ I Fight ! ” so it is clear that the dealer is
associated with the Nazi movement, but disappointingly they have sent no additional
advertising material.

Fabulous, my visit to the library today, 12/07/07, was all I could hope for.
The link was not exactly direct but it took me to the American Nazi party, would you
believe ! By following the “books” link I found a couple of desirable items already
turned into text on line, most notably Chamberlain’s Foundations of the Nineteenth
Century which keeps cropping up in my line of sight and is rare and expensive, but
here it is free and beautifully presented, if not in a format I quite like. I only had
space on my floppy disc for the introductions which I have just glimpsed at and it is
fascinating. We are told the book was an inspiration to Hitler, and sure enough the
author’s introduction looks like the book could well be the foundation of Mein
Kampf’s philosophical ideology in respect to race. In addition to the racial philosophy
we also find the formulation of Hitler’s ludicrous Christian belief allied to virulent
anti-Semitism, which is to our purposes a most important element of the Jewish Nazi
ideology presented to the world by Hitler. There is certainly a lot that seems odd, in a
remarkable sense, about Chamberlain’s work, his being an Englishman who wrote in
German the greatest eulogy to Germans anyone ever could of written ; so an
Englishman created the Nazis, which sounds about right when we see the English
created the Darwinian miscreant. This was our age, we had the greatest empire ever
known and all that goes with such prowess, including the arrogance to think we could
twist knowledge anyway we felt fit to serve the masters purpose, and the ability to
perform the tricks necessary to get the job done, such as sending Darwin on a round
the world cruise to gather facts to form the basis of a false science of life.

What becomes clear from looking at the modern day material is that racism in
the guise of white supremacy is a religion. This not a radical idea, but the question is
how to understand this fact. While spending some time thinking about the Nazis
ideology in relation to the hatred of Jews the question that keeps coming to the fore in
relation to modern white supremacist ideas is What the hell has this racism got to do
with hating Jews ? Jews are as white as anyone, it makes no sense. The answer to
this riddle is straightforward enough, but the sum of all answers is that racism today is
a religion, it makes no sense of any kind, it is based on a tradition, and a liturgy.
 Of course there is nothing inherently wrong in a racist religion as opposed to a
religious religion, both are equally obscene. The Nazi religion is of course a Jewish
religion since its advocates are Christians. There is a phrase in Chamberlain’s
introduction where he says “if we ever become real Christians.” These people make
you want to weep, if this is not an out and out defence of Judaism then I would like to
know just what would be. The logic of defending Judaism by promoting hatred of the
Jews is something we have covered, and of course it is the Christians who specialise
in this kind of madness. We could probably find some insight into what kind of
Christian we are and what a true Christian would be, but this is not necessary, we can
guess with absolute certainty what the essence of the objective has to be, it is identical
for the Muslim fascist who is currently serving as the vanguard of Judaism today
through their murderous acts of terrorism which the Christian community exerts all its
power and might to nurture and develop by inviting Muslims into Europe and then
giving them free reign to cultivate the poison of Islamic faith, and then provoking the
morons by waging iniquitous wars against them in their homelands.
It all ties together and as we frequently point out these strands of Judaism have
to have the quality noted by Bluntschli when he said order in society depends upon a
diverse range of identities ; so that while all must be Jews, there must be an infinite
variety of Jewish identities to form the quilt of superorganic unity. The same might
be said of a car plant employing twenty thousand workers, all are car makers, but
some are engineers, some painters, some cooks, some cleaners, some accountants and
so on, but all are always, and at all times, car makers. However if we were to ask
each person what they were by profession none would say “I am a car maker” because
none would be, each would define themselves according to their title in the
workplace, and no single person is a car maker, except that is the boss, the owner or
the board of directors who feel the enterprise belongs to them. In our society the boss
is the one who thinks the enterprise belongs to them, and this is the Jew, the chosen,
the Germans wanted to be the boss and so they assumed they were. By becoming true
Christians this is what Chamberlain meant, to become the real boss. But this is the
equivalent of the workers taking over the factory, it cannot happen because the
workers just mutate to become the workers committee, a new boss not of the workers,
and meanwhile the workers cannot escape being the workers, so in time the old labels
return, the communists become capitalists again, and the Jews remain Jews, since the
Jews never were ousted by the Nazis/Christians.
In the midst of all this then the one question is how come no one became
atheists ? But of course they did, that was part of the problem in the nineteenth
century, atheism was rife. More than this, what happened to science ? We have seen
Sombart proclaim his political nonsense to be pure science, and I noticed
Chamberlain was banding the word science about too as if it was the guiding light for
his idiotic work. But where is real science, science that is overtly and aggressively
atheistic ? It is here, but it is nowhere else. This is what the Christians did, they
stepped into the breach created by science, as they always do, and destroyed science,
the Nazis played a leading part in that destruction, and in so doing they saved their
religion, their religion being the Jewish religion, the Christians saved the Jews by
becoming Nazis. And the propaganda exploiting this trick is endless, we frequently
hear about how the Catholics collaborated with the Nazis, some pope or other did this
or that. So what ? That is like saying the left hand cooperated with the right. But the
apologetic church expresses its regret, and in this we see the sense of modern political
farce which makes a show of apologising for eighteenth century slavery, or 1950’s
bureaucracy that took Welsh villages to make water for Liverpool. This mentality is
about reinforcing the idea that we are good people today, we behaved badly in the
past, but we have choices and today we are such fine upstanding Nazis ! And of
course there are always going to be black people delighted to accept the humble white
man apologising for the slavery that still tears their poor black heart apart, or a brain
dead Welshman who will thank the Scouse twat for his sincere apology — or maybe
not, this abuse was too recent for the Welsh to be that stupid, there were some people
still alive to whom the affront meant something, which is not the case for blacks, to
them slavery as a memory is just a game to exploit in a world where we all need tricks
to get by, or they have acquired the sense of hurt via their culture and are only too
keen to find there are people who want them to be victims to fawn to over, it is a kind
of reverse scape-goating. Politicians must have their puppets.

But science, science is all we care about.

 Chapter VIII

Constructive Anti-Semitism, Good Racism, Positive Homophobia, Desirable

Islamophobia : The Bright Side of Hate.

The first 1939 Houghton Mifflin edition of Mein Kampf is brilliant. The notes
are really of their time. Reading about the race laws designed to purify the German
race and prevent its corruption, which utilised the most searingly fearful state
sponsored methods of human cultivation is chilling, and it invokes a deep twinge of
shame at the effort we are making here to reopen the Jewish Question as a vital facet
of our investigation into the ‘forlorn philosophy’ which requires us to present the Nazi
phenomenon in the light of reason.
This subject is a quagmire, my first thought is to say that nonetheless science
has nothing to do with feelings, but what could be more evocative of all that the priest
loves to say the Nazis were about—a savage application of science, albeit perverted
science ; and lets bear in mind that the science the Nazis perverted was a perverted
form of science produced by Darwin in the name of the theocracy, without which
Hitler would of had no idiotic ideas to work with. Of course what the Nazis were
really about was the defence of mindless religion from rational science, that is why
Nazi ideology was, like all religion always is, psychotic. The brutality of the Nazi
regime is nonetheless chilling and sympathy for the feelings of those who claim
ownership of the pain arising from these events is due. But if such people really care
about the suffering involved in these events then they more than anyone else should
support a search for truth that shies away from nothing. In addition, lets put the Nazi
dementia in perspective, it is sadly only one particularly bold example of a common
phenomenon, American slave states and South Africa providing two notable examples
of equally vile racist regimes, and there are countless more. So when we focus on the
Nazis it is only because they made the Jews their select object of vilification, and it is
to understand this targeting of the Jews as part of our inquiry into the nature of the
social organism that we concern ourselves with the Nazi regime.

Being of the period offers us further insights from Houghton Mifflin :

Then, too, Mein Kampf is a propagandistic essay by a violent partisan. As such

it often warps historical truth and sometimes ignores it completely. We have,
therefore, felt it our duty to accompany the text with factual information which
constitutes an extensive critique of the original. No American would like to assume
responsibility for giving the public a text which, if not tested in the light of diligent
inquiry, might convey the impression that Hitler was writing history rather than
propaganda. It is more probable, however, that we shall have to face the opposite
criticism — that we have been too impartial, too objective, too little concerned with
rebuttal. To this we should like to reply that truth, the accurate truth, is the only
argument which in the long run prevails. One may talk a fact out of existence for a
time, but it somehow survives. We are prepared to rest our case as editors on our
belief in that ultimate triumph.
One point in particular may need emphasis. Large portions of Mein Kampf are
devoted to the question of race as a substructure on which to erect an anti-Semitic
policy. We have not let these passages go unchallenged, but we have also not felt it
necessary to include a discussion of race of our own invention. The greatest
anthropologists of the twentieth century are agreed that ‘race’ is a practically
meaningless word. All one can legitimately do, therefore, is to challenge statements of
‘race history’ as being figments of the imagination, and to point out that they are at
bottom more or less subtle ways of supporting still more absolute and violent forms of
nationalism than even the nineteenth century knew. In addition we have made specific
objections to Hitler’s anti-Semitic statements where they contradict known historical
facts.

(Mein Kampf, 1939, Introduction, page ix)

Listen to these people, who the hell do they think they ? They use the word
truth like it was a choice item in a sweet shop that they like to suck on and then spit in
our face. In one breath they speak of the impossibility of talking a fact out of
existence forever and in the next they proceed to make their contribution to precisely
that effort in respect to the nature of racial form and identity.
Thinking about this matter this morning in connection with the difficulties
faced by homosexuals and how a true account of human nature would impact on
them, I imagined myself in conversation with a lad who I met in a local pub recently
that was, according to his companion, gay. I imagined this homosexual youth being
pleased at my scientific account of homosexuality which makes being gay perfectly
natural. But I then thought about how I would make the downside of this insight plain
to him. Homophobia is based on the unnatural nature of men wanting to make love to
men, while the homosexual political movement that has developed since
homosexuality was decriminalised in the sixties veers as far as it possibly can toward
the opposite pole and asserts that it is impossible to distinguish between homosexuals
and heterosexuals in any way whatsoever, other than the blunt difference of gender
preference for mating behaviour, which is supposed to be of no consequence
whatever. In the above passage from Mein Kampf we have an identical example of
polarisation based on the same kind of falsehood, in this case based on race, where
one party says race means everything and the other says race means nothing. This
extreme polarity is a sure sign that both parties are political parties and the
identification of truth could not be further from the minds of either party. So we have
a bunch of holier than though fascists forcing the view that racist ideology is based on
a pure fiction, opposing a bunch of fascists promoting the view that racism is the
political realisation of an ultimate reality dictated by God. And the queer bashing
versus gay loving parties do the same thing, they polarise reality. In the course of this
work we have discussed this mechanism of polarisation and based a scientific
principle upon it, wherein language is deemed to be a natural force responsible for the
creation of social structure which is made possible by the mechanism of inverted
meaning where reality is turned about face to suit a partisan argument. Here then we
are seeing how the mechanism of inverted meaning derives from this process of
linguistic polarisation. As people organize themselves on the basis of their inverted
meanings and associated polarised notions of reality they in turn build social structure
to secure their advantage and preserve their lying ideologies. This applies equally to
the good and the bad, because both are polarised notions of reality that nature
produces in order to serve the purpose of building a superorganic structure. And these
acts of linguistic misrepresentation depend upon the possibility of distinguishing
between people to the extent of allocating different identities to them, in accordance
with the principle stated by Bluntschli when he said social organization depended
upon differentiation, as noted above. Hence the reason we find an infinite variety if
identities being freely generated in our massive societies, so that order can be
arranged. We should not be surprised therefore that are lives are characterised by the
tension between the resulting identity blocs so that we either experience conflict or
cooperation, but never sanity and universal peace.
The particularly interesting thing about the dualism that emerges from the
polarisation of reality into positive and negative opposites is that the positive is
always supremely powerful, but its power is nonetheless dependant upon interaction
with the negative force. From this relationship ideas of good and evil arise. The ideas
of the great anthropologists are utter bullshit, lying bullshit of the most contemptible
kind, indistinguishable from the obscenity of the Nazis. Except that the lies of the
great anthropologists promoted by the theocracy are good lies, white lies we might
say, because they are expansive and inclusive. It is precisely this shift toward
inclusion that makes the positive lies the basis of stable power, at least in today’s
social setting. Likewise the same is true of the gay basher versus the homosexual,
both are equally liars concerned only with the promotion of their own political
agenda, but in one case the agenda is the promotion of political power based on hatred
and exclusion, while the other agenda calls for love and compassion for all. The
interesting thing then is that without the hate causing conflict the love causing unity
would have nothing to push against. Why does nature cause humans to behave in this
bizarre way ? Because this is how the social structure Bluntschli talks about as being
a precondition of order in society is created on a stable basis, to give rise to a
superorganism with a complex physiology composed of many different kinds o
people all united under one protective formula.
So the validity of the good is based upon the invalidity of the bad, as a house
is based upon its foundations, but both the good and the bad are equally false. Today,
25/06/07, the Open University magazine Sesame for summer 2007 arrived, issue 234,
on page seven there is a piece entitled OU Ethics Centre launches in which we are
told that while opening the ‘Ethics in Real Life’ forum last May the Vice-Chancellor
Professor Brenda Gourley said that her personal experience of the “cruel and
oppressive” apartheid regime of South Africa taught her that universities had a duty to
be propaganda machines serving the church which utilised fascism to give it the right
to represent the human spirit. Only she did not quite put it like that. Here then we
have a fine example of Nazis being used to justify good fascism. No suggestion that a
university should be a repository of knowledge or truth, oh no ! Though no doubt
these supremely ignorant, infinitely arrogant, self serving academics would not
hesitate to affirm that knowledge and truth was the very essence of what a university
should be ; words, words, words, is all we hear from such degenerate individuals.
But all this is exactly as it should be, it can be no other way. Universities are
biological structures created by nature just as a surely as trees are made by nature or
coal deposits are made by nature. As a person interested in knowledge I am venting
my frustration that these people are, as the custodians of knowledge, the sole obstacle
to my having access to knowledge, and to my living in a free society based on
knowledge. But it is as it has to be. Knowledge does not exist to amuse, knowledge
has a strict biological function.
A university is a church. In the same issue they parade their statistics that
show more than 10 % of student were disgusted with what the church had to offer, a
truly wonderful thing ! But over 80 % of the students were seeking a qualification
from the OU, and the courses cost hundreds of pounds. In effect their surveys are
polling the converted, and the disaffected will simply be excluded from access by
being alienated, which is exactly what the priests running such institutions want. That
is how society is sifted to allow only the obedient to rise to the top, this is how those
people we call priests come to be in positions of secular power and status while still
being just as much agents of the theocracy as any professional cleric could ever hope
to be. Their is no means of engaging with the university, you take the Bible classes
and like what you are given, study, pass exams, get a good job ; that is the idea, and
that is the only idea. Once again then, this is how the social order is made self
organising. And this provides a further indication as to why the basic method of
substitution has long been used to control knowledge, as seen in the case of the
ancient astronomer Ptolemy and the modern scientist Darwin.

Our chapter title indicates that all forms of hate are vital for love to be made
the basis of social order. This makes perfect sense if language is a force that produces
social unity by fragmenting the biomass into a multitude of groups which form a
structure unified in a state of competitive tension. Jews are the supreme example of
the unifying dynamic based on hatred. Racism is the opposite pole to the Jewish
religion, in which we include Christianity and Islam, and as such racism has proved
vitally important to the nurture and promotion of Jewish interests, as epitomized in
Hitler : Judaism is universal, racism fragments. Homophobia has been of immense
importance in the creation of social physiology, as we would expect since
homosexuality evolved for precisely the same reason Jews evolved, to form a core
body in the superorganism. Thanks to the universal hatred of homosexuals it is now
possible for gays to force laws of the most incredible kind through the legislative
structure whereby gay couples can get married and adopt children ! Stunning, what
kind of insane society would promote and tolerate such laws ? These laws are the
inverse of the laws produced by the Nazis, and as such just as bad in their own way.
What an appalling thing to think that you might be adopted by a gay couple, or born
to gay men courtesy of test tube magic. Still who cares about heterosexual feelings,
its what homosexuals want that counts. Thank goodness for homophobia, where
would gays be without it ?
Islamophobia is vital for the advance of the Jewish slave base recently
implanted into the European territories, every objection to this vile alien ideology is
met with a twist of the screw from our masters, each time we show our hatred a new
law is introduced to combat us. Thanks to the London suicide bombing of two years
ago Muslims have had an immense amount of attention paid to them, millions of
pounds for university courses teaching the evil of Islam has recently been announced
by the government, incredible, the Muslims must be laughing all the way to the bank.
Hate is crucial to all this positive action, first come the fascists, the gays, the Jews (in
all forms) and then when the objections arise, then comes the hate, and so then comes
the force. But this image of social engineering is of our times, due to the immense
flux of people shifting around the global society brought into being by Judaism. As
all the different elements of the mix jar against each other the law seeks to create
uniformity, and so each time something occurs that is bad it is tackled. If British
people object to Muslims they are attacked mercilessly by every facet of social power
available to the state, if Muslims misbehave the state moves with all its might to
please them and empower them. It is inevitable, the whole point of the world wars
was to smash the European population and to introduce the Islamic slave identity to
keep Judaism solid. So, inevitably this programme continues, and will continue until
the generations have died off to leave a Muslim continent, that is the purpose of the
Muslim identity, to form the basis of the Jewish global social organism. Accordingly
all the different minority elements of society are given the backing of the state, but the
fact is that this means the normal majority are disempowered, as it must be if the
identity of the biomass is to be readjusted to suit the Jewish programme dictated by
their religion.

There is a section entitled “A Note on Hatred” on page 194 of The Shape of

Things to Come by H. G. Wells, 1933. The subject matter is the conflict between
superorganic structures, not that Wells’ has any idea that this is the subject he is
discussing, but given our contention that hatred is vital to a healthy society in that it is
essential to the creation, that is growth of society, this little passage makes the point
as well as anything we might say ever could, and it is a kind of confirmation of our
argument to note felicitous statements made by others, intentionally felicitous to our
argument or unwittingly so.

Wells :

§ 8. A Note on Hatred

The student of history will find it almost impossible to understand the peculiar
difficulties of political life as it was lived until about a hundred years ago, nor will he
grasp the essential differences between what was called education in those days and
the educational processes we are still developing to-day, unless he masters the broad
facts about these systems of hatred that dominated the group relationships of mankind
right up to the assertion of the Modem State. We have given the main particulars of
the issue between the Germans and the Poles, but that is only one striking and
historically important instance of a general condition. We could give fifty such
chapters. Nearly everywhere populations were to be found steeped in and moved by
mass hatreds of a volume and obduracy outside any contemporary human experience.
All these hatreds arose out of the same essential causes. Two or more
population groups, each with its own special narrow and inadaptable culture and
usually with a distinctive language or dialect, had been by the change of scale in
human affairs jammed together or imposed one upon another. A sort of social
dementia ensued. In the absence of a common idea of community, civilized motives
gave place to instinctive hostilities and spasmodic impulses.
Wherever there were mingled populations these hates were found, and, except
in the Basque country, Wales and Lapland, they were intense enough to be of primary
political importance. South and east of Bohemia there seemed no boundary to the
realms of hate. The Magyar hated the Slav, the Slav the Italian, the Roumanian the
Russian. Religious differences, the mischief of priests, cut up even racial solidarities ;
the Catholic Slav hated the Orthodox Slav and the Orthodox Greeks in Macedonia
were hopelessly divided among themselves. Over all the ancient domain of the Sultan,
through Persia, through India, hates extended. Islam was rent by two ancient hate
systems. These mass hatreds were accepted in a kind of despair by even the wisest.
They defied the policies of statesmen absolutely. They were supposed to be beyond
human control.
It is extraordinary how recent is the intelligent mitigation and suppression of
hatred. Our ancestors did not envisage this as a controllable mental disease. They did
not know that it was possible to get through life without hatred, just as they did not
know that the coughs and colds that afflicted them and most of the phenomena of
senility were avoidable.
But it is amazing to think how submissively human beings allowed their lives
to be spoilt by controllable things—until almost within living memory. It was not
only against hate and envy that they made no effort. They left their poor nerves bare
and unprotected from an endless persecution by man-made afflictions. Up to 2010
they lived in towns that were crazy with noise ; there was practically no control of
offensive sounds, and the visual clamour of advertisements died out only in the needy
decades that preceded the Air Dictatorship. But then it was still hardly more than a
century that there had been sufficient light upon the towns and highways to drive
away the blackness of night and overcast weather. In northern climates in the winter
before the twentieth century people lived between the nocturnal dark and a dismal
grey half-light which they called daylight, not seeing the sun often for weeks together.
And before the nineteenth century it is clear to anyone who can read between
the lines that mankind stank. One has only to study the layout and drainage of their
houses and towns, their accommodation for washing, their exiguous wardrobes, the
absence of proper laundry organization and of destructors for outworn objects, to
realize that only usage saved them from a perpetual disgust and nausea. No wonder
that, quite apart from their bad food and loathsome cooking, they coughed, spat,
ached, went deaf and blind and feeble, in a continual alternation of lassitude and
mutual irritation.
These conditions of life have gone one after another and almost imperceptibly.
Few of us realize how different it was to be a human being only a few hundred years
ago. It is only when we take our imaginations with us back into the past that we
realize how evil to nose, eye, ear and soul the congregation of human beings could be.
And necessarily, inevitably, because of the ill-interpreted protests of body and mind
against this mode of existence, they hated—almost at haphazard. We have in Swift’s
Gulliver’s Travels (1726) the cry of one man of exceptional intelligence and
sensibility who discovered himself imprisoned as it were in the life of the eighteenth
century and could find neither outlet nor opiate. The reek of the kennels of a
mediaeval town was nothing to the stench of hatred in the popular Press of the
twentieth century. The ordinary newspaper of that time was not so much a news sheet
as a poison rag. Every morning the common man took in fresh suggestions of
suspicion and resentment and gratified his spite with bad news and malicious gossip.
Hatred, we know, is a morbid, infectious and preventable relapse to which the
mammalian cerebrum, and particularly the cerebrum of the social types, is prone. It is
a loss of rational control. It is caused normally by small repeated irritations of the
cerebral cortex. The contagion may occur at any phase before or after maturity, and
acute attacks predispose the brain for recurrence and may run together at last into a
chronic condition of vindictive disapproval.
Once hatred has established itself to that extent it seems to be ineradicable.
The patient seeks, often with the greatest ingenuity, occasion for offence, and finds a
profound satisfaction in the nursing of resentment and the search for reprisals and
revenges. He has what he calls his “proper pride”. He disapproves of his fellow
creatures and grudges them happiness. Our current education is framed very largely to
avert and anticipate this facile contagion, but the Press of that time subsisted by its
dissemination, in the interests of reactionary forces. We are as sedulous now for
cleanliness and ventilation in our mental as in our physical atmosphere. The contrast
between a contemporary crowd and the crowds depicted by Hogarth or Raphael is not
simply in the well-clad, well-grown, well-nourished and well-exercised bodies, the
absence of rags and cripples, but in the candid interested faces that replace the
introverted, suspicious and guarded expressions of those unhappy times. It is only in
the light of this universal malaria that human history can be made comprehensible.
And now this great German mind stretching across the centre of Europe in
seventy million brains was incapable of auto-therapy, and let its sickness have its way
with it. It would not recognize that it suffered from anything but a noble resentment.
Least of all peoples was it able to entertain those ideas of a worldwide cooperation, of
the World-State, which were still seeking their proper form and instrument. It was a
deeper hate altogether than the fear-begotten hate of the French. In both these
antagonized countries cosmopolitan sanity went begging, but most so in Germany.
The fluctuations in German hatred during the Thirties were curiously affected
by subconscious currents of discretion. Though Germany was fiercely belligerent in
spirit, her armament still lagged behind that of her neighbours ; her Hitlerites snarled
and threatened, but rather against Poland than France, and when the tension became
too great it found relief by outrages upon Communists, Pacificists and intellectuals
and by an exacerbated persecution of those whipping-boys of the Western civilization,
the Jews. From the accession of Hitler to the chancellorship of the Reich in 1933
onward, not only looting and massacre, but legalized outrage became an ever present
menace in the life of the German Jew.
Faber speaks in his studies of political psychology of the “hate map” of the
world. The intensity of the colouring of such a map would vary widely. The English-
speaking states (except for Ireland, that erstwhile “island of evergreen malice”, which
is now the most delightful and welcoming of summer resorts) and the Spanish-
speaking communities felt hate far less intensely than the peoples of the continental
European patchwork. They were less congested, they were free from acute alien
interference, they had more space to move about in, and the infection was not so
virulent. For two decades Spain and Spanish South America (after the Peruvian
Settlement) sustained indeed a more liberal and creative mentality than any other
region of the world. The Spanish contribution, beginning with Unamuno and Ortega
Y. Gasset and going onward through a long list of great names, was of increasing
importance in the building up of the Modern World-State.
Russia, we may note, was never so constructive mentally as Spain. She had
not now the same wealth of freely thinking and writing men. She had no surplus of
mental energy to philosophize. She ecstasized, prophesied or dogmatized. Such brain
discipline as she had was used up in her sprawling technical efforts. But she again was
not a malignant country. Young Russia was taught to hate indeed, but to hate a
dissolving enemy, the Wicked Imperialist. Even in that hate there was an element of
humorous caricature. When in due course the Wicked Imperialist faded away to the
quality of a nursery Ogre, he took with him most of the hatred out of Russia. Hate,
except in brief vivid spurts, does not seem congenial to the Russian temperament.
Few people in 1940 realized that the essential political trouble in the world, as
distinguished from its monetary malaise, was this endemic disease, and still fewer had
the boldness of mind even to think of the drastic cleansing and destruction of infected
social institutions and economic interests and accumulations that was needed if the
disease was ever to be stamped out. Meanwhile along the tangled frontiers of Central
and Eastern Europe the sores festered and the inflammation increased.
Among the more frequent methods of releasing hatred in the more troubled
communities were aggressive demonstrations inviting or involving violence, attacks
on representative buildings, such as embassies and consulates, the defilement of flags,
statues and other symbols (in India the slaughter of sacred or forbidden animals such
as cows or pigs in holy places), quarrels picked in cafes and restaurants, beatings-up,
assassinations, the throwing of bombs and crackers into parties and gatherings of the
objectionable nationality, or into law courts, religious buildings and other unsuitable
places for an explosion, firing at sentinels and across boundaries. Along the Adriatic
coast it would appear there was an exceptionally strong disposition to insult the
characteristic Italian respect for statues and pictures.
This was of recent origin. At the Congress of Versailles Italy had been bilked
by her French and British allies of a considerable amount of the Dalmatian coast-line
—to which indeed neither she nor they had any right, but which nevertheless had been
promised to her in the secret engagements that had brought her into the World War.
Her patriots had never ceased to resent this broken promise, nor the Yugo-Slav
peoples, who held the coveted districts, to fear a forcible annexation. There had been
much propaganda about the dispute. One prominent argument on the Italian side was
that the Republic of Venice (of which Rome was the natural heir) had formerly
dominated this coast, and, in proof of this, appeal was made to the public buildings in
the towns of the disputed regions, which everywhere bore the insignia of their Italian
founders and particularly the distinctive lion of Venice. For that was the Fascist
fantasy : wherever the Venetian lion had made its lair or the Roman eagles cast their
shadows, from Hadrian’s Wall in England to Mesopotamia, the Fascisti claimed to
rule.
This contention, though taken calmly enough by the English, French, Spanish,
Turks and other emancipated peoples, was bitterly resented by the populations more
immediately threatened, and particularly did it arouse resentment and hatred along the
Dalmatian coast. For the young and excitable Slav, those sculptured lions and archaic
eagles, those antique vestiges, were robbed of their artistic and historical charm ; they
took on an arrogant contemporary quality and seemed to demand an answer to their
challenge. His response was to deface or mutilate them.
Already in 1932 there were bitter recriminations between Rome and Belgrade
on this score, and in 1935 and again in 1937 fresh trouble arose. The later occasions
were not simply matters of chipping and breaking. These heraldic and highly
symbolic animals were now painted, and painted in such a manner as to bring them
into grave contempt. And the outrages were not confined to heraldic animals. Portraits
and images of Mussolini were also adorned all too often with pencilled moustaches,
formidable whiskers, a red nose and other perversions of his vigorous personality.
Such vexatious modes of expression were in constant evidence in all the
inflamed areas. To us they seem trivial, imbecile, preposterous, but then they were
steeped in tragic possibility.
The reader must picture for himself, if he can, how things went in the brain of
some youngster growing to manhood in one of these hate regions, the constant
irritation of restrictions, the constant urge to do some vivid expressive thing, the
bitter, un-consoling mockery against the oppressor, and at last the pitiful conspiracy,
the still more pitiful insult. He must think of the poor excitement of getting the paint-
pot and the ladder, of watching the receding police patrol, the tremulous triumph of
smearing the hated object. That perhaps was the poor crown of life for that particular
brain. Then the alarm, the conflict, the flight, a shot, a wound, straw and filth in a
prison cell, the beatings and the formal punishment, the intensified resolve to carry on
the resistance. There was nothing to think of then but the next outrage, the next riot.
So very often the story went on to wounds and death, the body crumpled up on a
street pavement and trampled under foot or put against a wall to be shot, and then the
rotting away and dispersal of that particular human brain with all the gifts and powers
it possessed. That was all that life could be for hundreds of thousands of those hate-
drenched brains. For that they came into being, like flowers that open in a rain of filth.

A Natural History of Cruelty has recently been published by Otto Jaspers

(2085—), a lineal descendant of that Professor Jaspers of Heidelberg University under
whom De Windt studied and to whose Die geistiger Situation der Gegenwart
De Windt was greatly indebted. Cruelty in the twentieth century is treated in
considerable detail, and it makes very terrible reading indeed. Happily it is not
considered a necessary part of a general education to probe under those dark
processes of the human mind which make the infliction of horrible pain and injuries a
relief to otherwise intolerable mental distresses. The psychologist, however, must
acquaint himself with all those facts ; he cannot fully understand our intricate minds
without them, and the practical disappearance of deliberate cruelty from our world to-
day makes the horror literature of the World War and World Slump periods a mine of
essential material for his investigations. One or two glimpses we have given the
student. If he has any imagination he will be able to expand those hints for himself
into an infinitude of mutilations, tortures and wanton violence.
The older psychologists were disposed to classify cruelty as a form of sexual
aberration—in ordinary speech we still use their old word Sadistic—but this
attribution is no longer respected by contemporary authorities. Cruelty goes far
beyond the sexual field. Just as hate is now understood to be a combative fear
compound, the stiffening up of a faltering challenge, which may become infectious,
so cruelty is regarded as a natural development of effort against resistance, so soon as
the apprehension of frustration exceeds a certain limit. It is a transformation of our
attempt to subdue something, usually a living thing, to our will, under the
exasperation of actual or anticipated obduracy.
This interpretation makes it plain why the breakdown of the private capital
economic and political system and the worldwide uncertainty, dismay and want which
ensued was followed by wave after wave of unprecedented cruelty. In 1900, a visitor
from another sphere might reasonably have decided that man, as one met him in
Europe or America, was a kindly, merciful and generous creature. In 1940 he might
have decided, with an equal show of justice, that this creature was diabolically
malignant. And yet it was the same creature, under different conditions of stress.
There were many thousands of suicides between 1930 and 1940—suicides of
sensitive men and women, who could endure the dreadful baseness and cruelty of life
no longer. Yet in the records of the reviving world of 1980 there is scarcely a mention
of atrocious conduct towards human beings or animals. It was not a change of nature ;
it was a change of phase. Millions of people who had actually killed, massacred,
tortured, were still alive—and they were behaving now quite reasonably and well.
Most of them had forgotten their own deeds more or less completely. Hope had
returned to human life. The frantic years were past.

(Wells, Pages 194-202)

I only read this when checking the text rendition of my software, which made
me wonder why I was bothering to use it, but it appeals on various levels, it is by
Wells, who we have had cause to discuss, it is focused upon a period we have felt
obliged to look at closely, and it evokes a sense of a global society saturated with
animosity. It does not however say anything useful about hatred, although this very
fact is itself useful because it goes to show how people manage subjects of this kind
according to a political interpretation of human behaviour, instead of the scientific
method we use to treat such eternal aspects of life as indicative of the true nature of
our species.
In the following section Wells anticipates World War Two beginning in 1940
because of a Polish Jew trying to pick his false teeth in public in such a manner that
his grimace being spotted by a young Nazis leads to the Nazis shooting the Jew in
circumstances that create a national conflict. Sounds like as good a reason as any.
Imagine living at this time, it must of been a fearsome period to live through and the
suggestion that many people could not bear the strain and took their own lives sounds
believable. It behoves us to state our abhorrence of such phases of our life cycle as
we are here engaged in a major effort to bring them back, we should understand what
it is that we seek, as they say, “be careful what you wish for.” But we should favour
knowing why things are the way they are or have been, playing ostrich with our heads
buried in the sand of religious ignorance is worse still, and the terror will be back
soon enough so we may as well understand it.

Dietrich’s essay on Bolshevism that arrived today has Hitler taking up a copy
of the Old Testament to read out a section which he said revealed the true nature of
the game plan Jews worked towards in their parasitic exploitation of humanity. The
passage revolved around the idea of all people being made to turn on themselves,
rather in the manner of ants that slave maker species are able to cause to attack one
another by spraying with a pheromone which makes ants hate their own kind. It is a
rather chilling image of Judaism in the light of our researches on the nature of humans
from a scientific perspective, but is has to be said that this is precisely the kind of
outcome we would expect to be a feature of human experience and history reveals it is
so, as Wells’ piece indicates. What I especially liked however was where Dietrich
refers to Hitler returning to the “book of hate”, by which he meant the Old Testament.
Indeed, all religion is the epitome of evil and the very essence of hate, that is how
nature makes us know who we are, and who we are not, and how, within the
superorganic structure nature makes us experience our structural role. Of course the
idealist Wells has no idea that hate between social entities is the most natural thing
about humans, he sees it as a psychological derangement of individuals. Wells is just
one more priest with a public voice doing the dirty work of his masters, unwittingly,
by keeping us fixated on the idea of the individual as an end in themselves, instead of
recognising that humans are superorganic entities where hate is how we experience
the functional expression of physiological tension between organic structures.
 Chapter VIIII

Omnipotence

It is a source of continual amazement, consternation, frustration and wonder

how humanity manages to be so mindlessly stupid, how individuals manage to be so
staggeringly idiotic irrespective of any indications of apparent intelligence. The
solution to understanding this mystery appears to reside in the sense of omnipotence
that people seem to have an overpowering affinity towards. People do not think of
themselves as being omnipotent, naturally, that would be an illusion too easily
shattered, but they do appear to believe in the existence of an omnipotent power, by
which I do not mean God, I mean that people think that authority, that is people with
power, know everything. In other words the foundation of the lunacy that makes
conspiracy theories possible is the idea of omnipotence. People being what they are,
that is cells of a superorganism, whereby their inner most being is taken from outside
themselves, then, by seeing the holders of social authority as omnipotent the
individual does subconsciously acquire the sense of omnipotence as it rubs off on
them by association because as they feel themselves to be in the safe hands of
omnipotence so the omnipotence of the ruler imparts a sense of omnipotence to the
individual. If this transmission of real superiority through the social mass to the
inferior elements from which real superiority derives through the act of domination
were not routine in human individuals then we would have no means of accounting
for mass phenomena like football supporters, movie fans, cult worship, political
affiliation and such like means by which group mindedness jells into a solid block
focused upon a largely meaningless social feature, but one that is supremely
successful in its own field. From this social dynamic we can understand why people
need authority figures and heroes of various kinds to latch onto, because we are made
by nature to acquire our personal sense of prowess and dignity from association with a
person who has this status in society, this behaviour is part of the bonding strategy
employed by nature to create a human social organism, and this in turn explains why
we compete for the acquisition of social status of the kind that attracts adoration. It is
also easy to see how this logic can be related to the rise of a figure like Hitler in
Germany following the defeat of the Great War.
The consequence of believing in omnipotence then is to cause the person who
is open to such a feeling to become omnipotent by association. If you believe in an all
knowing God then you yourself become all knowing. Yesterday, 31/06/07, some high
ranking Catholic Scottish cleric said that we must change the law on abortion, and
that catholic MPs who supported this current law had no right to holy communion,
and that we commit a massacre like Dumblane, where schoolchildren were shot dead
a few years ago, everyday. What presumptuous arrogance this fat old git dares to
scream out at us. An arrogance he shares with all his fascist allies bearing the same
mark of ignorance, and all because his beliefs make him omnipotent by association,
because he is an official representative of an omnipotent God ! If you believe that all
the mysteries in our social life are attributable to a malevolent group of all powerful
people who control every detail of our lives then you have the bizarre comfort of
thinking there is a finite limit to our world and nothing is really strange or unknown.
Both these mindless conceptions of existence are an unwitting consequence of belief
in omnipotence, so the individual derives the benefit of being omnipotent without
even knowing this is so. Thus God’s representatives become like the God they
represent, omnipotent and licensed to preach to all and sundry. In political or
individual terms this is absurd, but in biological terms it is anything but absurd for the
word “God” refers to the superorganism which we are all part of, and the organ of
authority within that superorganism is indeed omnipotent in the true sense of the
word, it is all powerful, and as such all knowing. Not knowing in the sense of
knowing everything about reality, but all knowing in the sense of being the sole
directive force regarding objectives and purposes within the living being ; just as the
brain within our own body is omnipotent relative to all other organs of the body.
Thus the idea of omnipotence derives from the physiological organisation of
the human superorganism which means human intelligence evolved to facilitate
individual bonding with the organism we are part of. And we see this organic mode
of omnipotence derived from the physiology of the human superorganism,
represented in the mythologically ascribed attributes of our Jewish God, which makes
a weak show of being concerned with absolute knowledge of a scientific kind because
the superorganism is really concerned with delivering absolute rules on how we must
live our lives, such as the rule that life is sacred which the priest’s Nazi style dictum
referred to above deferred to yesterday. Obviously God wants us to think the cells of
his body are sacred and must be preserved however much we, as those cells, may
wish we were dead rather than live in the organism as it has come to be under the
impress of Jewish identity. We are slaves of Judaism and our biological attributes
must be controlled by the Jewish slave identity to make us perform our biological
function in the Jewish superorganism even though we have been captured by aliens
and we are therefore working for our enemies. Or not, as the case may be. The fact is
that the imposition of an alien identity via warfare and oppression is the means by
which nature creates a more powerful and efficient human animal. So although we
are slaves of Judaism, and as such we are working for our enemies, just as the slaves
of slave maker ants do likewise, this arrangement is a natural outcome in perfect
harmony with our human nature, and in that sense our human corporate nature means
that we evolved to be slaves so that if an alien can take possession us then we become
that alien, and the alien is then not an alien at all. And this is not a theoretical
account, in reality, as much as the idea of being born to be slaves conflicts with our
conscious sense of self, we do actually live in a world where this transformation of
identity is real and ongoing, forming as it does much of the substance of history. We
are programmed to thank our forefathers for the freedoms we enjoy, and we live for
the joy of seeing our offspring inherit our good life. But we are Christians on route to
becoming Muslims, and if we take note of the alarmist outcry of the American Nazis
we are white people on route to becoming black. Does this transformation of our
most precious attributes of identity matter ? Well the answer is difficult to address,
the manner in which the transformation takes place is organized by the farmers of
society in such a manner that we cannot really perceive it, we know the trend is there,
but as transformations of identity of this kind take centuries to complete it is entirely
impossible for us to really feel the relevance of the change. But if we were to face the
question head on, about becoming Muslims or becoming black, then we would have
to object, it would be unnatural not to, the same would apply in reverse for black
people and Muslims if it was put to them that in time their nations would be white and
Christian. In effect then this is what Hitler did, he connected with the prominence of
the idea that the solidly white Christian European population was on the brink of
being transformed into an alien identity. He was right, and the process Hitler set
himself against has been advanced massively thanks to his opposition, for it is only by
means of warfare that such transformations in social physiology can take place.
We have already noted elsewhere that our general discussion frequently aids
our declaration that we can prove that God does not exist because these discussions
develop our understanding of what God is. This is true of the discussion contained in
the preceding paragraph, for here we get to the nitty-gritty of the core feature of
divinity as an absolute power to which we are beholding, and we see that this power is
derived from our superorganic nature. If we say to people that we can prove that God
does not exist we are likely to receive the response that we do not know what created
the universe, which is true, But what the hell has the creation of the universe got to do
with God ? In the above we see that the notions of creative origins are mere
trimmings associated with the core nature of divine power, trimmings which cater to
our individual level of understanding and simplistically expressed curiosity. The true
nature of God is that of a social power that determines the correct manner in which we
will conduct our social activities, this is where God’s power has a real material impact
on our lives, as neatly demonstrated for us yesterday by the professional Catholic
bigot who spoke out on the question of my right to support abortion, no, I am not a
Catholic, but this fascist presumes to influence the civil law which determines all our
rights. If the pig does not want to support abortion then he does not have to, but by
what earthly right does this ugly minded fool think he can pronounce on what I should
do and think ! When we deal with the question of God’s existence we only need
show what God is in reality in order to prove that God does not exist, any notions to
do with a universal creator are spurious, and utterly meaningless, except in so far as
they aid the machinations of the priests in their efforts to accrue validation for their
authority. The reality is that no one exists who could even begin to tell us what the
idea of universal creation really means, because, as we discussed above, it seems that
this idea comes from our own existence and we are incapable of conceiving of the
nature of none existence, and as such we are incurably biased against discovering an
answer to this question, probably because the question has no meaning outside our
own experience.
The attribute of omnipotence is pure fiction, this idea is about the extension of
the idea of knowledge to infinity, which is an easy proposition for our imagination to
envisage but one that is as easily dismissed as ridiculous by our reason for there are
many things that can be thought of that are real that cannot be known, such as the
number of individual ants on the planet, at any one moment in time this number must
be a definite fixed value, but how could we ever know it ? An omnipotent being
would know the answer to this question instantly, that is what omnipotence, applied to
the idea of knowledge, means. If we believe in the existence of an all knowing God
then we take on the attributes of an omnipotent God by evincing this belief in their
omnipotence, for in effect by believing in an omnipotent being we say that we know
everything because we know that a being exists that knows everything. This fact is
demonstrated in the way such believers presume to expound upon the special
communications which come from this supreme being. This is what gives a Catholic
bigot the arrogance to make all knowing statements about divine will. There would
be no point in believing in a supreme being if we did not have messages from them
telling us what we must do, a more contrived, pathetic, and sick idea than that of
belief in God is impossible to imagine. The feeling of affinity for an omnipotent
being or body of people is fatal to any chance of understanding truly profound
knowledge such as that which comes from scientific understanding. It is also the kind
of outlook that people are likely to find themselves enslaved to if they are not
properly and thoroughly educated, although this I am not too sure about. Education is
so poor in terms of teaching people knowledge and how to think, since these qualities
are so unimportant in life, obedience being the main virtue we must take away from
school. Personality may enter into the equation to an overbearing degree, so that the
artistic person who feels things rather than thinks things is the sort of person we
would expect to reject the highly specialised sanity of reason derived from scientific
investigation in favour of the mass appeal of omnipotence. Indeed the reason that
artists of all kinds exist may be taken to be for the role they play in creating a focal
point for collective consciousness in which we are all readily subsumed.
It is of course the job of science to understand its own limited appeal, it is the
job of science to recognise the manner in which the human mind is predisposed to feel
its own power of comprehension externalised in the world in the shape of a separate
supreme source of absolute knowledge of a personal kind ; personal because it knows
us and hence we know it through the interest it shows in us. From the disposition to
think that somewhere something or someone knows everything it is obvious that both
the idea of God and the ideas beloved by conspiracy theorists are bound to arise. We
may therefore say that God is a finely crafted conspiracy theory, and this means that
to think in terms of absolute knowledge is a natural product of our linguistic
behaviour. This is not surprising because the language we use comes from outside
and enters into us, perhaps the language we speak is the true object that the word
spirit refers to, thus an external authority gives us our mental perception of reality,
and knowledge is created by language so that all that we know is a product of the
language that we cannot help but learn to speak. Language possesses us, we do not
possess language. And it is from this overpowering authority of language itself that
the real sense of omnipotence arises, for in a literal sense language creates all
knowledge and therefore what we know is all that there is to know. Furthermore
knowledge is preserved in the social body, and therefore if all that we know is all
there is to know then each social organism is omnipotent in its own right in a very real
sense. The only error in the idea of omnipotence is to give it an abstract meaning that
is disassociated with our organic being, but that too is an expression of a
superorganism which has the capacity to become all powerful, to become the only
superorganism alive. The idea that language is spirit might have some mileage in it
but as an atheist the word spirit means absolutely nothing to me, and as such, unlike
the real object behind the word God, I have no sense where to begin thinking about
the real object behind the word spirit, so I will leave it alone.

The idea that there might be an all knowing divinity or body of people is
extraordinarily ridiculous and shows a total lack of understanding as to what
knowledge is in a scientific sense. Yet there is a sense in which science has an
implication of omnipotence attached to it because it follows from the reality of
scientific investigation that all things can be known, without exception or reservation.
Anything that cannot be known in a strictly scientific sense, cannot be. Needless to
say such a statement demands an explanation since it is easy enough to think of
countless things that cannot be known, but are certainly real. The universe exists, we
are part of it, but knowing what the nature of this existence can possibly be, where it
came from, is surely something that cannot be known. I believe I came across a
statement to this effect in The Creed of Science the other day which basically said that
this was something that is simply outside our capacity to know. Yet the fact is that in
principle, since we do exist, and this existence must have a reality to it which makes
scientific inquiry possible, then we ought to be able to solve even this inscrutable
problem, and indeed theories about the origin of the universe exist which employ the
knowledge of physics to tell us what an answer might be.
The simplest philosophical solution to the quandary of an insoluble question,
such as What is existence ? is to assume that any question that has no scientific
answer is not a real question, but is rather a question deriving from our existence, a
question that has to do with the nature of ourselves. It is for this reason that we say
that we can answer all questions about the nature of existence once we know what
human nature is, once we know that humans are a superorganic species. The reason
for this is that the only sense that we can apply to the question What is existence ?
from a scientific point of view must require an assumption that it is our existence that
defines the meaning of the question and sets the limits of meaning applied to any
valid answer. We can abstract our existence as a species and ask what the existence
of life means, this abstraction is easily extended to the physical world from which life
arose. But if we take this approach then we inevitably end up in the hands of the
physicists and cosmologists who lead us toward the point of origin in their big-bang
theory. Otherwise we cannot help but assume that any additional sense in which we
mean this question to apply has to have something to do with what we feel about
existence Where can the something that is everything of come from ? What can there
of been before this something appeared, what could of made it appear ?
Think about this question. How long is life ? We often speak of the sadness
of a child’s death, or the loss of a person in their prime. We have to put up with the
endless drivel from the priests who farm us and who love telling us that we must
allow ourselves to be attacked remorselessly by the state in order that lives can be
saved ! How do we save lives ? What planet do people who think we can save lives
come from ? Everyone dies, it is impossible to save a life. If pushed in this way we
all know that what is meant by this verbal shorthand is that a life that would of been
lost has been saved, so we live to die another day of something acceptable, like old
age maybe. So by making it illegal to smoke in places that exist for people to smoke
in, in pubs, in one month’s time, 1st July 2007, we know that we will save millions of
lives that would otherwise of been lost ! Yuk ! I hate this Nazi style bullshit coming
from the fascists controlling us ; mind you I hate smoking too, but that is irrelevant, I
am forced to think we must fight for a massive increase in the number of people dying
who would otherwise normally live, turn the tables on these pigs who rule us. We
want to die young. Last night, 13/07/07, was my first Friday in the pubs since the ban
and it was weird, Were there less people or not ? Undoubtedly, but I asked a smoker
who lives in pubs as much as I do and he said unequivocally that this was not so. It
was a strange night, the pubs felt sterile and although people did come in they seemed
to come late and not stay long, the buzz was not there for sure. It was raining and I
saw a women put on her coat and ask someone to watch her bag as she slipped outside
on her own for a fag, it made her look like a pathetic addict. The sate can only treat
us this way because the capitalist pigs have been able to buy up the very soul of our
society and treat it as a pigsty in which we are fed whatever filthy swill suits their
purposes, if independent brewers or landlords still owned the pubs the law could not
of been passed, but the law exists to serve the corporations, the corporations are the
government, the government is merely a front for the capitalist pigs who farm us.
What a disgusting society we live in, never could life of been so worthless at any
time, in any society on earth. Still at least if our lives are worthless we do get to live
to staggering ages so that we can no longer shit for ourselves, we can look forward to
living with strangers in a place where aliens who do not speak our language wipe our
arses and feed us cold tea in plastic beakers like those given to babies. What a
fucking mess, and our society is the most powerful, privileged and wealthiest the
earth has ever known. Fat lot of fucking use that is to the people who live in it.

So, look, what are we talking about here ? How long is a life ? If a person
dies at forty years old have they only had half a life ? If a child dies has that child had
no life ? If a person dies at three score and ten, 70, have they had a whole life ?
Clearly all this rigmarole is nonsense. A person that dies at ten, one who dies at
twenty five, and one that dies at eighty have all had exactly one life. Viewed from the
dead individual’s point of view the life they lived is one whole complete life, it can be
nothing else. And this is the point. No one minds the fact that they die as a child, or
died in a car crash at nineteen, or died of breast cancer at fifty, How can they ? The
significance of these premature deaths is for those who are left behind, the parent, the
children who lose a mother. So when we speak of saving lives we are using a logic
that assumes that there is no such thing as an individual, but that in reality there is
only the collective mass and the loss of one person that could be saved is meaningful
because for those of us who remain alive this evokes an emotional response that
makes their death our loss. On this basis nothing could more natural than that the
farmers who control us should use this powerful ligament of social bonding as a lever
to impose swingeing restraints on our personal freedom that reduces us to the status of
more efficient domestic animals.
Clearly our sense of what existence is is completely dominated by the mode of
speaking that we use, and if we thought of ourselves as isolated units of living matter
that all lived for exactly the same length of time—one unit—no matter how many
years passed by or how far we progressed in terms of our realisation of potential
growth, we would then be bound to think about the nature of existence completely
differently to the way we think about it that causes us to ask where the universe came
from. We would not think about coming in and out of existence, such a thought
would have no meaning for us. We would know that we not only existed for one unit
of time, but that we also existed for all eternity, for in terms of the meaning of the idea
of existence as it applied to ourselves we would know that we did not exist before we
were born and that we would not exist after we died, we exist for one unit, a life, and
in terms of the question what is existence the life we have is all there is, it is eternity.
Our personal existence comes from nowhere and goes nowhere.
This flies in the face of Jewish slave ideology which attaches us to the slave
sentiment by making up ideas that make us feel an empathy for our place in the
superorganic body that Judaism calls God. Thus we have an eternal soul that lives
forever, it goes to hell or heaven and so on. These slave ideologies help create a
superorganism of exceptional extent and power that produce ideas infused into our
brains that lead us to ask none meaningful questions such as What is the nature of
existence ? And according to Sombart the resulting sense of purpose that comes from
thinking of ourselves as eternal, which is another form of omnipotence, is the very
essence of the Jewish characteristic that makes Jews unique amongst humanity.
 Chapter IX

Divine Darwin

The application of biological ideas to human society is well known by people

today under the umbrella of Social Darwinism. The question is, What is Social
Darwinism ? Social Darwinism means nothing to me, I see no connection between
this subject and the idea of the social organism, and the only thing that organicism and
Social Darwinism have in common is that no one promotes either idea today. It is no
more easy to find works of a Social Darwinist nature than it is to find organicist works
but, whereas the idea of the social organism has a long and honourable history starting
from Comte up to its eradication by the priesthood in the early twentieth century,
Social Darwinism only seems to surface at about the same time that a genuine science
of society based on biology was being squeezed out of academia after the First World
War.
Needless to say, since we regard Darwin as a complete fraud whose work we
wish to destroy, the application of Darwinian ideas to any aspect of life is ridiculous,
and the charade presented in the name of Darwin comes into its own when it is
applied to human society, which is precisely what it was created for, to prevent the
application of science to human society. Since the reflex response of anyone first
hearing about a modern attempt to present an organic argument on the nature of
society is likely to be a dismissive labelling of such organicism as ‘Social
Darwinism’, then it is important that we be forearmed by having some idea of what
form supposedly social Darwinist works have taken, for it is certainly true that works
one sees described as social Darwinist do have the most enticing titles from a
scientific point of view, such as Dendy’s Biological Foundations of Society, 1924.
According to the details provided by one internet dealer Dendy was Professor of
Zoology at King’s College, London. So we can imagine how the Darwinian bias was
applied in a manner that probably used eugenic ideas on the perfection of the
individual through the regulation of breeding and such like. Such ideas are
diametrically opposed to the reality of life as we know it, in which human society
thrives on the support of the weak, and where it is the dependence of us all on one
another that gives society its form, and contrary to the science of humanity based
upon an organicist idea of human nature as corporate, and evolved to give rise to a
superorganism. Of course this total antagonism to the most precious aspect of our
world as defined by religion, the moral aspect, is the whole point of Darwinism.

From the above examination of passages in Sombart we find ourselves teasing

out many of the core ideas of social science pertaining to the formation of human
superorganisms. Where we spoke about the operation of the linguistic force in
comments arising from page 266 we developed the idea of force and identity creating
social structure by organizing sections of the social fabric differentially in accordance
with the rules of social order mentioned by Bluntschli and Bagehot. It is implicit in
our argument that social physiology is self organizing, as indeed all life is self
organising, the organization is fixed in a programme composed of structured
information that directs the flow of social energy, like a wiring diagram in which
elements of the social structure form the electronic components. Information is how
life experiences energy, consciousness is the sensing of energy that enables life to
transmit energy. As systems of awareness become more elaborate they constitute
fixed programmes that dictating elaborate behavioural responses. These response can
be genetically programmed and linguistically programmed, linguistic in the broadest
possible sense, meaning any form of symbolic communication, which would include
such things as plants indicating food sources to insects. When animals posses a social
nature, where they are evolved to create a social form, their linguistic programme is
extended into the social environment, the programme they obey is projected into the
inter individual space and accordingly social structure is laid down in that space in
response to the information that flows through social space. Life forms are in effect
the physical representation of information programmes, they are the embodiment of a
genetic code, as we all know and accept, but the same applies to social programming,
human societies are the physical representation of linguistic programmes which is
why they are all of the same basic physiological kind displaying social edifices,
rituals, lords, commoners, wars, and such like while at the same time being as varied
in appearances and informational codes as Chinese, Jewish, Aztec and Greek forms
show they can be.
The object of teasing out the preceding thoughts is to make the assertion that
while all life is self organizing people find themselves incorporated into a social
environment by a programme which they obey. The act of obedience feels like an act
of self will, it is certainly conscious because if it is attacked people defend it. So once
a successful programme has emerged from the environmental test akin to Darwin’s
competitive interaction, as in the case of the Jewish identity, the outcome is that this
programme must then proliferate. It is a feature of the human animal that successful
originals create extensions of themselves when they proliferate otherwise their
programmes would not be successful. A discussion of the Trinity in a religious
treatise shows how priests have tried to manage this aspect of their programme. On
page 472 of On Being a Christian by Hans Küng, first published in German in 1974,
the idea of unity embracing three distinct identities is discussed in a completely
useless manner, as befits a religious treatise. But the reality is that the Christian
programme contains the necessary idea of a triadic superorganic macro physiology
which allows the original programme to be extended in an apparently new form while
actually remaining a purely Jewish identity. Few Christians know they are Jews, but
nonetheless that is what they are ; but Sombart has indicated how second order
Christian Jews have a tendency to evolve into a primary Jews under certain
circumstances, as in the case of the Puritans. Simply by obeying a basic programme
people keep on protecting and serving the living superorganism as it grows by
differentiating its structure. When a new territory is occupied a new Jewish identity is
created, as in the case of Mormonism in early nineteenth century America, this
outcome was so contrived that it defies credulity not to think that the creators of this
religion were not aware that they were creating a new Jewish creed for a new land,
but despite this there is still the fact that they were only following the programme that
gave them their Jewish identity in the first place, and there had to be a limit to how
much anyone really understood about what they were doing.
So we have a blend of conscious planned activity fizzing along on the surface
of an active automatic programme. If we think about how religion works, if we were
to try and explain to a child who has been exposed to religious propaganda at school,
by being presented with a nice bright shiny colourful Bible perhaps, as happened
recently at a primary school near me according to this weeks free rag, today being
17/06/07, then, given that we would want to explain to the child that the Bible was not
a gift but an act of theft by the priest making the donation, who thereby expects to rob
the souls of the children for the “nest”, we would have to find a gentle way to make
the point. We would want to explain that we did not subscribe to any religion and that
nothing that the Bible was intended to convey was true, there was no God and there
certainly was no bloke called Jesus. We would then want to explain what the Bible
was, what religion is, and make the child understand what religion was all about, why
religion existed and why it was taught in school. We would explain that there were
many different colours of religion, just as there are different skin colours, and the
purpose of the different religions is to give people their social identity, so that as a
person knew they were black or white so they knew they were Christian or Muslim.
With religion the colour was in the form of an idea that was kept in a book, and
accordingly each different identity has its own book of colour identity, a bit like a
football team with their own name, outfit and grounds, if you prefer to think of it that
way, we would explain. Then we would be obliged to say that as we did not possess
any religious identity we had no social identity of that kind, instead we thought of
ourselves as free individuals living voluntarily in society with others according to
laws made in a political assembly, and our understanding of life was taken from
accounts of real life that were called science.
Once we had got this far in our discussion we would be likely to realise that
atheists had a book too, we had Darwin’s Origin of Species. And if we got this far we
ought to be struck by this extraordinary fact, that with the emergence of science a
religious book was written to give the advocates of science their identity as atheists,
so that they too could be part of Jewish society. And this is why Origin of Species is
based upon the basic principles of competitive capitalism that Sombart makes
synonymous with the Jewish spirit encapsulated in Judaism. Now, are we to suppose
that the priests who rule our world with an unrelenting iron fist worked all this out
and knew they had to come up with a book of religion made in the image of Judaism,
but cast in a scientific press ? The answer would seem to be a resounding yes, but
with the caution that as elaborately and impossibly conspiratorial as this sounds it is
not, because the process took decades to furnish this result, and this slowness is the
hallmark of organic evolution which requires the organization of information to create
a stable programme able to dictate the form of social structure of which the
superorganic fabric will be composed.
The Origin of Species is the Jewish book of atheism then ; interesting. And
thus we have the divinity of Darwin, and so no wonder that he was buried in
Westminster, an honour reserved for the leading lights of the theocracy that rules us.
 Chapter X

Eugenics

Eugenics is a branch of social Darwinism and as such follows on naturally

from that topic, if it is not even best to place the two together. However what has
occurred to me during this attempt to review the forlorn philosophy of human science,
or science applied to human society, is that the general urge to apply science to a
fuller understanding of humans where it really matter, that naturally involved
applying biology to human society by thinking of humans as living beings with a
social nature is that after the failure to develop a sensible idea of society as a true
natural phenomenon because n one was prepared to deal with religion as a natural
feature of the human animal, the impetus behind the application of biology
fragmented into a myriad of political forms, and this study has become an excavation
of material from the late nineteenth to the mid twentieth centuries which reflects the
intellectual catastrophe leading up to the final dispersion of the idea of a science of
humanity altogether.
Accordingly we are not concerned with the various ideas the themselves, we
know as a matter of fact that all ideas save that which says humans are
superorganisms are entirely false from the outset, we are engaged in a historical
review of material, and so what interests us is the indication of various ways of
applying biology to human society. Social Darwinism was raised as a subject worth
researching, but in making the attempt we find different authors taking different
approaches, which is a natural consequence of there being a free for all in the world of
ideas where the theocracy will not permit a true notion of what is real to be expressed.
In saying this we give a deeper reason why the theocracy is obliged to find
replacements for the void it creates by suppressing free debate, hence the work of
Darwin and all that has come afterwards based upon its foundations.
The work which arrived from America yesterday, 30/07/07, Democracy and
the Human Equation, by Alleyne Ireland, 1921, offers yet another curious set of
thoughts on how to understand contemporary political events in terms of human
biology. This is interesting because the Nazi ideology is essentially a biological
interpretation of social circumstances, and this fact is of great relevance to our
understanding of the significance of the Nazis in the Jewish superorganism, it is
useful to find other currents of biological thought running through the information
flux at the same time as the Nazi ideas were coming to the fore.
I purchased Ireland because there were a couple of articles on biology applied
to society and I hoped this book would reflect such an interest, there was only one
copy available in America which put me under pressure, and I liked the idea of
democracy being examined in terms of a human equation because I would love to find
a book looking at how the social organism is coordinated by virtue of organised
enclaves of various social blocs. To this end this book looks like a disappointment,
but it is an attempt to deal directly with contemporary conditions and it is informed by
biological ideas and it does include a delightful critique of the political craft as a
department of knowledge bereft of science. In discussing the threat to democracy in
the United States it does actually seem to present thoughts on how different parts of
society are corralled in order to obtain control of the democratic process, but these
ideas are bound up with the work and as such they do not jump our at me and it will
require some proper reading to try and extract any useful ideas from this work,
assuming there are any useful ideas in there in the first place.

$
 Chapter XI

Race

It is a forgone assumption that race is a biological idea with a political twist,

so much so that it never even occurred to me to think of including a specific chapter
upon the topic, a case of not seeing the wood for the trees. But as stated at the
beginning of the previous chapter, we are not seeking to determine what constitutes a
valid application of biology to society at this point, we are trying to discover the
variety of ways in which biology has been applied to the study of society during the
modern scientific era. Thus had we made the abstract observation that race was as a
political idea was by its very nature biological we could of sort works applying this
logic, and we would of found ourselves looking at the Nazis and all that goes with
that genre of political thought. The Nazis have been mentioned freely in this work
because they are relevant on several fronts, not least in terms of their bearing on the
Jews as the focal point of superorganic identity. But a book that arrived along with
that by Ireland considered above inspired me to include a chapter on race as a distinct
strand of political theorising informed by the science of biology.
When looking at Roberts we mentioned his friend Arthur Keith, the
anthropologist, he was well know to me as the finest exponent of a scientifically
reasonable account of human races, but I had not realised how much he had written on
the subject. The Place of Prejudice in Modern Civilization, 1931, is a delightful little
piece. Here Keith follows a line of reasoning we frequently use here, he makes a bad
thing good, that is to say he takes an all pervasive social evil and explains it in
functional terms, and in this case his subject is ‘prejudice’, which he explains is a gift
from mother nature to be used for good.
As ever we are doomed to disappointment by works of this kind, they are so
tantalising fine, but so critically flawed. It really is an absolute wonder that religion
plays no part in this man’s thinking, the stumbling block I would guess is the
tangibility of territorial space which religion breaches, and so for precisely that reason
religion escapes consideration as a mediator of organic form. But this very failure
gets right to the nub of the failure of people of this period to grasp the whole point of
biology : life is a product of information. And from this point a true scientist would
make no distinction between linguistic information and information of any kind.
What defines information is the act of reception and communication, so while light
carries information this content is only made information by the act of reception, prior
to reception such naturally occurring information is in reality only structure.
Information we should note is synonymous with energy, light is pure energy, which is
why life has been able to evolve from none living matter on the basis of the energy it
contains in the form of information which can be used to construct living structure, an
attribute of life which reaches its highest expression in the construction of human
superorganic form through the medium of linguistic information.

Jews - new theory

$
 Chapter XII

Human Ecology

This chapter is to be based upon the opening chapters of Wells’ The Fate of
Homo Sapiens in which he presents a biologically grounded interpretation of human
existence, which offers an alternative application of science to society to ours. Wells
considers that sociology should more correctly be known as human ecology. His
work is of great interest for the alternative approach it takes to the biological model of
human society, but it falls between two stools, between that of organicism and
sociology as we know it today, and as such only serves to fail science while thus
necessarily being of no harm to religion. His failure was to adopt a political stance in
which humans are understood to be self made, despite all that he says to the contrary.
We constantly point out that any kind of political work is always bound to be in
perfect harmony with Jewish myth because by definition political ideas are based on
the assumption of free willed humans determining their own fate ; even if this only
implies a small coterie of the self willed acting as overlords of the unwilled.
The idea of human ecology is still serviceable to the priesthood today, but only
as long as it applies the same fatal error of basing its science on political principles
that assume society is a self willed creation. Of course the sham of democracy is all
about producing a justification for the nonsense that we live in a world of our own
choosing, democracy is all about slavery in other words, slavery insinuated into the
very neurons of our brains. The book in question was published in 1939 and as the
title indicates it is concerned with the threat to the human species posed by human
activity, not least of concern being the phenomenon of ceaseless warfare, but Wells’
explanation of this phenomenon is fantastic to say the least as he considers it to be a
product of progress which leads to an ever increasing efficiency resulting in the
redundancy of the young, fit, working section of society, who must then be kept busy,
and otherwise generally disposed of in futile acts of war. The book is however of
great interest because it certainly seeks to apply biological ideas to human existence,
and shows us one erroneous line that people of the time could follow that would cause
them to fail to understand the science they adored, and thus misconceive its
application humans, even when they devoted their lives to the task, and they were
people who had every advantage in respect to such an ambition. The book points out
that people will not accept the undeniable fruits of science applied to humans because
it conflicts with established interests, noting that the war between religion having
once flared up had then settled down into an uneasy silence. But he speaks of these
matters in terms of personal failure instead of discussing this behaviour as we do, as
the natural outcome to be expected given that humans evolved to be a superorganic
species. Indeed at one point he talks about how past generations assumed human
nature was unchanging, whereas his generation knew that the exact opposite was the
case, human nature is constantly undergoing radical change ! This is the most
unscientific and fatal error any student of the human species could ever hope to make,
and it can only be the product of a complete failure to disentangle ones own bias
notions of self will from the exercise of pure reason, which is exactly the criticism we
have just noted that Wells’ levels against humanity in general. He is therefore just the
kind of person we find ourselves obliged to condemn as a damn priest, although he is
the best damn priest I have ever come across because taken as a whole, throughout his
life, he seems so sincere. He shows he is fully aware of the general principle of
superorganic physiology wherein individuals are reduced to the status of unwitting
agents of a higher social being. But unfortunately, in keeping with his life long
passion for political idealism, his first concern was to promote the idea that we could
do something about the situations we find ourselves in, and accordingly he adopted
the then popular socialist ideas instead of recognising that the first thing to do was to
understand the science pure and simple, and then wonder about what might or might
not be done.
He is also of some interest for his unashamed examination of the Jewish
question, which we would expect a person of his time to be concerned with, and any
person of any time who has an interest in the nature of humans to be drawn towards,
as we ourselves have been. This has led post war Jews to classify this great British
philanthropist and prophet of utopia as an anti-Semite, at least one book having been
written that makes out this argument ; The Invisible Man, Coren, 1993. It is
infuriating to see this kind of Jewish propaganda which is based on the assumption
that Jews have a right to exist, and that no one has any right to question this arrogant
assumption. But nonetheless it is only by way of nasty pieces of work like this that
we get to be reminded of the less well known efforts of our hero to tackle the
philosophical issues reverberating through the social flux of his time, which was one
of the most notable historical phases of human history, so notable that we are yet far
too close to these decades to appreciate just how momentous they will be for the
future of the human species, initiating as they did a new phase in the development of
the old world order, of which the two world wars were the first symptom. This period
has yet to show itself in its true light because the aftermath of that first explosion of
energy is still playing itself out, the new phase, in which Israel becomes an old and
established part of the political world order living at piece with all, has some time to
go before it is realised, whereupon people will be able to look back upon our times
dispassionately and appreciate events of our time for what they really mean. Think
about it, when was it first understood what the broader significance of the Roman
Empire was ? not until Gibbon wrote the Rise and Fall a millennia afterwards. And
not even then, who today knows the true significance of the Romans ? being unaware
that humans are a superorganic species and the Romans were part of the living
organism that existed long before the Romans themselves came along, a
superorganism that will be around for a long time to come : the Jewish
superorganism. The only book ever written that shows the least indication that it
perceives the faintest shadow of this idea is Sombart’s, and he has no idea of just what
it is that flickers before his dull intellect. Show me another book that sees as much as
he did ; please ! Yet trying to understand the Jews from Sombart must be likened to
trying to see the proverbial beauty of the Mona Lisa through a brail representation.
As the Jews are our masters the last thing they will ever let us see is their true image ;
this Wells’ evidently did not understand as he bemoaned the failure of the Jews to
move on with the rest of humanity. The closest anyone got to that act of
understanding was Hitler ; “Therefore, I believe today that I am acting in the sense of
the Almighty Creator : By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”
(Mein Kampf, 1939, page 84) And where did this jerk-off get us ! He created the
taboo that put an end to the questioning of people like Wells. Hitler saved the Jews,
without Hitler a man like Coren could not publish his poisonous arrogant propaganda
with the impunity from rebuke legitimately questioning the right of Jews to exist, that
such works enjoy today ; truly it can be said Hitler was indeed doing the Lord’s work,
for he was saving the superorganism that we call God : the Jewish superorganism.

Wells :

INTRODUCTION

I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO set down as simply and clearly as I can, in one compact
book, the reality of the human situation, that is to say I have been asked to state the
world as I see it and what is happening to it. This is the result.
A very large part of my conscious life has been a struggle for effective
knowledge. I have attempted to collect and summarise existing knowledge so that it
could be made available in human living, and to induce other and abler people to take
up the same work. I have worked also to bring together incompatible systems of
thinking about reality, systems which ignore each other stupidly and wastefully, and
are manifestly answerable for much fundamental confusion in human thought. These
unresolved, contradictory philosophies and theologies encumber the human mind, and
their irresolution is largely due to an elaborate mutual disregard. I am exceptionally
intolerant of such inconsistencies, because if I attempt to deal with them they worry
and entangle me. I cannot make the necessary reservations and adjustments.

(Page 1)

After this rather deluded opening statement Wells gives us some

autobiographical details alluding to the nature of the difficulty he had experienced,
and just how he thought he had overcome them.

Wells :

I knew the world was round because everybody told me so. If they had told me the
world was cone-shaped or flat, I should have known that with equal conviction—and
it was only years afterwards that I realised how difficult it is to prove that the world is
a globe. There were upper classes one respected and lower classes that one didn’t, and
poor people had to work, and that was how things were. The nearer I could edge up to
the upper classes the better it would be for me.
So I saw the world about the year 1880, when I was rising fourteen years old,
and I think most of my readers will agree with me that I was seeing the world then in
a very distorted and foggy fashion. And yet—I was seeing it as most people in Great
Britain were seeing it at that time. I was seeing it as vast multitudes of people are
seeing it to-day. I was seeing it as it was shown to me. For a score of years before that
time tremendous discoveries had been made about the past of the earth and about the
origins of man. They were immensely important discoveries, they were a challenge to
every idea about life commonly accepted at that time. Yet these fundamental
discoveries had not been imparted to my parents, who were both intelligent, book-
reading persons. My lay and religious teachers, poor men, bound in honour, you
would have thought, to teach me the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,
gave me their stale old histories without a hint of the broadening knowledge of the
time. I still wonder why they deceived me so. Mainly I think because they were too
overworked and underpaid to keep up with the times. They couldn't tell me because
they themselves had not been told about these revelations. They were the ignorant,
self-satisfied transmitters of a dead tradition.
Most of the books that came into my hands were books ten or twenty years
old, for in those days, just as now, no one, no education minister for example, was
pretending to dream of giving people contemporary knowledge. Even to-day, except
for a few rare adventurous publishers, nobody in any country in the world is really
bothering to secure mankind abundant, cheap, new books. Cheap new books happen
or don't happen according to the state of the market. Knowledge oozes about with
cheap printing and paper, and dries up when they dry up. Our English-speaking
democracies, about which we boast so inordinately, are still grossly ignorant and
misinformed. But I think the books we got in 1880 were more second-hand and out-
of-date and shabbier than the stuff people get to-day. So by 1880 I saw my world
pretty wrong—by the higher standards of that time.
I forget when it was I began to realise that the world as it had been presented
to me was not a trustworthy picture of reality, that in effect I was being lied to about
life. I began doubting quite early in life. The religion they put before me was queer,
muddled stuff, metaphors about unfatherly fathers and sacrificial sons, blood offerings
and blood-dripping sacrificial lambs (in suburban London !), an irrational fall and a
vindictive judgment, stuff that took refuge from any intelligent questions behind a
screen of awe, mystery and menace, so that my reason did not so much reject it as fail
altogether to accept it. What they called morality seemed planned to thrust me into
some nasty secret corners and leave me there, I had some bad times, fearing a God
whom I felt but did not dare to think a spy, a bully, a tyrant and fundamentally insane,
and it was only after terrific distresses and terrors that I achieved disbelief. Fear
lingered in my mind long after definite faith had dissolved.

(Page 5-7)

This is nice because imbedded within this account of a personal struggle for
enlightenment in the modern world revealed by science we find a few universal
attributes of the difficulty posed by the problem of knowledge. Firstly then we see
that science is an immensely powerful form of knowledge that reveals truths that are
hidden, and even when taken for granted scientific facts are extremely hard to prove
because they require a deep and complex knowledge of various subjects, maths and
astronomy for example in the case of the earth’s shape.
Next we hear about how immense insights into the nature of reality were not
available to the masses, even if they were intellectually inclined, because the books
were not published in a popular form, and then we hear how professional educators of
the masses were only passing on their own blind ignorance. All very familiar stuff to
anyone born a century after Wells received his induction into society. Except of
course not quite, the misrepresentation of knowledge has been highly refined in just
those departments that Wells picks up on here. Yes, the teachers are just as blind and
ignorant today as ever they were, but now their ignorance is vastly more sophisticated
and mostly because they have the benefit of the many fine works that have been
produced to ensure that there is no restriction to the flow of the ignorance that makes
them confident of the knowledge they work so hard to acquire and then devote their
lives to its transmission to the next generations.
So nothing has charged since Wells’ day, except the manner in which the
deception is carried out is far more sophisticated, and we must say that Wells was a
great contributor to the damage, a fact that is too tragic to dwell on, for I am sure he
would be heartbroken to know this and it was never his intention, we may excuse him
as he excused those who were his abusers.

Wells :

I have heard other people who have had similar experiences to mine tell of the
thirst for knowledge they experienced. I suppose I had that thirst in good measure, but
far stronger was my anger at the paltry sham of an education that had been fobbed off
upon me ; angry resentment also at the dismal negligence of the social and religious
organisations responsible for me, that had allowed me to be thrust into the hopeless
drudgery of a shop, ignorant, misinformed, undernourished and physically under-
developed, without warning and without guidance, at the age of thirteen. To sink or
swim. I was too young to make allowances for the people who were exploiting and
stifling me. I did not realise that they were quite charming people really, if a little too
self-satisfied and indolent. I thought they had conspired to keep me down. It wasn't
true that they had conspired to keep me down. But I was down and they didn’t bother.
They took my inferiority as part of the accepted order. They just trod on me. But I did
not discriminate about their responsibility. I hated them as only the young can hate,
and it gave me the energy to struggle, and I set about struggling, for knowledge. I was
bitterly determined to see my world clearer and truer, before it was too late.
To this day I will confess I dislike the restriction and distortion of knowledge
as I dislike nothing else on earth. In this modern world it is, I hold, second only to
murder to starve and cripple the mind of a child. Emasculation of the mind is surely
more horrible than any degrading bodily mutilation. In our modern world we recoil
from the deliberate manufacture of human dwarfs, harem attendants and choristers,
but the world still swarms with mental cripples, who follow the laws of their own
distortion and scarcely suspect they are distorted.
I have indicated the limits of my world outlook in 1880. By extraordinarily
good luck I caught up to something like contemporary knowledge in the course of a
few years. In seven years, before I was twenty-one, I contrived—never mind how—to
secure four years of almost continuous study, and three of these were at the Royal
College of Science, and one under the professorship of the great Huxley, Darwin’s
friend ; and by 1887 the world as I saw it had become something altogether greater,
deeper and finer than the confused picture I had of it in 1880. Mentally, we all travel
at our fastest, I suppose, between fourteen and twenty-one. Many of my readers will
know from their own experience what I mean when I say that for me these years
remain in my memory as if all the time I was putting together an immense jig-saw
puzzle in a mood of inspiration. These were the most exciting years in my life. I had
been blind and I was learning to see. The world opened out before me. By ‘88 I saw
the world, not precisely as I see it to-day, but much more as I see it to-day than as I
saw it in 1880. There has been a lot of expansion and supplementing since, but
nothing like a fundamental reconstruction.

(Page 8-10)

So, what do we have here ? A curious mishmash that it is hard to know what
to think of. On the one hand we have the perfect expression of disgust that we as
atheists seeking knowledge in a modern age that dresses itself in the garb of science
while being as completely fascistic a theocracy as any that ever existed, and therefore
since it is disguised our society is an even more insidious totalitarian entity than any
other perhaps, could ever wish to find. And yet this man goes on to tell us that he has
discovered the complete solution to all the woes imposed upon him by ...... by .........
well, by what ? Just what is he saying ? He is saying that the ruling social powers
had imposed ignorance upon him, but that by exceptional good luck he was able to
access the knowledge that existed freely in society and thus make up the shortfall by
attending the academic institutions provided by the ruling powers which provided
society with all its knowledge. Absurd !
Absurd indeed, but this buffoon has no idea it is so. He thinks it is possible
for the church to be at odds with the state, or for the church to be at odds with science
as found in academia. The man is a complete lunatic. A bit harsh perhaps, as this
lunatic condition is normal. But in his case he claims to of broken through the
constraints imposed by one set of social powers to discover the freedom offered by
another enclave of social power. In his case therefore the idea of internal conflict
between established social elements that in effect constitute the eternal warring
elements identified by Kidd in the struggle between religion and science, he is saying
that he has found the gateway between the two so that he should know how and why
it should be that we all live in a society dominated by ignorance while at the same we
all live in a society possessing supreme knowledge. And of course these quotes are
indeed giving us his explanation for this dualism. Yet, for fucks sake, nothing had
dammed well changed in that religion still existed, war still raged on, and his idiotic
notions of a socialist world were wholly pathetic, being no more realistic than a
passage from the New Testament. When I think that I have the key to all knowledge I
know I am right because it makes sense in all possible ways, and the ideas I discover
are taboo and anathema to all social authority as we know it. What did Wells think
about when he presumed to write such appallingly arrogant material as we see here, in
which he proclaims his possession of absolute knowledge ? Well, the fact is that he is
not claiming to have found the key to all knowledge independently, he is saying that
he was able to study under the elite who ruled society, and to learn the truth from
them, which he is now passing on to us like the mindless drone that he evidently was.
Disgusting, so we see the anti-priest working as a priest. But I confess if I had not
discovered the charade of science revealed by the suppression of the idea of the social
organism then I would not be capable of seeing the obvious either, it is mightily
difficult to see. What is always of immense consternation about Wells however is
that he lived in the age of organicism, before the theocracy had managed to destroy
true knowledge completely, so he has not got the excuse that we have today for not
being able to see past the lies and misinformation provided by great people like
Darwin, Freud and the Huxley clan, all people that Wells exalts as the saviours of
mankind from ignorance. This said, it is the likes of Wells who picked up the baton
of ignorance from its creators and publicised it, that show us how the transition was
made. People were in turmoil about the new scientific knowledge and they needed
answers, so the theocracy had to provide answers which would allow them to recover
their normal state of blind stupidity in the knowledge that the Jewish God loved them.
Much of our investigation of the idea of the social organism and the death of the
forlorn science of humanity is concerned with how the transition was made from a
prescientific theocracy to a post scientific theocracy. Wells helps us in our endeavour
to understand that transition because he played an important role in facilitating the
progress of the ignorance that he so loathed and in destroying the science which he
adored with all his being. The enemies of Judaism devote their lives to Judaism as
only they can, while the friends of Judaism devote their lives to Judaism without
effort.
How can mankind of been saved when science tells us nothing about how we
came to exist and while religion rages across the world like a tornado, insinuating
itself ever more intimately into the secular fabric of the social organism day by day as
it corrupts the beautiful democratic, atheistic, socialist society that Wells so adored.
The fact is that in Wells day the ideals he believed in served as a temporary Jewish
blindfold preserving the fundamental delusion of Judaism, that says the individual
exists as an end in themselves and makes human society according to their own
desires. It is only now, after the theocracy has managed to destroy this makeshift
Judaism, that the full force of traditional Jewish fascism is facing us once again.
Generations undergo this process of intermittent freedom and enlightenment as the
poison of Judaism bites into the flesh and induces a reaction, but nothing ever changes
and in Wells we have a gorgeous example of how the defence of religion is performed
by atheists who know no better and who have no means of knowing any better, they
seem to see it all, but all they have really done is peel back one more layer of deceit
than most people ever get the chance to do for themselves, and then these lucky few
become the messengers of ignorance like any other voice in society.

Wells :

The case for optimism about physical wants is stronger now than ever. So far
as economic circumstances go, the world could be organised to provide every living
soul upon it with abundant food, housing and leisure, and that without either direct
compulsion to toil or any irksome monotony of employment. We have passed in a
single lifetime from a general neediness to a practicable plenty for all. The story is too
familiar to need exhaustive recapitulation here. Aviation and radio communication
have abolished distance. In 1888 the unity of the world as one community was a
remote aspiration ; now it has become an imperative necessity. Fifty years ago none of
us dreamt of the freedom and fullness of life that is now a plain possibility for
everyone. To many hopeful people in the past few decades, an age of power, freedom
and abundance has seemed close at hand. Eye has not seen nor ear heard, it is only
now entering into the human imagination to conceive, the wonder of the years to
come.
And now suddenly we are confronted by a series of distresses and disasters, of
a nature to convince the most hopeful of us that all this happy assurance was
premature. We anticipated too easily, too greedily and too uncritically. These new
powers, inventions, contrivances and methods, are not the unqualified enrichment of
normal life that we had expected. They are hurting, injuring and frustrating us
increasingly. They are proving dangerous and devastating in our eager but unprepared
hands. We are only beginning to realise that the cornucopia of innovation may
perhaps prove far more dangerous than benevolent.
What we may call the scientific world has recognised this quite recently.
There have been great stirrings of conscience in various scientific organisations upon
the question of the misuse of science and invention, and how far the man of science
may be held responsible for that misuse. The Associations for the Advancement of
Science in Britain, America and Australia have been moving under the initiatives of
such men as Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins, Lord Rutherford and Sir Richard
Gregory. The British Association has created a special Division, not merely a new
section but a sort of collateral to itself, for the study of the social relations of science.
The fate of this Division will be of considerable interest from our point of view. I
have been privileged to attend some of its deliberations and two divergent lines of
tendency have been very evident. One is plainly to organise and implement the
common creative impulse in the scientific mind so as to make it a vital factor in public
opinion ; that was the original impulse which evoked the Division ; the other is to
restrain any such development of an authoritative and perhaps embarrassing criticism
of the conduct of public affairs and to keep the man of science modestly to his present
subordination.
It would carry us too far afield to discuss here how far the consciences of men
of science may be able to get the upper hand of a trained and experienced governing
class so as to insist upon such collective ideals as they are able to formulate, and how
far a trained and experienced governing class may manœuvre this medley of
distressed and protesting intelligences into the position of a roster of mere “experts”
available if called upon by the authorities, and otherwise out of consideration. The
odds seem to me to be in favour of the latter possibility.
It is conceivable that the scientific worker is even now walking into a net ; that
increasing areas of his enquiries and experiments are falling under the restrictions of
“official secrets” ; and that far beyond the more obvious realms of physics and
chemistry, fields of investigation that have no direct bearing upon warfare are likely
to come under control, as favouring subversive ideas undermining the military morale
of the community. In Nazi Germany this has happened already to psychological
science, to mathematical physics and ethnology—matters quite outside armament and
strategy. An almost complete strangulation of the unhampered publication and
exchanges of the free scientific period, is visibly within the range of contemporary
possibility, and the world of scientific workers, as we know them, even with that
“Division” to rally them, appears a feeble folk to resist the influences making for that
extinction.
No one has ever explored the bases of intellectual freedom in the modern
community, and they may prove to be far more flimsy than the intellectual worker,
flinging his mind about in the apparent security of his study, imagines.
It is not simply the forcible misuse of purely mechanical inventions that is
producing such frightening retrogressions of those brave, free hopes that culminated
in the later twenties. Every fresh development of radio, of the film and mass
information generally, and all the new educational devices to which we had looked for
the rapid spread of enlightenment and a common world understanding, are being
subordinated more and more to government restriction and the service of propaganda.
They were to have been the artillery of progress. They are rapidly being turned
against our mental freedoms with increasing effectiveness.
Plainly it is high time we looked more closely into the causes of these
disconcerting frustrations of our recent large bright anticipations of a world of plenty
and expansion. What is the real position of Homo sapiens in relation to his
environment ? Has he the mastery we assumed he had, or did we make a profound
miscalculation of his outlook ? Have we been indulging in hopeful assumptions
rather than facing the realities of his case ? Upon that question the subsequent
summary concentrates.

(Page 14-18)

There, can you see why I adore Wells ! He is superb ..... but, trouble is, this
only applies if you are a blind hopeful, as he says he was. We are no longer blind
hopefuls, we see the light, or, more appropriately, we see the darkness that surrounds
us. Again we see how the Nazis serve the Jews brilliantly by acting as an extreme
polarity of oppression contrasting with the extraordinary freedom shown by the
Jewish theocracy before the Nazi Jews came into being. The Nazis make the pretence
of free enquiry look real, so that all humanity had to do was take up the fight against
the threat noted here by Wells and we could secure the continuance of our free
society. How convenient that the Nazis only came into being at just the time that
suited the theocracy, just after the false science of life had become firmly established.
As we have noted before the Nazis were a direct product of the false science of life
imposed on society and fostered by the Jewish theocracy. So the theocracy first
created a false science of life and then used it to create a backlash against science so
that religion could continue to thrive, as we know it has done. Fiendishly clever or
what ? How could the likes of Wells be anything but taken in ? Wells did not have
the immense benefits we have today in terms of fine detail about the nature of
existence, concerning the palaeontological facts about human origins, genetic
information, knowledge about the evolution of then universe and so on. He did, on
the other hand, have the advantage of living in a world in which true knowledge still
exited imbued into the minds of all living people who were familiar with modern
thought, and this is what we are going to look at next. In the nineteenth century the
idea of the social organism was alive and thriving, in Wells’ day it had died and
existed only as a ghostly memory, while today it is dead and gone. Thus Wells will
be our means of viewing the ghost before the spirit of true knowledge departed for,
who can say how long, perhaps forever.

I was smooching around my bookshelves a few hours ago as is my wont, you

never know what the hell y’gonna find there, when I hit upon the title presented
above. Half an hour nosing through this item rooted up some good stuff and one
heartbreaking section is devoted to the burning of the books ; I’d best say there are
some pretty horrific sections on the concentration camps, brutal treatment of Jews and
a whole list of murders, but this kind of malarkey is as common place as shopping and
inflation, the daily news from Iraq today, which our recently retired PM is so proud
of, makes these stories of Hitler’s reign of terror sound like a kiddies day out shooting
tin ducks at the fun fair by comparison. Whatever Saddam was doing to the Iraqis it
must of been wonderful compared to what Blair and Bush are doing to them now by
way of the Jewish phalange of Islamic terrorists called Al Qaida.
The desecration of books is to me like the destruction of God in the flesh,
which is exactly what it is in reality. I would dearly love to see Bibles and Korans
outlawed in that they are a damned menace to the human aspiration of one becoming
civilized, and of course the achievement of such a fantastic goal would equate exactly
to the extermination of the Jewish superorganism, to which we are all enslaved. This
said I love dead religions, like that of the Egyptians, Aztecs, Sumerians, because like
dead dinosaurs or locally extinct wolves, they represent no threat, and as features of a
primitive past that had to go, but such relics are interesting. So it is that it is reading
about the loss of the books that causes me acute distress. We all know of the Nazi
book burning episode but this book is written at the time and reporting the events
accordingly in vivid detail. I see no names of authors that are of special interest to
me, although sociology is singled out, but the talk of libraries being systematically
searched out and destroyed makes my gut quiver, the loss of knowledge is
excruciating, knowledge is the only thing that makes life worth living, and the most
precious knowledge can only exist in a book. Max Weber is mentioned and I intend to
look at his book on protestants and capitalism because Sombart said this work
inspired his, but this work is freely available anyway.
What we must bear in mind when we read about the Nazis destroying
knowledge is that this was the whole point of the Nazis, they existed to destroy
science, to protect Judaism from the advance of knowledge, and that is exactly what
they have done. What sense does the psychotic behaviour of the Nazis make viewed
in light of its own reason ? None. But seen as a cataclysm occurring at a time when
the theocracy desperately needed to institute a purge against science that could not be
done in the age old ways of direct extermination and terror the rise of the Nazis makes
perfect sense, this is all about the eradication of knowledge that mattered, and it was
in Germany where knowledge had raced away at a tangent to traditional authority.
The Jews have existed as a master race for some six thousand years, viewed in
biological terms, not political terms, and the Nazis existed for ten years, I have colds
lasting longer than that ! In terms of Jewish existence the Nazis hegemony barely
equates to one good sneeze in time. But look at all the damage these bastards did, and
are still doing, when I try to talk about the Jews as a biologically evolved master race
on the internet the BBC ban me, that is the world we live in, today people are no more
free to study science anywhere on earth than anyone was in Nazi Germany, and it is
thanks to the Nazis that the Jews are able to rule us in this fascistic way today.

Wells :

§ I

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

SINCE THE DAY WHEN Herbert Spencer launched the word “Sociology” upon the
world, the study of the general question of what is happening to mankind has made
great advances. Sociology—or, to give it a more recent and better name, human
ecology—has become a real science, analysing operating causes and forecasting
events. Our awareness of our circumstances is altogether more lucid than the world
outlook even of our fathers. We have, flowing into the problem of human society, a
continually more acute analysis of its population movements, of its economic
processes, of the relation of its activities to the actual resources available. We no
longer talk with quite the same pompous ignorance as the history teachers of our
youth, of the rise and decay of Empires and of the march of civilisation from East to
West—or from West to East, it is much the same—and suchlike plausible caricatures
of the current of events. With the increase in our knowledge and understanding quite
new conceptions of the prospects and problems of humanity unfold before us.
The infiltration of biological ideas into sociology and human history, it has to
be recognised, is a process still only beginning. The enlightenment of the middle
nineteenth century through the destructive analysis of the Creation myth, went on in
the face of vast resistances, and not the least of these were in the schools. The new
conceptions threatened the very bases of belief on which right conduct seemed to rest.
Men shrank from following out the plain implications of the new discoveries. And so
either they were denied, irrationally and frantically, or they were minimised, they
were admitted, yes, but as obscure, remote matters, that had little or no significance in
the “broader issues” of life. So that they could be taught in a sterilised form or ignored
altogether. There was a period of controversy, very disastrous to the old dogmas, and
then a phase of defensive silences. Open fighting was abandoned and the established
beliefs dug themselves in.
It is still possible for bright youngsters at the universities to enter upon the
“advanced” study of history, philosophy and economics, in the blackest ignorance of
general biology. A majority of them remain in that ignorance, with a deepening
scholastic hostility to this science, which sits like a neglected creditor at their doors.
They have established a social prejudice against this dreaded line of thought and body
of knowledge in which they have no share. They succeed in putting it upon the all too
snobbish and sensitive young that somehow the biological reference is not quite the
thing. It isn't done. It isn't to be thought about. There is an indecency in it. The young
university philosopher, historian or economist is in many cases not so much
biologically ignorant as biology-proofed.
It is because of such mental gaps and barriers that it is necessary to
recapitulate here certain facts about life, which, although they are matters of general
knowledge to-day beyond question and almost beyond cavil, might nevertheless, so
far as any effective realisation of their bearing upon our general social, political and
religious behaviour goes, be totally unknown. Yet they bear upon the problems of the
present urgently. Contemporary political discussion remains indeed mere maundering
empiricism, a tissue of guesses, ill-founded assertions and gossip, until they are
brought into court.
This contrast of established knowledge and its effective application is a very
remarkable one. Men can know a thing and yet know it quite ineffectively if it
contradicts the general traditions and habits in which they live. It is well to understand
that at this stage in our analysis, because it bears very directly upon the review of
human possibilities to which this summary is directed.
$

§ 2

BIOLOGY INVADES HISTORY

ONE OF THE MOST striking differences between the outlook of our grandparents and that
of a modern intelligence to-day, is the modification of time values that has occurred.
By the measure of our knowledge their timescale was extremely shallow. They
had scarcely any historical perspective at all. They looked back to a past of a few
thousand years and at the very beginning of time as they conceived it, they saw
human life very much as it is now : it was a more or less balanced system of certain
social types : rulers and ruled, hunter and cultivator, priest and soldier. This they
regarded as the immemorial life of man. They saw the life of city and cultivated land,
desert and sea, throughout all the interval, spreading perhaps, changing in a few
particulars, enriched rather than altered by inventions and discoveries, but essentially
the same. Their range of observation and comparison was too limited for them to
realise that by clearing forests, overstocking grasslands, destroying soil, they were
slowly impoverishing and devastating many of the regions into which they spread.
They did not connect the rise and fall of empires with a factor of unforeseeing waste
in that normal life of theirs. They ascribed such drifting of population and energy as
they observed to other causes. These processes of primitive waste were too relatively
slow to be perceptible from lifetime to lifetime. So these thinkers of yesterday talked
of unchanging human nature. You cannot change human nature, they said. They relied
upon the fabled promise of the rainbow, they had it straight from the Creator's mouth,
that while the earth still remained, seedtime and harvest should endure.
The order of events seemed a sure, unfailing routine. And in much the same
way, our ancestors, until a couple of dozen centuries ago, thought the world was flat.
They thought the sea they sailed upon flat without qualification, and it required a
considerable amount of mental exercise for them to realise that the apparent plane of
the ocean surface was really curved and that the faster and farther they sailed the more
effectively they would realise how the round earth was falling away from their first
assumptions. All their old landmarks would then vanish one after another. Astounded
navigators found unfamiliar constellations in the heavens. Within two dozen centuries
man has been discovering that he lives not on a flat earth but upon a globe, and within
the last ten, that he is not the centre of the universe but a denizen of a very second-rate
planet. He has had to readjust his general ideas about life to that, and to a certain
extent he has adjusted them. To a certain extent only.
And similarly our historical imaginations, quite as much as our geographical
imaginations, live to-day in a vastly enlarged system of perspectives. We know that
the everlasting hills are not everlasting, that all our working conceptions of behaviour
and destiny are provisional and that human nature and everything about it is being
carried along upon an irreversible process of change. Our historical ideas reach back
now through vistas of millions of years, we see humanity emerging from sub-human
conditions, from the life of relatively solitary apes, at distances in the nature of a
quarter of a million years, we know with increasing precision of the onset of a social
hunting life in those distant ages, we are able to trace the beginnings of agriculture in
a period of two or three hundred centuries, and by the new scale, the development of
cities, language, law, religious organisation and all the various adaptations of
humanity to the new conditions of a regular food supply, all that social system which
seemed as eternal as the heavens, appear now events of yesterday, devoid of any
finality whatsoever. That fixity of the normal human life which our great-great-
grandfathers assumed as a matter of plain common sense, we discover was a transient
dream. As our perspectives open, it vanishes.
The rapid progress of social psychology, human ecology and all the ill-defined
activities of human and general biology, is opening our eyes, it is opening even the
eyes of our trained historians and our social teachers, to the real nature of our
everyday social life. It is brought home to us that the human species for the last
twenty or twenty-five thousand years has been living in such a continuously
accelerating process of change as no other animal species has ever been called upon to
face. And it is also being forced upon our reluctant attention that the species Homo
sapiens is no privileged exception to the general conditions that determine the
destinies of other living species. It prospers or suffers under the same laws. These
laws can be stated compactly, and there is nowadays very little dispute about them,
even in matters of detail.

(Page 19-25)

We had better begin by correcting the initial error of fact, or at least qualifying
it. Auguste Comte is the acknowledged father of sociology, the word “sociology” is
attributed to him, as is the word “altruism”, both words having been coined as part of
his great work Positive Philosophy published in the 1830’s. On the other hand
Spencer is an equally renowned nineteenth century philosopher who made sociology a
special subject of interest to himself, and as the most famous English philosopher of
the period, by which we mean most famous in his own day, we may assume this is
where Wells derives his notion that Spencer launched sociology upon the world stage.
Today Spencer is totally forgotten, or at best he appears as a footnote in the history of
ideas, having built his philosophy in part upon the organicist idea of society, albeit he
spurned this philosophy later on ; today he is usually remembered for the manner in
which some of his ideas anticipated those of Darwin on evolution. The most famous
English philosopher of the period today is John Stuart Mill because his work on
Utilitarianism and liberty still represent vital precursors to the formulas the priests use
to impose the illusions that we live by today.

Having cleared that interesting little matter up we can move on to the next
potted fact. Sociology we are told is then to be known more correctly according to its
true scientific title, human ecology, and he goes on to indicate how this is so because
we know so much more about our relationship to the physical terrain upon which, and
within which, we exist. This, the fool, makes the subject matter of sociology. I like
the idea of sociology being called human ecology in that animals are best understood
in an ecological context related directly to their activity and nature, so I would expect
a true human ecology to recognise that humans are superorganisms that build
exoskeletons, otherwise known as communities. He is such a disappointment ; but a
useful jemmy into our subject area even so.

It is interesting that in 1939 a person could write thus of scientific ideas, and
say that they were only beginning to impact upon the more intimate human sciences
concerned with how we live our lives. This refers to the so called science that now
dominates our world, such as psychology and evolutionary biology, but the latter,
despite being a false lead—indeed precisely because it was a false lead designed to be
inapplicable to human lifestyle—finds no place in modern sociology. The discussion
as to how biology is excised from human science is perfect, even though the author
has no idea that this is so ! How can he have when he does not know that what he
calls science, and specifically biology, is no more biology than Ptolemaic astronomy
was astronomy ? Yet this is a sheer delight for we see from this misguided
application of new scientific ideas how perfectly Darwinism, and all that goes with it
in terms of biologizing humanity while preserving the sanctity of the individual as a
supreme being, performs the objective of its role as scientific substitute. This
indicates how the process of managing knowledge involved stages, not until a
sterilised form of knowledge had been devised to represent biology in a political form
could the prospect of a counter attack be envisaged. It would not of been possible for
the universities to of taken up a true scientific position, such as we do in this work,
and then to of set the machinery of academia against that science, just as today
academia could not entertain a latter day astronomer basing their work on the idea that
the earth was the centre of the universe. The power of modern astronomy is too
overwhelming to allow so farcical a notion as that which modern astronomy continues
to pretend was a genuine attempt to understand the universe, but which never was
really. And if the establishment chose to treat humans as superorganisms then the
fruits of its endeavour would likewise overwhelm any alternative, there would be no
possibility of Creationist nutters facing-off evolutionary biology, there would be no
gaps in scientific logic for the nutters who rule our world to exploit, and no voids to
fill. So what Wells represents is the rebirth of science founded upon the artificial
basis of Darwinism, and this explains why Darwinism was given the extraordinary
propulsion into a realm of magnificence unlike that of any other scientist before or
after. Today the effort to make Darwin into a semi divine is unceasing, he appears on
bank notes, he is acknowledged unreservedly, by all who are in a position to offer an
acknowledgement, as one of the greatest scientists of all time and so on. But all is an
illusion and we stand here like the boy crying out the chorus in a Hans Christian
Anderson tale “ The Darwin, the Darwin. The Darwin is in the altogether the
altogether, the altogether, as naked as the day that he was born.”
Today modern astronomers say that the astounding work of Ptolemy intended
to make sense of the heavens on the basis that the earth was at the centre of the
universe was a truly magnificent work of scientific astronomy. I refer you to The
Cambridge History of Astronomy, Michael Hoskin (Ed.), 1997. But we reject this
representation, we say this effort was a fraud, it was religion cloaked in science for
the purpose of subverting science. We say the same of Darwinism, and we say the
same of all that flows from these founding works, therefore we say this of the book of
Wells’ we are examining now. But we have just noted that Wells is most likely an
innocent victim sucked into the vortex of ignorance created by The Origin of Species,
indeed we are quite prepared to let it be assumed that Darwin was himself duped into
producing the bullshit work that he unleashed upon the world. So we see how the
charade must go on in all departments of knowledge fabrication, the historians must
interpret the work of astronomers independently of theologians, and as such credit the
likes of Ptolemy with sincerity misguided by the bias of the times in which he lived.
Ptolemy we are to believe genuinely believed that the earth was at the centre of the
universe, despite the fact that it was not, and that he must of been aware of the idea
that it was not. We are also supposed to believe that Creationist liars working to
corrupt false science today believe that Darwinism is false science because only the
Bible tells the truth. Do Creationists really believe this ? Boy ! how can we
determine that ? We cannot, we must circumvent the question because validating this
question, as all academia validates it, on the basis that the individual is a sacred and
independent subject, who has the sole power of determining his own opinions, makes
our work impossible. We must show that there is no such thing as an individual, and
that it is irrelevant what any individual believes since we are all dependant upon what
is given to us for the formulation of our opinions. So that whether people are truly
misguided believers or insidious manipulators going with the flow for the usual
political reasons, is completely irrelevant, all that we need know is the true quality of
the ideas at the core of the knowledge flux composed of all ideas in circulation at any
given period of time defined by the existence of the core idea itself. So we have the
Ptolemaic period and its associated information flux, now dead and gone, and we
have the Darwinian period and its associated information flux, currently alive and
kicking, Wells’ work is part of this latter flux of information as it pervaded society in
the pre-war period.
I thought I would have a look for the place where Ptolemy is described as a
great scientist but I cannot find it, actually it has taken me by surprise how much The
Cambridge History of Astronomy has on his work, all nicely put into context too,
which makes my denunciation of Ptolemy as a fraudster serving the theocracy seem
quite idiotic, the dribbling of a presumptuous plebe who knows how to write, and
little else. My cursory condemnation of Ptolemy is based on my long standing use of
the associated ancient suppression of knowledge as the model to be compared with
the modern suppression of knowledge based on Darwin, so I have never taken the
trouble to examine the actual details of the Ptolemaic system because the fact that it
was wrong is beyond question, and the fact that those who suggested the basic idea
that the earth was not the stable point in the system were abused is likewise common
knowledge. Indeed I notice quite frequently these days when reading old books
variously related to freedom of thought how this ancient conflict often drew the same
thoughts I have in the same context. So I am not interested in the details of Ptolemaic
astronomy, however it is at just that point when I in effect make the idea that
Ptolemy’s work was a charade a modern issue, by saying modern academics treat his
work as sincere, which is part of the ongoing subversion of science by the theocracy,
in this case in the field of history, that I find I am obliged to look into the matter.

“the great work of synthesis — Ptolemy’s Almagest — was composed

late in Antiquity, in the second century after Christ, and half a millennium
after Aristotle was teaching in Athens. Ptolemy’s monumental achievement
would have been awesome even if all the earlier writings on which he drew —
most notably those of Hipparchus — had survived. But after the Almagest
became available, Hipparchus’s works lost their value, and most of them
vanished.”

(Page 22-23)

This is the closest I have come to finding a vindication of Ptolemy’s work as a

great scientist, perhaps this is what I had read, and was remembering. The rest of this
history of astronomy is brilliant in its setting of the scene in which Ptolemy’s work
came into being, and certainly we see from the above quote that this scientific fraud
was just as sincere as that produced by Darwin a mere century and a half ago. But it
is also delightful to see the incidental consequences of the creation of a magnificent
work of religious substitution such as that achieved by Ptolemy, as recorded by our
modern historians, when they say that the realisation of such a milestone as that of
Ptolemy’s Almagest causes all that preceded it to become redundant, and so to vanish
from the public forum, or information flux, in which knowledge exists. The reason
given is that the expense of copying works is no longer justified, which would not
apply today when printing would allow all the redundant precursors of Darwin to
continue in print. But the fact is that this is not truly a matter of economics, now or
then, it is the sad of consequence of a work being produced that is invested with such
authority that all others can be allowed to fade away through lack of attention. So
what we are seeing here is the invisible consequence of making a choice. When we
tell someone how to find their way to a given destination we say turn left, turn right,
we do not say turn left and do not right, turn right and do not turn left. As in
mathematics we cancel out redundant terms to clarify our purpose, so in language we
only make positive statements that take us where we want to be, and here, at the
highest point of symbolic representation, we see whole bodies of work acting as
positive statements indicating a route to be taken which silently negate all other
options. This of course is the only possible way for any symbolic system of
representation to work. As a mater of course symbolic systems have the capacity to
act as mediums of creativity building structure where none previously existed, which
is exactly what we say language is, a natural force that creates superorganic structure.
Superorganic structure is however only created when symbols are directed where
nothing exists, as in the case of the positive units of information created under the
names of Ptolemy and Darwin, or those of the Bible and the Koran created
collectively and hence largely anonymously. When symbols are true to existing
structure they are literally symbolic and nothing else, but to be purely symbolic is not
the true nature of a symbolic system, as such the naming of linguistic systems as
symbolic is a deliberate piece of misinformation that serves to disguise the true nature
of language and thereby make language look like a tool employed by people.
Symbolic systems did not evolve as attributes of life for the sake of representing
extant forms, indeed gene codes are symbolic systems of chemicals and they are
responsible for the existence of life itself. A gene code may be symbolic, as a
language may be symbolic, but living forms arising from the directives of a genome
are not symbolic, any more than the Christian society arising from Jewish symbolism
is not symbolic, but actual.
 I have inserted the above picture of a book’s title page and frontispiece for a
bit of fun. I was reminded of an anecdotal incident involving this work when I wrote
the preceding paragraph on the disappearance of outdated ideas. I bought this book a
dozen years ago from a book fair for about £15 as a scientific curiosity. I took it with
me to a local pub where they served, and still do serve, wonderful beer. It was sunny
and I sat outside perusing my recent acquisition when a young man who use to work
in the pub that was then my true local came out to collect glasses. I knew he was at
university studying science of relevance to galvanism, physics possibly, so I took
delight in showing him the book, to which he responded with utter disgust, saying
“What are reading that for ? ” He was a snotty youth, but I was disappointed at the
lack of interest in the scientific roots that he showed. It is not as if this work on
galvanism was a book of magic, galvanism represented an early field of great intrigue
to people who were amongst the first moderns trying to make sense of the
phenomenon of electricity, and being from 1843 this book precedes the establishment
of clear ideas on what electricity was really all about, and as such a book like this may
let us know how people were thinking about this mysterious thing that electricity is
before absolute knowledge became established so that we could simply have it spoon
fed to us. Added to which there is, if I remember rightly, some interesting historical
information included in the work. But it is perfectly obvious that under ordinary
circumstances there would be no question of a work like this still being published. On
the other hand I have a Researches into the Physical History of Man by James
Prichard, 1973, reproduced as a facsimile under the Classics in Anthropology series,
which is an 1813 work, now outdated, but evidently not redundant. That said, we are
still keen to read books two thousand years old, I have a 1741 copy of Cicero’s
Nature of the Gods written by an ancient Roman author, ace, £10 it cost, from an
antique fair some half dozen years ago. This is a right weird item to read, but none of
these books are for reading cover to cover today, I did just finish reading the book we
will be looking at next only yesterday, 19/07/07, Personal and Social Evolution, but
this is a special item of particular interest to us at this moment in our endeavour to
gain insight into the idea of the social organism, and such books are few and far
between, for all that it is an idiosyncratic and kooky item ; it would be too much to
hope that a book dealing with real science discovering human nature as made by
nature would actually be written by a serious scholar ! The caveat we may make,
which is alluded to when I say “under ordinary circumstances”, is that now we have
digital reproduction available there is no reason why every book ever created and still
in existence cannot be reduced to a digital form and made available to all. I like that
idea, big time ! And I have in fact just discovered a source of Nazis works, and
related nineteenth century related material on the internet and a source of early, rare
and otherwise expensive books on anthropology available digitally for a few pounds,
so it is starting to happen. Yet to look to the end of this major revolution which has
not yet begun, in earnest, the routine publication of works in digital format could spell
the death of the book, and that would make all knowledge dependant upon the
existence of highly sophisticated technology, so that in the event of a collapse of our
modern world all knowledge would then become as vulnerable as the papyrus rolls of
ancient times. Tricky business preserving information in a pure form, as we know
from the dreams of recovering ancient DNA too.

A blunt statement that biology is excised from human social studies of all
kinds is always nice to find. The same kind of observation is made by Morley
Roberts in his Bio-Politics, 1938, when he says “And sociology refuses its proper
station in biology.” (Page 3) Also by Lewis Thomas in The Lives of a Cell 1974
when he says that “to imply that the operation of insect societies has any relation at all
to human affairs.” is “quite bad form in biological circles” (Page 11)
Indeed it is so wonderful to find these word by from Wells that they bear
repeating :

“The infiltration of biological ideas into sociology and human history,

it has to be recognised, is a process still only beginning. The enlightenment of
the middle nineteenth century through the destructive analysis of the Creation
myth, went on in the face of vast resistances, and not the least of these were in
the schools. The new conceptions threatened the very bases of belief on which
right conduct seemed to rest. Men shrank from following out the plain
implications of the new discoveries. And so either they were denied,
irrationally and frantically, or they were minimised, they were admitted, yes,
but as obscure, remote matters, that had little or no significance in the
“broader issues” of life. So that they could be taught in a sterilised form or
ignored altogether. There was a period of controversy, very disastrous to the
old dogmas, and then a phase of defensive silences. Open fighting was
abandoned and the established beliefs dug themselves in.”

I mean this is absolute perfection, there never could be a more perfect

statement made about the state of our world today in relation to knowledge, freedom
of thought and expression. But if this is a perfect statement for 2007 then how come
it was being made by a man in 1939 as a precursor to his impending statement of
reality, his unleashing of the truth, his revelation intended to turn this perfect
statement into a dead letter ? Evidently Wells had not the faintest notion of what the
hell he was talking about, yes, he had produced a perfect analysis of the state of
affairs demanding remedy, it was the idea he had of the solution which was as
worthless as the disease it set out to cure since it was in reality a far more infected
symptom of the very disease of which Wells complains in the passage just repeated.
And so we shall do the same again and duplicate the next paragraph too for it
too is a perfect statement to make today :

“ It is still possible for bright youngsters at the universities to enter

upon the “advanced” study of history, philosophy and economics, in the
blackest ignorance of general biology. A majority of them remain in that
ignorance, with a deepening scholastic hostility to this science, which sits like
a neglected creditor at their doors. They have established a social prejudice
against this dreaded line of thought and body of knowledge in which they have
no share. They succeed in putting it upon the all too snobbish and sensitive
young that somehow the biological reference is not quite the thing. It isn't
done. It isn't to be thought about. There is an indecency in it. The young
university philosopher, historian or economist is in many cases not so much
biologically ignorant as biology-proofed.”

Now here, in this latter passage, we see something of the smart arse coming
through that we might expect to find is so fallacious an author. This man presumes to
tell all the world what is what, to damn everything and to cure all, and yet while his
denunciation is fine, his solution is pathetic, a horrible piss take, an insult to human
intelligence. And in this latter duplication we see his art, he mocks his own ideas
instead of taking himself seriously.

“They have established a social prejudice against this dreaded line of thought
and body of knowledge in which they have no share. They succeed in putting
it upon the all too snobbish and sensitive young that somehow the biological
reference is not quite the thing.”

Who is this they ? I’d like to know. You see, the man completely misses the point of
his own observations, and this presumably because he thinks he has the solution and
his solution is of the same flawed nature as the problem he seeks to correct. At this
point we need the idea of God, not God as God, but God as tangible reality, God
brought to life as an unseen force impacting on all aspects of our existence, God as
the social organism. For indeed that is who they are, they are the social organism.
So that they is not a they at all, they is an it. Making this adjustment we then get the
new formula written thus :

“It has established a social prejudice against this dreaded line of thought and
body of knowledge in which it has no share. It succeeds in putting it upon the
all too snobbish and sensitive young that somehow the biological reference is
not quite the thing.”
Now, can we imagine Wells seeing this ? No way ! It is perfectly clear that the shift
from the vague mystery of theyness to the definite certainty of itness was never an
issue in Wells’ brain.
We can labour this issue further, to some advantage, because Wells is dealing
with the precise issue of central concern to us, that application of biology to the study
of humans, specifically in the context of their social life, and he is playing with the
situation regarding the teaching of this subject. He gripes, but tells us nothing useful,
he does not indicate how it can be that in his youth, as he observes in mature years,
education simply is not education, but some kind of farce manipulated by some
mysterious entities for some unknown reason.
Written about the same time we have a very curious little piece which can only
of seen the light of day because the man who wrote it was a famous author who could
publish anything who chose to. He appears to be heavily influenced by the Freudian
craze that was at its height around this time and being claimed, by Wells no less in the
above book, as well as others, as a world shattering revelation unlocking the hidden
recesses of being to view for the first time ever. Freud of course was a complete
fraudster, his work like all acclaimed works are selected for promotion because they
set the individual upon a pedestal, bizarrely Freud takes the fact that there is no such
thing as an individual and makes it into a philosophy of the individual, it is absolutely
amazing what putty the human brain is. The hidden world of the subconscious is the
most obvious evidence that humans are not individuals but some other kind of
creature and yet Freud manages to personalise this subconscious domain and thus
hands it over to the individual who does not even know it is there ! It is interesting to
find ourselves drifting into the realms of Freudian psychoanalysis because I do not
believe I have ever given it any real thought before now and yet upon writing thus
about it I immediately find myself enlightened as to why this monstrous gush should
of been created and exalted at the time when it was. It has already been plain enough
that psychology was introduced as the science of the individual in the nineteenth
century to prevent a true science of the individual being based upon an analysis of
language and the mind that language produces, in terms of the living social organism
which the brain evolved to attach individuals to. Freud realises the full potential of
this perverted psychology of the individual and just as Hitler as anti-Semite is an
inverted image of reality since Hitler existed to save the Jews, so Freud is a mirror
image of reality too for he totally inverts the fact that there is no such thing as an
individual by making the existence of a hidden programme controlling human minds
into the basis of an extreme individuality. This is how language works, it projects a
mental image into the social space in which people live and this externalisation, which
exists in our brains, which we call our mind, is all we can see because it is inside
ourselves. Our brain truly is a form of eye, it sees social form.
In the following piece by D. H. Lawrence we can see that he is making the
individual sacred in the most extreme degree and in much the same way we have just
denounced Freud’s work. Lawrence, like Wells, wrings his hands in torment at the
malevolent application of education to the masses, but where Wells seeks sound
education Lawrence argues that all extended knowledge is superfluous to individual
needs and meaningless anyway because it is spoon-fed and teaches only lies. So we
are interested in this peculiar item by another amateur would be philosopher of human
nature because it both alerts us to the same problem as that which Wells indicates
while failing in a different way to see the reality by the complaint.

Lawrence :
 FIRST STEPS IN EDUCATION

It is not the nature of most men to know and to understand and to reason very
far. Therefore, why should they make a pretence of it ? It is the nature of some few
men to reason, then let them reason. Those whose nature it is to be rational will
instinctively ask why and wherefore, and wrestle with themselves for an answer. But
why every Tom, Dick and Harry should have the why and wherefore of the universe
rammed into him, and should be allowed to draw the conclusion hence that he is the
ideal person and responsible for the universe, I don't know. It is a lie, anyway—for
neither the whys nor the wherefores are his own, and he is but a parrot with his nut of
a universe.
Why should we cram the mind of a child with facts that have nothing to do
with his own experiences, and have no relation to his own dynamic activity ? Let us
realize that every extraneous idea effectually introduced into a man’s mind is a direct
obstruction of his dynamic activity. Every idea which is introduced from outside into
a man’s mind, and which does not correspond to his own dynamic nature, is a fatal
stumbling block for that man : is a cause of arrest for his true individual activity, and a
derangement to his psychic being.
For instance, if I teach a man the idea that all men are equal. Now this idea has
no foundation in experience, but is logically deduced from certain ethical or
philosophic principles. But there is a disease of idealism in the world, and we all are
born with it. Particularly teachers are born with it. So they seize on the idea of
equality, and proceed to instil it. With what result ? Your man is no longer a man,
living his own life from his own spontaneous centres. He is a theoretic imbecile trying
to frustrate and dislocate all life.
It is the death of all life to force a pure idea into practice. Life must be lived
from the deep, self-responsible spontaneous centres of every individual, in a vital,
non-ideal circuit of dynamic relation between individuals. The passions or desires
which are thought-born are deadly. Any particular mode of passion or desire which
receives an exclusive ideal sanction at once becomes poisonous.

(Fantasia of the Unconscious, 1933. Page 75)

The title reproduced here is taken from the page header, it is the title of the
chapter, but this is not the opening page, there is lots of other good stuff about the
iniquity of universal education preceding this selection.
And so what we want to derive from these statements is the underlying
indication that something seems to be forever at work thwarting the realisation of the
intended outcome for which human intelligence came into existence. It is as if birds,
for all their magnificent evolution to make them fly, were all fatally flawed so that
while they could indeed fly, they could only ever fly backwards or upside down, thus
causing them to continually bump into obstacles and to always dive in the exact
opposite direction to that intended whenever they made an urgent manoeuvre, so that
in effect their world of flight was a mirror image of what it should be, and the only
reason they could get away with being so fatally flawed was that the same fault was
common to all and this made for a level playing field in which their interactions were
conducted.
 All well and good, but why bother, why not just fly the right way up and
forwards ? That is precisely what happens, in birds, but not in humans, we are forever
plagued by an inability to manage our intellectual affairs in a right manner, so these
great thinkers tell us.
But of course all this nonsense about things not being done right and how to
do them better is all wrong, it is seen from the wrong perspective, we look at life from
the fulcrum of our individual being, as we use to look at life from the fulcrum of the
earth supreme point in the universe. Such false locations cause all our observations to
be out of kilter and so as meaningful as the remarks of a Lawrence seem on the face
of it, they are not reasonable at all because the valid observations that the individual is
forced to learn rubbish is misunderstood because the whole point of having an
astoundingly high level of intelligence is precisely so that individuals can learn
rubbish. The simple reason being that the purpose of human intelligence is to induct
people into the social fabric, not to make each individual a minor deity in their own
right. What matters in a human life is that the person should know what is necessary
to be part of society not that they should know what is true. An ideal such as that of
equality is drawn from the reality that there is no such thing as an individual, it
negates individuality precisely in order to define the reality of the superorganic being
that a human organism is. The experience of individuality is a function of being a
unit of a living being that must have units of varying form in order to possess a
physiology allowing growth and vitality. The ideal is therefore the manner in which
people are accommodated to their unseen place in the organic being of which they
were a part. This ideal is a philosophical ruse, it is a secular form of religious
principle which ordinarily provides a mantra serving the same purpose and indeed the
notion of all being born equal, as a social principle, is merely a humanistic form of the
same Christian dogma which exists to serve exactly the same purpose.
The idea that the solution is for each individual to act according to his own
sense of experience is therefore only the other side of the coin, as such Lawrence tells
us nothing, he just makes proclaims the opposite absurdity, that humans are
individuals.
 Chapter XI

Organic Materialism

Here we have a truly astounding book. I have owned a copy for several years,
but until now I have been unable to find any use for it. The book still says what it
always said, but my internal wiring has evidently changed. I think that the story must
go something like this : not too long after I first found myself walking down the
avenue of true knowledge I came across Roberts via a political scientists working in
the seventies, W. J. M. Mackenzie, the book in question may be Biological Ideas in
Politics, 1979, but it has no index and I cannot be bothered hunting for a reference to
Roberts. I do recall however that Mackenzie credited Roberts with being the first to
speak of Bio-Politics, hence I snapped up a copy of the book so named, only to
discover disappointment therein, a reaction soon to become the norm thereafter.
As time has gone on my approach to the problem of the human sciences has
inevitably been transformed by my experience of such disappointment and work in
progress here is the best evidence of the change for here we do not review the science
of humanity, we review the forlorn science of humanity. It is in the light of this new
mindset therefore that I now find myself moved to being wholly impressed by what I
find within Roberts’ work, because now I am keen to find the lost tracks of failed
attempts to investigate a true science of humanity, and in this department me thinks I
have found a very great work indeed.
Finding so much good material in the opening parts of this book I wondered
what had caused me to condemn it so soon and so completely that I would not touch
it, and I think maybe it was the this ; “Religion I leave gratefully to theologians,
although I have been compelled to deal lightly with the structures and organs in which
it functions.” (Preface, Page xiii) Who knows ? But this is a sure sign that Roberts
was devoting his life to a great passion for knowledge on an entirely false and
ludicrous basis, as Ptolemy did before him, and as many millions of others have done
down the ages, and as many millions do today. It is rather remarkable, he does appear
to of devoted his life to this love of “organic materialism” as he so philosophically
calls the application of biology to society. He tells us that his first inkling that society
might be treated as a living entity derived from a work that he knew in 1889 and this
book is 1938, a span of nearly half a century, which means he become engrossed with
idea at an early age.
We have seen how Wells represents an alternative approach to the conception
of society as a part of nature, whereby the naturalistic conception is made relevant to
history and sociology which is summed up in the idea of ecology. Most bizarre ! In
Roberts we will find that we have yet another tangential diversion away from the
correct point of focus toward the outer limits of lunacy. Roberts seems to of been a
professional biologist, a medic and a physiologist ; a true scientist therefore, and so he
trundled off on his own account applying his speciality to the popular idea of the day.
Wells bemoans the failure of diverse sciences to come to combine their insights in
search of knowledge about the nature of life as it applies to humans, and says that it is
the primary objective of his Fate of Homo Sapiens to offer a corrective to this sad
state of affairs. Roberts makes no such attempt. He does state categorically that he
has not consulted any works of sociology from the previous three decades as he saw
no point in reading works that were not based on a biological premise. This is fair
enough up to a point, but if we were to take our view of the social flux of knowledge
at this time from this book then we would be obliged to think of Herbert Spencer as
the sole exponent of a biological basis to human society. The fact is that it is only
courtesy of the most recent burgeoning of the internet and the fact that this lends itself
to the purveying of books that it is easier for a plonker to know all about the social
flux of knowledge in 1900 hundred than it was for a highly intelligent professional
person to know who was alive and actively involved in it at the time. If Spencer was
worth commenting upon then so were a number of continental authors and some
Americans were also worth a mention at least.
So this dismissal of sociological thought at the very time when the idea of
society as a social organism was alive and thriving is to be regretted most profoundly.
And then, what about this business of religion, what about Benjamin Kidd and Social
Evolution ? Kidd pointed out that it was religion that was the driving force behind the
creation of social organisms. Are we to think that Roberts knew nothing of this
work ? That seems preposterous as Kidd created a storm in the knowledge flux of the
time. What we have in Wells and Roberts then is the inner and the outer examination
of the social organism, without any essence. Both these men have come across an
animal and seen it for what it is, a living beast. One proceeded to look all about to try
and discover what kind of creature it is from its mode of living, while the other
decided to dissect the thing and study it on the basis of comparative physiology, in the
best tradition of the anatomist. Dear, dear me ! What are we to do with such people,
what hope is there ? These approaches view the human superorganism as an animal
object, they just cannot manage to see past their own egos, to see society as the animal
proper, as an animal with an identity living in the world, a living being. This is a
most important point for it is the conjunction of the knowledge flux with the immense
impulse, within each of us, to cause all existence to rotate about ourselves where we
think of ourselves as an end in ourselves existing as an egocentric point in the
universe. That is at the heart of the problem of the forlorn philosophy of the human
sciences which makes it so difficult for anyone to reach past the veil and lift it.
Making these criticisms of Roberts is all the more frustrating when we find
passages such as the following which uses a bilateral analogical approach to try and
bridge the divide between the somatic and social body.

Roberts :

CASTE SYSTEMS AND STATUS. Something might here be said of social physics,
since the relation of status, growth, and development to physical factors such as
momentum, inertia, and gravitation will at once suggest itself. Any such analysis,
however slight, could but accentuate the importance of status in whatever form it
exerts energy. But we may consider it now in direct relation to the actual building of
animal and social organisms. I shall approach this on lines which enable us to get
valuable help from Keith, who has considered a subject likely to excite passion with a
singularly detached mind. But it is hard to agree with him when he says that the
animal body represents a slave state, and that none therefore would care to copy
nature closely in a social system. For this is a psychological way of regarding such
phenomena. To speak of slavery brings in illicitly the problems, or pseudo-problems,
of ‘free-will’ and liberty which a logical system must avoid in dealing with physical
and mechanico-physical problems. So far Keith seems to agree in a measure with
Spencer. But it is now notorious that some social writers have no objection to a rigid
caste system. They even go so far as to think it may easily be reached, or imposed by
force. Of such visionaries in the biological world it is needless to treat. They may
construct a rigidly ordered State for definite purposes, perhaps to passing advantage.
But the essence of caste status is ease and content in normal inherited function. It is
illogical and irrelevant to object on theoretic grounds of liberty to what can only come
about when an automatic and instinctive system of castes has been evolved. To act
under the conditioned reflexes of instinct cannot be called slavery, if we are not
prepared to call the building of a bird’s nest slavery. It must, however, be owned that
the mere notion of castes appears to excite remarkable and interesting reactions in
certain classes of politicians and sociologists, who seem unable to view calmly what
can scarcely come into existence till they have been dust for a million years. But
sociologists at least should remember how the idea of such a system affected the man
who did most to suggest it. His repulsion to it destroyed Spencer as a logical thinker.
It is pleasant to know that it has not affected Keith, who can face what none may like
with complete equanimity.
THE SOMATIC CASTE SYSTEM. One not unnatural objection to considering the
caste system is that it is not ‘practical politics’ and that in any case the length of time
needed to build it relieves sociologists of the necessity to study anything of the kind.
Fortunately biologists are not wholly confined to practical politics. They may ignore
sociology as a means of enlightenment but their studies in the animal body cannot
allow them to forget caste, however they may phrase it. The evolution of the bodily
caste system is by no means complete and therefore has been, is, and will continue to
be, a semi-morbid process. But we may at least reflect that the greater number of our
own somatic cells ‘enjoy their life,’ doing the work that comes to them in their order.
The essence of an ideal caste system is one in which none are in revolt. Physiology
contemplates the conception with more calm than pathology can show. Hippocrates
wrote that in the body ‘all things assuredly work together according to their whole
nature and in each its parts take part in the work.’ This work is voluntary if the parts
can do no other. With real sympathy of social parts there is no reason why an outcaste
sweeper with his broom might not be as happy as any Brahmin with all his caste
marks and thread, and relatively as much endowed with ‘liberty.’ It appears liberty is
not a biological word. There can be no freer worker than the automatic worker. This is
the somatic freedom hereditary caste cells get in the body. It is hard to conceive a
settled attached tissue cell ‘wanting’ to be a different cell. The relatively free cells
capable of various terminal destinies obey the somatic call, even to immediate death,
with an astonishing alacrity. In this respect there could be nothing more suitable for
the study of sociologists and politicians than the bone cells or osteoblasts which lead a
wonderfully active social life, continually laying down, taking away, and altering
bone as they shape it to meet stress. When on fatal occasions they get undue and
unnatural liberty there may be sarcoma, such as femoral sarcoma, an explosive
malignant osteomegaly, or overgrowth. I shall show that such accidents may affect the
social organism itself. If an accident frees bone cells from their natural limiting
membrane the periosteum, they may go adrift and build bone where it is harmful.
With little difficulty we can conceive them regretting their freedom. The normal life
of the osteoblasts is no more and no less slavery than that of a living community
doing its best. The tender-minded philosopher may, perhaps, turn to a caste system in
hope rather than fear.
CASTE SATISFACTION. This push of the somatic cells to remain in what may be
called the order of their instincts or tropisms comes out with remarkable clearness
when we find that the errant dispersed cells of a cancer or sarcoma do their best to
build up structures and colonies like those in which they lived before being driven out
by the breakdown of environmental control. Of the social analogies of cancer I shall
have to speak later. These tendencies of cells to continue as they grow can be
illustrated by many social analogies. All those who have inherited or acquired caste
marks or caste signs and shibboleths are exceedingly indisposed to abolish them.
Those who have attained a new status make efforts, not unintelligible or ridiculous on
this interpretation, to acquire appropriate caste marks, habits, and the appearance of
customs. And every politician of aristocratic faith is an advocate of the caste to which
he belongs or would belong. None of our potential castes are, however, rigid and
definitely hereditary. Even the royal castes of Europe have surrendered to outcaste
marriages owing to social stresses. All sociologists must have observed such de-
differentiations in times of stress. From the point of organic materialism and the
organic caste State these de-differentiations are obviously a retrograde step. If this
leads to the conclusion that democratic ‘progress’ is retrogression it can no more be
helped than it can be denied that such retrogression may be temporarily necessary. For
we see quite clearly that the continued differentiation needed for an easily and
economically working caste system requires long periods of quiet development for
which the world must wait. The disorders of advance or regression on any political
theory are bound to continue, whether the masses of social units choose one or the
other interpretation of advance. But in spite of all disorder the tendency to caste is
constant. Whatever is thought of such a movement it is just as well to observe how
evolution works and not to decry or lament it. From the point of economic working
and sound organization it scarcely needs demonstration that socialism to ensure better
distribution of energy and the doctrine of the organic state cannot be said to be
opposed in a biological sense. That both systems are tyrannies in posse cannot be
doubted. It may seem absurd to say that the equalitarian and totalitarian states may not
in the end be distinguishable, but those who have observed the struggle for power and
the effect of power on its possessors will be the last to contest the conclusion.
CONSERVATISM OF LOW CASTES. If I am right in thinking that social units
inclined now to the democratic ideal of an imaginary freedom would find themselves
regulated with severity on either plan, it should console them to observe the notion of
settled hereditary caste is by no means alien from the human social being. For one
man desirous of higher caste marks or signs of social superiority, millions care for no
more than they have, provided they are sure of keeping it. This is a great conservative
or static factor. Nevertheless those who are dissatisfied and desire a higher status, not
as the poorer classes do, when dissatisfied with their nutrition, but because they seek
for power, may bring about political results. Disappointed politicians frequently desert
their colleagues in the hope that increased political status will compensate for what is
said of them. Thus with the rise or fall of a party there are otherwise unaccountable
conversions. Given changing conditions a Labour politician may find in another party
power, position, and a pension. A disappointed Conservative may console himself
with the Hegelian principle of the Identity of Opposites, or the conclusions I drew in
the last paragraph, and seek the other camp by night. I do not impute blame to those
who experience these triumphs or calamities, as they seek satisfaction for their
instincts. For this is the real end desirable in all caste systems and schemes of
hereditary status. On the whole it seems satisfactory to observe that the vast majority
of those in a low status would be highly reluctant to change it. They might not be so
ready to resist or condemn the highly organized State as is often thought. For it offers
all a period of peace, rest, and ordered work before disease, disaster, and the external
environment strike down the State and painful reorganization begins anew.

(Page 48 - 52)

I absolutely love this, I cannot believe that this book has been on my shelves
for years. It is nonetheless useless as a true conception of human superorganisms. I
am sure the same old problem is the cause, the irrepressible sense of self. Individuals
are presumably the cells of the organism that are organised into specific organs along
lines of caste definition. So Roberts is here inverting the biological analogy applied
to society by taking a social category, caste, and applying it to somatic tissues and
structures.
 THE PROBLEM with this is critical : if it is recognised that the functional
organization of social organisms is achieved through the differentiation of the
population into categories of class and caste types, in which he freely, but without
significance, includes religious identities — “All those who have inherited or
acquired caste marks or caste signs and shibboleths are exceedingly indisposed to
abolish them.” I say freely, but it is more like vaguely, as he could of quite easily said
religious identities here, and named a few, which would of been the first thing on my
mind, but he does not. Why not ! Why the hell not turn to religion here ? It really is
quite a question this, and the trouble is that he has absolved himself of any pretension
to give consideration to religion from the outset, being content to leave that
“gratefully to theologians”. Why gratefully ? This is too much, how can anyone
discuss human society without making religion one of their foremost concerns ? To
leave religion to the theologians means he is content to let priests decide what religion
is, which is absurd. It really is too much, it is extremely difficult not to think that he
was not really seeking to solve the problems he devoted his life to solving, issues over
which he harangued Spencer for ducking the important difficulties, while praising his
friend Keith for bravely facing ideas like the slave implications of caste structure. Do
we simply have another damn priest here ? Boy oh boy !

It should of been perfectly clear to anyone approaching this problem as

Roberts approached it that the organism needed an overall uniform identity, such as
all organisms must have. And that this identity of being given by the summation of
physiological form, i. e. cat, dog, worm, mouse, grass, dandelion and so on, are the
summation of physiologically organized structural identities, all of which nonetheless
retain an attachment to the core identity, the identity of being, that emerges in the
shape of the whole organism. Structural differentiation is not exposed to the
immediate valuation of identity because it goes unseen, and animal structures are
therefore likely to appear much alike, hence the anatomist’s art of comparative
physiology which makes it possible to develop a naturalistic scheme of life revealing
the true relations of one species to another by discerning the similarities and traces of
physiological structures showing how animal forms have evolved. Applying the same
comparative physiological method to human society regarded as a superorganism
composed of cells organised into physiological structures, exactly as Roberts says
himself, should lead to the identification of Judaism as the identity of being
straightaway, there is no other way to conceive of this socio-biological scheme.
Judaism is obviously the master identity, and Christianity and Islam are the skeletal
and constitutional mainframes, all bound together in varying states of harmony and
tension through a myriad of variations on the identity of being, which Christianity and
Islam are derived from and are part of. This image fits perfectly with everything that
Roberts is trying to say here, which is why I love his work so much, yet he declines to
realise this. It is too tragic. And what of his partner in this crime, Keith ? I have
ordered his work today, 24/07/07, and we will see.
What I think does come across from reading these portions of Robert’s work is
the deep immersion of this man into the stream of thought flowing along in our
direction. The way he freely runs with the analogical idea in either direction and
indicates, without references sadly, the great public discussion of the related issues
taking place in society at the time when he was alive. We see this in the way he
indicates that people have strong ideas on the question of caste, this is the only place I
found any discussion of the issues involved in Spencer’s abandonment of the idea of
the social organism due to his fear of the loss of individuality. Even Spencer’s own
works devoted to these issues do not discuss them in quite the same way because
Spencer adopts contrary views in different times and places, he does not overtly link
his attack on the state, combined with a defence of the individual as the supreme
authority in the state, to an abandonment of the analogical approach to society seen as
a social organism. The alteration in the arguments must be in there, but life is not
long enough to read the works themselves from cover to cover and pick them out,
while for Roberts Spencer’s works will of been the substance of the intellectual flux
in which his being was suspended, so he could absorb the substance of the ongoing
debates in which he was interested as they unfolded before him, and here we are able
to derive the benefit of his intimate contact with this dominant, but carefully erased,
aspect of recent intellectual history which is our chosen area of interest today.

The discovery of arguments of this kind, concerning the shocking implications

of organic theories of human society, is the most fabulous discovery we could ever
hope to make, I have seen nothing like it anywhere else before, and yet these worries
are alluded to here and there, one example might be the reactions people are bound to
have to the new ideas about the nature of society as alluded to in the Preface to Social
Adaptation, Bristol, 1915. “It will take a much greater mental revolution to adjust
ourselves to this new doctrine of social evolution than it ever took to adjust ourselves
to a biological doctrine of evolution.” (Carver, page xi)
The significance of Roberts’ discussion of these issues as found in the above
quote is that he really gets to the nitty-gritty of the issue. He makes the obvious
logical assessment that a person cannot be a slave to that which is inherent in their
being, so we cannot be seriously considered a slave to our need to eat, anymore than a
bird can be regarded as a slave to its urge to build a nest. This discussion is critical
for our purposes from two points of view, firstly this kind of discussion simply does
not exist anywhere that I know of, and yet its existence here in this one well
developed example, and in its correct context, and, most amazingly, in an argument
for the rational argument rather than the religious mantra of divine humanity, is all
that is needed to prove the living presence of the idea of society as a social organism
at this time, resonating in the minds of men and women. Secondly, we need to have
this argument formulated for us in order that we can address the issues it deals with.
It is not possible for us to raise these issues because we have no adversaries, we are
alone, and we cannot think of the opposing arguments for ourselves in quite the same
way that they arise when positive arguments such as we expound are actively attacked
by priests.
We routinely declare that Jews are the masters and Christians and Muslims are
the slaves of Judaism. We validate the logic of this argument on a comparative basis
by indicating that the captive pupae of ants taken into slave making ant’s nests are
regarded as slaves even though it is evident that the captives have no idea that this
status applies to them since they work for the masters as if they were their own. In
relation to this physiological comparison between ant and human superorganisms we
are obliged to develop an idea of language as a natural phenomenon creating social
structure, which we have done. We are also obliged to point out the linguistic
dilemma inherent in our argument whereby we use what we call the political language
of daily communication while being fully aware that in doing so everything we say
can only ever be provisional because we use political terminology instead of scientific
terms. In Roberts argument we find this very issue dealt with as a matter of course
when he points out the absurdity of suggesting that what comes naturally to man or
beast is in any real sense to be regarded as a chore, making the person a slave to their
natural demands.
From time to time we therefore note that being a slave to Judaism is perfectly
natural, it is the highest expression of human nature, and as such we should be
happiest when our experience of our slave status is completely subsumed into our
own sense of self, as when we call ourselves a Christian or a Moslem. And the fact is
that this situation, wherein the slaves of Judaism relish being Christians or Muslims,
while being oblivious of the fact that they are slaves, is the norm. This most
provocative of all ideas is exactly the idea we find being expressed in the above
passage taken from Roberts.
Our holy grail, the holy grail of organism today, must be to go one step further
than this, for there is only one step remaining to reach total fulfilment. What we want
is to find a work in which someone unravels the logic of the social organism as we see
it presented by Roberts, but in the form presented here, by us, wherein religion is
made the product of the natural force of language acting as the creative force
responsible for the creation of superorganic structure, social structure in other words.
We want to find someone who took that extra step by saying that the Jews are the
master race whose identity is the purest expression of human biological nature, whose
identity is therefore the core identity of the living superorganism that the Jews call
God. We can but wonder how it was possible for anyone living at this time to of
toyed with these ideas without making the link between the Jews and social evolution.
But this is where our examination of alternative notions of the biological implications
of evolution applied to humans are required, as in the case of Wells’ ecological
sociology, for these alternative pathways into the swamp of ignorance and away from
reason, indicate how the one true path bearing down on people was avoided. In
addition we thereby build up the force of ideas that prevailed at the time in our own
minds, ideas which made the rise of the Nazis so vital to the preservation of the
Jewish superorganism. This is important because in truth the only approximation to
our holy grail of superorganic science is to be found in Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and in
related works building up to Hitler’s extension of the Jewish Bible. Unfortunately
finding the precursors of Hitlerian philosophy is not too easy for all the same reasons
that finding organicist works is not too easy ; rarity, expense, lack of English
translations.
Roberts so nearly makes out the correct argument, but he just does not get
there, and he fails because he does not manage either to apply his logic to the correct
object, to religion, or to develop an abstract expression of his logic either, which
would mean developing a theory of language as a creative force applicable to
religious phenomenon and such like symbolic forms. The best way to see this fact is
to note that while we ceaselessly speak of the Jews as the master race, in reality this is
not so, if we must speak of the Jews in these terms because of the logic dictated by an
organicist model of society then we soon reach the point where we are obliged to
recognise that the Jews have no more choice in the arrangement than anyone else.
And so we come to a structural, as opposed to a political interpretation of the
meaning of these emotive words. The brain is the master organ, the slave cylinder
serves the clutch, the Christian society serves the Jews, the ant from a stolen pupae
serves the slave maker ant. Really, how Roberts gets this far and fails to make the
final leap is too much, I have decided to read Bio-Politics to see if I can find any
further indications of his mindset in respect to this issue, but the problem remains that
he has begun by denying himself the right to consider religion as a factor in human
affairs ! This opening commitment to respecting religious authority while
simultaneously denying science reminds me of the equally ridiculous statement made
by a modern historian of science whose work is of the highest calibre. In his Politics
of Evolution, 1989, Desmond at one point says that “this book is not about polite or
“responsible” science—the sort promoted at Oxford or Cambridge—but about angry,
dissident views.” (Page3), while next declaring that he is “not interested in the eternal
verities, only the reasons why rival groups saw them [the eternal verities] so
differently.” (Page23)
OK, this is a valid stance to take from an academic point of view, maybe. But,
when I read it, and whenever I think of this sentence, I think that what is being said
here is quite simply “I am not interested in the truth !”, “I am not interested in what is
right or wrong !”, “I do not give a tinker’s cuss whether anything I say is real or false,
meaningful or meaningless, I am writing a book because I am a professional
academic, I am paid to write books, to teach and so on. In so far as it impresses
people I am glad, because it will bring me prestige, money, sex, happiness ; but who
gives a toss whether what I write is true or utter bullshit ? Not me !”
Perhaps I am getting carried away, for sure I am in that Desmond cannot
possibly really feel as I have suggested. His work is a masterpiece, it has taken
dedication and hard work and it exudes veracity, it is a sheer delight to read. But in
that case why not be interested in whether or not the effort put into the book has any
bearing upon the determination of what is actually true, for what is actually true is at
the heart of the issue, Isn’t it ? Well, no, in short, that is implicit in what Desmond is
saying, he can only mean that the conflict over evolutionary ideas was not a scientific
feud between men seeking pure knowledge, it was a political feud whereby men sort
to make certain important interpretations about the nature of existence serve their own
partisan social interests.
The trouble with taking up this aloof stance is that it is untenable, for to be
justified in this context it has to be based upon the assumption that the dispute has
been settled and is only of academic interest today. But if the subject was so critical
two centuries ago, and it was resolved, then what was the nature of the resolution ?
We all know the answer to that question, it was Darwin. So by taking the docile
position he does Desmond pays homage to Darwin, the victor, and this will not do.
Desmond cannot open the question as of old and pretend to review it without coming
to some sort of decision about whether or not, at least in his view, the question
became null and void because science advanced to the point where it was no longer a
bone of contention, or whether one camp or the other was the absolute victor in the
political struggle. Yet this is what he does, his work is open and fair in the approach
he takes to Darwin’s attitude, but he does not assess whether or not the issues over
which people fought had been resolved, he does not tell us whether evolutionary
theories today are pure science or whether they remain as political as ever. And so we
see that, as ever, the public voice is crushed and its appearance of freedom is no more
than the contrite whining of a miserable creep playing up to their master.
Just imagine, for the sake of comparison, in what we might call the application
of the comparative method to the evolution of knowledge, that we were to read a
modern account of the toing and froing of ideas in the ancient world regarding the
place of the earth in the heavens. Can we imagine the modern historian stating early
on that he was not concerned with the true account of cosmological history, his sole
concern was with the social dynamics influencing the kind of ideas known to of been
debated in the ancient world. This would make no sense, surely in such a book on
ancient astronomy it would be inevitable that from time to time the total resolution of
the problem today would be brought to bear on the old ideas. We might expect a
discussion of the way the size of the earth was speculated upon, and how the results
compared to their known values today, and why one method failed miserably while
another was quite good, and so on. Thought about like this we see that in effect
Desmond is telling us that the social issues concerning evolutionary science have not
been resolved today, for if they had been then why the reticence about dealing with
eternal verities in relation to this topic. No, this can only mean one thing, the subject
is still subject to constraint, the absolute theocracy in which we live will no more
tolerate free and open discussion of these issues today than it would tolerate such
discussions in times gone by. But what we do get from Desmond’s work that makes
it so good, is a fairly detailed look at how this aspect of natural history, in its
encroachment upon social affairs, posed a threat to the theocracy that was so severe
that they were forced to come up with a Darwin to resolve the problem for them. But
how could Desmond come to this conclusion, even it he had wanted to ? No job, no
publication, no wife, family, just a sad screwed up life washing dishes in a restaurant,
smoking dope, working in a factory, an office, a shop, or whatever, would be all that
would await any academic, albeit of the highest calibre, who would dare to take such
a stance. No one capable of contemplating such suicidal action would ever of made it
through the academic system in the first place, they would of been filtered out by the
osmotic process of selection long before, the filter of obedience ensuring that only
suitably ambitious, and hence compliant priests, could enter the portals of the social
organism’s inner sanctum where identity was formulated to be exuded into the flesh
of the social body.
At least he recognises the role of the universities in this process, although he
seems to think that only the traditional universities serve this role, if so he is deluded,
his work is just as much a service to the theocracy, an attack upon science, as any that
any human being ever produced in any form. Things are either right or wrong, there
can be no in-between, because even when facts are wrong the work in which they
appear can still be right if it was intended to be right, that is if their authors were
atheists seeking to annihilate religion. Had Roberts not excluded religion from his
investigations then his results would probably of been as good as mine, had Desmond
not of dismissed any interest in truth then likewise his studies should of led to the
same place that my life long quest for knowledge has led, Why not ? All the facts
were available in both cases, the large scale interest in the relevant subjects was
pervasive, as it still is, only today this interest has been run to earth by a false polarity
that Desmond helps preserve. It is the simple refusal to attack religion that prevents
science from being realised in the human sciences today ; as Kidd said, the war
between science and religion is the eternal feature of history, and presumably always
will be.
It is a fact that my whole life as a philosopher, as I now see it, arose because of
my rejection of religion and belief in God at a very early age, therefore atheism has
always been the driving force behind my search for knowledge, Why does religion
exist ? What is religion ? being the kind of questions directing my life’s journey. But
irrespective of my personal slant on this question it is a fact that religion poses an
immense problem for any intellectual of any kind, who is interested in humans as
humans, so this refusal to treat religion as a scientific subject is unacceptable. The
science of religion as such came into being in the nineteenth century, because it had
to, this is what is meant when we talk today about living in a scientific age when
science has shown it is the only way to understand reality, hence books indicating this
application of science in their title exist. Religion, if it was to continue, had to adapt
science to itself, as it has done. The fact is however that if we are not of religion then
when seeking science in this area we are faced with the same problem we find today
in any department of the human sciences dealing with human nature, there is an
immense mass of pseudo scientific work done in the name of religion, not overtly
done in the name of religion of course, but surreptitiously, and this mass of
misinformation serves its purpose by creating an impossible barrier to investigation,
its like trying to find precious gems in a mountainside of cack.

Roberts’ solution to the inherent conflict between the application of biology to

the existence of human societies and the ideas that we use to understand our place in
life is quite peculiar. It is only by looking at a later publication along the same lines
that we are able to make this observation however. In his Behaviour of Nations, 1941,
Roberts begins by saying that the seventeenth century philosopher Hobbes’ famous
work likening society to a gigantic person was clearly untenable :

“ It is obvious that his direct analogy with a man could not stand : it
was a zoological absurdity. But the definite statement that States are really,
and not metaphorically, true organisms of a very low grade implies that they
must be classed among those of an immeasurably lower organization than
man.”

(Page 1)

Arrrrgh ! What is this ?

I assume that if I read this book I will be able to fathom exactly where he is
coming from when he makes this ludicrous remark, but what the heck, I think a guess
will do just as well for now. Taking the absurdly biological idea to its extreme, as
Roberts does, by trying to make anatomical science directly applicable to social
structures, the inclination may well be to think of society as a kind of bacterial growth
which has a definite unity of structure to it, but one that is, as he says, at a very low
level of organization. But this line of reasoning is so bad it is excruciating to deal
with when we are examining the best author ever to write in English on the subject of
human nature. It is as if feminists loved to read about Jack the Ripper because he was
by far and away the most exalted exponent and practitioner of feminist ideals and the
love of man for women that was available !
Reading this makes it very hard for me to continue to think of Roberts as a
misguided friend of the science of humanity that does seem to be the case in his
earlier publication. Given that we know that modern human sciences were finally
erased from society at the time when he was working then his work, rather than
seeming to be the last gasp of the friends of science applied to humanity, it seems as if
on the contrary these items were amongst the last bricks that had to be placed in the
dam wall keeping science out of the theocratic domain before the last generation
raised in a free society were all dead and gone. Instead of going that one step further
beyond his reasoning in Bio-Politics and seeing the Jews as the master race and the
rise of the Nazis as the proof of this by their mimicry of Judaism’s philosophy of the
chosen, combined with a rabid obsession with eradicating Jews from the world, he
goes in the opposite direction, he stops using the phrase ‘social organism’ and
replaces it with the utterly ludicrous, old idea, of the nation as the personification of
the social organism, so that we now have the ‘national organism’. Too pathetic for
words.
 A telltale sign that might lend some additional support to our suspicions that
Roberts was not a sincere scientist may be discerned from the strange absence of
important continental authors promoting the idea that society is a true social
organism. We have mentioned this already in the context of his failure to look to
others for sociological ideas attuned to his own professed outlook, but this reference
to Hobbes reminds me of the most notoriously organicist author, Lilienfeld, who
begins one of his books with a discussion of Hobbes. Unfortunately Lilienfeld’s
books only exist in German or French, possibly Russian—I’d love to find one—so I
cannot read them properly. This makes me think that maybe he had heard of
Lilienfeld and other continentals of that ilk, indeed it beggars belief to think that he
has not, but in that case why not talk about them, finding references to these leaders of
the organicist school in English is like finding a dump of rocking horse shit on the
carpet ! I found the slightest reference to Schaffle in a critique of the social organism
recently “ The real contrast between the social organism and an animal organism
seems to me to be more clearly brought out by Schäffle than by Spencer.” (An
Introduction to Social Philosophy, John S. Mackenzie, 1890, note 2, page 138.)
Schaffle wrote extensively on the subject of society viewed as a social organism,
although, like Spencer, he did deny the organicist philosophy of society. Even so to
me the likes of Schaffle and Lilienfeld must be the leading lights organism,
irrespective of the immense difficulties I face in actually accessing their works, even
thought I have a few of their books ! The whole point of this argument is that when
we read attacks upon real science we never find references to the huge body of work
that the authors are so often found objecting to, and finding references to such works
is just what we want when we seek the truth, which is precisely why books that are
freely available are so careful not to give them. Therefore when I find any sociology
book that purports to discuss human nature from a scientific perspective I head
straight for the index and bibliography to look for the obscure authors I know I want
to see, and they are never there. So the absence of certain authors in certain contexts
is to me a dead giveaway of insincerity or collusion, unwitting or otherwise, with the
dictates of theocratic power. But my reluctance to invoke conspiratorial activity
always obliges me to assume innocent complicity in the subconscious force of
language creating social form and action.

I hate to go down the road of fully conspiratorial theorising for reasons I

periodically like to state as a warning to others following the general notion of a
forlorn science. The idea that society is an organic phenomenon created by nature is
the ultimate taboo in science today because it is true, it is the only true science
applicable to humans, so it is the only thing that cannot be tolerated by professional
scientists. Any other crackpot idea is no problem, except that science manages to
form a barrier between the inadequate idiocy of Darwin’s ideas, and the lunatic ideas
of Creationists, to which authorised science would add the real science in which we
are interested. But it is obvious that having wavelengths of competing absurdities
existing together within the flux of knowledge pervading society is bound to be
extremely useful if the objective is to insulate the acknowledged strand of authorised
knowledge as a discrete wavelength running within the entire available range. This
conceptual model of knowledge provides the best argument-cum-excuse against
believing anything you may find on the internet that is clearly well informed and
believable but contrary to the authorised message : the net is so full of any kind of
garbage that only an idiot takes anything coming just from that source as valid.
 It appears that mainstream science and mainstream religion exist as threads of
authoritative knowledge contained within insulating layers of none sanctioned
knowledge which, viewed in functional terms, we can characterise as serving the
social authority as misinformation. Misinformation can then be seen to play a vital
role in distinguishing hard fact and true belief in a manner that allows these two
supposedly independent mainstream forms of understanding existence to maintain the
appearance of independence from each other while both existing in a realm of
authoritative privilege despite their entirely contradictory nature as modes of
understanding. In creating a superorganism, built via the force of language which
creates superorganic structure, that is social structure, nature in effect evolves a
knowledge flux machine in which organized wavelengths of knowledge serve as lines
of force contained within comparatively random wavelengths of a like kind. The
concept we are seeking to apply here is derived from the work of modern physicists
who use the different qualities elements and forces at the quantum level of existence
to contain and manipulate energy, light, atoms and particles in precise ways. A macro
physical structure is required to enable the containment of quantum structures, and in
superorganisms a macro structure is likewise needed to enable the containment of
micro forces generated by linguistic information, these latter macro structures are
what we know as universities, the state, the church and such like ; the details they are
built by nature to control on an extensive scale, are ideas and thoughts which
determine the actions of the particles (people) existing within the resulting organism.
We must try and make well considered and careful statements as to how this
insulating layer of misinformation may be deliberately formulated as an act of
manipulation, such as we know is commonplace in wartime, but which is not
supposed to be used by our masters in peace time because we have no masters in
peace time. That is what peace time means, peace is synonymous with being free
from oppression by a malevolent social authority. This is why all our current wars
around the world are fights for freedom, fights for democracy. To this end we may
note a couple of modern, American, post Sociobiology authors, dealing with
organicist philosophy, who do seem to be wilfully seeking to subvert any inclination
people may of been inclined to get from Wilson to think that human society is part of
nature. Mind you, as I write this I immediately think that all sociobiology since the
publication of the original work seems to be trying to force the genie back into the
bottle by ensuring that science is not applied to humans. Yeh, bugger it, lets do
something else, where is my Schaffle ? (If you must know, Genet and Maclay,
especially Genet.)

Having raised the question of strands of knowledge existing in a form that

causes an inner core to be defined in contrast to an outer layer which comes between
the inner order and the mass of confusion lying in the realms of the unofficial, or
semi-official alternative, semi-official in that it has a public voice, this general pattern
of knowledge manipulation readily connects in our imagination with the reality of
madness where we can see idiocy defining, and therefore insulating, sanity simply by
way of comparison. After all, as scientifically minded observers, we frequently find
ourselves obliged to note the sublime stupidity of Darwin contrasted with the obscene
insanity of Creationism. It is only by contrast with the obscenity of religion that a
work such as The Origin of Species, which completely fails to address the existence of
human society, can be viewed as the product of a scientific genius. Rather like seeing
a bowl of mud as a fine meal when offered an alternative dish of dog turd. Once we
have this thought in mind we cannot help but see in this argument the positive role of
insanity as a permanent feature of human intelligence, just like homosexuality, both
these aspects of human life always being present in a minor portion of the biomass.

Having found ourselves paying attention to a critic of organicism we might as

well take a chunk of the material coming from this source as it is entirely suited to
inclusion at this point in our ruminations on Roberts’ argument that biology should be
applied to understanding society.

$
Mackenzie :

This leads us at last to notice what these different conceptions of a system

would mean with reference to a human society. In a general way this is not difficult to
see. A monadistic view of society would be one which regarded all the individuals of
whom the society is composed as by nature independent of each other, and as
connected together only by a kind of accidental juxtaposition. Such a view would
naturally lead to the conclusion that the connection of individuals in a society tends to
interfere with the natural development of the individual life, and that it would be
better for the individuals if they could manage to live apart.1 A monistic view of
society, on the other hand, would be one which regarded the union of human beings
as the primary fact with regard to them, and the individual life as a mere outcome of
social conditions. The natural conclusion of this view would be that the individual has
no right to any independent life of his own ; that he owes all that he is and has to the
society in which he is born, and that society may fairly use him as a mere means to its
development. A mechanical or dualistic view, again, would regard the individual as
partly dependent and partly independent ; as to some extent possessing a life of his
own, and yet to some extent dependent on his social surroundings. This view would
naturally lead in practice to a certain effort after compromise—to a certain effort to
realise our individual life, and yet so to subject ourselves to social conditions as not to
miss that element of our being with which they provide us. A chemical view would be
similar, except that it would regard the new life with which we are provided by
society as a complete transformation of our original or natural life ; a view which
would bring with it as its practical outcome a certain effort to free ourselves from the
life of nature and to subject ourselves entirely to social law. Finally, an organic view
of society would be one which regarded the relation of the individual to society as an
intrinsic one ; one which recognised that the individual has an independent life of his
own, and yet which saw that that independent life is nothing other than his social life.
These are the five possible views : and what we have now to consider is whether the
last view is truer than the other four ; and, if truer, whether it is or is not the ultimate
truth.
1
I do not, of course, mean to affirm that it would necessarily lead to this view.

Now it might be thought at first that there is a certain a priori presumption

against its truth, from the very way in which men have been led to adopt it. It might
be pointed out that the prevalence of an organic view of things in recent times is due
simply to the fact that there have been lately great advances in biological science ; and
it might be urged that there is no likelihood that the conceptions derived from that
science will lead us any nearer the truth than those derived from psychological
science, from mathematical science, from physical science, or from chemical science.
When men's minds were chiefly occupied with mathematics, they naturally (as we see
most clearly in the case of Spinoza) attempted to frame all their systems on the
mathematical model—i.e., to regard them as monistic, as being such that all their
parts follow inevitably from the very nature or definition of the whole. When they
were chiefly occupied with psychology, it was equally natural for them (as we see in
Leibniz, Herbart, Lotze and others) to regard the whole system of things as
monadistic, i.e., as composed of certain irreducible elements similar to that ultimate
unity which we seem to find in the consciousness of ourselves ; and to think of the
universe as produced by various combinations of these ultimate elements. When they
were chiefly occupied with mechanics, again, they naturally became dualistic,
thinking of the world as made up of atoms, on the one hand, and laws of interaction
on the other. A chemical view of things has never attained to quite the same
prominence ; but a monadistic view leads in general to a chemical view, since it is
necessary to think of the monads as becoming in some measure transformed by their
relations to each other. Finally, now that men have become interested in biology, the
conception of organism is naturally introduced. It might seem, therefore, as if it were
a mere accident that made one or other idea uppermost ; and we are thus led to
suspect that one of these ideas is not essentially more adequate than any other, but that
they are simply taken up from the particular science that happens to be most in vogue,
and transferred from it to the other objects with which we have to deal.
And this suspicion is apt to be to some extent confirmed when we go on to
consider the way in which the conception of organism is made use of by those who
are fondest of applying it to human societies. What we find in the writings of these
authors is often little else than an elaborate attempt to trace the various respects in
which a society of human beings resembles a living creature. Now it is in general very
easy and very useless to work out analogies. When Shakespeare tells us that " the
world's a stage," it is not difficult to see that there are certain respects in which the
resemblance holds ; and one who had enough ingenuity might perhaps be able to
discover that there is something in life corresponding to the curtain, something to the
footlights, and something to the prompter's box. But we should not be any the wiser
for such a discovery. After we have exhausted the likenesses we come upon the
unlikenesses ; and these are apt to form the larger class of the two. In the case of
human society, for instance, while it is easy to see that in many respects it conducts
itself like a living thing, it is equally easy to see that in other respects it does not. 1
1
I do not mean to deny that analogies may be instructive even when they cannot be fully
carried out. I think the defence which Schäffle has given (Bau und Leben des socialen Körpers, IV. 505
seq.) of his use of biological analogies in dealing with human society, is satisfactory so far as it goes. I
only mean that to say that society is like an organism is not the deepest sense in which we may
maintain that it is organic ; and that if we use the biological analogy at all, we must be very careful in
our applications of it. On this whole subject, cf. Prof. Jones's article on "The Social Organism" in
Essays in Philosophical Criticism, p. 187 seq.

The point at which the analogy is in particular seen to fail is in considering the
independence of the individual consciousness. 2 There is a familiar passage in
Wordsworth in which he contrasts the progress of the sun and other heavenly bodies
in their courses with the course of human conduct:—

" He cannot halt nor go astray,

But our immortal spirits may."

Something similar might be said of the contrast between the members of an animal
organism and the members of a " body politic." The former are, by the very nature of
the system in which they are included, necessitated, quite as rigidly as the planets are,
to "observe degree, priority, and place," so long as the system holds together. Society,
on the other hand, is a "discrete unity." Each individual has the shaping of his life to a
great extent in his own control ; and there is no visible system in which the place of
the individual is determined, and by which his acts are regulated, as the parts of an
organism are regulated by the central organs. The individual is in many ways
independent of society, and he may even set himself in opposition to it. It is the
prerogative of every man to "say I "—and to write it with a capital. And sometimes
even it seems as if the more thoroughly we realise our lives, the more are we isolated
from our social environment. Goethe used to say that he had to tread the wine-press
alone, and other instances will readily occur of the loneliness of those who are
pursuing what is highest in human life. 1 Indeed there is no truth that has been more
emphatically brought home to us by the great writers of recent times than the
dependence of each one of us on himself for the shaping of his career, if that career is
to be anything more than the achievement of a conventional success. It is the key-note
of much that is best in the teaching of Fichte, Carlyle, and Emerson ; while Ibsen has
even gone so far as to conclude one of his most impressive dramas 2 with the
declaration that "the strongest man on earth is he who stands most entirely alone." It
is the truth that lies in such a paradox as this which seems most conclusively to make
the analogy between a human society and an animal organism break down.
2
This difference is much insisted on by Mr. H. Spencer. See, for instance, Principles of Sociology, I.
475 seq. For a criticism of Mr Spencer's view, see Essays in Philosophical Criticism, p. 194 : seq. The real contrast
between the social organism and an animal organism seems to me to be more clearly brought out by Schäffle than
by Spencer. See Bau und Leben des socialen Körpers, I. 8 seq. and 827 seq. Cf. also Höffding's Ethik, p. 187.

2
¹ Cf. chap. IV., ad fin. "An Enemy of the People."

From such considerations, we are led to see the necessity for a careful
criticism of the conception of Organism, before we venture to make use of it in
dealing with the facts of social life. If we merely take it at random from biological
science, it will only supply us with a few ingenious analogies and at last leave us in
the dark. It can hardly be denied that some of the analogies which recent writers
(especially Spencer and Schäffle) have traced out, are truly enlightening ; but they
help us, I think, chiefly in so far as they enable us to clear our minds of other
analogies which are less adequate ; such as those derived from chemistry or
mechanics. If we wish to get beyond this negative aid, we must ask, to begin with,
what it is precisely that we are to understand by an organic whole.

(Page 135 - 139)

There are no positive critiques of science applied to humans, only these

pseudo philosophical arguments produced by professional philosophers are to be
found ; pseudo in that true philosophy is synonymous with science because its
objective is to discover truth, whereas all these critics want to do is to refute science
in order to sustain the servitude of the masses to the ignorance that the theocracy
depends upon for its continuance.

I suppose that in the light of the brief allusion to the containment of forces at
the quantum level relative to the containment of linguistic force at the social level we
should note that we affirm the suggestion made by Mackenzie in the above, that major
theories of the day inform the manner in which people seek to visualise the operation
of social dynamics. Thus to his five ways of interpreting the nature of society we can
add one more mode of reasoning at least, quantum physics. Yet our model is not
based upon quantum physics, it is based on biology. And since when were maths,
physics, chemistry, biology and, come to that, quantum science distinct fields of
existence ? All these aspects of reality are part of one scheme just as architecture,
bricklaying, plastering, plumbing, electrics, joining, roofing and such like all
constitute distinct specialities which come together in the construction of a modern
building. No one would talk about a house as being seen in different ages in terms of
one trade activity and then another, and it is puerile to suggest that anyone ever
reasoned thus about society, it is indeed insulting to suggest that the great
philosophers who Mackenzie names were this pathetic. No, like Mackenzie, when
someone such as Hobbes does exaggerate the case by applying mechanics to society
he does so for political reasons. Hobbes was a royalist seeking to validate the
placement of authority in the monarchy, and he used his artificial model of society
made in the image of a man’s body in order to present his bias argument most
effectively. No doubt the prevalence of contemporary marvels in the form of fine
watches inspired his mechanical logic, but his objective was not to give a naturalistic
account of society, it was to provide a clever argument for traditional values ; which is
pretty much what priests such as Hobbes, Darwin, Mackenzie, and in our own time
Dawkins, do all the time. There was no scientific logic expressed in Leviathan,
anymore than there is science in Mackenzie’s work.
 Chapter XII

The Greatest Myth of All Time

Thanks to my good fortune in finding the website of the American Nazis a

couple of weeks ago I have been able to easily obtain works that until now I had not
found my way towards. Yesterday, 27/07/07, I downloaded half of Alfred
Rosenberg’s Myth of the Twentieth Century before the link broke down. Organizing
the internet browser format into a word document just now I was amazed to discover
the following extraordinary passage from a section entitled Introduction to the
English Edition, and it seems to of been written by James B. Whisker, Doctor of
philosophy. Professor of Political Science West Virginia University, August 1980 :

The antirace is of Asiatic origin, and learned there the value of magic
and ritual in controlling others. It devised such a magic system with its
religion. Theology proved to be useful to the powerful elements in keeping
control over the masses, and it was only natural that, through such perfected
magic, it expanded its control over others. Christianity, as taught in saint Paul
and those under his Jewish spell, offered a mechanism for worldwide
domination.
Like Houston Chamberlain, Rosenberg insisted that there was not one
shred of true, historical evidence that Jesus was Jewish, or that his true
message has come down to us today. There are bits and pieces spread
throughout the new testament that suggest that Jesus was a Nordic figure
capable of forming types whose true message can, in the large, be discovered
and thus related to classic Germanic values. All else is the magical production
of the same Jewish middle eastern Babylonian theology that subverted Rome
and controlled the Hebrew masses.
The basic assumption Rosenberg made is as follows : Jesus taught an
Aryan pride in self and in self becoming its potential. He had a justified anger
against those who would prostitute the idea of god. He wanted to move the
race ahead, excluding those of alien groups. The message was not understood
by, or understandable to, those to whom it was delivered because they had
never been free. Jesus had tried to teach them that the kingdom of god was
within man, that is, to be discovered inwardly through a right ordering of
values. There was not truth to external magic, but he made the fundamental
mistake of attracting the disciples by using magical tricks. These they
understood, but could not rise above that level.
Saint Paul stumbled on what was but one of many non Hebrew, non
Roman religious sects, and saw the opportunity to alter what was. The
followers were totally bewildered by promises of inner enlightenment and the
spiritual inner awakening Jesus promised. They were probably Jews,
Rosenberg reasoned, and thus unable to understand anything but magic and
material, external things. Paul gambled on the new theology. By subtly
twisting the words of Jesus he could make him the messiah who taught
submission to the Jewish theology. Judaism would remain the religion of the
initiates, of the Hebrews. They would control the gentiles by controlling their
religion. After all, the time was right to offer non Hebrews some sort of
opportunity to partake of the Jewish vision of an afterlife. Only the initiates,
the Jews, would know that all was lies and deceit.
Simultaneously, the Arians became a threat, for they taught the truer
version of Christ’s message. That sect had some Asiatic overtrappings, but it
was fundamentally non Jewish. Its theology had to be altered so that it
appeared to be ridiculous, and then it could be, and was, suppressed. Still,
some of the Arian heresy survived, if, again, in imperfect form.
The Roman church grew, but under non Hebrew leadership. The
leaders after Peter learned how to continue to build a magical system that
became a great influence over the masses. Jewish Christian theology, as found
in Paul, remained useful. In short, that church beat the Jews at their own game
and with their own instrument, but, in doing so, succumbed to the Jewish
philosophy.
The antirace was denied full control of its mass control religion, but it
remained an influence in the west. The perplexing problem remained. The
Jews were Christ killers, but they were also the chosen people. Saint Paul was
the Jew Saul, and he wrote to the Hebrews, but the Jews were still not
Christian. Nonetheless, the Jews were still the centre of history, quite clearly.
They were neither part of Christendom nor wholly heathen.
The church of the middle ages did not choose to exterminate the Jews,
but neither did it tolerate them in the cities. It confined them to ghettos, and it
limited them to certain professions. Anti Christian writings and other attacks
on Christianity were attributed to the Jews. Still, the scholastics and the popes
would not accept a decisive course of action against them.
The ghetto mentality and the separatism of the middle ages remained
in much of central Europe through the interwar period. Liberation was
permitted and the Jews were emancipated. Religious antisemitism was nearly
at an end. What ensued was political antisemitism.

Once Christianity was discovered to have

Jewish roots, and this was cast against the
race antirace dichotomy, antisemitism was
viewed more broadly. It was essentially
unimportant that the Jews killed Christ. It
was important that the Jews sought, in one
way or another, to dominate the Nordic race
and the west generally.

The Jews, Rosenberg concluded, had come, by the beginning of the

19th century, to realise that Christianity had failed as a tool for the control of
the west. A new tool was needed. Indeed, two seemingly disparate tools
emerged simultaneously : capitalism and Marxism. The one had gentile
origins but could be manipulated by Jewish capital. The other was merely a
form of state capitalism, controlled still by vested Jewish interests. It mattered
little which one triumphed in any given country. In Russia it was Marxism,
and in most other areas it was capitalism. Both were merely two sides of the
same coin.
 Both communist Marxism and capitalism were post industrial
ideologies. Both assumed the mass concentration of labour and industry in
large urban areas. Both were antifolk, and internationalist in outlook. Both
were only falsely nationalistic. Both assumed the continued existence of
economic man in contradistinction to whole, inwardly directed man. Both
were materialistic and antispiritual in values and in preferred lifestyle. Neither
gave man what he needed : a feeling of belonging. That could come only
through, with and by nationalistic, folkish based, racially sound
antimaterialistic ideology.

The Whiskers agnomen seems a bit suspicious to me, but never mind, perhaps
the professor was named after a tin of cat food. So we kick of with a totally deranged
effort to separate Christianity from Judaism, to preserve Judaism. This has been the
strategy for the creation of Christianity from the very outset since Christianity could
never be of any use as a Jewish slave identity as long as it remained a Jewish sect. So
we see here the Nazi effort to ensure that the Jewish slave identity remained intact at a
time when it was on the brink of annihilation. Then follows some incomprehensible
babble about Jesus’ objectives being corrupted by his own misguided use of magic,
bla bla bla. Then we get this astounding piece :

By subtly twisting the words of Jesus he could make him the messiah who
taught submission to the Jewish theology. Judaism would remain the religion
of the initiates, of the Hebrews. They would control the gentiles by controlling
their religion. After all, the time was right to offer non Hebrews some sort of
opportunity to partake of the Jewish vision of an afterlife. Only the initiates,
the Jews, would know that all was lies and deceit.

Stunning ! This is perfect. Where did anyone living at this time get the notion that
the Jews were a master race who controlled the world through a slave ideology ? It is
incredible, it is just what I have been looking for for years, ever since I realised some
half dozen years ago that humans were a superorganism and therefore the Jews were
the master race.
Yet what do we have here ? We do not have the unbiased scientific revelation
that the nature of religion is to provide the identity of the superorganism, and that the
evolution of the global superorganism we are part of had revolved around the Jewish
identity which had become differentiated into the necessary triadic physiological
arrangement Jew, Christian and Muslim. No, we have a totally contrived political
distortion that separated the Jews from the process and made the Christians entirely
distinct. But even this distortion of the scientific facts that we have been discussing
under the heading of the forlorn philosophy, is proof that the basic idea must of been
in the air. So given that science was revealing the true nature of religion and thus of
Judaism and Christianity : Why would anyone want to do that, to acknowledge this
revelation of science, but at the same time to distort it into a political form that could
only serve to preserve Judaism and Christianity ? This could only lead to the
preservation of the status quo whereby the Jews remained in total control, this could
only be the work of Judophilic priests, as we have been saying of the Nazis all along.
And of course it goes without saying that along with a war designed to reek havoc
amongst the disaffected slave population, the people responsible for saving the Jews
must be separated from any affiliation with the Jews. But how can this last
requirement be met ? The holocaust. Fantastic, incredible, this is too gorgeous for
words, I am ecstatic at finding this smoking gun, What more could I ever wish for to
prove my case against the Nazis-cum-Jews ? Nothing, job done !
In keeping with the astute tuning of this author to the true nature of humans he
does actually make a delightful observation on the nature of communism versus
capitalism, which he correctly recognises are two sides of one coin. But of course as
he is a Jewish priest working for the advancement and preservation of Judaism against
science, then we only get such sound revelations in so far as they serve the priest’s
politically attuned objectives.

This modern expression of the act of separation between the Christian slave
identity and its master Jewish identity, is then the greatest myth ever concocted. Who
gives a toss whether Jesus was Jewish or not ? The fact is that Jesus never even
existed, just as God never existed. God is a code word for the superorganism that
does exist and is real and has, in a realistic form, equivalents of all the attributes
associated with God, summarised in the idea of omnipotence, and Jesus likewise is a
figurehead for the messiah much anticipated in Jewish mythology. It is perfectly
straightforward to work out how the Jesus myth evolved from the mystic cults of the
time as an ideal initiate who acted as catalytic medium to whom all could become
attached by a mere act of faith, so that the believer became spiritually transformed
into an initiate by subscription. If we think along these lines and note that Rosenberg
apparently spoke of the Jews as the initiates, then we can see how the provision of an
idealised initiate to whom all could become attached, thereby acquiring all the
benefits of initiation without having to undergo any of the trials, would serve the
biological extension of the Jewish identity to the none Jewish biomass. Both Jews
and Christians would then be true members of the same organic being, but the two
would remain distinct from one another because the Jews would undergo a process of
induction into their faith based on a full understanding of the traditional secret values
of the priests, while the Christian would only acquire their place within the organism
via a simple, and thus disempowered, act of faith and learning by rote. What needs to
be understood when we speak of people obtaining the benefit of initiation without
doing any of the work ordinarily required to be come an initiate, is that the profession
of belief involves subscription to the values linked to the idealised initiate, Jesus or
Christ, who was set up to act as an identity catalyst inducting the alien biomass into
the Jewish superorganism. Thus while any plebe could become an initiate without
any effort, they did have to become devout Christians, and given what this means in
terms of all the moralistic and legal impositions a Christian is subject to an act of faith
is far from being a matter of no consequence. It follows that the central device in all
of this organic structure is the application of law, so what was really achieved by
devising a Jewish identity for none Jews was a hook by means of which none Jews
were made subject to the same law that the Jews were subject to, to Jewish law in
other words, with all the necessary legal exceptions to keep the two physiological
elements suitably distinct ; which takes us back to Sombart, should we wish to revisit
ideas about the differentiation of the Jews from their slaves, or hosts.
Putting aside the fact that Jesus never existed in reality, we acknowledge that
Jesus exists as a mechanism of induction into Judaism for none Jews. And this is the
crucial issue, the discussion around the question of whether Jesus was a Jew or not
was clearly designed as a device to manipulate Christians as slaves of Judaism, since
at all times this is what Christians are, slaves of Judaism. Since Jesus never really
existed the question of his true cultural identity is obviously meaningless, only his
mythical identity can be of any relevance, and this identity is only known to us
through the conjunction of the Old and New testaments of the one mythological work,
the Bible. So it is a fact that Jesus is Jewish, is Jewish today, always has been and
always will be. How interesting that these Jewish anti-Semites should of been so
keen to separate Jesus from the Jews just as science was revealing the true nature of
their unity, which we have pointed out all along must result in such a schism. So
although we have no evidence that any promulgators of the biological idea of society,
saying society was a social organism, ever thought to wonder about the nature of
Judaism relative to Christianity in this context, even despite the works of people like
Kidd, we see here, in the work of these Jewish Nazis that the result of this line of
scientific enquiry most definitely did emerge just as the idea of the social organism
peaked, just before it was erased form our world by our masters who exist in the form
of a Jewish theocracy, whether they call themselves Christians or whatever.

BUT what of the book itself ?

When downloading Rosenberg I thought I saw religion contrasted with science
such that religion was made the supreme expression of humanity and science was
seen as a soulless thing. I wanted to check this out and use it to indicate the priestly
nature of the Nazis, to show that like all religious fanatics they were the supreme
enemies of truth. But I cannot find the passage, and although the work is rich in
words that cause me to stop and read in search of interesting sections where I can
discover the main ideas, when I do this I find no content. The work seems to be all of
a shimmer, we might say it is smoke and mirrors, like any typical piece of religious
writing, it is based on an overpowering act of belief, which is of itself idiotic and from
which its contents swell in a meaningless way so that no thread of reason can be
found. The recurring belief is in the racial superiority of the Nordic people whose
roots go back to the Aryan races of the Indian subcontinent. This sense of affiliation
of European racists with Indians always strikes me as most bizarre since today it is
just these people living over here today which inspire our most racist antipathies. The
whole Nazi agenda is of course utterly contrived, but why was it created, and who
contrived it ? Of all the people in the world the Germans were regarded as the
supremely logical, scientific and atheistic, as we see from the opening remarks in
Mind in Animals by Büchner already discussed. How weird then that the fruit of this
excellence should of been the most aberrant political expression of science it is
possible to conceive of. A fruit of science whose sole meaning was an absolute hatred
of science, and all that science stood for. Put like this we immediately see that the
only possible sense we can make of the Nazis ideology is that it was anti-science,
which means it can only be made sense of as a reaction coming from the religious
core of society. But the way this reaction emerged is not easy to trace, there are no
books examining the emergence of Nazi ideology as a product of Jewish interests or
Christian power, no one discusses the Nazis as an anti-scientific religious movement
that destroyed the modern science of humanity and restored the integrity of the Jewish
theocracy. Nazism is not seen as a modern day equivalent of the Inquisition, but
clearly that is exactly what it was. This is the only way we can make sense of any
aspect of this German cultural phase, it was a reactionary movement that attacked
atheistic freedom and returned the whole Western world to religious obedience, and
this German reaction continues to serve the same function today where it has opened
the gateway to global Islam as the next phase in the consolidation of the Jewish
superorganism.
 We are familiar with the most important scientific advances being religious
products designed to insulate religion from science, most famously the work of
Darwin, so we can see that if we characterise Nazism as a political equivalent of
Darwinism then we are only imputing a similar behavioural reaction in the social
organism. It seems that in the modern stage of growth the human organism has to be
controlled through the medium of these reactionary disguises. In effect these modern
political and intellectual movements are forms of religious behaviour, they must serve
the same purpose as religion, retaining the integrity of organic identity, but in a
different way, negatively, defensively. If language is a force that creates social
structure, and we are inclined to view knowledge as appearing in different
wavelengths which vary from a highly organized beam of information to fairly
chaotic background hiss, then we should be able to fit this evaluation of ideas into this
model of linguistic force acting in society.
The best way to try and make sense of modern societies according to the
wavelength of information model is to indicate that as an organic structure society
consists of a rigid exoskeletal framework which preserves the integrity of the whole
being. The being of the organism is created through the focus of information upon
identity, and that identity is religious. Thus at the very core of the social organism is
an organ that is entirely driven by an urge to preserve itself, and this organ is
intimately linked to all elements of the exoskeletal structure, and it only knows itself
through its religious identity. While it is clear that the State is a critical feature of the
exoskeletal structure it should also be obvious that the State is not the focal point of
an organism’s being because that focal point is always and exclusively defined by a
wavelength of information which constitutes a religious identity. It seems that no
author managed to reach beyond this national limit to grasp the obvious point that the
organism was defined by religion. Yet somehow this is exactly what we find in the
wavelength of nationalism that peaked in Nazi ideology. German nationalism was all
about the clash between identity realised in the State and identity invested in religion.
But the Nazi wavelength of identity was a competing beam of information, it was not
a detached theory of human nature. So the emergence of the Nazi wavelength of
information could be seen as a discharge of the energy of identity arising from the
force of language which creates social structure when wavelengths of information
interfere with the focused beam of religious identity, as happened with the emergence
of modern science. This makes perfect sense, the Nazis discharged the build up of
naturalistic information in a political form that carried off the poisonous effects of an
overly rationalistic examination of human nature. In the past the continual instinctive
effort to retain the pure beam of religious information was managed more crudely, but
in a modern society the absolute authority of the theocracy based on systems of
control such as capitalism makes control possible on a far more subtle basis.

Today is 29/07/07, and last week there were a couple of interesting items on
TV. I think BBC 2’s Newsnight was doing a week long look at how we could meet
the challenge of Islamic fundamentalism, and I caught a bit of one show with a
leading Pakistani politician, a women, and a Muslim cleric who seemed to be friendly
to the terrorist effort against the West. The cleric said that under the Caliphate in
Turkey, in the nineteenth century I think, all shades of Judaism lived together in
harmony under Islam ; by which I mean Jew and Christian lived in peace with
Muslim overseers. So the modern problem of conflict had only arisen after the
demise of the Caliphate. So what, and who cares ? I cannot sit and listen to these
Muslim freaks, its like being catapulted back to the stone age, what are these
miscreants doing living in an age when we have TV ? Civilisation went out and
discovered the primitive world and now it is rebounding upon us and reducing us all
to the lowest common denominator of humanity. We may as well all move into caves
and start wearing bear skins if this is the sort of elite we are going to have to endure.
But I am interested in the way we are being turned into Muslims today, the reference
to a prior social structure, the Caliphate, that is no more, but which this primitive
person seemed to think was a good thing is exposing us to Muslim history, it is
making Islamic history our history, our story, our identity.
When a current affairs propaganda show like Newsnight asks how we deal
with the problem of Muslims in the West it is of course actually dealing with the
problem in real time, here and now. The strategy is subliminal, like that of a double
glazing salesman standing on your door step asking you how he can convince you to
buy new windows from him. In the act of asking the question he is actively
answering it, because you are listening to the question you allow him to engage in
providing the answer to his purpose, which is to exploit you, if he were not there then
he would not be addressing the question, he would be off looking for new blood to
suck. The act of asking a question of this personal or political kind is therefore
always in reality not what it seems, it is never really a true question, it is always part
of the act of providing an answer to a problem that the person asking the question has
a reason to seek an answer to. The question is the means by which the parasite inserts
their mental purpose into your consciousness to set up a mental link of which you are
oblivious because the manner in which the mental tap is disguised as an act of
subservience to your authority that invites your response. Of course the parasite is
likely to be oblivious to their parasitized condition, no one is immune and the parasite
acts as a vehicle for the mental disease they are infected with. The effect is like a
chain mail letter that asks you for £10 and in turn tells you to send the same letter to
five friends for asking them to send you £10 pounds each, and telling them to do the
same, so that everyone makes £40 and the chain has limitless potential to infect a
huge mass of people because such letters invoke an emotional impulse to fear
mystical consequences if you break the chain ; this is of course a particularly crude
exploitation of the linguistic force and the associated social structure that this force
creates. The makers of Newsnight have a reason to ask the question, they are being
paid huge sums of money, their lives as celebrities, or just their careers, are major
reasons for seeking an answer to the question. The whole organization of the news
media is designed as a question asking organ, it is part of the exoskeleton that finds
ways of doing things that the theocracy wants by asking questions as part of their
behavioural programme. If you can ask the question then you are already well on the
way to achieving the goal the question relates to, but the goal will not be revealed by
the question, it will be hidden behind a mass of misinformation. And thus arises the
real function of Islamic terrorism in the Western world, it looks futile and stupid now,
but in the kind of subtle news propaganda we are discussing we see how the people
that rule us need terrorism in order to farm us according to the agenda inherent in the
Jewish master identity. Islamic terror is aimed at making the world subject to Islam,
and it is working, the freaks are on our current affairs programmes, their ugly visages
and their revolting ideas are beamed straight into our homes, the Jews are changing
our slave identity into a very nasty and insidious form from which we stand no chance
of escape in the millennia to come.
Certainly Islamic terrorism is a major issue, and it is perfectly reasonable for
the journalists to discuss the issue without invoking extraordinary motives. But this
reasonable conception of the prosecution of journalism is informed by the idea that
humans are individuals acting as discrete elements driven by personal motives.
However our argument is that there is no such thing as an individual, that individuals
are cells within a social organism who act in conformity to the dictates of linguistic
force which creates the social structure in which the individuals exist, and
simultaneously form the substance thereof. Hence we are seeking to identify lines
force as they appear in our lives as expressions of our personal interest as English
natives, English Muslims, journalists, Jews, politicians and so on. Our argument says
that our society is a theocracy and religious terrorism ultimately serves the authority
of the theocracy, and it is this fact that is really responsible for the existence of
terrorism in the name of religion, and the reporting of the same is part of the whole
fabric of superorganic activity. All threads pull together.
The format of the propaganda show reveals the true nature of the effort, after
all if the problem is Islamic terrorism then why not just ban Islam in Britain ? Ah,
well, no, that cannot be done, the answer can only operate in one proactive direction.
If a hundred thousand people are pouring into the country every year and we are
facing a desperate shortage of housing, as is the case, then there can only be one
solution, as pointed out by a recent report, we have only one choice, to build more
houses, and it is incumbent upon us moaning selfish citizens to stop objecting to new
developments destroying our way of life and to recognise that we have no choice,
people need places to live. Strange, you would think someone would of managed to
figure out that a huge influx of aliens moving into the country might have something
to do with the lack of houses, but no, this has simply not occurred to the highly
intelligent people paid fortunes to try and work out what is going on. But they can
hardly recommend we stem the flow of aliens, this would interfere with the antiracist
programme essential to the enslavement of people to Judaism, via the Islamic slave
identity. The movement can only go one way, no matter what the problem and no
matter what the causes. And we should note that it is the legal framework that sets up
the exoskeletal structure which forces the flow of structural deposition to flow
relentlessly in one direction only, despite all efforts by the disorganized masses to
resist or to force the social structure to reverse its flow. The way in which a human
superorganism is created is truly wonderful and we can but admire the way nature has
created creatures with attributes that allow her to build structures like our modern
societies despite all the best efforts we make ourselves to try and resist the
malevolence of mother nature which we resent so bitterly. Expressed in this way it
should be obvious how important it is to have a master race that has no affinity to the
biomass in which it is insinuated, so that the linguistic force can drive change against
the stable base upon which unity depends. Hence we get the Jews and their
association with capitalism described by Sombart, and the Nazis to prevent anyone
from saying the things we are saying now.
So although the farmers producing the propaganda disguise the sales pitch by
making it appear that they are dealing with a problem of criminality, the reality is that
the true purpose of the show is to accustom us to listening to the alien masters to
whom we have been undergoing enslavement since the culling of our population in
the last century to make way for our re-implantation with the new and far more
rigorous Jewish slave identity implant of Islam. By talking about Islam in this way
our current affairs programmes are discussing issues that by definition belong to us, it
is therefore making us into Muslims whether we like or not, or know it or not. One
short series of programmes like this is added to another on Channel 4, something here,
a bit there, and so on, and this is how our culture is corrupted and how we are turned
into Muslims. This is happening now, all the time, a slow process of corrosion of
British identity, to be replaced, molecule by molecule, like shell or bone transmuting
into calcified stone. The poison of Islam is part of our living being now, and there is
nothing we can do about it, so we can see how the flux of identity is instrumental in
the deposition of social structure, including the presence of aliens on our most
prestigious television programmes, not as spokespeople from another culture, but as
authorities on our own. Another item in the news concerned the attack on a recently
convicted Muslim terrorist who had been seriously burnt by boiling water thrown on
him by fellow inmates in a prison. Muslims form ten percent of this prison’s
population and the English prisoners objected to the aliens praying on the landings, as
well they might. The prison also housed Combat 18 members, affiliated with the
British National Party, Combat 18 being our home grown version of the American
Nazis. The wife appeared, hidden under the ugly and offensive black garb that only
leaves a slit for the eyes to peer out upon her enemies, and complained about her
husbands treatment. The State’s solution is apparently to build a prison exclusively
for the aliens, who evidently cannot be kept amongst us.
All of this is interesting because it shows us how the flux of information
associated especially with matters of identity deposit social structure, by defining
structure in the living tissue of the social organism. We have often had cause to note
that when people react against anything sponsored by the core social authority all that
happens is that trouble allows the State to take any necessary assertive action to force
structures to be put in place that secure the rights of the favoured weaker party, be it
Jews saved by the Nazis, or as in the present example, Muslims being helped by the
violence of neo-Nazis. Prison is a university for crime, as we all know, so a Muslim
prison will be a university for fundamentalist Islam. Thanks to Combat 18 the
Muslims are going to have a massive investment made toward organising their
terrorist effort, financed and supported by the British State. But, what can anyone
do ? The violence against the Muslim in such circumstances as a prison environment
are inevitable, to the natives they have no right being here and convicts are not
inclined to feel as servile to the aggression of our masters as the rest of us living in the
open prison of society outside the special containment units for recalcitrant slaves.
The measures taken by the State to protect the Muslim citizens of the State is however
vital, because those who farm our society give the Muslim the right to be here
irrespective of the vileness of what it means to be Muslim ; which is not much more
vile than what it means to be Christian, but that is bad enough. There is no way out of
this impasse, and so we see how the structures created by the flux of identities
meeting as wavelengths of information charged with social energy cause social
structure to be created, in this case a Muslim prison, thus making enclaves of Islamic
identity into tangible elements of the exoskeletal structure located in this part of the
planet’s territorial regions occupied by the Jewish superorganism.
And so the ongoing transformation of our exoskeleton into an Islamic shape
progresses, mosques, schools, shops, banks, prisons, and in the end we will be no
more. Over time this is how a society is transformed from a none Jewish social
organism into a Jewish organism, and how the process of reformation continues over
the course of centuries and millennia according to the dictates of prevailing
conditions, but the changes always head in one uniform direction, as dictated by the
imperatives inherent in the Jewish identity, as supported and sustained by the
multitude of slave identities that cannot help but cause social structure to be created
that ultimately serves the programme of Jewish corporate identity, as we see in this
excellent example of how fascists who proactively hate are the best thing those they
hate could ever wish for.
 Chapter XIII

Historical Science

I would prefer to call this chapter Social Physiology or The Physiology of

History in order to give it a more biological feel, which the above title does not evoke
in any way whatever. I have been reading Personal and Social Evolution for a week
or so and just reached a section where the author proceeds to outline the most
incredible piece of work I have ever seen, immediately I know I must reproduce this
section in this work of my own, and perhaps offer some remarks, although not
necessarily since it is not evoking any great response in me to read the detail, but it
does not need to because in this case the beauty lies in the bones of this intellectual
skeleton that has just fallen out of an obscure old book, and into my lap.
From the library I have today, 19/06/07, discovered that the author was
Thomas Scott, who published this work anonymously under the sobriquet of “A
Historical Scientist”. On page 138 he says the following :

“According to Guizot, ‘there is an organization and life of societies as

of the individual. This organization has also its science of the secret laws
which preside over the course of events, the Physiology of History.’ ”

But for his own part, despite throwing this kind of organicist phraseology into the
mix, Scott appears to favour the heading ‘Science of History’ for our central subject.
Thus he tells us on the following page :

“ Without attempting, then, to give further details regarding the origin

of the youngest Science of History, I shall now present you with the
systematic form which it assumed after the laborious preparation of twenty
years.”

(Page 139)

And so he offers us a virtual index, followed by a brief account of that which is

contained with in it, it is truly the most amazing thing. This has to be the jewel in the
crown of all our efforts to discover what on earth was going on in respect to the idea
of the social organism at this time, for here we find ourselves in possession of a book
written by someone who in effect is trying to do exactly what we keep asking why it
is that no one ever tries to do just what he is doing here. He is an ordinary person
educated to an ordinary standard, of no exceptional status like Darwin, nor is he a
professional academic, but with a typically contemporary, or I would like to say
typically English disdain for authority and concomitant passion for freethought. This
despite the fact that he was actually a professional cleric, which is a bit tragic, but at
least he is of the modernistic forward thinking variety to whom we no doubt owe a
good deal in terms of dragging the primitive theist out of the darkest pits within which
all theists inevitably live, blinded by the light of their own stupidity.
 Chapter XII

Shortfall

The first great exposition of the evolutionary idea proclaimed the naive notion
that through use animals acquired traits that were passed on to their offspring. The
ancestors of the giraffe stretched to reach high branches and so the progeny of these
creatures acquired elongated necks, and the continuation of this process brought
giraffes into being. A truly cack-handed explanation if ever there was one. But if use
did not dictate ability then what did ? Darwin gave us the answer, selection based
upon the potential for infinite variation, where the force of variation was forever
impinging on the environment which acted as a pattern that caused the force of
variation to produce a form perfectly adapted to the demands of the environment the
organism came up against. Thus the information programme that produces a life form
reflects whatever circumstances it meets, where the mechanism of selection arises
from the proliferation of life that causes like individuals to compete for the same
resources, where the force of variation is concentrated in those individuals who find
that by mere chance they are most minutely adapted to the demands of the
environment, so they get to be the lucky ones producing progeny that are ever more
adapted to the environment. The proactive dynamic is not the behaviour of the
animal, which would be far too crude a device to bring about such change, but the
competition between individuals of the same species for the same limited resources,
which has the element of precision about it that we see in our ruthlessly selective
capitalist system, which Sombart says expresses the spirit of Judaism.
So the same basic principle of the Lamarckian system of acquiring traits
through use still applies, all that is different is the manner in which the acquired traits
arise, which is not through individuals interacting with their environment, but through
variations contained within the bodies of individuals interacting with their
environment. So that biologically generated variations interact with the environment,
not individuals. Yet it is the individuals carrying the variations that do the interacting,
so that all Darwin did was to mechanise Lamarck. In the Darwinian system
individuals become mere robots acting in accord with an information programme that
creates organic form. Which is perfect, this is all we are trying to say humans living
today are. And now we are going to see how a contemporary of Darwin sort to
address the same point of confusion at the heart of our thinking about the way modern
science is presented, by trying to do exactly what we are doing, but from a different
perspective, by harking back to Lamarck for an explanation of human social forms.

Our project has been concerned to provide a scientific account of human

nature rather than the politically inspired account provided by Darwin. In the course
of our researches we have come across some of the obscure diversions which in a
sense can only have been inspired by the same shortfall that troubles us, a gap
inevitably left by Darwin since his whole purpose was to produce a bias account of
evolutionary biology precisely in order to leave a void where politics exists in the
shape of religion. Thus we have seen Wells’ human ecology and Scott’s historical
science. Neither of these lines of thought made the Darwinian void their starting
point, both are to be commended for the fact that they positively acknowledged
biological science and its relevance to human society, which Darwin expressly set out
to suppress. But these two authors took on board Darwin’s ideas nonetheless, without
realising they were a clever ploy that sort to deceive by using the standard method of
negative lying where information is deliberately left out, as opposed to positive lying
where false information is inserted.
The person we are interested in now is wholly different to the two previous
authors, he makes the Darwinian void the inspiration for his efforts, and he does so
because he cannot help trying to apply biology to human society. His work therefore
indicates where the need for modern sociology arose in order to fill the void created
by Darwin with a body of politically orientated sociological ideas that negate the
inevitable need any interested individuals might have to take science seriously. What
the eyes do not see the heart does not grieve over, and as long as people have a
scientific idea they can become attached to it is neither here nor there if it is science or
if it is pure garbage, as long as people think it is science — as Machiavelli might of
put it. We should really call modern sociology Machiavellian Sociology, or
Machology, for short. “Hi, what are you doing at college ?” “I am doing
Machology.” “Oh, what’s that ?” “The art of deceiving the masses, how to lie to
everyone while making them believe that you, above all else, are the most honourable
person on earth. A kind of Thatcherism, or Blairism, or Bushism, or Hitlerism, or
Clintonism, soon to become Brownism, you know, politics ! But done as science, use
to be called sociology. ”

What we then need is the preface from Are the Effects of use and Disuse Inherited ?
by William Ball, 1890.
 Chapter XIII

Theocratic Organicism

We might of said legalistic organicism since the work we are about to delve
into here is concerned with the use of the conception of the state as a living being to
formulate laws, but the period in question is a time when our theocracy was overt, as
opposed to how we find it today, which is covert. We might likewise then of used the
title Religious Organicism, but that would be to slant the discussion in the opposite
direction, which would of been equally fallacious. A theocracy is the unification of
legal and religious powers, and thus laws created by priests and lawyers on the basis
of the idea that society is a living entity can only be properly conceived as a mode of
theocratic organicism. Hence we will find this author’s description of organicist
thinking bound up with the theologians attempts to amalgamate divine and temporal
authority in one entity ruled by God, and hence the church. Certainly, in scientific
terms all human societies are absolute theocracies, no other kind of society is
possible, but we are obliged adhere to the linguistic programme imposed by the
theocracy to give society is structure, in order that we can communicate effectively,
so we follow the linguistic divisions established by others, such as the historian we
will consider here. The argument that all societies are theocracies can only be put
forward once the ideal society based on science has come into existence, and therefore
once science has found a way to create a society that is in fact not a theocracy. This
might be likened to science making a life form that is not part of life, by inventing a
wholly new genetic code, for example. It is rather amazing that this has not been
done already, I have never even heard of this being proposed even though scientists
have discussed alternative bases for life, such as silicon instead of carbon, so why not
set the process in motion ? They have tried to create life in a laboratory and failed
long ago, but surely it cannot be that difficult, is there some other reason this is not
done ? In a sense that is what science might do for society were this to be allowed.
We have seen that nature forms society via the action of the linguistic force that
creates social structure, this structure is based upon certain principles which force
language to generate a rigid hierarchy to which we are enslaved as individuals, which
means we have to ensure that we never become free, and that is what the hierarchy
does, a priest is really a specialist in slave management, a shepherd or politician in
other words. The scientific solution to this difficulty must therefore be to generate a
new kind of linguistic code that creates social structure based upon the logic of
individual freedom, where only true knowledge could be involved in the creation of
social structure. This would represent a new kind of cultural genome, where the
Jewish mythology and culture represents the old kind of cultural genome.
The work we will be delving into here is not an original piece of individual
philosophy expounding a personally conceived variation on our central idea, such as
we found in Wells and Scott, this is a history of the idea of the social organism, not
expressly so much, but inevitably, because of the period and the subject with which
this author concerns himself.
We need the passage Idea of Organization, page 22 Theories of the Middle Age,
Gierke.
 Chapter XIV

Culmination

Do you remember when we were kiddiewinks at school learning how not to

think, and we finished our essays with a conclusion ? I don’t do that, my work is not
that organized, it is ad hoc, it runs along of its own accord, I never have the least idea
what I am going to write about when I begin, I just look for a way to put together an
argument, based on the books I have been reading, in relation to my one simple
premise : that humans are organism evolved on this planet, a wholly unique outlook
absolutely exclusive to me, as far as I know, never before contemplated by any other
human being that ever lived. All authors or communicators of any kind are
unanimous in their total commitment to the idea that people make their world, a truly
staggering notion, worthy of any insect, worm, or any creature that might in some
sense have sense.
This then is not a concluding statement, in is a final chapter that has emerged
from the surprising number of different expressions of the biological outlook I have,
to my complete surprise, discovered amongst my collection of books during the
course of teasing out the body of this work over the last couple of months of June and
July 2007, since I began with the intention of discussing the forlorn philosophy as I
had come to see it in Kidd and the other two works which had made such a huge
impression on me when I read them earlier in the year, Ford and Taylor.
I have found myself casting my net wider and wider as I had established the
basic principle of considering works which utilised a biological conception of society,
even though they did not do this in an effective manner, because they did not apply
their investigations to religion, except in Kidd’s case, but he was ineffective because
he did not really apply his ideas to religion, he got stuck in the same pit of ignorance
as everyone else, that of the nation as the summation of organic identity. As I explain
in the body of the work, for those who would seek a genuinely scientific science of
humanity blossoming in the fleeting scientific age of our lucky forbears blessed with a
true sense of freedom before the shutters of religious ignorance came down, there is
no choice but to look at the works which approached the truth, only to crash and burn.
Which is not too surprising if we are looking at a philosophical plan that is justifiably
denominated forlorn. But once I had adopted this approach all sorts of authors who
had caught my attention now appeared worthy of a mention in the same cause of
indicating the reality of the philosophy we say is forlorn ; the panoply of forms taken
by this lost philosophy over many decades reinforces the sobriquet forlorn given that
the basic premise that humans are life forms who must be studied in all their aspects
according to a biological plan is irrefutable.$
Having discovered a range of different attempts to apply the biological
imperative to human society, we find we have accumulated something like the pieces
of a jigsaw puzzle unwittingly fashioned by these various authors. No one at the time
could ever of been in a position to put all these diverse pieces together, they have
been corralled from such varied sources by virtue of the modern power of the internet,
enabling us to connect threads of thought preserved within the fabric of the
exoskeleton that is our superorganic being. These ideas ranged over too diverse a set
of locations, and they are based upon a central premise that was deliberately ousted
from the scientific forum controlled by the theocracy so there is not central authority
serving as an intellectual point of reference to which they could turn, nor to which we
can turn either. But we can now treat these various works as if they were pieces of a
puzzle that we might put together in order to obtain a full view of the subject of the
social organism, making it appear as if, while we do not find any one individual
speaking of a human superorganism with an exoskeleton as we speak now, by which
we mean a being defined by an identity which gives the animal its sense of purpose,
the Jewish identity being that to which we owe our existence, we might nonetheless
see all the necessary elements just waiting to be woven into the image we so easily
envisage today.
The mental image of a jigsaw puzzle is alright, but it is two dimensional and I
prefer something more dynamic, in keeping with the idea that human society is a
natural phenomenon driven by forces. Accordingly I like to think of the ideas
presented in this work that invoke the biological imperative as packets of information
existing in time and space. These packets of information are picked up by us lying on
a trajectory carrying them away from the point of time in which the scientific idea
itself detonated within the social fabric in which the shrapnel of science still persist.
These fragments of the science of humanity can be likened to the products of a
collision in a cyclotron producing an array of different particles each containing their
own unique information pattern revealing their point of origin in the superorganic
tissue, and the specific cause of their decay relative to the enduring religious idea
which erased science from the organic fabric of society in the cataclysmic events
which produced the fragments of forlorn knowledge that are our concern here.$
What we have then is the appearance of science and its extension into the
domain of life, very much as we saw stated by Mackenzie in his attempt to use this
fact as a means to dismiss the obsession with biology as a mere behavioural repetition
of no consequence. While on the contrary the application of biology to humans
pushed to its limit in the domain of social existence and not just the basic physiology
of the individuals which Darwin used to limit the application of science to humans,
led to the only possible conception any sincere philosopher could have, that of the
social organism. So the idea of the social organism took hold of the world of true
philosophy. But this could not be tolerated, and as we have seen it was not. But
whether it was Comte, Spencer, Darwin, Kidd, Ford, Taylor, Roberts, Wells, Keith or
countless others, no one could break through the difficulty imposed on everyone that
meant the only way to go forward was to do what the Nazis did. So in accordance
with our idea of a bombarded particle releasing a scatter of diverse packets of
information we may liken the idea of the social organism finding itself contained by
the pressure of religious identity represents our particulate entity forced to release its
energy in a diverse display of stunted elements of its whole potential whereby the
social physicist locating each particle released from the fracturing event might pick up
traces of the biological idea imbedded in a mass of information twisting toward one
polar point or another, first bending to the right as racism pulls biology this way, then
bending to the left as socialism spins biology that way.
That is more like it, that model I like. It would be nice to think that by picking
up an array of different particles from the intellectual deposits available we might
rebuild the mindset of the age and discover the whole image of the social organism as
it should of been known. But this is fanciful, it don’t work like that, this is social
information, not subatomic physics, this is real tricky, the missing pieces we get to
make up ourselves, if we are clever enough that is.
 However as I look at one of Morley’s books that arrived yesterday, 01/08/07,
and Keith’s New Theory of Evolution I find it very difficult not to look upon what I
see as a conspiracy ; yet even so, Why not an unwitting conspiracy ? The activity of a
gang of confederates becomes apparent through Roberts’ writing on sociobiology. In
the preface to Malignancy and Evolution the usual thanks are given to helpmates and
one name stands out, that of J. S. Huxley, as a particularly demonic figure in the
realms of theologically perverted science, in keeping with the whole clan of the
Huxleys whose priesthood was initiated upon the inception of Darwinism. As to
Keith’s work, it is ace throughout except in one respect, religion. Look up religion in
the index of his aforementioned work and we find three references, two overtly
political and one potentially biological, namely “Religion : as a factor in evolution”.
But look up the reference and we find religion is nothing of any consequence, merely
one political bead among a number of others, such as economics, colonization and the
like. Truly, this is staggeringly bad ; but as good as human science gets nonetheless.
The basic argument of Keith’s theory is that nature has dictated that races will
evolve and that in Europe races no longer exist as such, the only social entities that
constitute anything approximating to a ‘race’ in the modern world are the nations of
Europe. It really is remarkable that religion does make any impression on this man’s
consciousness, especially since he has two chapters devoted to precisely this topic,
indirectly, since he has two chapters on the Jews as a national entity. But the leaders
of human science from the outset were committed to the suppression of science for
the sake of religion as we find sharply revealed in such remarks as these “Fully
satisfied that Religion and Science cannot in reality be at variance, I have striven in
the present publication to .......... that it would be treason to the majesty at once of
science and of religion if he sought to help either by swerving ever so little from the
straight line of truth.” (Pre-Historic Times, Lubbock, 1890, first published 1865,
Preface, page ix)
It is of course true that religion and science cannot be at variance, but it takes a
sick and degenerate criminal mind to produce the logic that the great anthropologist
Lubbock exalts and approves of ; a logic however that informs all scientists of every
kind throughout all time ; they are all damn priests. The first concern of every
scientist is to conform to the needs of religion. The trick for those of us who have to
endure this imposition of ignorance is to discover exactly how the priests manage this
trick, and that is in essence what the search for the forlorn philosophy is all about.
What is so delightful about Keith is that he at least promotes the idea that races are a
natural attribute of human nature, which is why he seeks the continuation of the
natural impulse to become organized into races in the modern world, and finds that
the only containing boundaries that he says are fundamental to the formation of races
existing in the modern world are those of national States. He offers a pathetic
example of precisely how not to think as a scientist, his reasoning is rather like saying
that the person who committed the murder is the one who was not in the room when
the murder was committed, completely disregarding the possibility that there might be
a world beyond the people known to of been in the ‘room’ at one time or another.
The one question Keith never deals with is Why races exist ? What the significance
of a race is ? And hence he never uses the term ‘social organism’, he never thinks of
humans as a superorganism to be compared with ants or bees, he wears the trappings
of a biologically oriented anthropologist, but he is nothing of the sort, he is one of the
original Darwinist clan of priests.
 Chapter ??

Weird Spin

As noted in Culmination my work flows dynamically in a direction unknown

to me and yesterday, 02/08/07, amongst four cheap volumes picked off Oxfam’s
shelves I found one which had a very strange twist on the organicist theme, a twist
that for all its weirdness has approximation closer to those expounded here than any I
have seen anywhere else. The spiritualist gets closer to a true science of humanity
than any scientist by talking in mumbo-jumbo language that approximates best to the
strictly scientific discussion of language as a force and people as units inducted into a
superorganism via a programme.
 Chapter ???

Aryanism Today : 2007

I burst out laughing to myself this morning as I transferred the stuff I

downloaded from the Nazi website yesterday, 03/08/07, to what I consider to be a
more user friendly format in Word. The particular item that had me laughing out loud
in sheer hysterical amusement was Reflections on the Christ Myth by R. P. Oliver, no
date provided, unfortunately. We are told that Oliver was a respected academic who
wrote a work published in 1938 and who worked on some secret operation during
World War Two, so this locates him approximately in time. I think this might of been
one of the points at which my equanimity burst :

“It is unfortunate that in the present state of knowledge we cannot trace our
species, the Aryans, to the species of Homo erectus or Homo habilis from
which it is descended.”

(Last sentence of the Introduction, page 6 in my digital copy.)

Wow ! Get that, he is saying that the Jews are a distinct species of human
being. Fantastic, what better story could the Jews, as the master race within the
superorganism we all belong to, ever wish for ? And this comes in the same
paragraph in which Oliver acknowledges that the Jews are the master race when he
says we will be describing ourselves as Aryans even though the Jews have forbidden
us to use this word. The man is raving mad, but as in the case of Hitler we find the
very arguments we would want to use against the Jews ourselves, in order to reveal
our true biological nature, and theirs of course, are bound up with this drivel thus
making it nigh on impossible for anyone to discuss a true science of humanity without
falling into the web woven by these Nazi lunatics.
How exactly does Oliver get to this absurd position ? is the obvious question.
And the answer seems to be present in the first twenty pages I obtained before the
fascist organs of the theocracy locked me out by disabling the link I was using to
access this document ; I will have to try and get a bit more on my next visit to that
great repository of free knowledge, the library.

“When the dogma that all human beings were the progeny of Adam and his
spare rib could no longer be maintained, it was, as happens with all cultural
residues, modified as little as possible, and it was replaced with the notion of
human descent from a single hypothetical ancestral family. Now that
Dr. Carleton Coon, in his Origin of Races (New York, 1962), has shown, as
conclusively as the exiguous data permit, that the five primary races owe their
diversity to the differences between the several pithecanthropoid species from
which they respectively evolved, we can no longer assume that, for example,
the Hottentots of today represent a stage of evolution through which our
ancestors once passed. There is simply no evidence that our race was ever
 animistic ; its religiosity may have appeared in minds of basically different
quality.”

(From Chapter 1 : Religion, page 8 in my digital copy)

So the argument goes that the races derived from a truly divergent array of
species all of which bore the same incipiently Homo Sapien qualities and potential.
This line of reasoning reminds me of Von Daniken’s subversion of archaeological
science. Oliver is closely following the work of scientists, namely physical
anthropologists, while simultaneously disregarding the ligatures of logic that bind the
true scientific body of knowledge together into a coherent and consistent form. And it
is not only the logic that he disregards, like Von Daniken he manipulates hard facts
like colours on an artists’ palette. And we might note that the use of this 1962
reference in the text places Oliver in the post-Nazi period, making him a spokesperson
for a more contemporary version of Aryanism than that espoused by the Nazis ; hence
the title selected for this chapter, the works studied here are not new, but they are
what we find being offered today and they are a form of post-Aryan Aryanism.
Modern Aryanism like traditional Aryanism is pure Danikenesque ; what I would
more usually refer to as religious mythology, fantasy and contemporary knowledge
jumbled up into a fable of meaningless rubbish to form the literature of a political
identity vying for space on the public stage.
So we see the dismissal of the religious myths of the Bible of which we
heartily approve being bound up with the subversion of the sound elements of modern
anthropological science. What we do not see is the true hidden knowledge which
would reveal the real nature of the Jews, and we do not see this because at the same
time this revelation would vaporise the pretensions of the Aryan pretenders to
overlordship.. But in discovering this common confederacy between the masters and
there erstwhile replacements we see how the emergence of a challenger for
domination in the shape of a new identity serves to protect the real master and thus
makes the anti-Jew, the Nazi that is, a real Jew, but a mirror image, a reflection of the
Jew whose image is thus inverted. By giving rise to an anti-Master the loose debris of
knowledge that is incapable of being incorporated into the old myths associated with
the established master identity is drawn into rotation about the new master identity
and in this way the threatening knowledge is made secure. We see this process in
place when we read such nonsensical work as this by Oliver which is so delightful in
many ways, but utterly awful taken as a whole.
In another chapter we mentioned the fact that the indigenous people of Britain,
or Europe even, cannot resist the ingress of Muslims or such like aliens, we
mentioned this in connection with the shortage of houses that could only be addressed
by building more houses even though the population is swollen through immigration,
the possibility of controlling immigration is unthinkable because this would make the
transformation of Britain into a Jewish slave state based on the Islamic identity
programme impossible to realise according to the plan implicit in the two world wars
which decimated European culture. The general principle evinced was that the force
of language caused social structure to form according to a uniform motion acting in
one direction, against the wishes of the people, through the mechanism of law which
meant that responses to problems could only ever occur in one fixed direction. This
direction, undisclosed but fixed by law, is the universal principle of social dynamics,
and with our reference to rise of the Nazis described in this chapter as a new
expression of Judaism, evolved to protect Jews from the rise of scientific knowledge
applied to humans, we see another significant application of the law of this dynamic
which says : social form can only accrete in one uniform direction. So the telling
feature of the Nazi ideology that makes it uniform with Judaism is the fixation upon
the person as an individual, this is the golden rule informing all Jewish identity
programmes ; any identity programme that obeys this rule, as the Aryan myth does, is
by definition a Jewish ideology.
Last night, 03/08/07, I was discussing various popular topics with a man my
age as we supped our beer at the bar of a local pub, we touched on the problem of
drinking, as promulgated by the State at present, and he said that the problem was the
rise of alchopops and such like strong drinks, and the habit of buying rounds of shots
that youths are into today. To which I responded by saying that this was obvious to
me and him but the problem is then traceable back to the big corporations that control
the brewing industry today, they have changed the way we drink by altering what is
put in our troughs. So the current perceived drinking problem can be related to the
destruction of the traditional brewing industry over the course of the last few decades.
Hence, I continued, to reveal this chain of causal factors that are responsible for the
change in our drinking habits would be to reveal that capitalism is the true source of
all our woes because of the way it treats people like cattle to be farmed, while paying
no heed to the subtle demands of human nature that can only be nurtured when
intimate social structures are allowed to evolve over longs periods of time to express
deeper values and concerns other than pure profit. The obsession of young customers
with hard liquor reflects the obsession of business with hard cash. In saying this we
find ourselves once again confronted by the phenomenon of unilinear directive
development dictated by basic laws that means reactions can only ever shift in one
uniform direction. Thus we live in a capitalist system, capitalism will never be
questioned any more than immigration or the right to life will ever be questioned, so if
we find that after couple of decades of being manipulated by the corporate machine
results in binge drinking that is detrimental to society then the next move will be to go
American, to ban drinking under the age of twenty one. In time, as Islamic law
insinuates itself into our social structure the whole matter will become academic as
Muslims are forbidden to drink. But we see that basic principles, morals as they are
often called, or ethics, serve as mechanisms which allow an oppressive authority to
shift the social structure in one direction which always serves to increase central
authority while reducing individual freedom. This is a social process that takes place
at the level of evolutionary change where individuals are unaware of the effect as
generation replaces generation, and so we are transformed from Druids hating
Romans, into Jewish slaves, and then from Christians hating Jews into Muslims
hating Jews, but always we are slaves of Judaism.

It is our avowed objective in this work to examine the forlorn philosophy and
we have established our method as being an acknowledgement of the various ways in
which the shrapnel of the idea of the social organism has ricocheted outward from its
point of destruction in the early twentieth century, and thereabouts. To this end
Oliver is a valid contributor to our efforts, indeed there are some delightful passages
in this work.

“Around 1910, Georges Matisse, in Les Ruines de l’Idea de Dieu,

predicted that by 1960, at the very latest, the only churches left in the civilized
world would be the ones that were preserved as museum pieces for their
 architectural beauty or historical associations. The scientific and historical
knowledge accumulated by our race had rendered belief in supernatural beings
impossible for cultivated men, and universal education would speedily destroy
the credulity of the masses. “We have climbed out of the dead end of the
dungeon into which Christianity cast us. The man of today walks in the open
air and the daylight. He has won confidence in himself.” ”

(Page 4)

And then :

“Matisse was egregiously wrong. His spectacular error, however, was a

projection logically made from the evidence available to him in 1910, when he
concluded that “the White race has conquered the whole world and slain the
Dragon [of superstition]. And the race had to do it. If the human mind had
been incapable of that achievement, the most difficult of all it’s achievements,
it would have been doomed. Intellect would have ended in failure on this
planet. It was a question of the life or death of intelligence... The indisputable
proof of the innately superior power of the European mind today is atheism.”
Matisse, of course, did not foresee the catastrophe of 1914 or sense the
subterranean and occult forces that were secretly in operation even in 1910 to
precipitate, not just another European war to alter the balance of power on the
Continent, but a war that those forces converted into a universal disaster, even
more destructive of rationality than of property and life, which may prove to
have been the beginning of the end for our civilization and race. The question
that Matisse so clearly posed therefore remains, not altered by the calamities
he could not foresee, but instead now made even more vital and urgent.”

(Page 5)

Wow ! Now this is brilliant, it is perhaps the best thing I have ever read in my
entire life, he actually sees the true nature of the First World War, or he would if he
had the faintest idea what human beings are. Fantastic. But it is actually elsewhere
that we find Oliver encroaching upon our chosen subject of collective will. In
Chapter II : The Triple Function we have a subheading Cohesion which refers to one
of the functions of religion. This section is so good we should take it wholesale.

Oliver :

COHESION

As all readers of Robert Ardrey’s brilliant expositions of biological facts, The

Territorial Imperative and The Social Contract, well know, all animals that hunt in
packs must have an instinctive sense of a common purpose and a rudimentary social
organization that regulates the relations between individuals and produces, at least
temporarily, a cohesion between them by subordinating the individual to the group
and its common purpose. Obedience to the law of the pack must be automatic among
wolves, lycaones, and all species that depend for survival on cooperation between
individuals.
We may be certain that that instinctive sense was present in our remote
biological antecedents of two or more million years ago, the Australopitheci, who
hunted in small packs and even learned to use as simple weapons stones and the bones
of animals they had killed and devoured. We may assume, however, that they, like
wolves, assembled as packs only to hunt larger animals, and that the bond between
individuals, other than mates, endured only during the hunt. This instinct for limited
confederation must have been present, a million or more years later, in the various
prehuman species, commonly called Homines Erecti, some of which, as Carleton
Coon has shown in his Origin of Races, survived as distinct species of anthropoids
that eventually developed into the extant races of mankind. It is a reasonable and
perhaps necessary deduction from the available evidence that the species which
survived to become human were those in which the instinct became strong enough to
produce more permanent associations, a pack that remained together even after the
successful termination of the hunt and the eating of its quarry, while the species that
could form no larger permanent groups than do gorillas today were headed for
extinction.
We must assume that the several species of Homines Erecti that became the
ancestors of the various races now alive were as intelligent as baboons, hunted in
packs of from ten to twelve adult males, remained together as a band or miniature
tribe, as do baboons, and communicated with one another by uttering a variety of cries
and other sounds, supplemented by gestures, again as baboons do. And it is probable
that no association of individuals larger than such a band was possible for many
thousands of years.
The Neanderthals, whom the Cro-Magnons wisely, though no doubt
instinctively, exterminated in Europe and perhaps elsewhere, are now generally
regarded as an extinct race of human beings, probably even lower than the Australoids
and Congoids of our own time, and most biologists now include them in the
taxonomic category that embraces the several races that have been ironically called
homines sapientes. Although it is frequently assumed that the Neanderthals formed
groups larger than a band of baboons, there is no valid evidence that they did, and
such social cohesion as they had must have been entirely instinctive and
subconscious. Although some anthropologists have found new grounds for dissent,
the majority now believes that the Neanderthals were able to communicate with one
another by means of a very crude and rudimentary language, that is, articulated
sounds of definite meaning, as distinct from the variety of inarticulate cries and
grunts, supplemented by gestures, by which baboons now communicate, and homines
erecti must have communicated, with one another. It is most unlikely, however, that
the Neanderthals’ language was sufficiently developed to permit either
generalizations or statements about the past and future rather than the present.
The success of the Cro-Magnon people in hunting such formidable game as
mammoths is sufficient proof that they must have lived together in groups large
enough to be called a tribe, and that they had a language that was in some way
inflected to form tenses and thus indicate temporal relationships, thereby making
possible conscious planning and specific reference to past experiences. This, in turn,
permitted the generalizations that are a kind of rough classification and a conscious
awareness of tribal unity, which could be communicated to the young by spoken
precept and rule, however crude and elementary, thus forming what anthropologists
call a culture.
 What superstitions the Cro-Magnons had, and what rituals they performed, can
only be conjectured by tenuous speculations, but a moment’s reflection will show that
if they had a religion (as is, of course, likely), it must have been concerned with tribal
purposes, such as success in hunting or the mitigation of an epidemic disease or the
production of rain. And such religious ceremonies as may have been performed for
such purposes were doubtless rituals that required the participation of the whole tribe
or the part of it that was immediately concerned, such as all adult males, if hunting
was involved, or all females, if fertility, and offspring were sought. The ritual thus
became an affirmation of tribal unity.
The earliest religions of which we have knowledge are tribal, and their
ceremonies are rituals in which the whole tribe (except children) participates or all of
the part of the tribe that is concerned (e.g., all men of military age or all married
women) or a group that has been selected to perform a dance or a sacrifice on behalf
of the tribe as a whole. And when a number of tribes coalesce to form a small state,
the demonstration of their effective unity and common purpose by religious unanimity
becomes even more necessary, and it is affirmed by festivals in which every citizen is
expected to participate, at least by abstaining from other activity and being present as
a spectator, and in which aliens, whether visitors or metecs, are not permitted to
participate and from which they may be so excluded that they are forbidden to witness
any part of the proceedings. The number of citizens is now so large that active
participation of all in a religious ritual is no longer feasible, and comparatively small
groups must be selected to act on behalf of the whole state or the whole of a class in
it. Alcman’s Partheneion, for example, was written for a choir of virgins who
performed a ceremony on behalf of all the virgin daughters of Spartan citizens to
conciliate for them the favor of Artemis. The Panathenaea, which celebrated the
political unification of Attica, was a series of varied ceremonies (one of which was a
reading of the poems of Homer) in honor of the goddess who was the city’s patroness,
and although a fairly large number of individuals took part in the chariot-races,
musical contests, choral performances, cult dances, and other ceremonies, only a
small fraction of the citizen body could take an active part in the festival that was held
for the benefit of the whole state, and on the last day, traditionally Athena’s birthday,
metecs were even permitted to join the grand procession as attendants on citizens. At
Rome, the twenty-four Salii solicited for the entire nation the favor of Mars and
Quirinus by performing their archaic dance accompanied by a litany in Latin so
archaic that its meaning was only vaguely known. And the feriae in honor of Jupiter
on the Alban Mount, at which the presence of both consuls was mandatory, celebrated
the political unification of Latium.
What many of our uninformed contemporaries overlook is the fact that
participation in such ceremonies, including attendance at them, was essentially a
political act by which citizens affirmed their participation in their state. It did not in
the least matter, for example, whether the individual citizen “believed in” the gods
who were propitiated and honored : if he disbelieved in their existence or spoke of
them in injurious terms (except during the ceremonies themselves), and if the gods
concerned took notice and resented his conduct, it was up to those gods (as Augustus
had to remind some of his contemporaries) to take what action they deemed
appropriate against him. And it did not really matter whether the rites were really
efficacious : the important thing was that persons who refused to participate in them
thereby exhibited their alienation from the state and seemed to be renouncing their
citizenship. If a Roman who was an atheist was elected consul, his office obliged him
to make the appropriate sacrifices to Jupiter at the Feriae Latinae and to preside at, or
otherwise participate in, other religious rites, but he had no sense of incongruity or
hypocrisy : he was performing an essentially political rite for which a religious faith
was no more necessary than it was, e.g., for watching a chariot race in the circus,
which officially was also a religious ceremony.
This function of religion is to affirm political cohesion. And it has retained
that function almost to our own time. When the unity of Christendom was shattered
by the Reformation and it became clear that it would not be easy for either the
Catholics or the Protestants to exterminate the other party, an early compromise was
the doctrine of cuius regio, eius religio. By agreeing that the ruler’s religion was to be
that of all of his subjects (except of course, the Jews, who were always given special
privileges), men hoped to maintain the effective unity of each state, and that was a
political purpose that atheists could and did recognize as expedient. The establishment
of the Anglican Church was one of the least unsuccessful applications of the principle,
and from the political standpoint, the disabilities of the Catholics in England are less
remarkable than the toleration that was accorded them. And it is perverse to refuse to
understand the attitude of Louis XIV in Catholic France after he was convinced that
Jansenists, although indubitably Catholic, were fracturing the nation’s political unity.
The story that he at first refused to appoint a man to high office because he had heard
the man was a Jansenist, but gladly appointed him as soon as he was reliably informed
that the man did not believe in god at all, is undoubtedly true – was probably true on
several occasions. The king was probably quite uninterested in the theological hair-
pulling and cut-throat competition that was then making so much noise, but he had the
common sense to perceive that by appointing an atheist he was not strengthening a
faction of political trouble-makers. If he knew of Cardinal Dubois’s famous dictum
that God is a bogeyman who must be brandished to scare the populace into some
approximation of honesty, he may or may not have thought that the good cardinal was
running a risk of post-mortem woe, but he recognized that Dubois’s opinions did not
detract from his political efficiency in maintaining social stability.
The requirement at Oxford and Cambridge until quite recent times of an oath
of affirmation in the Church of England’s Thirty-Nine Articles has been perversely
misunderstood. Everyone knew for centuries that many did not believe what they
affirmed, and there was some truth in the hot-headed Sir William Hamilton’s charge
that Oxford was a “school of perjury,” but he naturally became excited because he did
not perceive that the requirement had not the fantastic theological purpose of pleasing
a god in whom many who took the oath did not believe, but the strictly practical one
of excluding fanatics who were emotionally attached to dogmas that would inspire
trouble-making agitation over questions that, if not totally illusory, were incapable of
rational determination. It was regrettable, of course, that adolescents like young
Gibbon should, in effect, expel themselves from the university through a
waywardness they would later regret, and that intelligent adults like Newman should
develop emotional enthusiasms and a zeal for fruitless controversy that, the
conservatives felt, was much better than bestowing the prestige of the universities on
seditious fanatics.
In the United States, Benjamin Franklin certainly did not believe in any form
of Christian doctrine, but that did not prevent him from approving, if he did not
inspire, a state constitution which, by requiring an oath of belief in the Trinity,
effectively excluded from political influence many of the Jews and such dissidents as
the Quakers, who, for example, refused to defend with arms a society whose
privileges they wanted to enjoy, and were, at least passively, disturbers of the political
cohesion of the state of Pennsylvania. The persecution of the Mormons, which
effectively gives the lie to Americans who want to boast about “religious freedom,”
was led by holy men who wanted to stamp out competition in their business, but some
part of that episode was caused by an awareness, probably subconscious in the
majority, that the political consensus requisite for national survival would be gravely
impaired or destroyed if the population were split into two incompatible groups, one
of which believed polygamy divinely ordained while the other insisted on pretending
that Christian doctrine forbade every kind of polygamy.
The principle of the separation of church and state, which was one of the bases
of the Federal Constitution, has been nullified by the various states and,
hypocritically, by the Federal government itself by exempting nominally religious
organizations from taxation, and is nullified in practice by the strenuous political
activity of virtually all the Christian and other religious sects, which, of course, is
laudable when they agitate and intrigue for political ends of which you and I approve,
and damnable when they use their power to oppose them, as any theologian can prove
in five minutes by reciting selected passages of Holy Writ and tacitly lying by
pretending that contradictory passages do not exist. The separation of church and state
has proved impossible in practice in the United States, and for all practical purposes
the ostensibly religious organizations have become privileged political organizations,
most of which are actively engaged in subverting what little cohesion the nation once
had and are furthermore avowed enemies of the race to which we and many of their
members belong.
The use of religion as an expression of cultural unity and political consensus
cannot long survive the first practice of toleration by which the nation’s Established
Church, whatever it is, is tacitly disavowed by failure to suppress openly dissident
sects. That function of religion, once the most important of all, has, in little more than
a century, been so completely forgotten that some of our contemporaries are
astonished when they hear of it.

(Pages 10-14)

OK, so we see Oliver opening this discussion of human social nature

according to a biological conception of its origins and function. His use of Ardrey as
a spokesperson is interesting because Ardrey is rejected as an interloper by
professional anthropologists, but it is of little concern to us since as appealing as
Ardrey’s contribution was as a maverick exercise his work is as obedient to the
golden rule of Judaic myth as any priest could ever wish, he is a vociferous exponent
of the individual.
Pretty soon Oliver makes it clear that there is to be no thought of human social
attributes being dictated by nature. We are defined as absolute loners, like wolves
living in a pack that only come together for lunch dates, although this is not what I
understand from nature programmes where wolves seem to be organised into packs
under a dominant male, if I recall rightly ; still it is of small matter, we get the point,
Oliver is a devout priest of Judaism determined that we, his victims, should not get
the least clue as to our true nature which would allow us to know the Jew, to know the
Nazi.
This business of hominid species evolving into distinct races is the most
extreme intellectual expression of Nazi racist propaganda I have ever seen, it is
incredibly insidious, and in terms of trying to know ourselves, and incidentally in
terms of posing problems for the Jews as a master race, it really is a remarkably
strong expression of denial of our true human nature. Our true human nature does
vindicate the idea that the Jews are our masters, it makes this situation right and
normal, but of course this vindication in itself does not alleviate the horror we must all
inevitably feel for such an idea, and this is precisely why people like Hitler and Oliver
are and were crucial for the defence of Judaism from true knowledge of human
organic nature. But the idea that each race is evolved from a distinct species of
hominid is the height of absurdity. The definition of a species is that only members of
the same species can produce fertile offspring, and while we know how easily science
is perverted and thus we would not want to make such a definition self vindicating,
that fact is that it stands to reason that if races evolved from different species of
hominid then we would indeed be incapable of fertile crossing, which in fact is never
a problem. The whole issue is reminiscent of the arguments we find central to
discussions in anthropological works of two centuries ago, a problem that was
resolved in favour of the single point of origin. I had not thought about this issue as a
bone of contention for the usual political reasons concerned with the Jewish
globalising imperative, but while the motivation is apparent, I still see no reason to
deny the obvious if the object of the inquiry is to discern scientific fact. Meanwhile
the purpose implicit in the denial of the obvious can only indicate an intention to
subvert truth as usual in theocratic activities.
Anyway, having attacked these arguments we then find this ;

“It is a reasonable and perhaps necessary deduction from the available

evidence that the species which survived to become human were those in
which the instinct became strong enough to produce more permanent
associations, a pack that remained together even after the successful
termination of the hunt and the eating of its quarry, while the species that
could form no larger permanent groups than do gorillas today were headed for
extinction.”

Our argument is progressive, it states that evolution is linear and continuous,

and dictated by available potential in terms of energy, a fact that is reflected in the law
of social dynamics which gives rise to laws that force all social structure to grow in
one fixed direction obedient to the imperatives attached to a core identity that
continually focuses ever greater concentrations of social energy upon the core
authority. We say that human nature existed millions of years before humans and that
the social imperative is the essence of human nature, so that from the first divergence
toward a superorganic form of mammal, occurring in the anthropoid line, it was an
accumulation of this social ‘instinct’ that was fuelling all changes in individual
physiology which created upright posture, dextrous aptitude, linguistic facility, tribal
organization, racial form, jingoism, religiosity and so on. In this extraction from the
preceding quote however we see that Oliver, in common with the Jewish oriented
Darwinian mythologists, seeks to invert this natural process by turning ‘instinct’ into
something akin to a human willed development selected by the superior species of
proto-humans. This is interesting, this is what makes Oliver a fit subject for our
cabinet of elemental particles emanating from the central conception of society as a
social organism. Oliver deals directly with the pertinent fact that humans are
inherently social, he even makes this behaviour a product of nature, an instinct, yet he
evidently has no intention whatever of outlining a scientific model of human society
as created by nature.
 In taking notice of his assertion that contemporary baboon society indicates a
transition that we too must of passed through on route to becoming civilised I am
reminded that elsewhere he names Eugène Marais for his brilliant study of baboons,
but he does not mention Marais’ Soul of the White Ant, first published about 1900, in
which Marais suggests the social life of the termite might be compared to that of
humans, implicit in the attribution of a soul to these superorganic insects, where soul
can be taken to mean their social spirit, which is a book I find far more suggestive.

“The Neanderthals, whom the Cro-Magnons wisely, though no doubt

instinctively, exterminated in Europe and perhaps elsewhere, are now
generally regarded as an extinct race of human beings, probably even lower
than the Australoids and Congoids of our own time, and most biologists now
include them in the taxonomic category that embraces the several races that
have been ironically called homines sapientes.”

Bloody hell ! What ? The man is a total nutter, Australian aborigines and
African pygmies are ....... are, well what exactly ? He conflates the terms ‘race’ and
‘species’ so freely as to produce of colloid of the two terms whereby we are put into
the position where we can no longer address his argument without becoming
hamstrung by our own attempt to answer his statements of the above kind. No one
regards the Neanderthals as a race, they are regarded as a distinct species, and quite
rightly I should think, though there are a few rare indications that there may of been
some cross breeding between the Neanderthals and the species of humans that
replaced them. Such work can be regarded as little more than a joke, a travesty of
intellectual effort, a typical piece of priestcraft.
But this continuation from the above extraction :

“Although it is frequently assumed that the Neanderthals formed groups larger

than a band of baboons, there is no valid evidence that they did, and such
social cohesion as they had must have been entirely instinctive and
subconscious.”

is interesting, for he asserts that the highly advanced humanoids, the Neanderthals,
lived unwittingly in groups. Now this I like, this idea is perfect for describing our
modern conditions where Christians, Nazis and fundamentalist Muslims actually live
out their entire lives as the most dedicated activists promoting Judaism without having
the least knowledge that they are Jews ; just like ants emerging from stolen pupae into
a slave maker ant’s nest. Superb.

The sophistication of language is what makes it possible for individuals to be

conscious of their tribal identity. Thus we see that Oliver is an exponent of the idea
that language is a tool for empowering the individual. This is the most destructive
device used against science by the priest. As we know, language evolved as the
human equivalent of insect pheromones to deliver a programme to individuals that
would cause them to act robotically and wholly unwittingly in accordance with a
central programme that individuals have no idea at all exists, the closest they come to
knowing that this biological programme exists is through their conscious awareness of
mysterious phenomena through religious mythology which forms a codified
representation of the reality that we could know if the priests did not keep this
knowledge from us. Of course the Nazis-cum-Aryans did not want to undermine the
basis of Jewish power, far from it, they wanted to take over the reigns of power by the
same means, as Hitler makes perfectly plain throughout Mein Kampf, so we should
not be surprised to find an exponent of their race based ideology acting as stalwarts of
Jewish logic inherent in Jewish religions ; there is no difference between Nazi
ideology and Jewish religion, the two are identical ideologies of power, indeed the
Nazis can only be regarded by scientists of humanity as Jews.
The whole purpose of this essay is to address the difficulty of accounting for
the reality of Christian belief. There are some excruciatingly delightful passages
where Oliver bemoans the mind bending absurdity of the fact that Christianity made
Aryans slaves to their hated foe, the Jews. Oliver intends to tell us why this
happened, but he is obliged to keep his account within the bounds permitted by his
Jewish masters, which he is happy to do, so he will not tell us anything real. How can
language which lets you know who you are serve as a tool empowering the individual
when knowing you are a Christian makes it impossible for you to know that by being
a Christian you are a Jew ? And in addition to this incongruity in Oliver’s argument
he also tells us, in the section we are dealing with now, that one of the primary
functions of religion is communal, and not about individual empowerment. He tells
us that the notion that freedom of worship vested in the freethinking individual is a
modern idea, the only idea written into the American constitution that still remains
intact, much to many people’s consternation, he tells us. So he sees the question,
apparently, but he certainly gives no indication that sees the answer.

The beauty of reading pieces like this is that they serve as a lever enabling us
to make the points we want to, because a piece such as this is pushing on the door that
we know how to open.

“The earliest religions of which we have knowledge are tribal, and their
ceremonies are rituals in which the whole tribe (except children) participates
or all of the part of the tribe that is concerned (e.g., all men of military age or
all married women) or a group that has been selected to perform a dance or a
sacrifice on behalf of the tribe as a whole. And when a number of tribes
coalesce to form a small state, the demonstration of their effective unity and
common purpose by religious unanimity becomes even more necessary”

In this extraction from our last quote I have highlighted the critical fragment
which gives the passage its political imperative, that makes the social activity human,
as opposed to natural. He is saying that as tribes decide to come together for political
reasons they then need the services of religious ceremony to enable the union to be
effective, to provide a common identity superseding the now minor tribal and racial
identities (of course he would never say race constituted a minor identity). If nature
created superorganisms in the form of tribes that evolved toward nationhood then a
naturalistic account of this process would not apply this bias political slant, it would
say that the physiological process whereby tribes coalesced into complex cultural and
racial superorganisms was driven by the force of language generating new linguistic
programmes able to impart a collective identity to the coalescing unitary social
organisms. Science must denote the evolution of identity as being akin to the force
driving organic form, the physical attributes of an organism cannot come into being
before the organism exists ! which is what Oliver is effectively saying. Hence we are
now Jews, but the Jews existed long before the British became Jews. The Jewish
identity had to evolve as a master identity before the superorganism that now exists as
a global entity could come into being. Oliver is suggesting that tribes form nations
which then become Jewish, no, that is absurd, the tribes existed and the crucible of
activity forcing them together existed, but the medium of unification has to come into
being in the shape of an identity package to be added to the mix in order for the parts
to unite into a whole. So the Jewish identity is rather like a setting agent added to a
social body in a state of flux. And, as we often remark, before the setting agent can
be added the target biomass must be set in motion, and this is why the Romans
invaded northern Europe, why the Greeks invaded the east, why the Muslims invaded
the east, why the Muslims are attacking the west and why the Americans invaded
Asia, and so on. There is in reality a continual mixing of the pot containing the
human biomass, so that the special ingredient of Judaism can be thrown in to jell the
social body according to the master identity that is Judaism. And the mixing does not
have to be through the extremis of war, the modern application of capitalism is an
ongoing stirring of the pot, we see this all the time. The extrusion of religion from the
social fabric in the nineteenth and twentieth century is now being remedied by a legal
process that has dismantled the secular machinery invested in none religious social
movements like trade unions, and new pathways are being made available to the
religious organizations through the application of capitalist principles which allow
private money to go toward schools and such like institutions fundamental to the
injection of the organism with its slave identity. All this economic and political
change represents war switched to a ‘slow cook’ setting. So the intellectual process
associated with religious ideas occurs in conjunction with other behavioural activities
which are given a political hue, such as warfare and inter tribal competition. It is
through the evolution of these complex superorganic bodies that a priestly class
specialising in religious power was induced by the linguistic force to come into being,
and this class is the Jew, of which the Nazis and the Aryans are just temporary
manifestations.

Much of our argument concerning the positive function of the Nazis in the
effort to suppress science and allow Judaism to retain control of the global biomass
has had to do with the manner in which the logic of the social organism can be found
resonating in Hitler’s work, more fully discussed in my previous work There is no
God, but in this later development of the Aryan ideology we see a deeper subversion
of more perfect anthropological material that is feeding the priests of this new religion
of corporate identity. So the Nazi movement continues to do its work of manipulating
and subverting the true science of humanity that threatens to destroy Judaism. The
process however is automatic, being driven by the force of language acting on the
complex structure of the superorganism. The people who adopt this nonsensical view
act under the guidance of an autopilot exactly as Jewish Jews do, or Muslim fanatic
Jews do, there is no question of self awareness here, not anywhere nor amongst
anyone, just like the insects, or Oliver’s Neanderthals, these people are utterly
unaware of the true nature of their efforts, they act in the seclusion of the linguistic
force of their own identity which isolates them from the rest of social existence as
surely as a magnetic field can isolate a subatomic particle from the material substance
of the universe.

“The number of citizens is now so large that active participation of all in a

religious ritual is no longer feasible, and comparatively small groups must be
selected to act on behalf of the whole state or the whole of a class in it.”
 This extraction from the above quote continues directly from the last
extraction and it is taken because it continues the politicisation of the otherwise
essentially naturalistic logic. Upon a foundation of biology a political activity is
constructed through the descriptive use of language. Thus just as we saw Oliver
conflating the terms ‘race’ and ‘species’ to create confusion now we see him
conflating ‘biology’ and ‘politics’ for the same purpose. He suggests that through
confederation states suddenly find themselves with too great a population and so they
institute methods of organizing on a centralised principle. Thus we might imagine
that animals, upon growing limbs, found they were suddenly in need of a coordinating
centre so that the front paws would not act out of sync with the hind paws, and thus a
brain evolved ! This is the kind of logic this deviant utilises subliminally, and it is in
perfect harmony with the usual method used by regular official priests who we can
only regard as Jews since we live in an absolute theocracy that is Jewish. The priests
may change their colours, but the structure remains intact. In this sense we may
regard the priests as the skin covering the exoskeleton whereby this epithelial layer of
the living biomass has the quality of a chameleon, forever flashing a dynamic
message toward the inner tissues which must be kept unified by the special units that
pump information into the social space. Oliver’s message is identical to the Jews
message, there is no difference except that he says he is of another identity that wants
to destroy the Jews, but the fact is that the Jews remain as powerful, are more
powerful indeed, than they ever were, and that power is a direct consequence of the
Nazi anti-Jew, as we can easily see from studying Oliver’s work that seeks to disguise
the true nature of Christianity which was revealed by modern science.

The rest of the passage quoted is an analysis of religion as a political activity,

which is in perfect keeping with the parts we have discussed in detail, but which is not
a true account of the nature of religion that Oliver pretends to provide in this
preliminary part of his examination of Christianity. This piece does not resonate with
a biological view of society evoking the period when everyone was familiar with the
idea of the social organism, but it does set out to account for human sociality and it
sums up this attribute in the nature of religion, which certainly is exactly in tune with
the argument we put forward here.
This is as thoroughly atheistic an account of human nature as I have ever seen,
for it speaks about religion as a political phenomenon with natural roots, and in
addition he even answers the biggest question of all, namely how brilliant people cope
with being servile to religion, the atheist has no problem with acting as a devout theist
because he accepts the political role. This he applies to ancient Rome but we may
suppose it applies as well to our foremost contemporary political leaders who are
invariably extremely religious as compared to the normal individual one meets
everyday.
Curiously this matter of fact approach to religion means that this is not an
atheistic work, when he discusses Polytheism he suggests there may be gods, and by
supporting the political leaders con he supports religious fidelity, but he recognises it
is a social necessity. So this latter day Nazis is no atheist, and the same was true of
Hitler and it seems to be true of the active neo-Nazi groups in Britain today. What is
interesting in works such as this however is to see how the Nazi handled the question
of Christianity, which is so obviously a slave identity of Judaism, this question I have
sort an answer to since I read Mein Kampf two years ago in which Hitler revealed his
devotion to Christianity despite the movement against it by some would be rivals for
the leadership of the movement.
To this end I happened to begin getting to grips with a full copy of Houston
Chamberlain’s Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, first published in German in
1899 and in English in 1910, which I got from the net a fortnight ago as a complete
book in a zip file. The document was in plain text and yesterday, 05/08/07, I began
working my way through it to give it a decent appearance. However the book is huge,
eight hundred pages, and too much to do altogether, but picking my way through
while adjusting the basic formatting to my taste allowed me to pick up a feel for the
work, and it has to be Hitler’s Bible. This shows where Hitler got all his ideas from,
or else it shows a German culture from which Hitler and Chamberlain took their
inspiration. Aryanism, anti-Semitism and a deep love and respect for Jesus, combined
with a denial of Jesus’ Jewish identity, are the three main themes that pop up and
capture my attention in the introductory parts. To read a book in which Christianity,
or Jesus, is praised so devotedly is to read a piece of Christian propaganda, albeit one
that Christians revile. This peculiar theme of Christian Nazis or Christian anti-
Semites is one we have touched on here and there, where we see a branch splinter off
the main stem of Christianity to allow Judaic mythology to take over a new social
dogma. We have said that the key thing with Christianity is that it must be involved
in every public movement, the more atheistic and anti-Christian the more essential it
is that Christianity has a central voice in any such movement. This sounds like
madness, and a challenge that is surely impossible, but it is not, we see atheists being
transformed in devout Christians in the form of humanists, and here we see the
destructive logic of the idea of the social organism being the basis for a new sense of
primary identity, Aryanism, which takes scientific knowledge to ground in a religious,
a Jewish form, where it can be destroyed and prevented from doing any harm ; unless
of course you regard two world wars and a holocaust as harm, but to the Jewish
organism these events are mere pin pricks, the nasty reaction to a viral infection, and
nothing whatever to worry about. War and terror are the means by which the
physiology of the superorganism is controlled and maintained, and needless to say
religion must always be in the thick of conflicts because religion is the means by
which human physiology is woven together into a social structure.

Chamberlain :

“The fact that the chapter on the entry of the Jews into western history
has been made so long may perhaps demand explanation. For the subject of
this book, so diffuse a treatment would not have been indispensable ; but the
prominent position of the Jews in the nineteenth century, as also the great
importance for the history of our time of the philo- and anti-semitic currents
and controversies, made an answer to the question, “Who is the Jew ?”
absolutely imperative. Nowhere could I find a clear and exhaustive answer to
this question, so I was compelled to seek and to give it myself. The essential
point here is the question of religion ; and so I have treated this very point at
considerable length, not merely in the fifth, but also in the third and in the
seventh chapters. For I have become convinced that the usual treatment of the
“Jewish question” is altogether and always superficial ; the Jew is no enemy of
Teutonic civilisation and culture ; Herder may be right in his assertion that the
Jew is always alien to us, and consequently we to him, and no one will deny
 that this is to the detriment of our work of culture ; yet I think that we are
inclined to under-estimate our own powers in this respect and, on the other
hand, to exaggerate the importance of the Jewish influence. Hand in hand with
this goes the perfectly ridiculous and revolting tendency to make the Jew the
general scapegoat for all the vices of our time. In reality the “Jewish peril” lies
much deeper ; the Jew is not responsible for it ; we have given rise to it
ourselves and must overcome it ourselves. No souls thirst more after religion
than the Slavs, the Celts and the Teutons : their history proves it ; it is because
of the lack of a true religion that our whole Teutonic culture is sick unto death
(as I show in the ninth chapter), and this will mean its ruin if timely help does
not come. We have stopped up the spring that welled up in our own hearts and
made ourselves dependent upon the scanty, brackish water which the
Bedouins of the desert draw from their wells. No people in the world is so
beggarly-poor in religion as the Semites and their half-brothers the Jews ; and
we, who were chosen to develop the profoundest and sublimest religious
conception of the world as the light, life and vitalising force of our whole
culture, have with our own hands firmly tied up the veins of life and limp
along like crippled Jewish slaves behind Jehovah’s Ark of the Covenant !
Hence my exhaustive treatment of the Jewish question : my object was to find
a broad and strong foundation for so important a judgment.”

(Page 78-9 of the original)

This statement of intent concerning the nature of Jews is most interesting. It

indicates that there were no adequate accounts dealing with this subject even when the
“Jewish question” was so prominent an issue. It indicates the significance of the Jews
as an important factor in society, and suggests a master - slave relationship between
Europeans and Jews, but at the same time it seeks to reject this relationship by
claiming the European is the highest bred human and that his religious sentiment is
superior to all others. The suggestion that the Jews are not responsible for their
position is good, but the idea that the Europeans are, is absurd. Clearly this deep look
at the nature of the Jew is going to be as worthless, as Ptolemy’s brilliant examination
of the heavens was worthless as a true account. In both cases the observer has first
placed themselves at an entirely false point of observation relative to their chosen
subject, ensuring that every observation will be transfigured through the resulting
distortion of forced logic. Worthless to truth, but most valuable to the mythology of
the Jewish priesthood. And what is the state of chosenness referred to ? Presumably
our inheritance of the Christian faith !
What is so important about the emergence of this kind of mythology at this
time is the relevance that it has to the idea of the social organism which reveals that
society has a physiology, and that social organism’s identity is religious, and the
diversity of religious identity within the organism is the means by which the
physiology becomes organized into functional elements all bearing one common
religious identity. Thus we see that the one identity is Jewish and the diversity is
subservient to the one ; hence Jews are the primal fabric, and the Christian and
Muslim the secondary and tertiary framework. Can we assume that people were
realising this fact and this is what induced this Christian backlash against science by
giving the social organism a Christian mythological form of expression, that is a
political mode of representation ? Certainly the ideas expressed in Chamberlain’s
work are in perfect accord with this analysis, and the general tenor of anti-Semitic
works like that of Nesta Webster and Adolf Hitler all conform to the pattern of a
typically subversive Christian attack upon the popular science of humanity of the
time, an attack designed to protect Christianity from destruction, and therefore
necessarily ensuring the same protection for the Jews.
Just what Chamberlain has to say about the Jews is bound to be of some
interest, but we can be sure it will tell us nothing conclusive about who or what the
Jews are. Today the most important question any academic concerned with human
existence could possibly ask is What is a Jew ?, exactly as we see Chamberlain
asking. But this question can no longer be asked, we can tell from Chamberlain’s free
use of the phrase “Jewish Question” that the question was being asked all the time in
his day, and this culminated in the Nazis who ensured that this terrible question can
no longer be asked about our masters who have the protection of the Nazis to thank
for this godsend, Hitler being the greatest ever saviour of the Jews, as we can see from
this brief glimpse at the relevant material of the time that even now the Jews will not
let us have free access to. They continue to play the game of misinformation and
misrepresentation, it is essential to the Jewish being, this is what the force of language
exists to achieve, deception.

Chamberlain :

“The consideration of these points is led up to by an introductory

chapter on the “New Forces” which have asserted themselves in this century
and have given to it its characteristic physiognomy, but which could not be
treated adequately within the limits of one of the general chapters.”

(Page 82 of original)

There are passing indications of the organic sense of society imbued into
Chamberlain’s work as we see from this allusion to new social structures appearing as
a ‘physiognomy’.

Chamberlain :

“But the greatest mistake of all is the assumption that our civilisation and
culture are but the expression of a general progress of mankind ; not a single
fact in history supports this popular belief (as I think I have conclusively
proved in the ninth chapter of this book) ; and in the meantime this empty
phrase strikes us blind, and we lose sight of the self-evident fact — that our
civilisation and culture, as in every previous and every other contemporary
case, are the work of a definite, individual racial type, a type possessing, like
everything individual, great gifts but also insurmountable limitations. And so
our thoughts float around in limitless space, in a hypothetical “humanity,” and
we pass by unnoticed that which is concretely presented and which alone
effects anything in history, the definite individuality. Hence the obscurity of
our historical groupings. For if we draw one line through the year 500, and a
second through the year 1500, and call these thousand years the Middle Ages,
we have not dissected the organic body of history as a skilled anatomist, but
 hacked it in two like a butcher. The capture of Rome by Odoacer and by
Dietrich of Berne are only episodes in that entry of the Teutonic peoples into
the history of the world, which went on for a thousand years : the decisive
thing, namely, the idea of the unnational world-empire, far from receiving its
death-blow thereby, for a long time drew new life from the intervention of the
Teutonic races. While, therefore, the year 1 — the (approximate) date of the
birth of Christ — is a date which is ever memorable in the history of mankind
and even in the mere annals of events, the year 500 has no importance
whatever. Still worse is the year 1500, for if we draw a line through it we draw
it right through the middle of all conscious and unconscious efforts and
developments — economic, political, artistic, scientific — which enrich our
lives to-day and are moving onward to a still distant goal. If, however, we
insist on retaining the idea of “Middle Ages” there is an easy way out of the
difficulty : it will suffice if we recognise that we Teutons ourselves, together
with our proud nineteenth century, are floundering in what the old historians
used to call a “Middle Age” — a genuine “Middle Age.” For the
predominance of the Provisional and the Transitional, the almost total absence
of the Definite, the Complete and the Balanced, are marks of our time ; we are
in the “midst” of a development, already far from the starting-point and
presumably still far from the goal.”

(Page 31-2, my digital copy)

This is a rather large slice just to locate another example of biological

mindedness applied to the conception of society. But in this passage we see an
extensive use of this organic mindset, the notion of society as a self driven entity
comes across plainly, and this is perfectly adapted to our purely scientific conception
of society as a literally organic being acting according to natural laws. So while
Chamberlain is not advocating, or even acknowledging the idea of the social
organism, he is most definitely revealing its powerful grip on his mind, and since his
account is purely political then we see how a work like this is at the forefront of
transforming wholly detached scientific ideas of society into utterly biased political
ideas of society. By politicising such unbiased ideas an elite group, a priesthood, is
able to utilise knowledge to empower itself for, as we see in this example, the process
of politicising biology involves the attribution of a name to the resulting product—
people do not do this kind of thing just for the fun of it—the mythical Aryan, or in
this passage, Teuton, is made the object resulting from this politicised organism, a
name which can be made the focal point of the resulting social enclave which thereby
corrals power.
From this example of how pure knowledge is made subservient to a social
organ of power we can extrapolate to the first days of Western civilisation in ancient
Sumeria, and before, when the agricultural subsistence life style was evolving and the
empowering knowledge of seasons was accumulating to focus people’s attention on
the heavens so that a pure knowledge derived from direct observation could then be
made the basis of social power through philosophical art affiliating a group claiming
superiority with this special knowledge which they then disseminated in a manner
which carried the impression of their own self image. From this embryonic beginning
the Jews eventually arose. The Nazis arose by virtue of obedience to the same force
as that which made the Jews, and this is why the Nazis were in reality Jews, because it
made them both part of the same organic process occurring in the same living body.

Chamberlain :

ANONYMOUS FORCES

In this general introduction I must also discuss briefly some specially

important points, so that later we may not be detained by out-of-place theoretical
discussions.
Almost all men are by nature “hero-worshippers” ; and no valid objection can
be urged against this healthy instinct. Simplification is a necessity of the human
mind ; we find ourselves involuntarily setting up a single name in place of the many
names representative of a movement ; further, the personality is something given,
individual, definite, while everything that lies beyond is an abstraction and an ever-
varying circle of ideas.
We might therefore put together the history of a century by a mere list of
names : it seems to me, however, that a different procedure is necessary to bring out
what is really essential. For it is remarkable how slightly the separate individualities
stand out in relief from each other. Men form inside their racial individualities an
atomic but nevertheless very homogeneous mass. If a great spirit were to lean out
from among the stars and, bending in contemplation over our earth, were capable of
seeing not only our bodies but also our souls, the human population of any part of the
world would certainly appear to him as uniform as an ant-heap does to us : he would
of course distinguish warriors, workers, idlers and monarchs, he would notice that the
one runs hither, the other thither, but on the whole his impression would be that all
individuals obey, and must obey, a common impersonal impulse. Extremely narrow
limits are set to the influence as well as to the arbitrariness of the great personality.
All great and lasting revolutions in the life of society have taken place “blindly.” A
remarkable personality, as, for example, that of Napoleon, can lead us astray on this
point, and yet even his, when closely examined, appears as a blindly working Fate. Its
possibility is explained by previous events : had there been no Richelieu, no Louis
XIV., no Louis XV., no Voltaire, no Rousseau, no French Revolution — there would
have been no Napoleon ! How closely linked, moreover, is the life-achievement of
such a man with the national character of the whole people, with its virtues and its
failings : without a French people, no Napoleon ! The activity of this commander is
directed in particular towards the outside world, and here again we must say : but for
the irresolution of Friedrich Wilhelm III., but for the want of principle in the House of
Habsburg, but for the troubles in Spain, but for the criminal treatment of Poland just
previously, no Napoleon had been possible ! And if, in order to be quite clear on this
point, we consult the biographies and correspondence of Napoleon, to see what were
his aims and aspirations, we shall find that all of them remained unrealised, and that
he sank back into the indistinguishable homogeneous mass, as clouds dissipate after a
storm, as soon as the community rose to oppose the predominance of individual will.
On the other hand, the radical change of our whole economic conditions of life, which
no power on earth could prevent, the passing of a considerable portion of the property
of nations into new hands, and further, the thorough remodelling of the relations of all
parts of the earth, and so of all men, to one another, which we read of in the history of
the world, took place in the course of the nineteenth century as the result of a series of
technical discoveries in the sphere of quick transit and of industry, the importance of
which no one even suspected. We need only read in this connection the masterly
exposition in the fifth volume of Treitschke’s Deutsche Geschichte. [German History]
The depreciation of landed property, the progressive impoverishment of the peasant,
the advance of industry, the rise of an incalculable army of industrial proletarians, and
consequently of a new form of Socialism, a radical change of all political conditions :
all this is a result of changed conditions of traffic and has been brought about, if I may
so express it, anonymously, like the building of an ant’s nest, in which each ant only
sees the individual grains which it laboriously drags to the heap. The same, however,
is true of ideas : they hold man in a tyrannical grasp, they clutch his mind as a bird of
prey its quarry and no one can resist them ; so long as any particular conception is
dominant, nothing can be accomplished outside the sphere of its magic influence ;
whoever cannot feel as it dictates is condemned to sterility, however talented he may
be. This we have seen in the second half of the nineteenth century in connection with
Darwin’s theory of evolution. This idea had already begun to appear in the eighteenth
century, as a natural reaction from the old theory of the immutability of species,
which Linnaeus had brought to formal perfection. In Herder, Kant and Goethe we
meet with the idea of evolution in characteristic colouring ; it is the revolt of great
minds against dogma : in the case of the first, because he, following the course of
Teutonic philosophy, endeavoured to find in the development of the idea “nature” an
entity embracing man ; in the case of the second, because he as metaphysician and
moralist could not bear to lose the conception of perfectibility, while the third, with
the eye of the poet, discovered on all sides phenomena which seemed to him to point
to a primary relationship between all living organisms, and feared lest his discovery
should evaporate into abstract nothingness if this relationship were not viewed as
resting upon direct descent. This is how such thoughts arise. In minds of such
phenomenal breadth as Goethe’s, Herder’s and Kant’s there is room for very different
conceptions side by side ; they are to be compared with Spinoza’s God, whose one
substance manifests itself simultaneously in various forms ; in their ideas on
metamorphosis, affinities and development, I can find nothing contrary to other
views, and I believe that they would have rejected our present dogma of evolution, as
they did that of immutability.* I return to this point in another place. The
overwhelming majority of men with their display of ant-like activity are quite
incapable of viewing things in such an original manner ; productive power can be
generated only by simple healthy specialisation. A manifestly unsound system like
that of Darwin exercises a much more powerful influence than the deepest
speculations, just because of its “practicability.” And so we have seen the idea of
evolution develop itself till it spread from biology and geology to all spheres of
thought and investigation, and, intoxicated by its success, exercised such a tyranny
that any one who did not swear by it was to be looked upon as a simpleton. I am not
here concerned with the philosophy of all these phenomena ; I have no doubt that the
spirit of man as a whole expresses itself appropriately. I may, however, appropriate
Goethe’s remark, “what especially impresses me is the people, a great mass, a
necessary inevitable existence” and thus establish and explain my conviction, that
great men are in reality the flower of history and not its roots. And so I consider it
proper to portray a century not so much by an enumeration of its leading men as by an
emphasising of the anonymous currents, from which it has derived its peculiar and
characteristic stamp in the various centres of social, industrial and scientific life.
 * Compare in this connection Kant’s extremely complete exposition which forms the
concluding portion of the division “On the regulative use of ideas of pure reason” in his Critique of
pure Reason. The great thinker here points to the fact that the idea of a “continuous gradation of
creatures” did not and cannot originate from observation but from an interest of reason. “The steps of
such a ladder, as experience can supply them to us, are far, too far, removed from one another, and
what we suppose to be little distinctions are commonly in nature itself such wide clefts that on such
observations as intentions of nature we can lay no stress whatever (especially when things are so
manifold, since it must always be easy to find certain resemblances and approximations).” In his
criticism of Herder he reproaches the hypothesis of evolution with being one of those ideas “in the case
of which one cannot think anything at all.” Kant, whom even Haeckel calls the most important
predecessor of Darwin, had thus gone so far as to supply the antidote to the dogmatic abuse of such a
hypothesis.

(Page 85-8, of the original)

This is the entire portion on ‘anonymous forces’ in the Author’s Introduction,

taken because it is a fine piece of organicist reasoning, in which we find allusions to
an alien intelligence examining humanity to find that we would appear to such alien
as ants do to us, whereby the unitary, atomic individual, while discrete, is nonetheless
uniform with all other individuals and essentially impossible to distinguish except by
virtue of the specialised roles that distinguish groups of individuals by virtue of their
activity. There can be no more thoroughly organicist description of society than this,
all that is missing is the intention to give this description a scientific implication. This
is perfect, and so evocative of the age, and yet it is a piece of work that we have
already seen fit to name ‘Hitler’s Bible’ for its likeness to the Nazi leader’s outlook.
And herein we find the reason given for such leaders as Hitler existing, being
necessary within the homogenous mass of humanity to represent the underlying,
subconscious forces ; Chamberlain effectively invokes the rise of Hitler in this
passage, and he does so in the name of an organicist logic derived from scientific
thinking which he, amongst others, politicised.
I like his mention of “Spinoza’s God, whose one substance manifests itself
simultaneously in various forms”, I do not know where this comes from but it
perfectly suits our argument that all humans are Jews in the living global
superorganism of today, and the variety of identity is a manifestation of this one
identity in a host of variations. He is a very unusual author, a delight to find, and we
should not be surprised to discover, once again, that we must turn to the Nazis for any
hint of a true science of humanity, for it was these people that took the essence of that
science and made it taboo.

Chamberlain :

“To establish the organism and the history of language means not merely to
throw light upon anthropology, ethnology and history, but particularly to
strengthen human minds for new achievements.”

(Page 44, my copy)

It is easy to see why he would want to make his century the ‘century of
linguistics’ since it is to this subject that the Aryan myth owes its entire existence, as
European languages were, remarkably, proven to be derived from an ancient Indian
origin going back, we now know, some eight thousand years. But this snippet is taken
for its pure organicism, a further proof that the Nazis were the product of true science
perverted to political ends, perverted we might add in a perfectly natural manner, a
manner which language exists to create in order to create social structure. And we
must not forget that while the likes of Chamberlain and Hitler were the political
miscreants subverting science, it was Darwin who made all such deviant work
possible through his monstrous imposition of myth in place of a true science of
biology applicable to humans. And of course today there is no greater scientific hero
than Darwin, the hidden savour of the Jews ; but then, as Chamberlain says of the
series of necessary precursors to Napoleon, so the same applies to Hitler, and Darwin
is only the most crucial precursor to the world wars and the holocaust, many others
were also essential, as they continue to be today for the good work of Adolf in saving
the Jews to continue to have its wonderful effect in the destruction of a true science of
humanity.

Chamberlain :

“For that reason we now direct our glance to the future, to that future the
character of which is beginning to dawn upon us, as we are gradually
becoming aware of the real significance of the present era which embraces the
last seven hundred years. We will vie with the Athenian. We will form a world
in which beauty and harmony of existence do not, as in their case, depend
upon the employment of slaves, upon eunuchs, and the seclusion of women !
We may confidently hope to do so, for we see this world slowly and with
difficulty rising up around our brief span of life. And the fact that it does so
unconsciously does not matter ; even the half-fabulous Phoenician historian
Sanchuniathon says in the first part of his first book, when speaking of the
creation of the world : “Things themselves, however, knew nothing of their
own origin.” The same holds true to-day ; history endlessly illustrates
Mephisto’s words, “Du glaubst zu schieben und du wirst geschoben.” [“You
believe you are pushing when you are pushed.” (my computer aided
translation)] When, therefore, we look back at the nineteenth century, which
certainly was driven more than it drove, and in most things deviated to an
almost ridiculous extent from the paths it had originally intended to pursue, we
cannot help feeling a thrill of honest admiration and almost of enthusiasm. In
this century an enormous amount of work has been done, and that is the
foundation of all “growing better and happier” ; this was the morality of our
age, if I may so express myself. And while the workshop of great creative
ideas was seemingly unproductive, the methods of work were perfected in a
manner hitherto undreamt of.”

(Page 99 of original)

More support is shown here for the idea that social structure is not the product
of human will but rather an unwitting obedience to a natural force. This piece gives
us an intimate sense of how this tension between progress and growth is organized
according to our sense of freewill. Chamberlain expresses a desire for a refined world
like that of the ancient’s, yet superior because it does not rely upon abuse of the
alienated. This is a fair point, and in making it in this context he helps us conceive of
how the mechanistic dictates of nature are harmonised with our sense of desirable
progress. The manner in which this alleviation of the alienated and abused is
managed by nature is by reducing civilised people to an ever increasing degree of
domestication whereby we come to have not one grain of freedom left, but, because
we evolved to accept whatever identity we are exposed to we are one hundred percent
malleable, or plastic, and so all that nature has ever done is to try and force us to form
ever more effective superorganic structures which we accept as they become more
efficient so that as modern civilization has evolved its structures, Judaism and
capitalism being primary examples thereof, the superorganism has thereby provided
the means of harmonising our sense of self with the dictates of nature, this is precisely
why we have Judaism and capitalism, these are the means of our harmonisation today.

Chamberlain :

“The birth of Jesus Christ is the most important date in the whole
history of mankind. No battle, no dynastic change, no natural phenomenon,
no discovery possesses an importance that could bear comparison with the
short earthly life of the Galilean ; almost two thousand years of history prove
it, and even yet we have hardly crossed the threshold of Christianity. For
profoundly intrinsic reasons we are justified in calling that year the “first
year,” and in reckoning our time from it. In a certain sense we might truly say
that “history” in the real sense of the term only begins with the birth of Christ.
The peoples that have not yet adopted Christianity — the Chinese, the Indians,
the Turks and others — have all so far no true history ; all they have is, on the
one hand, a chronicle of ruling dynasties, butcheries and the like : on the other
the uneventful, humble existence of countless millions living a life of bestial
happiness, who disappear in the night of ages leaving no trace behind ;
whether the kingdom of the Pharaohs was founded in the year 3285 or in the
year 32850 is in itself of no consequence ; to know Egypt under one Rameses
is the same as to know it under all fifteen Ramesides.”

(Page 5 of original)

As we see this founding father Nazism was as devout a Christian as any one
could ever dread to meet. There is much value in the statement that the mythical birth
of Christ, for this fictional character obviously no more existed than God exists,
denotes something hitherto unknown in the world. What that something is we can say
with absolute certainty and precision, it denotes the period when the master race of
the first impending global superorganism metamorphosed its second exoskeletal order
through the emission of a new distinct Jewish identity capable of being implanted into
other peoples to turn them, unbeknownst to themselves, as we can see from the likes
of Chamberlain, into Jews, thus unleashing an astounding potential for astronomical
growth which would draw ever more social energy into focus upon the original master
identity.
The trouble with the likes of Chamberlain or Hitler, or anyone else come to
that, is that their ego swells their brain to bursting point so that it is incapable of
perceiving anything good they are associated with as being anything other than an
expression of their own conceited self. I suppose this projection of the self onto
glorious things can be related to the habit of making heroes that Chamberlain thinks is
so wonderful. All that it is Chamberlain’s intention to write about here is, in truth,
simply the story of how the Jewish superorganism went global. It is a routinely
fabulous story, as routine, and as fabulous, as the tale of how a star is made, or the
story of how a mountain range rose from the depths of an ocean. All these stories are
fantastic, awe inspiring, and each is as sublime as the other ; and the rise of the
Christian civilisation, that is the growth of the global superorganism, is just one more
wonderful part of the natural history of the universe. What makes Christianity as
special as Chamberlain perceives it to be is not Christianity, it is what Christianity is
that makes Christianity special. But Chamberlain evidently sees nothing beyond
Christianity, he thinks it is its own being, it begins in year 1 and from that point
history begins, as if this ludicrous notion of a man’s birth marked the big bang when
time and space opened up ! He thinks Christianity makes itself and owes nothing to
unseen forces, this despite all that he has just been saying about unseen forces and
things not making themselves. Because he does not see this he is driven to shift from
making humane remarks about the decay of slavery moments before making heinous
comments about all of humanity being bereft of significance because they are not
slaves of Judaism ! Not that he realises that the sole function of the Christian myth
was to make people slaves of Judaism.

Chamberlain :

“The moment a man awakens to a consciousness of freely creative power, he

crosses a definite boundary and breaks the spell which showed how closely, in
spite of all his talent and all his achievements, he was related even in mind to
other living creatures. Through art a new element, a new form of existence,
enters into the cosmos.”

(Page 14 of original)

This passage opens the section Man Becoming Man and it is the most perfect
expression of the modern Jewish slave implant we could ever hope to find, showing
just how much the Nazis were, deep within their souls, Jews in the most real sense of
the word. We argue that dexterity evolved to enable a superorganism to build its
exoskeleton, just as termites do, and the resulting behaviour called ‘art’ is the
manifestation of this natural attribute. Chamberlain’s pathetic eulogy to art razing
man from nature and setting him on a pedestal is absurd. Where does he suppose the
facility for art came from, and why ? He uses the German philosopher Schiller to
make his religious point.

$
Chamberlain :

“When Schiller writes, “Nature has formed creatures only, art has made men,” we
surely cannot believe that he was thinking here of flute-playing or verse-writing ?
Whoever reads Schiller’s writings (especially of course his Briefe über die
ästhetische Erziehung des Menschen) [Essays Concerning the Aesthetic Education of
Man] carefully and repeatedly, will recognise more and more that the idea “art”
means to the poet-philosopher something very vivid, something glowing in him, as it
were, and yet a very subtle thing, which can scarcely be confined within a brief
definition. A man must have misunderstood him if he believes himself free of such a
belief. Let us hear what Schiller says, for an understanding of this fundamental idea is
indispensable not merely for the purpose of this chapter, but also for that of the whole
book. He writes : “Nature does not make a better beginning with man than with her
other works : she acts for him, while he cannot yet act for himself as a free intelligent
being. But what precisely makes him a man is the fact that he does not stand still as
mere nature made him, but is endowed with the capacity of retracing with the aid of
reason the steps which nature anticipated with him, of transforming the work of
necessity into a work of his free choice and of raising the physical necessity to a
moral one.” First and foremost then it is the eager struggle for freedom which,
according to Schiller, betokens the artistic temperament. Man cannot escape
necessity, but he “transforms” it, and, in so doing, shows himself to be an artist. As
such he employs the elements, which nature offers him, to create for himself a new
world of semblance ; but a second consideration follows from this, which must not on
any account be overlooked: by placing himself “on his aesthetic standpoint,” as it
were, “outside the world and contemplating it,” man for the first time clearly sees this
world, the world outside himself ! The desire to tear himself away from nature had
indeed been a delusion, but it is this very delusion which is now bringing him to a full
and proper consciousness of nature : for “man cannot purge the semblance from the
real without at the same time freeing the real of the semblance.” It is only when man
has begun to invent artistically that he also begins to think consciously, it is only
when he himself builds that he begins to perceive the architectonics of the universe.
Reality and semblance are at first mixed up in his consciousness ; the conscious,
freely creative dealing with the semblance is the first step towards attaining to the
freest and purest possible cognition of reality. True science — a science that not only
measures and records, but contemplates and perceives — owes its origin, according to
Schiller, to the direct influence of the artistic efforts of man. Then for the first time
philosophy finds a place in the human intellect ; for it hovers between the two worlds.
Philosophy is based at once on art and on science : it is, if I may so express myself,
the latest artistic elaboration of a reality which has been sifted and purified.”

(Page 14-17 of original)

The works we are looking at now represent the foundations of Nazi ideology,
Nazism in the making, they came from a Nazi website, they are not readily available
elsewhere. They show how enthusiastic for Jewish religion the Nazis were, and how
much their ideas are anathema to the science of the nineteenth century, just as Jewish
religion is with its Darwinian charade which has totally destroyed the science of
humanity. Chamberlain places science on a par with art and makes it a minor subject
for philosophy to toy with, as he toys with it himself, as Nazis always toy with
science, especially the human sciences. But how delightful to find these works and be
able to read them, no wonder our masters today want to keep such knowledge in
purdah.

In the library yesterday, 07/08/07, I found even at first use my links from the
last fortnight would not work, they had been shut down by someone. I used my
original disc carrying the link to the Nazi website and that was OK so I began from
there and found myself with another fruitful link, this time to Henry Ford’s The
International Jew, published in the 1920’s. Here we have eighty essays specially
commissioned by Ford, at a cost of millions of dollars, to try and discover the
insidious influence of the Jews in America because he was convinced that his
successful enterprise had become targeted by financiers he associated with Jewish
influence. I have not had a chance to read any of these essays yet, and they are
concerned mostly with America. There is some discussion of the Protocols of Zion
which is a forged document pretending to be a manifest of Jewish world domination.
Ford is said to of declared that it is irrelevant if this work is forged since it is
indicative of the times, meaning indicative of what everyone experienced about the
Jews in real life. Finding his essays I thought exactly the same thing, such a huge
volume of work, no matter whether this is sound academic research into the influence
of Jews in society or not, it is surely indicative of the time. The Nazis of course saved
the Jews from all this exposure, which is why my links are being cut, why my
attempts to post scientific essays on the nature of the Jews in the social organism are
removed from BBC forums, thank God for Hitler is all the Jews can say to that.
As we have been saying in response to the ideas expressed by Chamberlain,
the same applies to the observations made by Ford’s researchers, the influence of the
Jews is exactly in accord with what the Jews evolved for in terms of the social
organism created by nature. Therefore it is inevitable that periods of exposure will
occur when people become particularly aware of the activity of Jews in their society,
as we saw in Sombart’s discussion of Jewish activity throughout time. Likewise,
since the Jews are the master race and they do have absolute control over their host
societies, it is inevitable that the dynamics existing between the elements of
superorganic identity, between Jews and Christians in this case, will induce a reaction
which purges the host community of its reaction to Jewish activity.
So this archive of Nazi material is a real boon to our investigations of the
social organism, and we might note that the character who introduced the
International Jew, Gerald Smith, signs off as an extremist Christian, we find this
advertisement toward the end of his introduction :

“Some students of the situation have pointed out that even the word "forgery"
implies that the object referred to is an accurate reproduction of the original.
For that reason every student of the Jewish problem should have a copy of
“The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.” Copies may be obtained by
addressing orders to the Christian Nationalist Crusade, P. O. Box 27895, Los
Angeles 27, California. Price 50c. [This address may no longer be active. --
ed.]”

The Christian Nationalist Crusade sounds like a National Socialist fraternity to me,
and this certainly makes sense for as we often note it is the Christians that mess
everything up for us scientists by turning the role of the Jews into an anti-Semitic
excuse for vilification which makes science impossible to apply to humans at all. The
first of Ford’s essays I looked at yesterday began by saying that every person who had
anything to say about the Jews must accept that they will be automatically
denominated an anti-Semite, and this is precisely what the Jews, as master race by
insinuation, need in order for them to continue to function according to the role nature
has given to them.

Ford :
 “Anyone who essays to discuss the Jewish Question in the United
States or anywhere else must be fully prepared to be regarded as an Anti-
Semite, in high-brow language, or in low-brow language, a Jew-baiter. ......

Of course, the only acceptable explanation of any public discussion at

present of the Jewish Question is that some one—writer, or publisher, or a
related interest—is a Jew-hater. That idea seems to be fixed ; it is fixed in the
Jew by inheritance ; it is sought to be fixed in the Gentile by propaganda, that
any writing which does not simply cloy and drip in syrupy sweetness toward
things Jewish is born of prejudice and hatred. It is, therefore, full of lies,
insult, insinuation, and constitutes an instigation to massacre. These terms are
culled at random from Jewish editorial utterances at hand.”

(THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, Anti-Semitism—Will It Appear in

the U.S. ?, issue of 19 June 1920, page 1)

And then we have the nub of the Jewish Question from another essay.

Ford :

“In England he is charged with being the real world ruler, who rules as a
super-nation over the nations, rules by the power of gold, and who plays
nation against nation for his own purposes, remaining himself discreetly in the
background.”

(DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, The Jew in Character and Business,

issue of 22 May 1920, page 1)

This is a very suggestive remark, it would be wonderful to know just where

we can find such descriptions of the Jew as the real master race, perhaps Nesta
Webster would be an example. Here we see the effect of mistaking the social
organism, the true human being, for a nation, a ludicrous notion made supremely
ludicrous when we see it used to suggest that the stateless Jews nonetheless
constituted a nation ! So close, yet so far away from a true conception of humanity
and hence from an understanding of the Jewish Question. Here the notion of ‘master
race’ applied to Jews is seen in purely political terms, in Jewish terms that is, whereas
we want this idea to be understood in scientific terms, in terms fatal to Judaism
because they reveal the true nature of Jews, and Christians too of course. This is the
last thing that anti-Semites want, because anti-Semites are always Christians, or
Muslims, and they share a common cause with the Jews because the reality is that
they are Jews.

Ford :

“A modern census would show a large professional and literary class

added to the traders, but no diminution of the percentage of traders and not
 much if any increase in the number of wage toilers. In America alone most of
the big business, the trusts and the banks, the natural resources and the chief
agricultural products, especially tobacco, cotton and sugar, are in the control
of Jewish financiers or their agents. Jewish journalists are a large and
powerful group here. “Large numbers of department stores are held by Jewish
firms,” says the Jewish Encyclopedia, and many if not most of them are run
under Gentile names. Jews are the largest and most numerous landlords of
residence property in the country. They are supreme in the theatrical world.
They absolutely control the circulation of publications throughout the country.
Fewer than any race whose presence among us is noticeable, they receive
daily an amount of favorable publicity which would be impossible did they
not have the facilities for creating and distributing it themselves. Werner
Sombart, in his “Jew and Modern Capitalism” says, “If the conditions in
America continue to develop along the same lines as in the last generation, if
the immigration statistics and the proportion of births among all the
nationalities remain the same, our imagination may picture the United States
of fifty or a hundred years hence as a land inhabited only by Slavs, Negroes
and Jews, wherein the Jews will naturally occupy the position of economic
leadership.” Sombart is a pro-Jewish writer.”

(Ibid, page 2)

The above is selected purely because we have studied the anti-Semitic author
Sombart at length, and here we see that he was actually a Judophilic author !

Ford :

“The question is, If the Jew is in control, how did it happen ? This is a free
country. The Jew comprises only about three per cent of the population ; to every Jew
there are 97 Gentiles ; to the 3,000,000 Jews in the United States there are 97,000,000
Gentiles. If the Jew is in control, is it because of his superior ability, or is it because
of the inferiority and don’t-care attitude of the Gentiles ?
It would be very simple to answer that the Jews came to America, took their
chances like other people and proved more successful in the competitive struggle. But
that would not include all the facts. And before a more adequate answer can be given,
two points should be made clear. The first is this : all Jews are not rich controllers of
wealth. There are poor Jews aplenty, though most of them even in their poverty are
their own masters. While it may be true that the chief financial controllers of the
country are Jews, it is not true that every Jew is one of the financial controllers of the
country. The classes must be kept distinct for a reason which will appear when the
methods of the rich Jews and the methods of the poor Jews to gain power are
differentiated. Secondly, the fact of Jewish solidarity renders it difficult to measure
Gentile and Jewish achievements by the same standard. When a great block of wealth
in America was made possible by the lavish use of another block of wealth from
across the seas ; that is to say, when certain Jewish immigrants came to the United
States with the financial backing of European Jewry behind them, it would be unfair
to explain the rise of that class of immigration by the same rules which account for
the rise of, say, the Germans or the Poles who came here with no resource but their
ambition and strength. To be sure, many individual Jews come in that way, too, with
no dependence but themselves, but it would not be true to say that the massive control
of affairs which is exercised by Jewish wealth was won by individual initiative ; it
was rather the extension of financial control across the sea.
That, indeed, is where any explanation of Jewish control must begin. Here is a
race whose entire period of national history saw them peasants on the land, whose
ancient genius was spiritual rather than material, bucolic rather than commercial, yet
today, when they have no country, no government, and are persecuted in one way or
another everywhere they go, they are declared to be the principal though unofficial
rulers of the earth. How does so strange a charge arise, and why do so many
circumstances seem to justify it ?
Begin at the beginning. During the formative period of their national character
the Jews lived under a law which made plutocracy and pauperism equally impossible
among them. Modern reformers who are constructing model social systems on paper
would do well to look into the social system under which the early Jews were
organized. The Law of Moses made a “money aristocracy,” such as Jewish financiers
form today, impossible because it forbade the taking of interest. It made impossible
also the continuous enjoyment of profit wrung out of another’s distress. Profiteering
and sheer speculation were not favored under the Jewish system. There could be no
land-hogging ; the land was apportioned among the people, and though it might be
lost by debt or sold under stress, it was returned every 50 years to its original family
ownership, at which time, called “The Year of Jubilee,” there was practically a new
social beginning. The rise of great landlords and a moneyed class was impossible
under such a system, although the interim of 50 years gave ample scope for individual
initiative to assert itself under fair competitive conditions.
If, therefore, the Jews had retained their status as a nation, and had remained
in Palestine under the Law of Moses, they would hardly have achieved the financial
distinction which they have since won. Jews never got rich out of one another. Even
in modern times they have not become rich out of each other but out of the nations
among whom they dwelt. Jewish law permitted the Jew to do business with a Gentile
on a different basis than that on which he did business with a brother Jew. What is
called “the Law of the Stranger” was defined thus : “unto a stranger thou mayest lend
upon usury ; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury.”
Being dispersed among the nations, but never merging themselves with the
nations and never losing a very distinctive identity, the Jew has had the opportunity to
practice “the ethics of the stranger” for many centuries. Being strangers among
strangers, and often among cruelly hostile strangers, they have found this law a
compensating advantage. Still, this alone would not account for the Jew’s
preeminence in finance. The explanation of that must be sought in the Jew himself,
his vigor, resourcefulness and special proclivities.
Very early in the Jewish story we discover the tendency of Israel to be a
master nation, with other nations as its vassals. Notwithstanding the fact that the
whole prophetic purpose with reference to Israel seems to have been the moral
enlightenment of the world through its agency, Israel’s “will to mastery” apparently
hindered that purpose. At least such would seem to be the tone of the Old Testament.
Divinely ordered to drive out the Canaanites that their corrupt ideas might not
contaminate Israel, the Jews did not obey, according to the old record. They looked
over the Canaanitish people and perceived what great amount of man-power would be
wasted if they were expelled, and so Israel enslaved them — “And it came to pass,
when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly
drive them out.” It was this form of disobedience, this preference of material mastery
over spiritual leadership, that marked the beginning of Israel’s age-long disciplinary
distress.
The Jews’ dispersion among the nations temporarily (that is, for more than 25
centuries now) changed the program which their scriptures declare was divinely
planned, and that dispersion continues until today. There are spiritual leaders in
modern Judaism who still claim that Israel’s mission to the nations is spiritual, but
their assertions that Israel is today fulfilling that mission are not as convincing as they
might be if accompanied by more evidence. Israel throughout the modern centuries is
still looking at the Gentile world and estimating what its man-power can be made to
yield. But the discipline upon Israel still holds ; he is an exile from his own land,
condemned to be discriminated against wherever he goes, until the time when exile
and homelessness shall end in a re-established Palestine, and Jerusalem again the
moral center of the earth, even as the elder prophets have declared.”

(Ibid, page 2-4)

The above quote follows on directly from the previous quote. This is superb,
it comes so close to getting at the nub of the matter, but there is no science here, only
politics. From a scientific point of view the obvious response is to detach oneself
from the personal sense of attachment that is felt to the various social factors involved
here, that is the dynamics between groups of Jews or Gentiles which any individual
must feel in some way, and to ask what it is that is going on in naturalistic terms, Why
is a master race possible at all ? An additional fact is that the system of exploitation
that is indicated here has led to the global society, ruled over by the Jews, so this is an
efficient system, the obvious question is therefore, Why is this system of domination
by an alien overlord, detached in the manner described, so successful ? And the
answer to this question is found in Sombart who tells us that Judaism and capitalism
are one and the same thing, capitalism is the spirit of Judaism ; and he is right.
Judaism represents the essence of human nature, this is the point, the Jews are the
master race because humans are superorganisms, and as such the human animal
evolved to form a social body organised along lines where a master race was destined
to emerge.
As I am currently chasing down works by Roberts and Keith I have fished a
copy of Keith’s Ethnos of my shelves today, 08/08/07, to look for references to his
other works, and I have been reminded of what a superb account of race this book is,
having read it two or three years ago. It does fail to reach the logical conclusion that
race is the defining identity of the social organism, and that race had shifted from an
exterior position defining the whole organism to an interior position as tribes
coalesced, thus coming to define physiological structure rather than social identity,
this despite his direct discussion of coalescence and the possibility of global unity
under one identity. Keith failed to see that religion, and specifically Judaism, had
superseded race as the defining identity of the social organism.
Keith :

The Scheme of Man’s Advancement has been organized on a Racial Basis

The ancient philosophers of the East, whose ideas have come down to
us in the Book of Genesis, felt as we do, that an explanation must be given of
the division of mankind into races. They launched the theory that descendants
of the three sons of Noah—Shem, Ham, and Japeth spread abroad into the
various continents of the earth and there underwent racial transformation. No
suggestion is made as to how the transformation was effected nor of any
advantage or drawback which resulted therefrom. We now know that all the
continents of the Old World have been inhabited from times so remote that we
have to reckon the antiquity of their first settlements by the geologist’s
calendar ; that of the historian is useless for this purpose. The further back we
go the greater do we find the degree of racial divergence to have been. These
ancient types were more pronounced in their characteristics, and apparently
more restricted in their areas of distribution. So far, we have discovered less
than a dozen ancient human types ; there were probably hundreds of them.
They were organized on a racial basis—each with its peculiar livery of flesh
and feature.
What is the meaning of this ancient organization of mankind into many
and diverse types ? The explanation which I offer is this : It was, and still is,
Nature’s way of evolving higher types ; for success there must be rivalry and
competition. I use the word “higher” merely to indicate that the races which
replaced others, whether by evolution or substitution, were the better adapted
for the needs of the time and the locality ; in this sense only were they higher ;
 they need not have been larger brained. The general trend of evolution has
been to give man a better knowledge of his surroundings, and to so endow him
that from being the slave of circumstances he has become their master to a
greater or less degree. Nature had hundreds of these experiments in human
production on foot throughout the latest geological period of the earth’s
history—the pleistocene period. Out of the medley of types which inhabited
the earth in remote times have evolved, under conditions of unconscious
competition, the races which were found in possession of the world at the
dawn of the historical period.

(Ethnos, page 9-11)

What an extraordinary piece of work this is given that this man was so aware
of the idea of society as a social organism, as we know because he knew Roberts’
work so well. How can you think about races in this way without applying your ideas
to the social organism as unit, as compared with ants and termites ? It makes no
sense, it is so unbelievably stupid. Races are clearly colours, and religions are clearly
colours, how can anyone acting as a scientist not see this ?

Ford :

“Here in the United States it is the fact of this remarkable minority—a

sparse Jewish ingredient of three per cent in a nation of 110,000,000—
attaining in 50 years a degree of control that would be impossible to a ten
times larger group of any other race, that creates the Jewish Question here.
Three per cent of any other people would scarcely occasion comment, because
we could not meet with a representative of them wherever we went in high
places—in the innermost secrecy of the councils of the Big Four at
Versailles ; in the supreme court ; in the councils of the White House ; in the
vast dispositions of world finance—wherever there is power to get or use. Yet
we meet the Jew everywhere in the upper circles, literally everywhere there is
power. He has the brains, the initiative, the penetrative vision which almost
automatically project him to the top, and as a consequence he is more marked
than any other race.
And that is where the Jewish Question begins. It begins in very simple
terms—How does the Jew so habitually and so resistlessly gravitate to the
highest places ? What puts him there ? Why is he put there ? What does he
do there ? What does the fact of his being there mean to the world ?
That is the Jewish Question in its origin. From these points it goes on
to others, and whether the trend becomes pro-Jewish or anti-Semitic depends
on the amount of prejudice brought to the inquiry, and whether it becomes
pro-Humanity depends on the amount of insight and intelligence.”

(THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, The Jewish Question—Fact or

Fancy ?, issue of 12 June 1920, page 2)

More brilliant emphasis upon the position of the Jews as the master race
resulting in the creation of the Jewish Question which appeared just at the time when
science was revealing that humans were a social organism, which led to the virulent
Christian anti-Semitism which subverted science in the very act of feigning a
desperate inquiry into the questions science raised about the nature of the Jews, thus
saving Christianity by saving Judaism ; the two being one and the same thing.
Amazing.
Page 34 of Muller, Science of Thought, on Mill and the idea that words do our
thinking for us because we use words without thinking of what they mean. This is the
same as saying that language is a programme that runs a robot.

Note from Personal and Social Evolution, Scott, page 124, Puritanism is Judaism. Put
this in where Sombart makes this point.

_____________________

This needs to go in toward the latter parts of any discussion on the war between
science and religion, see p 41 and look for a place in this chapter.
The following book can be quoted from page 147-8 to show how completely science
had been destroyed in academia soon after the theocracy had completed its
annihilation of their biomass in 1945. This work points out the continual war between
science and religion faced in every department of knowledge, including evolution !
And then laments the fact that since truth always wins out, we should find it necessary
to have this continual obstruction - in other words, now, at last we are free, and living
in a world where none believes in God, no one even knows what a Jew or Muslims is,
we can hopefully progress without hindrance !! Bullshitting bastard. This is the
worst kind of cynical work and coming from a scientist, exactly the kind of
obstruction this creep laments above all others.
Today, 05/07/07, I bought Reason and Chance in Scientific Discovery by Taton, 1957,
from my local Oxfam shop for £1.49 and after a quick perusal to check it had nothing
of any worth to say I made a note in it that Darwinism was a cultivated fraud. This
seemed like a break through in how to describe Darwin’s work for the idea expressed
in the word cultivated is that of artificial selection as applied by Darwin in relation to
human domesticated species, yet in this case I mean to suggest that Darwinism
became the dominant scientific work by a process of natural selection, since society is
not created by people but evolves like any other living thing in nature, according to
strictly biological imperatives. Thus we are not to think of Darwin as a fraudster nor
of the state as controlling Darwin, or to think of any conspiracy. But rather we are to
take cognisance of the manner in which the church always seeks to occupy all fields
of endeavour and to place its own people within any socially defined groups. The
various elements of the social structure, or exoskeleton as we should call it, composed
of the church, the state, academia therefore pull together to harmonise with the only
common denominator at the heart of each of their cores, the religious motive. In this
way the social structure actively selects or rejects those aspects of all the ideas that
come forward and in the process nurtures its own favourite varieties, until it discovers
a strain of thought that seems to answer all needs, has all the appearance of science,
accounts for all material facts while at the same time failing completely to conflict
with the outer appearance of the already dominant lines of thought which are the
religion of the social organism.
In this way society has a naturally evolved structure that actively selects ideas
that conform to its own identity programme. This must be exactly what happens at
the level of genetic evolution too, I suppose, but I cannot be bothered ruminating on
the matter now.
 ____________

09/07/07

The War on Britain’s Jews, Channel 4, 8 pm. It looks as though our masters are
going to be bombarding us with Jewish fascistic propaganda on a weekly basis at this
rate. This is a particularly nasty piece of work. They complain that what is
particularly disgusting is that people are suggesting that our masters who rule the
world are part of a conspiracy ruling the world, NO, whatever next, no wonder they
don’t like this, this is the whole basis of Jewish power, that they deny their true role as
the chosen people. The largest population of Jews in Europe is in London, there’s a
surprise. The Jewish fascists are targeting the people who object to the Nazis style
regime in Israel and how the left wing, that is liberal thinkers who are most disturbed
by Jewish fascism. The big whine is how of all countries to pick on why pick on
Israel which is the only democracy in the region and with a free press. Wow, I
wonder what it would be like to live in a country with a press, still at least the Jews
are free to produce whatever twisted lies they want to. It has become acceptable for
people to be anti-Semitic, no doubt they will be making their slaves pass laws to
control us soon.