Paul von Lilienfeld’s

Defence of the Organic Method

in

Sociology

Machine Translated,

with

a preliminary exposition,

by

Howard Hill

2005

Godless House Publications

 If one is fond of paradox and irony, one might go further and argue
that cooperation itself is one of the basic sources of conflict in human life. If
man were a solitary species, with each individual living apart from all the rest
except for mating, as is the case with certain animals, there would be far less
conflict among men. If each produced only for himself and there were no
division of labor and exchange of goods, one of the major sources of human
strife would be eliminated. By contrast, when men join forces in a cooperative
enterprise, whether it be a family or total society, both the opportunity and the
motivation for conflict are greatly increased.

(Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification, Gerhard E.

Lenski, 1966, Page 26.)

Emergence is a term applied to the process whereby hitherto unknown

qualities appear in a form arising from the summation of parts, parts which
may also appear to exist as discrete units, in which comparatively independent
state there is little sign of those same emergent qualities that are so apparent
upon unification. The summation of parts into a form possessing hitherto
unknown qualities necessarily constitutes a state of self-negating unification
for the parts involved, these parts must therefore have an inherent
predisposition causing the negation of their individuality in order to bring
about the individual’s true state of fulfilment in unity with others of their kind.
Take any devout, sincere devotee of any religion that is popular and well
known. Each individual is good, kind, loving, self-effacing, generous and
capable of great sacrifice for others they love, and even for complete strangers,
as dictated by their faith. Add one such lovely person to another such good
person, and another beautiful person, another caring being, one more
passionate devotee of love, and another, and so on. Until the mass is of such
an order it is amorphous and there are no longer any individuals to be
discerned, all there are are the devotees of one religious order, one mantra, one
faith, one force, one direction, forming one united congregation, one almighty
boil on the face of humanity which oozes evil, like the purest form of evil it is
possible to imagine. From the summation of such goodness as this, from
belief in God emerges a capacity for pure evil, of a like unknown in any but
the most insane of individuals who are unaffiliated to any such unified body.

2
 Contents

Page

The Translation 5

The Introduction

The Nature of the Battle 10

Atheism 19

The Protagonists 46

The Knowledge Cycle 55

The Colour History 73

Colour Organs 79

Linguistic Wavelengths 85

The Nature of Authority 89

The Hierarchical Structure of 106

Superorganic Identity

Veiled Lilienfeld 124

Judaism 134

Identity Gradient 144

Social Gravity 157

The Queen of Social Gravity 163

Self-Made Absurdity Self-Made 170

Tools 182

Where does all this leave us? 203

Conclusion 209

3
The Translation 225

The Original German 268

2005 : A Supplement 315

Part I 316

Part II 329

Part III 344

Part IV 354

Bibliography 366

4
 The Translation

A computer is a tool. This is not an everyday thought, but it may be

increasingly appropriate as this machine becomes more and more capable of aiding
people in a variety of creative activities.
What is a tool?
We might feel inclined to say that a tool is simply an artefact used to do work
of various kinds. But it suits our purposes here, to say the same thing, but turning our
approach toward the definition of a tool around, to come from the opposite end of the
dynamic that gives us the idea of a tool. A tool being, therefore, an artificial aid
extending the reach of our bodily organs. By saying this we introduce our own
organic being into the context of the tool, and so we begin to facilitate the natural
conception of ourselves and our tools as integrated forms constituting one being.
This is still a completely unnatural point of view, one we most definitely do
not use in the day to day expression of our consciousness. Consequently there are
gradations to which our sense of this idea of unity between the biological and the
artificial may be expressed. We can all readily see that hand tools, like a mallet and a
chisel, are very much extensions of our bodily organs; although even here the
language our brains are programmed to use in their offering of conscious thoughts
obscures even this much comprehension of our own true self, for we do not recognise
that our hands are organs at all, we think of them as limbs, or parts thereof; as if they
too were, in some strange way, detached from that which is the real self. But in any
case we do know that our hands are the supreme interface between ourselves and our
tools, and the things we use tools to do; and that our limbs evolved to serve this very
purpose, is also something we would easily recognise and accept. If we were to jump
toward a more obscure sense of the tool, one concerning an extension to a limb not
purpose built for extension, the subject of linguistic authority would burst in upon us.
Thus if we say the car is a tool, one used to transport us, and therefore one that must
be conceived of as an extension to our legs, our natural organs of transportation, then
we would not get away with this proposition without a fight. And there is a lot to
fight for in this particular area of linguistic definitions.
With the computer we find ourselves in a very interesting situation as regards
this idea of the tool. The computer, like any tool, while it has a formal use, can be put
to many less formal, perhaps peripheral uses. A mallet may be used to murder
someone, not an everyday requirement, for most of us, but a possible use none the
less, albeit peripheral. I use a computer mostly to write, creatively, and for me it is
the most impressive tool I can conceive of, it is an extension of my brain, a tool my
brain takes hold of, albeit via the fingers of my hand; and I suppose instead of using
my hands I could venture into the realms of voice recognition software, but as yet I
have not. A chisel might serve a similar expressive, creative purpose, in the hands of
a craftsman, but I am not so gifted, and a pen might do as good a job as a computer,
some might say, but at the thought of that I am most grateful for finding myself at
work in the age of the computer.
I have begun with what might appear to be a slight diversion away from the
immediate discussion of the subject at hand, namely the translation of a German

5
scientist's work into English, because this translation that I put before you here has
been done by a computer. I myself neither speak nor understand a word of German,
nor do I particularly want to. My computer is a mind tool coming into its own, doing
what only a brain, suitably informed, could ever of done on behalf of its owner in the
past, carrying out those ‘brain’ duties so intimately associated with braininess and
cultured upbringing, so much so that this tool rather reduces some of the most special
attributes of our personalities to the domain of robotics. How might we of admired
the intelligence and skill of a George Elliot in her ability to translate a German
philosopher into English, way back in the dark ages of machinery where Babbage’s
brilliance floundered for want of materials; now a complete clod with a machine can
do the same, no worries. The result maybe a bit of a DIY job. But the use of a
computer to discuss otherwise inaccessible knowledge, hidden from the masses,
represents a crack in the wall erected by theocracy against us. Just as when printing
levered open the secret of obscured knowledge hidden behind dusty tombs of hand
written Latin, so the plebes have a new place to scratch with a blunted nail, a new
chance to find a way out of the asylum in which they are caged in this age of ever
increasing public ignorance and dire intellectual impoverishment, as God looms large,
and casts a depressing shadow over all of us.

I am an amateur intellectual, I do what I do solely for the pleasure of doing it,

to satisfy a personal need, or interest, concerned with my sense of my place in this
thing we call existence. I do what I do the way that I do it because there is no other
way to learn the things I want to learn, no other way to know what I want to know.
As such I work alone, I have no colleagues, no peer group, no others to share thoughts
with, to bandy ideas with, to engage in debate with. I know of no other people
anywhere who have the same interest as myself in the subject of human nature, and I
have no idea how they might be found if they exist, such efforts as I have made
suggest I am the only person interested in the scientific comprehension of human
society alive on this planet today; but I cannot assume this for certain, and as the work
of this German author proves, there was once a tiny group of European scholars who
were interested in exactly this subject. Consequently I cannot seek the kind of
assistance a translation of the works I need to read to advance my knowledge, by way
of professional translations, that a professor in some university might hope for. It is
hard enough for me to even track down the works of past intellectuals who have
studied the subject I am so passionate about that we review by way of this translation
presented here. This said, my personal passion is a product of the times I live in, and
so not personal at all in that sense, and hence I hope my discovery of long lost
knowledge about the true nature of human nature will be of some interest to others
who have followed their own course relative to this, at least superficially common
interest, in the subject of human nature.
It is necessary to provide these brief remarks as to my status in respect to the
academic establishment because otherwise it might be wondered what the point of
going about a challenging task such as performing this translation is, when done this
way, without knowing any German, by using a computer. I was eventually led to Paul
v. Lilienfeld as the most committed exponent of an idea which I had come upon all on
my own, and, in respect to which, I worked out the consequences for myself too. The
idea being that human beings evolved to form a living superorganism at the level of
social organization. Lilienfeld wrote one main work in German, as far as I am aware,
in five volumes, plus various other bits and pieces, plus the monograph I present here,
none of his work however has been translated previously. He did attract attention as a

6
prominent advocate of the organic method, and a number critics of this method, plus
other more general commentators, discussed his work. Keeping to the theme of the
computer age, it so happens that the internet has given access to the world's supply of
books in the most astounding way and, upon looking, I found obtaining this
nineteenth century academic's work from Germany was as easy, or even easier, than
popping down to Smiths, or the local library for any current volume. So I determined
to buy the Defence and see if I could get someone to translate it, but as my attention
focused on the task and my thoughts turned to wondering about the possibility of
finding software able to do the job for me, I was delighted to find this too, like magic,
was indeed also possible. Delightful.
This much said, we must bear in mind two aspects of this effort. Firstly the
limitations of the method, and secondly, the requirements of the objective. As in the
use of any tool there is a question of the degree of tolerance involved in the operations
to which it is to be applied. In this case, while the limitations are considerable in
terms of rendering a fine piece of work in the form of a good translation, the
requirements are not so demanding as to make this difficulty a hindrance to the effort,
as I hope will be perfectly clear from the result.
In the first place this piece of work by Lilienfeld is itself an overview, as such
it is concerned with themes, and not details, he effectively states this in his preface.
Thus we need to draw from the work a flow of ideas that are consistent in their
revelations so that we may understand the line of reasoning of the author. If you
attempt to read the translation you will find the expression awkward in places as I
have simply given the best rendering of the machine's offering I could, and this was a
considerable challenge which was aided by my own immense sympathy for, and
interest in, the subject. If you persist, and do not allow yourself to get bogged down
in an attempt to understand the detail of Lilienfeld's argument where the expression is
obscure, then you will get from this translation what I wanted to get from it for
myself. That is a clear impression of the conviction the author had in the idea that
society was a true organism. You will also see emerge the fact that the academic
value of sociology as a science was the issue he was fighting for in this Defence, a
fight he appears to of known he and his fellow Organicists were seriously in danger of
losing, and lose they most certainly did, to the great detriment of all humanity. The
consequence has been the complete subversion of all science pertaining to the subject
of life, from beginning to end, a truly staggering and quite unbelievable thought. If I
had not discovered this for myself I simply would not of believed it was possible in
this age of ‘knowledge and freedom’ in which we all think we live. Which of course
suggests it is likely to be a futile thing to do to attempt to communicate the real state
of affairs to the world at large. But one can try, it is not as if I have anything else
better to do with my life; I have already spent the bulk of it just trying to figure out
what on earth is going on in this madhouse.
The subject matter itself is of a most unusual kind, really quite unique in this
day and age, and as such quite an astounding thing to comprehend in itself, quite apart
from what the substance of the idea is. Why should I make this claim on behalf of our
subject? Simply because it is a case of revelation, not of an ordinary kind, nor yet of a
unique kind, although most certainly of a unique kind in our world at the present day,
and if I succeed in my objective, it will be of a unique kind in the history of humanity.
This is because I am turning to the work of a nineteenth century German scholar-
philosopher as a Roman intellectual might of turned to the work of Greek
philosophers who tried to bring the heavens down to earth, so to speak, to reveal a
most astounding and earth shattering piece of knowledge concerning the place of the

7
earth relative to the other celestial bodies, which, when discovered formerly, for the
first time that we moderns have any record of, was soon submerged by all the means
at the disposal of social authority. The potential rescue of ancient knowledge did not
take place in the ancient world, its resurrection is associated with the dawn of the
modern era when Copernicus, aided by Galileo's ocular extension, finally shattered
the old model of ignorance and ushered in the new enlightenment, and with it
knowledge of reality was presented in a way not known before this time, that we
associate today with the birth of the scientific age, in which we think we live.
Here we are today, nonetheless, faced with precisely the same set of general
conditions regarding the commonly available knowledge of reality that we so glibly
discuss as a thing applying to our poor predecessor’s, concerning the subversion of
knowledge, a thing now past, a terrible state of affairs we are now free of. Yet in this
work I take on the role of a man of my own time exploding the myth of my own time;
something never done before. A myth so elaborately constructed in order to maintain
the age old grip of religion upon our minds, and to keep us in a state of abysmal
ignorance; which is, it is true, our normal condition, and one within which we feel
most at ease, and most content. This is the objective of this work, to reveal the real
science of humanity, and this goes hand in hand with a real exposition of atheism. An
effort which, if it is to be successful, must perforce make the theist’s worst nightmare
come true, by proving God does not exist, by killing God, as we know it, and by
therefore making it impossible for people, on mass, to believe in God anymore. That
is the goal toward which I have directed my intelligence all my life. I did not expect
to find myself achieving the insights pertinent to the cause, and having done so I
certainly did not expect to find the same work had already been done at exactly the
time it should of been done in the first place, but had been hushed up and erased from
memory in precisely the same manner as we like to speak of in relation to the ancient
world, as we polish the head of our collective ego and tell ourselves what clever little
darlings we are, how free, and all. But this sorry comparison between the oppressed
state of knowledge in Ancient Greece and Rome and the condition of our academic
world today is the truth of matter, and in making this translation I seek to resurrect
from obscurity the work of the leading exponent of the correct scientific interpretation
of human nature and human existence.
Lilienfeld's own argument as presented here, falls far short of reaching the
proper conclusion to which he should of taken it, and this is a further reason why we
need not be troubled by a lack of precision or fluency in the translation. My
motivation for publishing this translation is to try and find a vehicle for the
presentation of my argument presenting the idea that human nature is corporate, and
as such identical to the nature of other superorganic species such as ants. Thus you
will not need the detail of Lilienfeld's argument, I will make up the shortfall, and then
some. By riding on the back of this donkey, made for the purpose, I hope to pass
through the portal into the citadel, and so to reduce it to rubble with a correct
scientific presentation of reality, and to reduce that ancient citadel to rubble once and
for all, and so let the enlightenment have a second wind, and see if it cannot blow a
little fairer than it did at its first puff.

8
 The

Introduction

9
 The Nature of the Battle

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.

(Social Evolution, Benjamin Kidd, Macmillan and Co., 1894. Page 81)

During the nineteenth century the idea of the social organism was a dominant
theme in the field of speculation concerning the nature of human society. Why did
this major field of investigation suddenly disappear after one hundred years of keen
investigation by many devotees of the idea? And, having disappeared so completely
from the official field of enquiry, why seek to resurrect it from the grave now?
These two questions constitute an adequate opening for this translation of
Lilienfeld's Defence of the Organic Method in Sociology, even though many more
questions might be formulated in respect to the subject of this method's rise to fame,
and slide into oblivion. The fact is that this subject area is so dead and gone that a
first move in this direction has to be tentative, and this introductory essay will seek to
open out from the two questions simply stated here, and try and make this dead idea
live again in its application to our own time. In England the outstanding exponent of
the organic theory of society was Herbert Spencer, famous in the field of human
evolution for coining the phrase the 'survival of the fittest' which has come to
represent the essence of Darwin's idea of evolution. To the Victorians of the time
Spencer was the greatest philosopher of the day, to us he is a footnote in history.
Today, if we want to get some idea of the organic theory of society, presented
in a positive light, we cannot turn to Spencer, the great English exponent of this idea,
because while he can be read with great interest on this subject, this benefit is only
true up to a point, after which we find ourselves being led wantonly astray as he
turned traitor on his own philosophy, as described in the following passage, along
with a hint of some the consequences of this betrayal of real science by a most
insidious simulator of the scientific idea.

SPENCER AND THE SOCIAL ORGANISM. That sociologists as a body

have rejected Spencer's theory of the social organism is scarcely surprising.

10
 He himself, alarmed at the conclusions to which it led, refused to work it out
logically. The first requisite of any adventurer on the edge of the unknown is
courage to combat his own prejudices. Spencer, with his increasing horror of
the State as an all-devouring monster, was unable to do this. Thomas Huxley,
also the victim of obscure scientific prepossessions, backed Spencer in his
illogical form of individualism. When sociologists observed that Spencer
denied his own offspring it was scarcely likely that they would seek to revive
it. For one thing it is clear they mostly knew no biology or next to none in
spite of their master's injunction to study it. Perhaps they had learnt that
Spencer really knew none though he had taken immense pains to hear of it
second-hand. There are few signs that modern sociologists have done as
much. I find it difficult, indeed, to understand how sociology any more than
psychology can be described as science proper. They are both bodies of
unorganized learning. And sociology refuses its proper station in biology.
Thus with all its brilliant theorists it shows no sign of real life. If this is a hard
saying it should be observed that with all the sociologists' lip-service to
evolution they appear to look forward to a permanent state of society. If any
have suggested a living organic state in an environment subject to secular,
powerful, and catastrophic change, a state, like all organisms known or
guessed at, liable to death, I have not found it. It seems that sociologists are
more optimistic than biologists or palaeontologists. Spencer was sure that evil
would disappear. He believed that absolute perfectibility would be the lot of
humanity. Progress was 'a beneficent necessity.' He believed in perpetual
peace. His astounding idealism was shared by Huxley, who regarded it as
within human power, aided by ethics, to get the best of world or cosmic
forces. Mill believed that 'practical instructions, founded on the highest
branch of speculative sociology, will form the noblest and most beneficial
portion of the Political Art.' His confidence in social advance, so largely
founded on Comte, led him to speak of 'the Philosophy of the Progress of
Society' as if he knew what progress was and that it would continue for ever.
It seems as if something of this idealism still affected sociologists if they
believe in a permanent social paradise in spite of the fierce biological drama of
late years and all its prognostics. If I put Spencer's denegation of his own
viable theory, which breathed life into Hobbes's monster, down to ineradicable
individualistic prejudice, I have to ascribe the present denial of its value to
ignorance of the very meaning of biology. There is no course of preparation
worthy of the name for the budding student of sociology. It is impossible to
read any modern sociologist without feeling that he does not know how his
body works, how his organs and tissues and cells grow and live. But he is
ready to write books which, after putting aside the theory of a social organism,
tell the live, complex, organic world how it works, what it should do, and what
will be its fate. It is hardly necessary to say that I have studied few of these
works and none with confidence.

(Biopolitics: An Essay in the Physiology, Pathology & Politics

of the Social & Somatic Organism, Morley Roberts, Published by
Dent, 1938, Pages 2 - 4.)

What is so frustrating about coming upon an author who is so forthright and

bold in their challenge to the progress of state sponsored ignorance, as Roberts is, is

11
that upon reading their work you find the same flaw present as they so roundly
condemn in others, it is most perplexing. Namely the refusal to challenge religion
head on, particularly the omission of an overtly expressed intent to try and destroy
religion as a necessary facet of doing real science. How can real science be done if it
is not expressly dedicated to the complete annihilation of religion? It cannot. Roberts
says in the preface to his Biopolitics "Religion I leave gratefully to the theologians"
(page xiii). Damn it, then why bother at all?
Atheism is the key to this subject, key to the promotion of the organic method
in sociology. This is a self evident fact, since the organic method is seeking to offer
an all embracing account of human society that must, by definition, include religion
within its ambit. In the preceding quote we see another common flaw, which can be
traced back to this lack of overt intent to destroy religion, a flaw Roberts has in
common with Lilienfeld, where both speak of their opposites in this debate as if they
were fellow seekers after truth who were simply misguided. Nothing could be further
from the truth. The nature of the battle between the Organicists and the
Hypotheticsas we might call the protagonists of science to echo a word used by
Lilienfeld when speaking of the ideas of those he sort to defend the organic method
againstis that of the age old war between science and religion, encapsulated in a
nutshell in this conflict. Hypothetics being people who base their highly pathetic
ideas of society on hypothetical notions derived from the idea of a divine human
status, divinity in the ideas of these people being evoked in pseudo scientific language
in association with the word 'unique'. The quote from Roberts indicates the manner of
reasoning these people use, all wishful thinking and whimsy.
In Lilienfeld's piece we shall see the individual referred to as the unit of the
social organism, the cell within the living body. This idea is the antithesis of
Christian dogma, it undermines the basis of our society since it implies individuality
is specific to organs of society that function as corporate structures of the living
superorganic being that society is. So that individual people are not only not equal, in
any meaningful sense when compared directly one to another, they are inherently and
necessarily not the same at all at the personal level. And it is this organic method that
makes this fact irrefutable at the most fundamental level of human nature. This
method also indicates how we might be able to pinpoint the inequality between people
precisely, on a scientific basis, by working out how the social hierarchy functions as a
biological entity. On this basis we may say that some people will be made into
leaders, others made into followers, some made into road sweepers, some made into
tycoons. And what is more, this inequality will be a product of their point of origin
within the structure. In other words inequality must be entirely a result of the
individual’s place of birth, that is to say their status at birth. Which brings us to the
spurious nature versus nurture debate which, being spurious, we shall waste no time
on here; its misbegotten form being implicit in the organicist position.
The shift occasioned by our point of view, involving the loss of individuality
vested in the person, that is presented above, means everything. For it indicates that it
is not so much that private education, shall we say, produces people better educated,
better connected, who are bound to be the winners in society because of the privilege
given to them by their position of birthwhich would be to interpret the form of the
education system in terms of its impact upon individuals as individualsbut the rather
more subtle difference, that such schools exist for one reason only, because nature
makes them exist in the process of generating superorganic structure. The social
structure has to incorporate this hierarchical form in respect to the transmission of
knowledge, or there can be no elaborate social structure in which education takes

12
place. An egalitarian society is not possible. I wish it was, so do not take this as a
vindication of inequality by me, it is certainly not meant to be. Rather it is an
explanation, and on a moral note, I would suggest that knowing what is is the best
way to ameliorate regrettable inevitabilities. So there is no point in people pretending
to make an effort to adjust the education system by concocting egalitarian forms,
because nature will not permit such a pretence to control the evolutionary process to
succeed, anymore than nature permits rain dances to control the weather; as sweet a
social activity as they no doubt were, when they too were believed in.
Comprehensive education then, can be compared directly to the practice of controlling
natural events of central importance to society such as we normally associate only
with primitive societies. Comprehensive education is far more complex a form of
‘natural propitiation behaviour’, but that is all it is, and that complexity is directly
related to the complexity of society as a whole. And of course the priests in our
society who make such a song and dance over these various educational forms, are
exactly equivalent to the witch doctors of former stages of social evolution. All of
which accords perfectly with experience, but not with political propaganda. Such
propaganda, by which I mean, for example, the Comprehensive system introduced
from the late 1950's onwards to replace the grammar schools and secondary moderns,
is itself part of the social structure evolved to disguise the irrationality of the idea of
equality that is so important to the theistic identity pattern imposed upon the cells
making the organism we are part of. We all know inequality is a fact of life, but our
law and social propaganda, rooted in Christian dogma as it is, makes universal
equality an absolutely unquestionable basis of society. And now, thanks to our
organicist reasoning, we know why, because the organisms physiology requires this
kind of elaboration in order to function most efficiently.
It is bizarre to think that huge facets of our education system are structural
displays produced by nature to accommodate the theistic message of uniqueness, but
this is proven to be the case when we apply the organic method in sociology. What is
even more bizarre is that not only does nature force humans to produce an inherently
'iniquitous' education system in order to form specialised identity incubators that will
produce masters and slaves for their old brave world, it is nature that produces the
sham form of the Comprehensive school to provide the masters with a disguise for the
slave making structure in order that the slaves they control can work cooperatively
with the system. There is then no way out of this loop. Everything that happens does
so because it cannot happen any other way than it does without jeopardising the social
structure of the living being defined by the religious identity imbued into it, an
identity which comes to a focal point on the command structure that we must call the
theocracy as it is the focus of the living being's religious identity. Kidd is making an
observation regarding the inescapable loop in the process of human social evolution,
in the opening quote above, when he speaks of our rational nature being forced to
serve irrationality.
The ideological message emanating from the religious core authority is made
real by being framed in law that is enforced with military and judicial might. But
since the notion of enforced freedom, nicely put into action, that is to say made real,
by George Bush's war against the world bringing freedom and democracy as a gift
from God, is absurd. This is the essence of slavery, "You will be free if I have to beat
the living day lights out of you to make you free!". So, once again we can only
attribute this social reality to the dictates of human nature being played out according
to the programme as it has evolved thus far in the human species, that we are the
living face of at this moment in time. Bush calls this force God, scientists call it by a

13
thousand different terms centred upon the idea of human uniqueness. We must call
this force nature, expressed in human nature, human corporate nature. So Bush's God
is our corporate being that takes shape at the level of social organisation, the human
superorganism. The organic method in sociology is pregnant with this knowledge, it
had to be terminated if the idea of God was to persist as nature demands it must; and it
was terminated, and the superorganism continues to exist in the name of the one God
of the Jews.

Kidd's account is the only truly impressive work I have ever read on the
subject of human society. He is brilliant, but still he achieves nothing because he fails
to make the leap across the chasm to the point of no return which can only be reached
by realising one simple thing. That is, by realising what human nature is. He
recognises that sociology needs to discover laws of society in order to constitute a
science, and that these laws must tell us how social institutions are formed. From this
we will have an insight into what can be done, and what cannot, in terms of adjusting
the evolution of these organic structures. The answer to determining these laws,
which he did not describe, concerns the recognition of the nature of individuals and
the dynamics of their interaction, exactly as a physicist would seek to determine the
composition of gases making up a planet's atmosphere so that they could understand
the attributes of the atmosphere as a whole. Kidd does not see this. He looks at the
role of religion in a wonderfully functional manner. But without recognising that
human nature is corporate and the individual, like society, is just an organic
phenomenon, he fails to see that the function of religion is not to create a super-
rational consciousness in order to bring collective order to society for the benefit of
individuals, but, to say something similar in a crucially different manner, by creating a
series of differentiated segments of the total biomass, each segment possessing its
own specific characteristics, thus forming a series of interacting components of the
total biomass in a manner that conforms to the demands of human nature that Kidd
should of recognised is the key to understanding all things concerning human society.
That human nature Kidd should of recognised is corporate, meaning humans evolved
to give rise to a living being at the level of social organization. And all developments
are for the sake of the corporate body, there is no such thing as the individual person
in this scheme, people take what they have and like it, they do indeed accept freedom
as freedom because they are forced to; try resisting the freedom we have, then see
what freedom there is. Kidd says that even Spencer failed to develop the promise of
the idea of the social organism. Actually Spencer goes into great detail about how
social structures form distinct social categories that act like organs of a body. But all
these commentators fail to do the one thing they needed to do, to state that human
nature is corporate, this was all anyone ever needed to do.
The difference between a series of disconnected analogies telling us nothing,
and a unified idea forming a linchpin of understanding embracing everything, through
the idea of the social organism centred on the recognition that human nature is
corporate, is everything. A series of analogies without a central idea to replace the
idea of God only allowed a boot to be jammed in the door momentarily, before the
effort wearied and the door was slammed shut for another aeon. With a central idea
connecting hollow analogies into a coherent system of thought capable of replacing
God and all that goes with it, a jemmy is forced into the door jam that can lever the
door wide open and eventually rip it off its hinges altogether. So, at all times, in all
aspects, human society is always, exclusively, a product of unbridled natural forces,
and never, at any time, in any way, the product of human conscious effort. Society

14
cannot in any sense consistent with scientific reasoning be described as being invested
in the individual as a free and conscious agent of their own self centred interests. And
this conclusion is precisely what Kidd expresses in the piece quoted above, but still he
did not discover the keythat human nature is corporateand to my knowledge, aside
from myself, no one ever has found this scientific key; no one who has then gone on
to try and communicate it to the world in its pure and undisguised form, in the form of
real science that is.

Despite our intention to deliver an organic account of human society the above
description of the clash between science and religion, centred upon the idea of
equality between individuals, has the ring of the familiar about it because it evokes
the impact of science such as it is upon individuals, while for science there can be no
such thing as an individual person in the context of social structure. And this
indicates the crucial error we all make all the time, and all advocates of the organic
theory I have ever come across make without the slightest indication that they realise
what they are doing. The trick is to recognise, as we have just said, that there is no
such thing as an individual! It is so hard to grasp the reality of this fact. When we
think about the natural state of inequality in terms of its relevance to this argument we
must first of all perform a conceptual equation that unites individuals into bodies
which thereby constitute organs possessing uniform characteristics, and as such they
exist in reality, in society, as distinct entitiesorganswhose individuality relative to
the organism they are part of can be discerned clearly in functional terms. These
bodies are identified under group names which might be religious or national or tribal,
and such like. This is exactly like recognising the various organs of the individual
body, where all organs are composed of cells carrying an identical genome, but each
organ arises because the genome only expresses itself according to a localised routine
which leads to the appropriate production of localised organs, and this combination
then culminates in a unified, but complex body. Once we have a conscious
impression of these social organs, which we are entitled to call socioganic structures
in recognition of their dualistic nature, being organic structures coming into being at
the social level of organization, by a process of unification applying to individuals
according to localised commonalities, a process that incorporates inanimate structural
products associated with these persons, then we can begin to speak of the relative
status of these differentiated organs in real terms that actually mean something. And
of course we know that people are differentiated according to their social identities in
real terms, a Westerner, for example, being something quite different from an African
native. And therefore, scaling up, Africa being a different organic structure within the
global organism than Europe. But it is clear that as long as we allow people who
profess a theistic sympathy to have a voice in these concerns we are doomed to failure
from the start, since theists already possess social power, and all they want to do is to
stall for time, indefinitely, to let the game of debate go on and get nowhere, forever.
Different identities, such as Jew or Muslim, African or European, all together
forming a complex living structure, can then be associated with recognisable
functional roles in the physiology of the global organism which exists under the broad
identity of Judaism, because that is the focus of identity of the three global identities,
or, to select a term that invokes the inner core of Judaism which informs the core of
all three of the Jewish organism's hierarchical tiers, we can refer to the organism by
the term Zionist, meaning the impetus to rule the earth in the name of one common
God. Zionism expresses the inner core of each of these three tiers of organic
physiology which has Judaism as its inner core of identity, and therefore of authority.

15
So even before we can begin to think about what the nature of inequality is in society
we must first of all comprehend the true constitution of an individual. Therefore, in
terms of personalities and purposes it is group identities that constitute something
approximating to true individuals, and it is the relative status between these groups
that constitutes the true functional context of the dynamic inequalities making up the
social structure that is of most interest to scientists concerned with human society.
Thus one of the most fascinating questions a biologist can ask is, What is the organic
function of Jews in society? But it is inconceivable that this question would ever be
asked in our society, our masters would not permit it.
Each organic structure, defined by its own specific identity, will also have an
internal structure. Therefore while a religious denomination may constitute a distinct
organ belonging to the social organism, relative to another denomination belonging to
the same organism, both denominations will have a hierarchy of officials in common
with all other organs of the same superorganism. The same condition applies in
respect to any other structural element of the corporate organism. In management
structures as contrasted to union structures each will have their own internal structure
that will be of a hierarchical nature, even as they constitute one united organ of the
superorganism, as the pistons and the bearings of an engine have their own structure
and form while making up one distinct unit, the engine of a machine. Pistons relative
to bearings could be conceived of as existing in a hierarchical relationship relative to
one another, on various grounds, lets say the most appropriate would be in terms of
their proximity to the focus of energy consumption in the machine's dynamic process,
which means we would say the piston is superior to the bearing. The piston is an
organ of consumption, the bearing an organ of work, I think the status relativity is self
evident. But because these 'organs' are inanimate there is no meaning beyond the
structural, such as humans impute to living systems purely because the individual has
a conscious sense of their position in the social hierarchy. But this consciousness is a
function of the structure, necessary to create the superorganic being, in the case of
humans, via a series of complex organs. Individual status is not a motive force
creating the structure, it is a by-product necessary to the creation of the structure.
Consciousness or self-awareness is a top-down effect, transmitted from the priesthood
to the masses, not a bottom-up mechanism informing the priesthood. All internal
structures must be of a similar kind, according to their class, as they are in any other
series of structural entities existing anywhere in the universe. So in our global society
we have the triadic structure consisting of the three tiers of the Jewish mythology,
Jew, Christian and Moslem. But each broad macro structure of this single unified
global organism has its own identity structure to distinguish it from the other two
elements of the common being; synagogue, church, mosque, for example. This is
where we really want to perceive the differential relationships in society, and this is
where the organic method comes into its own, and where it meets the theocracy head
on.
All real science is always implicitly atheistic, and therefore must be, when
required to be by forces of opposition, aggressively atheistic. These two domains of
knowledge, religion and science, occupy the same space like a lie and the truth.
Seven and four occupy the same space relative to the question 2 + 2 = X when written
thus 2 + 2 = 7 and 2 + 2 = 4. According to the correct meaning of the symbols
relative to the real phenomenon of existence however only one of these answers is
correct. As long as social authority relies upon giving an answer other than the
correct answer the true answer cannot be given, if the time should come when four
can be offered as the sum of 2 + 2 = X then the reliance of social authority upon any

16
alternative product of the equation is annihilated. And since it is a fact that social
authority, in the form of religious myth, does always rely upon the misrepresentation
of reality in certain key areas of knowledge then when science approaches these areas
it must annihilate religion. As long as religion exists therefore there cannot be any
fully independent scientific institutions in society. And when science seeks to emerge
it can only do so by seeking aggressively, and with determination, to annihilate its
opposite, which is religion. If we lived in a world where this requirement no longer
applied because religion was extinct, then we would live in a scientific world; this
will never happen, the laws of social formation make it impossible. If we learnt to
apply these laws we might substitute science for religion, but it does seem that the
capacity to live by means of real knowledge is not in our nature.

There is a common state of equality between cells of a body, since ultimately

all must be present for the whole to be viable. However this mode of equality is not
centred upon the individual but rather upon the recognition that all individuals,
whoever they are, only have any meaning as living beings by being part of the entity
which comes into being as a sum of all individuals. This is a biological fact that
applies to human society because the human organism takes shape at the social level
of organisation on a purely biological basis. Christian dogma encodes this fact in the
segment of its mythology which says all people are equal before God. In scientific
language this mythological code is decoded into another form whereby all individuals
are seen to be equally necessary to the healthy functioning of the living organism. We
come to this issue right now, somewhat prematurely, because this has so much
bearing on the point just made, implying that Roberts and Lilienfeld should treat the
mass of so called scientists, and sociologists especially, with complete contempt, and
not treat them as misguided equals. This is a legitimate stance because the organic
theory indicates there is no such thing as an individual, that individuals only become
who they are by way of reference to the organs with which they are associated. So the
verbal displays of people like the sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, a sample of which is
provided below, should not be treated as the expression of a freethinking independent
individual. But rather as the output of an organ, in this case the central organ of
authority, via the academic establishment which is part of the theocratic structure.
The theocracy can be the only source of such utterly theistic ideas as we see reiterated
by the likes of Sorokin in the 1920's, and Richard Dawkins, also quoted below, in the
1980's, and repeated steadfastly ever since right up until the present time, 2005.
It is a matter of common knowledge in the academic world that professors are
only free to speak in so far as they say what the institutions that employ them approve
of what they say. No sociologist anywhere in the world could write the book I am
writing for your edification now, not if they wanted to remain employed in any
university anywhere on this planet, because this work is utterly antithetical to
theocratic authority. These academic institutions do not function on the
individualistic basis of overt oppression, by acting against free individuals. They
work on an organic basis, by growing, as living structures, that incorporate into their
inanimate exoskeletons units of living tissue that are predisposed to subscribe to the
views of their core authority as laid down upon the establishment of the institution in
a set of guiding laws or principles. Hence one might come upon the work of a
Biblical scholar that does not conform to the agenda of such an institution because
that agenda is overtly set out to defend religion against the ingress of science upon the
authority of religion. See the preface to The Bible in History: How Writers Create a
Past, Thomas L. Thompson, Jonathan Cape, 1999, for a good example of this kind of

17
scientific persecution by an academic establishment seeking to follow a religious
agenda. There is no attempt at disguise shown here, the universities concerned are
unashamedly devoted to the political theocracy that rules our society.
The rejection of establishment academics as being valid intellectuals, in any
scientific sense, will be a core theme of our reasoning in our revelation of the manner
in which our society works and how science is subverted, while religion is preserved.
What biology also tells us is that, according to this accumulative effect operating
within social dynamics, whereby institutions form organs that consume individuals in
the process of self-maintenance, it is not those individuals who speak the truth that
shall be heard, but those individuals who are heard who will be taken to be speaking
the truth. No institution exists to mindlessly spout the truth, they all exist to
purposefully deliver a message. We are talking about living structures here, not
machines, nor even representations of a human conception of an ideal. And this
whole work is centred upon the interplay of this accumulative dynamic within the
physiology of the social organism in one particular time and place, in nineteenth
century Europe. We will observe this occasion through the battle over the organic
method versus the theological method, as set out in this work, which focuses upon the
effort of one of the few individuals who sort to promote science against the onslaught
of individuals who sort to defend religion.

18
 Atheism

Atheist, agnostic, theist. These words can be attached to people, or laid claim
to by them without any explanation or constraint. However, words are worth no more
than the air, or ink, taken up in their expression unless there is more to them than their
expression. Several times Lilienfeld tells us that sociology comes down to a
profusion of hot air, arguments about words, and nothing more. Naturally if a social
power base is to be formed, based on the control of knowledge, then the ability to
create a body of knowledge based on the false use of words is of critical importance.
Hence it is just this attribute that the human linguistic capacity evolved to support; in
other words humans evolved speech in order to be able to tell lies. The real
significance of this observation is not that an individual can tell lies, but that a
positive, creative dynamic, based solely on language, arises from this position because
it follows that a group composed of individuals can be formed on the basis of nothing
more than leadership focused upon a good orator, or message mediator, of one form
or another. Who delivers the message is irrelevant, as long as the message meets the
functional requirement of group formation. If it does this it serves human nature's
commands, and rewards the successful mediator, as a servant of human nature,
accordingly. Since a power base by definition cannot be egalitarian, and therefore
must involve an exclusive concentration of some active principle, in this case the
active principle is knowledge concentrated in a social organ in the form of an
exclusive group of people; in our civilised world this group is defined by the fixed
form of an exoskeletal structure, an institution. Bare in mind therefore, that when we
make the statement that individuals, as in you and me, are not human beings in any
ultimate sense related to our biological attributes and capacities, that, in a biological
sense, we are just cells making up humans beings, it is the corporate social entity, the
real human being, the true individual, that must be able to emit a message of
conformity, a message intended to unite cells, not to inform them. That such a
message should be found to be irrational when examined by an individual is therefore
not surprising, it does not evolve by being examined by anyone, it evolves by being
tested by nature against the demands of human corporate nature. The organism
achieves this requirement for conformity through the relationship individuals have to
linguistic knowledge delivered from a point source within the collective biomass they
themselves constitute. Language then, did not evolve for our sake, it evolved for its
sake, for the sake of the superorganic being, which religion calls God.
Therefore from a scientific point of view it cannot be taken to mean just what
it says when someone is said to be an atheist, or when someone says this of
themselves, the validation of a 'label' is dependant upon its meaning also being
revealed in a relevant manner in the behaviour of a person so labelled, and not just in
the professed validity of a label in a given case. And the same could be said of a
theist, or indeed of a musician, a footballer, a liar, a thief, or anyone else. Labels
should be more than words. But while this appears to affirm a scientific requirement
this principle actually derives from the individualistic viewpoint of those who interact
through language, it does not describe the organic function of words, which is
identical to the function of pheromones in an ant's nest; human words, like ant's
pheromones, serve to create social fabric. Communication is a functional biological
attribute of life.

19
 Fixing the meaning of words upon appropriate material entities and their
associated dynamics that exist independently of conscious human purposes is the
method a social scientist must adopt in order to show how, in practice, words do not
in fact retain the fixed points of reference they are supposed to apply to. It is not in
the nature of words to be attached to any physically fixed point because words are not
aspects of external physical reality, words are aspects of human physiology that exist
to serve the dictates of human nature. By shifting the point of attachment of words to
the physical environment, the social scientist conducts unnatural experiments, as
science always does, in order to determine the mechanisms that operate within a
natural system.
The social scientist's laboratory is therefore, first and foremost a language
laboratory where, for example, the word ‘atheist’ is nailed to the word ‘scientist’, and
the word ‘theist’ is nailed to the word ‘politician’. Thereby fixing these two general
terms to more specific terms linked directly to definite social structures and their
associated functions. This is a necessary strategy for the human investigator of
human society to adopt because the connections thus methodically fixed are
deliberately denied by the living elements of the social matrix. Therefore the
sociologist must seek to discover the true place of pervasive elements of the social
matrix, such as the religious elements, as part of their objective of elucidating the
nature of the human animal as an animal. The selection of fixed points in the above
cases is determined by the sentiment of atheism, which has a natural affinity for the
activity of factual discovery, while the motive force expressed in religious ideology is
the foundation of organized political action. Starting from this position of
scientifically fixed linguistic meaning, attached to social forms, social structure can be
accounted for from a position where, come what may, words are never allowed to
veer from the sociologist’s fixed meanings attached to the real substance of the
behaviour that words denote. Thus a sociologist does not concern themselves with the
common usage of language, they are concerned to discover the essence of a word and
to use it accordingly. In this way the word priest, as associated with religion, carries
the central meaning of one who delivers a message of authority. Therefore where
people in society, such as scientists, judges, politicians and such like authority figures
deliver the message of authority, the sociologist would see in this role the extension of
the function of priesthood, and would therefore use the word priest in all such cases to
describe the general character of these people, and only use the specific labels to
indicate the position in the social structure where each priest is occupied. This
method makes sense because the whole point of evolving linguistic labels to define
social structure is to obscure the diffusion of power in such a manner as befits the
organization of a harmonious society from a central point of authority, while the
object of the scientist is to reveal this process and unravel the linguistic code that
makes society possible. It is not for the scientist to concern themselves with the
consequences of their actions when studying humans, anymore than it is when
studying ants. If this principle of impartiality toward the object of study should be
waved then the scientist who studies humans becomes a priest, and effectively does
not exist as a scientist; a technologist, in the sense of a manipulator maybe, a
technician, in the sense of one who aids a priest or technologist maybe, but definitely
not a scientist. A scientist is a person who searches for knowledge and understanding
of reality.
The technical procedures of the sociologist must be taken out into the field, to
see how the flow of words operate in nature in contrast to the theoretical definitions
attached strictly to a fixed form. The sociologist must observe how social form

20
relates to this natural flow of information, how information flows through the living
structure of the organism. To do this the social scientist must have a system that
provides them a means of relating words to social physiology and fixing words in
place, and of being sure that the social dynamic will not be able to shift the scientific
meaning fixed to socially significant words by the sociologist. The social scientist
must not be influenced by the meaning words have in society, because here language
is an information flux intended to influence people. Where politicians speak of ‘good
and bad’, ‘soldier and terrorist’, or the ‘criminal and the police officer’ the sociologist
must use their own words that reveal the organic dynamic orchestrating these
physiological forms. This means effectively decoding the political speak, and
undermining the authority of the state, to do other than this is to be a priest. A
sociologist such as Durkheim, noted as the first functionalist, indicates the reality of
this situation, but he certainly did not realise it in his work, he merely toyed with the
idea. We are ruled by priests, so there can be no true scientists of humanity.
As a scientist is one of the people, they must have a means of transforming
themselves into the archetypal alien from outer space in order to be in society, but not
of it. The key to understanding human society is knowing what human nature is, so
the fixed point a social scientist is always seeking to determine is that actual facet of
social form and behaviour that denotes the nature of the word. The sociologist wants
to be able to derive the meaning of words from material observations, and not from
their inclusion in the flow of linguistic information. The situation is the reverse of
that we see desired by those who study dolphins where they want to be able to ‘speak’
dolphinese. The sociologist wants to be in the fortunate position of his fellow
scientists studying dolphins, he wants to be in the position of being wholly incapable
of understanding anything humans say. Only by this means of becoming an outsider
can the sociologist hope to understand humans as a scientist. He wants to attach
human signals to forms and behaviours, attributed meaning is necessarily irrelevant to
a sociologist. Theism is about social power, atheism is about undisguised knowledge
of reality. Hence atheism is science and theism is fascism; fascism meaning the
propensity of people to force idiosyncratic modes of understanding that are self
serving onto others as a strategy of social manoeuvring. All social scientists must
agree to this fixed terminology of human nature, detached from bias human authority,
and must never stray from it, anyone who does stray is a theist, not an atheist; these
wanderers are priests, not scientists. Human nature is the real motive force and social
authority obeys this natural force, therefore the scientist needs to get past the mouth of
the river of information and examine its source of origin by following its course.
Would the meaning of the word ‘science’ and ‘fascist’ simply change when
subject to such pressure? We are only playing with some thoughts provoked by the
difficulty of attempting to make atheism mean something when the theocracy has
made it mean nothing by means of the power it has over the use of language. This
power needs to be revealed in order to be countered. Theists say atheism is a form of
religion, we say religion is a form of fascism. But the idea might be that the social
scientist would group all words within fixed categories, so that a host of words would
come under scientist, such as physicist and chemist, not just atheist. And a host of
words would come under fascist, such lawyer, priest, teacher, professor, and not just
theist. Professors of physics would not be put under science because this is a personal
name and in a social scientist's conception of human society there are no such things
as individuals, so there are no such things as professors of physics, there is only
physics as a facet of the social organism's physiology. Confusing, no doubt, but this
is only toying with the idea of language manipulation, it serves to indicate how

21
difficult it is to think outside the box provided by the theocracy that has been created
by nature. Sociology must always work on the principle of negating all individuality,
exactly as scientists do today in their laboratories when they produce data for the
theocracy to help in the management of the social fabric so that laws can be made the
reduce everybody to a number, stripped of the individuality that the state exists to
protect, or so the state tells us.
Applying the sociologist’s method of fixing meaning to form and function has
an interesting result when taken across the whole range of society, revealing the
nature of society as an entire system. As the word priest is extended to the entire
body of professional advocates, as it must be since all are committed to the one
message, in one form or another, or else they would not acquire their professional
status, the culmination of this process of linguistic regulation according to form and
function indicates that the so called process of secularisation is nothing of the sort; it
is a process of secularisation in name only. The material and functional sinews of
theocratic control remain as connected as ever through the uniformity of the message
maintained by a central authority. Society has not evolved into a man made structure
organized upon rational principles detached from the old system of priestly control.
Rather the old system of priestly direction has diversified its expression in order to
take in the full gamut of knowledge in the practical world while embracing the
resulting range of technical expertise within secure limits defined by the requirements
of theocratic authority. This is the manner in which the theocracy has always
functioned, this is why the astronomers in the most ancient civilizations were priests,
and why the people who cultivated the arts of agriculture and manufacture in the
middle ages were monks gathered together in their monasteries.
Nothing has changed. The theocracy has merely extended its reach in a
manner befitting the extension of secular knowledge. Thus by regulating linguistic
meaning in a scientific manner the nature of social process is revealed. By revealing
how the process of biological evolution occurs in modern human societies we can see
the relationship between the acquisition of complex knowledge and the generation of
social structure in terms of the application of knowledge and the attribution of
linguistic terms to the various elements of the process, including a terminology of
professional competence which defines a hierarchical structure related to the
knowledge acquired. Thus the creative extension of genetic information into the
social domain via the evolution of language comes into its own as the complexity of
knowledge accumulates and generates structure at the level of social organization, in
the form of extra biological forms, extra biological in that they are not composed of
living tissue, but biological in that we must call this extended structure exoskeleton in
the context of the human species that displays these forms and functions. Society has
not been secularised, the form of the theocratic structure has been elaborated through
the medium of the priest, the one who delivers the message by sanction of the
theocracy as embodied in the established social structure. The term secularisation is
just one discrete signal in the highly complex message of conformity to theocratic
unity, that is delivered by the appropriate professionals, the historians, philosophers
and sociologists. All of which emphasises the central role of language in the creation
of superorganic physiology.

Words serve their organic function precisely because they can be shifted away
from their true fixed point, and by being coalesced into a body of knowledge
controlled by a social authority that is capable of performing the task of filtration and
fixation in a manner that centres meaning on the organ of authority itself. In Iraq we

22
have a particular form of dynamic social situation at this present time in which
humans are killing humans in a form of social behaviour called warfare. The
description of events is delivered as a linguistic message, supported by imagery,
providing an information package that is split bilaterally in a manner that reflects the
macro social structure of this conflict. Thus the message has two main bandwidths of
linguistic colour intended to register meaning in the minds of the audience exposed to
the message, in order to denote the contrasting purposes of the main structural
elements participating in this social behaviour, but with a bias reflecting the authority
of the organ delivering the message. Thus although there is only one central action,
which consists of humans killing humans, there is positive killing and negative
killing. So there are good soldiers invading a territory, and bad terrorists defending a
territory. The bias of the definition fixed by the two distinct bandwidths making up
the message that we in Europe have to listen to is highlighted by my having conflated
the two streams of linguistic meaning as we would normally hear them delivered in
our society's media, where the American soldiers, although invaders, are the liberators
defending the Iraqis, and the insurgent Iraqis as the remnants of the old oppressors
seeking to retain power, are the real villains. We see the acts of sadistic violence
where a female charity worker who has devoted her life to helping the Iraqis is shot in
the head, recorded on video. But the so called charity worker of today, who is just
one propaganda device emphasising ‘our’ good intentions, is only the missionary of
the past, a name change yes, but the functional nature remains the same, to inject an
alien culture in the manner of a torturer providing comfort after the beating. These
latter day promoters of sanctified imperialism almost certainly being devoutly
religious, although we are not routinely given this information of identity or
affiliation. Nothing is what it seems, nothing is what it is said to be; hence the need
for a sociologist to be, first and foremost, a code breaker, someone outside society,
beyond the influence of any social mores, and beyond any social laws in their
thinking, although necessarily not in their actions. One is beyond the law in ones
thinking when one says taking illegal drugs is perfectly acceptable, but that does not
mean someone who says such things also does them. A student of society cannot be
influenced by value judgements of any kind, murdering people for them has to be an
interesting behaviour, not an abhorrent behaviour. In saying this we are speaking of
an ability to hold a detached intellectual viewpoint while still being able to participate
outside this specialised domain of understanding. Like being able to dissect a corpse
during the day, but still being able to make love in the night.
There is no such thing as an individual, all there is is the organism, charity
workers are simply part of the vanguard formed by politicians, traders, soldiers and
such like, all advancing the empire in God's name. When the charity worker is
butchered, as they inevitably are from time to time, the message makers use these
callous acts of cruelty against people who only love to help their poor battered
brethren, in propaganda to give their messages an intense resonance that only the most
degenerate human could fail to bow before, and none would dare voice any
justification of the cruelty. The individual charity workers themselves, being
programmed by their religious beliefs, do not see their own true nature. They believe
themselves to be free from any wider political agenda because they do not know the
true nature of existence, which is organic, they are just doing God's work.
The highlight of the study of ant history must be their war games, the
description of the slave makers attacks upon their victims makes juicy reading. And
the same is definitely true of humans. For the social scientist a society at war is
undoubtedly the most delightful opportunity to study the human organism's biology,

23
and for the same reason that the lover of ant behaviour enjoys watching an ant raid on
ants, because it throws human social behaviours into sharp relief. I raise this point
now after mentioning the function of the charity-cum-missionary do-gooder role in
relation to the infusion of an intense emotional resonance into a propaganda message
and the concomitant factor of inhibition against the expression of counter
authoritarian ideas that this induces within the biomass. Naturally in this situation, for
this functional effect of inhibition to be realised, the individuals must at all times be
defined as individuals. It clearly destroys the propaganda function entirely if the
individuals in the relevant circumstances are simply integrated into the organic
structure associated with the invasive wing of the organism. Hence the supreme
importance of individuality in the Jewish identity programme. We recently had a
wonderful example of this dynamic in action when a Liverpudlian who went to Iraq in
search of blood money paid the ultimate price, suffering decapitation with a knife, so I
believe. The point of fascination in this case is the manner in which the organism
broadcast its messages through the biomass. Once again, as members of the relevant
society, we were party to the message at the level of its linguistic meaning, something
the sociologist filters from the propaganda message by relating the message to the
social structures that are actually responsible for the formation and delivery of the
message. Here again the process of delineation into discrete individual identities goes
on, so we have various types of media, broadcaster and newspaper, and we have a
variety of named organisations within these two broad categories which must each
have their own 'personalities', thus we have the Sun newspaper for plebes, the Times
for toffs and so on, BBC 1 fore fuddy-duddies and BBC 4 for intellectual types,
Channel 5 for plebes and Channel 4 for arty types, and so on. All of course conform
rigidly to the master identity, there is no independence, no variation, and definitely no
freedom of expression outside the bounds defined by the theocracy. There is one
information spectrum, and many bandwidths. And we are about to see why, shortly.
As in the case of living individual people these structural personalities are fictions,
there is only the organism and its organic structure. But each personalised structure
of the media is attuned to the personalised attributes of the organic tissue, this is why
different types of newspapers and television programmes evolve.
The mass media facilitated the Scouse family’s expression of horror, and let
them bleed their emotions all over the whole of society's media coverage, reaching all
bandwidths of personality, this served the organism's purpose of focusing the biomass
on the necessity of the war, and by reducing the war to an emotional issue touching all
individuals; the human capacity for empathy did not evolve for nothing, it serves to
bind the organism closer together when suitably stimulated. The victim was naturally
portrayed by the family as a poor innocent man who only had love in his heart, and
they were given free reign to express their grief in this way. This was extremely
aggravating for me as it was such a self evident travesty of reality. It is not as if the
bloke was just driving through the tunnel to Birkenhead one fine day when he popped
up in Baghdad, as you might think from the way these people were going on. And as
it turned out I was not the only one irritated by this use of the media to pump the
emotional pulses of the biomass I have the misfortune to be part of. The family were
not to blame, of course, there is no such thing as a family, there is only the organism
and its institutional structures of control; a family is simply a closely affiliated bundle
of cells. However after the man had met his fate one brave soul expressed his disgust
with the City of Liverpool's wearing of its bleeding heart on its sleeve, and he was
torn to shreds for this. The Tory member of parliament, Boris Johnson, also an editor
of The Spectator, was forced to visit Liverpool and apologise for his eminently

24
intelligent and most welcome remarks. All this was reported in terms of individuals
but as any sociologist knows this was simply the manner in which the message the
organism needed to emit through the biomass was managed via the exoskeletal
machinery of communication that delivered the meaning of the message through the
living tissue delineated in the form of specific individuals, with whom the anonymous
masses are programmed to empathise through the hard wiring of their genetic make
up, as programmed by the software of their common culture. Again, this organic
message had to be delivered through the medium of individuals to be functional, but
its format, pro-emotion and anti-reason, also had to be determined by the superorganic
needs of the organism, and it was. The sufferers were permitted free reign, because it
suited the organism, and the objectors were silenced ruthlessly, as they had to be. If
this bias for emotional effusion, real enough to the individuals as it is, and against
rational observation denying the public validity of the emotional expression, were not
enforced by the organism's institutions of communication then the next thing that
would happen is that journalists would freely note the fact that a charity worker can
be as legitimate a target as a soldier. And the next thing you know all hell would
break loose as some scientists start doing real science as they use to in the uninhibited
days of Lilienfeld. You would have sociologists doing real sociology in universities
and teaching people the real nature of human nature, thus the real nature of war, thus
the real nature of Judaism, thus the real nature of charity, of news, of, in short,
everything. This cannot possibly be permitted, but as philosophers we can say
whatever we like because we always talk a load of rot anyway, so that is a blessing.
From the preceding we can see the functional value to the superorganism of
maintaining an uneducated biomass which, taken on mass, provides the organism with
the submerged form of an iceberg, being four fifths of the superorganism's biomass,
subject to an emotional flux that can be managed by the exoskeletal structures of
control which use subjects like sport, sex and gossip, juxtaposed with newsy items of
a dramatic nature suited to a colourful portrayal, be it immigration issues, murder, and
so on, that provides a message that keeps this subliminal mass in ferment and ever
ready to be called upon to justify the requirements of their masters who lead them by
the nose while telling them they are so clever, and so free. The absolute requirement
for the organism then is to maintain a constant level of titillation, an ever present state
of potential emotional excitement, and to scrupulously excise the slightest hint of
rational consideration from this major element of the biomass of its superorganic
body. Without meeting this condition there can be no superorganism on the scale we
call civilised, and the existence of religion is a vital part of this process of biologically
maintained ignorance too; biological because this functional state of mass ignorance
relies upon the innate emotional physiology of humans, that induces their massively
self focused mode of intelligence, which is made collective through their emotions in
the phenomenon of empathy. Empathy meanwhile, if it is to be invoked on a social
scale, has to be triggered by appropriately relayed messages that excite emotions
while simultaneously suppressing any potential for unemotional, reasoned reflection.
The method nature adopts here is not to get people to work these things out
consciously, and so to fabricate news and so on, but to cause people to create social
structure in such a way that information is managed and the living tissue is maintained
in such proportions that the messages emerge naturally to meet the requirements of
the superorganic physiology existing at any given time. Any superorganism that
failed to meet this requirement would be out competed by another that was more
attuned to the demands of human nature, and this accords with a familiar story from
human history where civilisations clash leaving only one to attain supremacy. The

25
Romans had the games, the Greeks also, and the theatre, we have all that and more;
our organism is the same living being as theirs. It is not for nothing that our society
has the triadic structural form it has, with a small elite, a limited middle order and a
massive working class. And in the above snippet we get an inkling of the manner in
which a latter-day Lilienfeld could apply their organic method to the real
interpretation of our social being.

Clearly a social scientist needs a means to gain control of words if they are to
describe social behaviour in purely biological terms, which is the only possible way to
account for human behaviour in a scientific manner. The sociologist must control all
words, at all times, and because words can be readily diverted from any potentially
fixed point of reference a social scientist must never themselves be controlled by
words that are liable to be part of the social flux, as in the two bandwidths of meaning
describing warfare where the words themselves are self evidently part of the active
war effort, otherwise the sociologist is bound to become embroiled in the organic mix
they are seeking to observe and describe in a detached manner. The obvious solution
is to use biological terms to describe social phenomenon. But this is what got the
nineteenth century social scientists into so much trouble, allowing all their good work
to be corrupted by the notion that all they were doing was producing an endless series
of analogies that were nothing but analogies. We have just been led into a tortuous
attempt to shift the meaning of words starting from the initial idea that the true
meaning of the word atheist is scientist. From this we looked for a true meaning for
theist and could only come up with the most unsatisfactory word fascist, it pleases us,
but sounds facile and petty, and demands to be justified. It is one thing to find
physical equivalents between social structure and the body, it is another to make any
real attempt at inverting the meanings of words in the manner we just got embroiled
in here. The point about atheism and science stands, but the rest can be left where it is
for now.
Attempting to speak about language in terms of messages composed of
bandwidths emitted by the social structure that, upon reception by the social mass,
equate to the perception of coloured markings in normal visual perception marks a
positive step toward trying to rid language of its meanings so that its actual functional
attributes can be understood, and thus the manner in which language creates
exoskeletal form can be determined. If language does create organic form then we
should be able to observe the linguistic information being emitted by the form that
language creates in such a way that the creative element is reflected in the emitted
element. And this is exactly what we do see, religious dogma created the American
organic physiology and the messages defining the nature of the American organ's
action in Iraq reflects that creative dogma as we hear about freedom, democracy and
human rights. Judaism created America and the Americans are fighting for Israel's
freedom. This method of linguistic interpretation is a strategy applicable to real
sociology that I am seeking to present in an effort to unfold the validity of Lilienfeld's
organicist ideas. By means of this strategy we divest words of their individual
meaning and see the message as a dynamic pulse of information related to
superorganic physiology and behaviour. And from this point of view it means a
sociologist sees no conflict between the meaning of phrases like 'human rights' being
used as part of a mission statement that is made real in the action of soldiers shooting
defenceless Iraqis in the head, or scenes of torture, sexual abuse and murder of Iraqi
prisoners by American soldiers, because no words have meaning at this level of
communication from a scientific point of view. Language evolved to deliver the force

26
of authority throughout the organism. There is no such thing as morality and ethics.
These words are labels that carry a social function related to the mythological dogma
which creates the form of organic physiology applicable to the superorganism in
question. So there are only messages, and no meanings, and all human behaviour is a
mode of executing the requirements of superorganic physiology. We must be aware
of the status of the structural elements of which the exoskeleton is composed when we
apply this method of understanding human language in specific cases, in order to
understand our own method. In the example of a dynamic social situation presented
above the Americans as Christians, and the Iraqis as Moslems, are both physiological
elements of the one living superorganism that sociologists must identify according to
the core identity from which these two subidentities derive, the master identity being
Judaism. So the war in Iraq is an internal physiological process and not what it
appears to be from our self centred individualistic perspective. This makes sense of
transforming the descriptive messages regarding these social events into dynamic
emissions reflecting physiological behaviour and social structure. It also explains
why early sociological thinkers were so taken with the idea that war was a necessary
thing, a healthy function of the social organism, it is, it is simply the action of
superorganic growth.
In taking this approach to human language the social scientist is taking the
correct view of language, and thereby understanding it as a functional phenomenon.
The human that recognises the meaning of words fails to comprehend the function of
language, and instead responds to the directive of the message, and relays that
directive, as a person is supposed to do when exposed to the linguistic flux. Thus
harmony and consistency is produced throughout the biomass of the superorganism in
accordance with its corporate activity of growth. So the individual who thinks the
Iraq war is about democracy and freedom, or even oil and money, responds to the
massage appropriately. The social scientist who recognises the war is about organic
growth does not, they merely see reality for what it is; exactly as a real scientist
should.

Needless to say the objective of the organ of social authority, the prime organ
of interest to the social scientist, when faced with the challenge to its authority due to
new insights into reality, has to be to prevent the scientist from achieving their desired
state of detachment. The social scientist cannot help but destroy the thing they are
studying because they are bound to study social authority, authority which is based
upon a purposeful interpretation of reality that claims to know all things irrespective
of what is really known. Given that social authority is based on a mythological
interpretation of reality that creates the organ of authority itself, the decoding of this
mythological knowledge necessarily means the destruction of the organ of authority.
It is this dynamic interaction between the search for knowledge necessary to the
formation of a superorganism, and the need to fix the knowledge acquired to achieve
the biological end of forming an organ of authority, that leads to the state of affairs
that we will see described in the passage taken from the nineteenth century French
philosopher Auguste Comte later on in this work, whereby knowledge accretes and
the theocracy is obliged to struggle to keep pace with it. But this is a challenge the
theocracy always meets successfully, otherwise it would die and vanish from the
living world. It does this by converting new knowledge into its own format of
understanding reality, and by exuding social structure in the form of institutional
extensions to its exoskeleton to accommodate the new specialists created in this
process. The new theistically formulated scientists are thus dedicated to the

27
protection of the theocracy by delivering pseudo scientific knowledge that, in the case
of the human sciences, affirms the meaning of words and the validity of individuality
as asserted by the religious formula of Judaism that defines the living being of the
superorganism and creates its specific physiological form.
Such an organ of authority, forming a knot of people bound into a social
structure by knowledge exclusive to the inner group, brings into being an inner organ
within the biomass in the form of an institution that we commonly call a priesthood,
that has the primary functional attribute of an eye because of its function in relation to
information mediation between the social environment and the body of which that
environment is composed. This superorganic visual organ filters linguistic
information to produce colour interpretations that deliver meaning to the organism.
The superorganic eye of language therefore produces conceptual images by focusing
the world view according to its own evolved bias. Selected bandwidths of language
constitute colours in the manner in which they impact upon individual consciousness,
colours that reflect social structure as we saw above when we considered the way
American soldiers are described in one linguistic modality while their opposites are
described according to another distinct linguistic mode, each modality having its own
distinct series of words to create the required meaning to denote the organic structure
involved in the war. These colour messages are always rendered into some directly
visual form perceived in the usual visual manner. This rendering of conceptual
imagery into visual imagery is what we typically call art, the cave paintings of stone
age people being the earliest examples we know of. In this discussion we are
uncovering the biological process that produces the magnificence art. We can now
speak meaningfully of religious identity as a linguistic colour that evolved to take the
place of skin colour, and in this passage we begin to form an idea of how this process
works in relation to human form and behaviour. At the present day the conceptual
imagery binding the cells into a bodily mass in obedience to a core authority is not
centred upon animal images on cave walls, modern conceptual imagery is imbued into
the architecture forming the exoskeleton of the organism in the form of places of
worship, and other exoskeletal details such as modes of dress, and material symbols
such as stars, crosses and crescents. Caves have become cathedrals, both structures
constituting part of the exoskeleton of the superorganism, the part housing the elite
who act as the identity core providing authority and direction to the subliminal whole.
Perhaps more startling than these revelations about the real nature of our social
being are the extension of the process to none religious symbolism. It is at this point
that we come again to the subject of pseudo science. It is evident that in relation to
the core organ of authority the control of linguistic information is the primary
function of authority structures of all kinds. We may think of unimpeded information
equating to white light, that reveals knowledge that all can see as it is for themselves.
While selected packages of linguistic information channelled according to one
linguistic mode, or filter, such as belief in the individual as an end in their own right,
and the true object of human evolution, utilising a series of related linguistic
modalities to create its messages, produces a narrow bandwidth of linguistic
perception, linguistic perception which we can think of in its entirety as defining a
colour spectrum.
We have said that religious identity is a colour, it imparts identity to people,
thus incorporating them into a superorganic form, and religion can come in a variety
of hues, or indeed highly distinct colours depending on the particular evolutionary
stage of development of the human superorganic fauna. Once we have this model of
linguistic information reduced to a common form with light information, we can see

28
how it is possible for the central organ to apply its filter to any area of linguistic
information. And it is from this extended mode of application of the filter of
interpretation, covering any mode of linguistic accretion, that science comes to be
subverted spontaneously from the true unimpeded form that burst upon the sight
individuals, as seen in the work of people like Comte. So that science could be
refined into a narrow band of perception conforming to the conceptual bandwidth of
theocratic authority in the form of the highly developed argument of Darwin, as
sponsored in its creation by the establishment, and promoted by the establishment
ever since, and used to extend the same uniform theistic modality of comprehension
focused exclusively on form, and hence the individual, throughout every domain of
intellectual activity concerned with human nature and the nature of human society.
In addition to the extension of the plane of linguistic filtration beyond the
overtly theistic toward the avowedly secular or scientific, the process of evolving
material forms to represent the filtered wavelengths of knowledge takes place
simultaneously. Hence the theocracy establishes special institutions to deliver its
message in its extended form, these extensions of the exoskeleton being typically
called universities. This description of the process whereby linguistic information is
selected and focused, and creates the superorganic structure of the organism
simultaneously imbued with its theistic identity, conforms to the founding principle of
the organic method presented here, whereby information is made the base unit of all
life that traces the flow of energy in life, so that information in the social domain can
be said to deposit living tissue as it flows. Tissue in the form of exoskeletal structure
that we call artificial, and which is, like a snail's shell, composed of none living
material. The living occupants of the academic institutions, that are structural
components of the organism, bobbing about their corridors and lecture theatres like
polyps in a marine reef, emit a message declaring themselves to be independent
existing in their own right free from the unwarranted influence of any other aspect of
social authority. The individuals themselves are convinced of the veracity of this
message, their social status depending upon it, and they would be livid if anyone
suggested they were anything other than unbiased, free agents, acting according to
their institution's own independent imperatives. Thus they protect their own authority
and so their status and privilege which the institution, as an extension of the theocratic
institution of authority that rules the superorganism, is able to confer upon them as
they indirectly, even unwittingly, fulfil their function as defenders of theistic authority
in the act of defending their own authority. As with the trappings of religious identity
there are a plethora of details that do delineate the distinct concerns of these more
recently evolved organs of superorganic physiology. But the same common linguistic
filter directs the flow of information through all sanctioned structures, and the notion
of independence in any compartment of the establishment is as absurd as Lilienfeld
endeavours to tell us it is. Lilienfeld of course was perfectly well aware of the unity
of function shared by language and art, as he states plainly in his Defence.

Since I make atheism a central pillar of the organic method I am required to

make the deeper meaning of this qualification clear. Returning to the opening
argument in this chapter, real atheism is not simply a rejection of God, it is a
complete, alternative world view of all that any kind of godliness might stand for.
Just as a fish is not an animal that does not live on land, a fish being an animal that
lives in water; so an atheist is not a person who denies their life in a death dealing
world of slavery and ignorance, an atheist is a person immersed in a life giving world
of freedom and knowledge. To be a real atheist is to show an affinity for scientific

29
knowledge fixed upon attributes of reality that can be shown to exist independently of
human purposes. The message emitted by this atheistic outlook presents human
existence in the form of an image created on the basis of an entirely different
linguistic modality to that expressed by biological evolution in the act of creating a
theocratic social structure. This alternative creative modality requires the use of
language according to a wholly distinct method where meaning is exclusively
dependant upon material forms and their associated dynamics, hence society has to be
seen as an extension of the organic world. This scientific linguistic mode is the
antithesis of theism which relies upon purposeful interpretations of reality. To be a
real scientist is therefore, by definition, to be a real atheist, and vice versa. The
logical inversion of meaning ordinarily applied to these words, that is presented here,
may seem uncertain but the fact is that you cannot be an atheist in anything more than
name without being as committed to science as a passionate theist is committed to
their creed. It simply goes with the territory, atheism is an intellectual attitude, not a
label bearing the information that here we have a person does who ‘denies the
existence of God’, here we have an animal ‘that does not breath air’. If a label must
be written to denote an atheist then it must indicate that this person ‘only
acknowledges what is known to be real’.
Unless an atheist is passionate about science there is no 'sauce in the bottle' to
warrant the application of the label atheist to that person. The intellectual nature of
atheism is an implicit consequence of the intellectual mode of theistic reasoning that
generates swathes of highly sophisticated pseudo-real knowledge. Imagine a jug full
of water and a jug that is empty, where the second jug is made of solid glass, and as
such unable to carry any water. This is the mechanistic effect of making the term
atheism subject to the term theism for its definition, this dynamic casts atheism as a
preformed article incapable of containment except in so far as it receives content from
the jug that contains a fluid.
As the scientist seeks to account for all things in a materialistic sense, so must
the atheist. Hence atheism is synonymous with science, indeed science implies
atheism. Analogies are useful to indicate the flaw in a deceptive argument, so the fact
that a fish is an animal that lives in water and not an animal that does not live on land,
is useful in indicating how the theocracy perverts language to suit its own purposes,
since it is clear that creatures may live in the air or under the ground and still not be
fish. So we see how the manner in which a seemingly legitimate description can
distort the resulting impression and facilitate falsehood. However, the analogy is
limited device, because we are embroiled in a linguistic web that means that by
definition all a person need do is to say that they do not believe in God and that will
mean they are entitled to wear the label ‘atheist’. The discussion engaged in here
should indicate how unreasonable it is for a shallow denial to be equated to a full
representation of an alternative way of understanding existence and a well rounded
refutation of the idea that there is a God. It should also indicate just how the web of
language controls the capacity of authority to control all thought, and how hard it is
for lesser focal points of authority to free themselves of this sticky web of deceit.
Atheism then is not just a matter of dismissing God and all that goes with this
term, it is a matter of accepting the existence of religious belief and explaining it in
terms that conform to scientific method. And thus an atheistic scholar should be able
to show what God is, and so, be able to prove that God does not exist, be able to make
it impossible for anyone to believe in God, or to feign belief in God, and be able to
offer a direct alternative to religion as a means of social existence. All this is easy to
do on an intellectual level, but unfortunately we are not intellectual creatures, as

30
conscious individuals we are essentially organic robots. We operate in response to
linguistic labels, word triggers that act as switches in our brains directing our actions
rather as the keys on this computer key board act as switches producing the words on
a screen via a highly complicated series of structures. This is what makes it possible
for the BBC to present people whose personalities are contrived, and amount to
nothing more than shadows of the labels they aspire to, as people of supreme intellect,
of whom we must all be in awe and admiration. But in reality these are people who
bear labels without substance, mere badges pinned on them by the power of authority.
From this we can understand the low social status of the scientist in comparison to
that of the exalted mythologist, exemplified in the inferior position of a genius of
immense integrity like the sociologist Lilienfeld as compared to the socially exalted
position of an intellectually subversive degenerate like the pseudo sociologist Pitirim
Sorokin, whom we shall meet with shortly.
There is a wonderful example before us at the present time of the ability of
theists to control the collective mind via linguistic labels in the shape of the argument
on passive smoking. Theists? Theist is just a handy synonym for fascist, master,
autocratic ruler, or dictator of any kind, as indicated above regarding the imposition of
idiosyncratic attitudes by means of law. It is about time atheists got to do some name
changing; the logic behind this change being that theism is all about absolute social
authority vested in an exclusive social body. Law is about to be enacted preventing
people from smoking in places specially created for people to smoke in, public houses
that is. The justification for this law are the devastating waves of deaths caused by
people inhaling tiny amounts of other people's cigarette smoke, even on just one
occasion. One person, walking down a busy high street while smoking a mild tip
filter tobacco stick, will leave a swathe of dead people collapsed behind them,
including children, and pet dogs! Death is instantfor any passive smoker although
if you smoke twenty strong cigarettes a day for seventy years there is no problem.
Have I got that right? Well I might of laid the emphasis of the fascist argument
slightly askew, but not so much that it makes any odds to the thrust of it. This
fascistic argument, fascistic because it is based on fabricated lies, is facile. It is so
self evidently absurd that it beggars belief that these ‘coddle them into slavery’
fascists, mollycoddling fascists, have been able to force it through. I am impressed.
On Newsnight on BBC 2 last week, today being 20/11/04, they had an artist acting as
spokesperson for the smokers and a professional representative speaking for the
fascists. Naturally if your authority is based on fabricated lies then you need a
professional scientist to give the lie authority over the obvious truth that anyone can
see from experience. When the artist's struggles to string two words together after
attempting to say that the idea of passive smoking was absurd, stuttered to a halt, his
adversary very eloquently said that while David Hockney was no doubt a great artist
he was not likely to be able to pass judgement on the reports of highly experienced
medical professionals. See? The expert, these people are the supreme tool in the
armoury of the superorganic constitution these days, driving the poor old individual
into their box as if they were but dust in a blizzard. Smoking is a disgusting and
stupid habit, that much is beyond contradiction in my view, I hate it, but I am not
going to play at being a moron in order to stop people smoking, I would rather just
shoot them. It is the ugliness of the habit to none smokers that is the real reason this
law is being passed, but this could not be used as a reason, so an excuse had to be
fabricated. The authorities back a law attacking smokers because smoking related
disease costs the system of medical provision a fortune, and by employing the
innocent victim ruse which has become so useful a device of late, they permit

31
themselves to use the law to crush public freedom in the name of universal rights.
The overall consequence is more order, more unity, more control, in other words a
more efficient organic being. And it is this test of efficiency that determines which
laws will come into being, and that is all that determines which laws will come into
being. We see this ‘energy test’, set by nature, revealed in the motive force for state
action which is derived from the cost to public resources in medical provision.
What individuals agitating for prohibitive legislation do not consider is that
nothing is safe in the world they make by adopting fascistic methods to impose the
idiosyncratic views they find themselves subscribed to. Their success invests power
in the law in a manner where the real consequences always lie in the future because
new law amounts to the generation of an energy potential that once established behind
a dam of legislation is bound to flow back through the structural medium of law and
impact upon the constitution of the organism’s tissue, to impact upon the way people
live in other words. This is like the damn of energy created long ago by bacteria, in
the form of atmospheric oxygen, it flowed back in the opposite direction and so life
emerged from the sea. We call this progress. But whether it is bacterial metabolism
or social metabolism it is just nature taking its course, and the only consideration is
the balance of energy. This is how superorganic detachment is achieved in nature, by
energy utilising the biomass to project energy onto a supra organic level where it is
embodied in structure derived from organic matter, but which is not itself composed
of living tissue, it is therefore, when this process is encompassed within the activity of
one species, called exoskeletal material. Where the resulting supra organic fabric
arises from the combined action of a multiplicity of species the result would be an
ecological domain, not an exoskeletal form. For a supra organic product to be an
exoskeletal form it must be attributable to a single species, thus ants produce
exoskeletal forms, corals produce ecosystems. This delineation is not absolute since
ants utilise fungus and aphids, while humans utilise wheat and cattle in the extension
of their superorganic form, but there is reason to differentiate between these two
outcomes of energy reaching beyond the confines of living tissue in the production of
structural form. Once you use the weapon of fabricated lies to attack others you
licence the authorities to attack anyone on this basis, and so life goes in these days of
social fascism in the name of democracy. You think you are safe? Then you are a
fool. In the last decade social workers have been the subject of witch hunts in the
name of protecting children, teachers have been targeted on a similar basis, and even
mothers who have been unlucky enough to lose a couple of young babies have been
targeted by these physiological mechanisms of superorganic rigour. But what we
should all take note of here is the usefulness of binding people into a more efficient
social unit, this outcome of legislative processes is always the sign of a positive
organic mechanism at work. Nature does not care who gets thrown into prison or who
is driven to suicide, as long as someone is; although attacking the obviously innocent
is always preferable to attacking the obviously guilty for the very reason that this is
what spreads subliminal terror and drives real obedience.
Why do people smoke anyway? is a very interesting question, one that can
only be answered by knowing what human nature is. Humans take drugs, indeed
humans evolved to have the special relationship that they have with narcotics and
other such stimulants as an expression of their human nature. Drug use facilitates the
development of a collective mind, and in the earlier phases of human social evolution
drugs supported the development of an elite class on the basis of participation in a
drug culture that provided a means of creating a hierarchy where inclusion in a drug
induced mind distinguished between insiders and outsiders in a way that was

32
otherwise impossible in the open milieu of an early human, or even hominid, social
community. The interrelated dynamic of exclusion-cum-inclusion is still the main
feature of the drug taking culture in our modern world where the real nature of drug
taking revolves about the sub-cultural status that goes with this kind of activity. Drug
use, like religious belief, was a universal feature of tribal societies. In our civilised
world ancient modes of developing corporate identity such as racial physiology and
drug use have regressed in importance and now serve the function of creating social
structure rather than primary organs of authority. In the above case of smoking we
can see how the group created by the act of smoking does just this, whether it serves
to create a popular social group encouraged in the movies of the early twentieth
century, or a group of anti-smokers in our own day. As before in the case of law, all
laws, whether prohibitive or promotive, they are always directed toward the same core
function of unification. And we can see that the habit of drug addiction works in the
same manner, whether frowned upon, or affirmed as a convivial social habit, it always
draws people inward about the core of social authority, and facilitates the formation of
social structure according to the current state of the organism.
There is no such thing as God, there is no such thing as morality, there is no
such thing as an opinion. These words are labels, and only labels, they refer to things
which exist, but not to the things that these labels indicate exist. To be clear about
what might otherwise be tortuous to think about and hence unclear, a mustard label
hanging round the neck of a bottle containing tomato sauce refers to something that
exists, namely mustard, but it does not indicate the existence of that which it pretends
to indicate exists in a specific time and place. This free-radical nature that words have
is crucial to the superorganism's ability to use language to create its physiological
form. There are many labels that can be attached to individuals, even the word
individual has the dualistic function of being a label as well as a real word, a real
word being one that attaches directly to a facet of reality as it exists. All labels have
the dualistic attribute of being detachable from the things they really apply to. Any
word can in theory be used in any way anyone cares to use it, but the specific
characteristic we are seeking to bring out here is the constructive use of words
inappropriately to describe things falsely. When the establishment in control of
linguistic meaning exercises its authority to bring out the dynamic form of a word it
leads to a whole alternative mode of communication whereby language itself
produces honest lies by using words that are true to the orders of authority but untrue
to the things to which the words are properly attached when subject to rational
thought. So while 'atheist' can only mean one narrowly fixed and precise thing,
namely someone who follows an alternative intellectual mode of understanding reality
to that of a theist, an alternative mode that equates to science, in actual fact in our
world that is dominated by religion atheism means many different things. Thus one
can speak perfectly legitimately of all sorts of atheism, even as one is all the while
being utterly ridiculous and telling an endless series of lies whilst speaking only the
truth. The consequence of this curious state of affairs is that it is virtually impossible
to distinguish between an atheist and a theist in all but the most inconsequential
details, and so one frequently hears atheism referred to as a religion, which is
precisely as it should be in an absolute theocracy where clearly real atheism cannot
possibly exist as a socially recognised phenomenon. All this is possible because of
the nature of language which evolved to deliver messages, not to act as a means of
sharing fixed facts about reality between independent individuals who each constitute
a focal point of linguistic authority in their own right. It is as if there were many
different understandings of the word 'mustard', so that it was in fact true, sometimes,

33
to call tomato sauce mustard because this would conform to the authority of the
people who ran society, who considered that anything placed in a bottle carrying the
label 'mustard' quite literally became mustard, but only if the bottle was on the left
side of a table presumed to be placed upon the equator, and oriented along a north
south polar axis, and where the observer was facing north, a table measuring at least 6
ft 7¼ ins, that also carried a dish containing at least 2lb 3oz of pork at the same time,
which had to be no later then 3p.m. Greenwich mean time, and where the pork was
itself at a temperature between 50 and 56°F, for example.
What is particularly interesting about this discussion of the linguistic flux, as it
relates to the organic control of language through the proliferation of dynamic labels
is that the functional use of labels works by fixing upon point locations in a manner
that equates to the emphasis of human social ideology upon the integral authority of
the individual. This is as if we were to imagine a tomato sauce bottle were a
conscious being and that if it said it was mustard then it would have to be accepted
that it is was mustard. So we see here how language and the mode of consciousness
we experience as human beings are linked integrally, something which is not at all
surprising. So does language create our false sense of individuality or does our false
sense of individuality create language? The two evolved together. Asking this
question is like saying does the word 'big' determine the letters used to say it, or do
the letters determine the word. Language and consciousness are one and the same
thing and the false sense of individuality is created by the artificial use of words in the
form of a flux composed of free roaming labels.
A BBC documentary presenter chooses to wear the label 'atheist' and so he is
an atheist, our English mode of communication accommodates this method of
ascribing meaning to social phenomenon. If you say you are an atheist then you are
an atheist and that is that. But this accepted use of English depends upon a fallacious
logic. How can a person who does not believe in God but does believe in
reincarnation, as is the case with a friend of mine, be an atheist? In the English
language as it is delivered through the medium of our theocratic authorities there is no
problem, all an atheist is is someone who does not believe in God. However, as a
passionate atheist this causes me an immense problem, it makes atheism impotent as a
means of countering the ideas expressed in theism because the essence of the
distinction between atheism and theism should be of an exclusive order based upon
the diametrically opposed intellectual positions of theism and atheism. Hence my
proper linguistic definition of atheism as meaning someone who holds a view of
existence identical to that which accords with science. We can say therefore that the
theocracy simply chooses to use the word 'atheism' as if it were a label and to control
knowledge from the mischievous position that results from this strategy. Clearly if
my correct English held sway the theocracy would find itself in the impossible
position I, as an atheist, find myself in within this society.
It is this linguistic device used by the theocracy to reduce atheism to a shadow
of its real self, a shadow of real science, that reduces atheism to a label, that reduces
atheism to a negative dependant of theism. And using the idea of reductionism in this
context is interesting because one of the commonest rebukes used against science by
theists, and by religion's most passionate defenders within the scientific
establishment, is the soul destroying practice of reducing everything to a mechanistic
level. We can see however that in its efforts to control all knowledge theism does
exactly the same thing. Only religion reduces all things toward an accommodation of
its own emotional account of existence which imputes purpose to all human oriented
behaviour, rather than function. Thus religion remorselessly reduces the integrated

34
rationality of scientific knowledge to a uniform state of confusion in the form of
individual entities existing in their own right subject only to the will of God. Religion
does this primarily through the linguistic device of the label which turns words
denoting substantial knowledge into shadows of themselves, which reduces words to
the status of labels that can be manipulated in various ways to make them say
anything that will accommodate the nonsense of theism. Science then reduces all to a
state of self sustaining order, religion reduces all to a state of divinely sustained
disorder.

As with atheism so it is where individuals align themselves against fox

hunting or smoking and the 'linguistic' authorities validate the idea that these people
should be given the exalted position of being the possessors of opinions, as if these
ideas were somehow, in some way, their own. People do not possess opinions,
opinions posses people. The retort that opinions can only exist if there are people is
mere bunkum of the most facile kind, albeit of a kind that is boomed out by the
theocracy as if it were an impossible objection to rebuff. The successful rebuttal
derives from organicist observations regarding the structure of society which reveals
that a point source, an authority, and a biomass that acts as the recipient of messages,
creates the organic environment in which this dynamic exists which means opinions
possess people and not people opinions. This process of causal inversion indicates the
theistic method of confusing form with nature, labels such as 'anti-fox hunting activist'
actually belong to real things that express themselves through individuals, not in
individuals. Thus there is no such thing as a person having the opinion that fox
hunting is bad, what is called an opinion is merely the superorganic force that seeks to
form its being to the greatest degree of integrity possible by acting on the individual
in accordance with the dictates of human nature and evolved physiology. And of
course the same is true in the opposite camp, there are no people who support fox
hunting, there are just people whose culture includes fox hunting, so fox hunting
possesses them, they do not possess fox hunting. Fox hunting existed long before
anyone alive today who hunts foxes.
The natural force operating in this case is expressing the mechanism of ethnic
cleansing that is fundamental to Zionism. And it is the Zionistic social dogma that
gives rise to evangelical movements that, in the name of love, seek to attack those
localised organic structures within the superorganism's physiology that are out of step
with the ideal of complete obedience to the Zionist theocracy that forms the core of
the global organism by emitting messages asserting the requirement for all to obey
common standards of decency. It is irrelevant what those common standards are, as
long as they are common, and as long as everyone is either forced to obey, or
destroyed. The individual who thinks hunting is cruel does not know why they hold
the views they hold because unwittingness serves the process by which the
superorganism is enabled to increase its density of integrity. Individuals genuinely
feel their ideas are things they personally believe in and they would be deeply
offended to hear someone describe their passionate expression for the love of life
reduced to these vile mechanistic terms, and rightly so, but that does not make them
right and us wrong.
There is no such thing as an individual opinion that is found being expressed
on a social scale, all such social opinions are a product of evolutionary biology, and
nothing more, ever. Organicism was not suited to the demands of human nature that
we have just been discussing, and so it was erased from science, just as the notion of
the heliocentric solar system that we accept today was not amenable to the demands

35
of human nature two millennia ago, so it too was erased from science until theology
was able to reorient itself upon human nature itself instead of being projected upon
the mystery of celestial nature that acted as a surrogate for human nature at that time.
The reason fox hunting has just been outlawed now is that it has become
functional to outlaw fox hunting now because of the change in the constitution of the
global biomass in terms of religious identity structures. This process of legislatively
managed ethnic cleansing represents the body consuming its own tissue as it seeks to
grow and increase its integrity. It could be viewed as if society were a coral reef and
each social bloc represented a distinct species of coral that sort to exude its guts upon
another species of coral in order to consume it so that it could continue to grow within
the reef. But the fact is that humans are not alternative species, they are all of one
species, so as sociologists we are obliged to assume that all societies embraced by one
common theocratic authority constitute one living organism and these competing
identity structures are physiological attributes that evolved to provide the means by
which the central organ of theocratic authority manages its physiology through the
exoskeletal institutions which determine the outcome of the competition between
identities by means of law.
As the biomass of an organism shifts the central authority enacts laws
accordingly, and it naturally draws from the population those moralistic values it finds
suited to its purpose, and suppresses those not so suited. Currently this means aiding
the Zionist plan of infusing Muslim identity across the globe by gradually ousting
locally idiosyncratic identity programmes like 'Britishness', that such cultural
activities as fox hunting help to sustain by means of its institutionalised cultural form.
Britishness being inevitably intensely nationalistic in a traditional sense predating the
soft Moslem invasion of Britain that was facilitated by the theocracy following the
end of their war of conquest known as the Second World War. Britishness is
therefore bound to present a problem hindering Judaism's continued rise toward
global domination on the back of the Zionist movement currently being driven by
Moslem expansion. These are the real socioganic forces behind the moral stances and
personal opinions we see reverberating about our society at the present time. Why
else would these phenomenon exist? Because God taught us to be moral beings, and
so we are obeying his command? That is an alternative way of saying the same thing
if it pleases you. The disintegration of our public house culture has already made
great strides, now smoking has been withdrawn from these institutions of British
culture. In time, bearing in mind the one positive in all this is the enablement of the
ingress of Muslim identity, we must expect drink itself to be outlawed throughout
Europe in several centuries time, as it is in all Muslim countries. Lets face it, drinking
is about as negative a social institution as you can get when society is capable of
living without it, and Muslim society is so formed. The Islamic identity programme
is a very powerful expression of the Jewish identity and tailor made to the production
of well adjusted slaves. This is the quagmire of superorganic being in which we all
live.

Knowledge is a form of information that creates a living organism at the social

level of organization, and mythology is the colour of identity imbued into the physical
being of this superorganism. Atheism and science are words with a common nature
that makes them meaningfully synonymous, possessing identical meanings in the
practice of knowledge formation that these words are linked to as meaningful labels.
Their difference arises from their statement of the same message with reference to
opposite ends of the process that these words relate to. Science is the goal, atheism is

36
the challenge. Thus science might be likened to the finish line at the end of a race
called atheism. However the substance of reality that provides the real meaning
attached to these words by applying the scientific method, has been filtered through
the eye of the all seeing authority and reflected inwardly to form the consciousness of
the superorganic being according to the image of a divine creatora trick achieved by
altering the perspective from which meaning is given to words from the detached and
impersonal to the attached and personalas such where we should see the pure white
light of reason, we see only the coloured vision of a Zionist utopia that forms the
purpose of the organ of identity which delineates the core organ of authority in the
superorganism that lives today right across the planet.
Robots? Did I say we are robots! Well, why not? Think of where we have
come from, think of where we live, where we are as creatures today. Think of the
universe we are just getting some idea of. Think of all this, and ask yourself, Why not
robots? Just who do we think we are? It is only the beguiling of those who would be
master that leads us to think we are anything more than robots, and when you fall for
this flattery, whether you are preaching it or listening to it, you become more than
anything the very thing you think you are not, which is just what the process of
beguilement wants you to be. Just what nature made us to be, robots.

Card Carrying Atheists

There is a series running on BBC 4 at the present time about atheism, as a real
atheist I consider its pretence at an intellectual appraisal of atheism to be an
undisguised piece of theistic propaganda, put out by that great institutional tool of
theocracy, the BBC. Last night, 19/11/04, the person being interviewed was a
professional theist, someone who lives by exerting pressure on the truth, seeking to
make truth part of authority's colour scheme, the message that is delivered by
authority, the uniform consistency of which authority ultimately relies upon. I should
say that from the outset I was disgusted by the interview conducted with the presenter
of this programme who, while declaring himself to be an atheist, went on to disparage
atheism and to indicate he had nothing but contempt for the very idea of atheism.
Consequently I have only dipped into the series of programmes as they have appeared
over the last few weeks and as I happened upon them. All test samples have revealed,
as expected, an unremitting adoration for belief in God expressed by atheists, and, last
night, in a typically arrogant display of insincerity and dishonesty, we had the usual
criticism of atheism voiced by a theist; all of which is continuously helped along by
the pseudo atheist running the show. There was a superb example of the manner in
which these individuals, that is professional theists, exercise their function as
mechanisms of superorganic authority. The professional theist last night complained
about strident atheists like Richard Dawkins, who had been interviewed previously,
saying that Dawkin's attitude, asserting that theists had no right to possess evolution
in the name of God, was as absolutist as the theists of old who opposed people
voicing atheistic ideas. Above we discussed this very process involved in the
possession of meaning by authority. We noted that if truth were discovered in the real
world the theocracy had to possess it, and here we see a perfect example of the
process in action in respect to the word evolution, which is an inherently scientific
term, and as anti-theistic as it is possible for a word to be, since theism is all about
creative power as an unconditional force, or it use to be. But you know religion, it is
adaptable, as new knowledge comes along it adapts, exactly as science does to new

37
discoveries. Theists are so fond of pointing out the adaptive facet of scientific
reasoning that accepts that all knowledge is conditional upon further revelation
making it implicit that science has no claim to the truth since by definition if it is
always assumed to be liable to change, it can never be true! Isn't it so. But then
again, some things that were once not known, are now known, and will never be
contradicted, the position of the earth relative to the other solar bodies for example.
Word games, it is all about word games. Science accepts that it is conditional and that
therefore science is not about ultimate truth instantly revealed, but only about ultimate
truths, gradually revealed. While religion declares that the reality religion exists to
reveal is unconditional and absolute, and hence religion is the truth, here and now and
forever, instantly revealed and unchanging. It just so happens that religion just has to
keep changing the way it describes the truth in order to keep the ultimate truth true,
that's all.
Seeking to possess the truth is a social behaviour that can only be
accomplished, ultimately, through the application of linguistic strategies since the
truth is a form of knowledge, and knowledge is linguistic information. This social
objective necessarily involves the abstraction of words from their true meaning, and
this process accounts for the extraordinarily elaborate form of theological mythology
as the effort, like all good lying, requires that once you tell one lie you are obliged to
tell another, then another, then another until you have gone so far there is nothing left
but a mask obscuring all truth, all that is left in other words is religion and the fiction
of God. The professional theist is only doing his job. Just as we have said atheism
must be a part of science that necessarily includes an explanation of religion, so the
theist knows that theism in the name of a universal God must seek to claim all things
known to be true, nothing can be allowed to be outside the remit of God. Hence the
line taken by the theist described, where he objects to anyone, in the name of any
institutional form, presuming to take upon themselves the position of an authority that
excludes any knowledge from the embrace of his religion. The argument of the
professional theist aired last night is a perfect, albeit unspoken admission, of the fact
that religion and science are two opposites that cannot live in the same world.
Science in this world is just the theocracy's word for atheism, so theocracy possesses
its opposite within itself by corrupting science and controlling the meaning of words
through the manipulation of language. As it must do because there can always only
ever be unity in the universe and there can only ever be unity in the living human
being. God and human are one because God and human are the same thing, the
superorganism. The worship of God is therefore not the worship of humanity, as
many exalted professional intellectuals, such as Durkheim, have proposed, it is the
possession of humanity by those who function as the administrators of the worship.
This possessive social behaviour is a product of human corporate nature, that requires
an organ of authority to exist in a structural form defined by an identity that is nothing
more than a linguistic construct; but a linguistic construct that generates social form.
The atheist presenter kept using the disparaging term 'card carrying atheist',
which suggests a lunatic fringe mentality of a kind applying to people who are overly
obsessed with their own ideas. He said he understood that people in the nineteenth
century might be strident atheists because they had the opposition of an institution to
face that would not let them freely voice any ideas conflicting with religious dogma.
But ..... I turned the television off and continued to concentrate on my preparation of
Lilienfeld's Die Social Psychophysik, whatever that means, making it ready for
translation at some point ....... it was obvious where the presenter was going and this
man is so offensive in his snivelling and dishonest manner, with his pretence of being

38
an atheist, having taken the word upon himself as a label, while all his actions reveal
the lie of this self professed status. As we have noticed, a label may say mustard and
still hang round the bottle containing tomato sauce, and this is what we see so often in
society. A label is stolensocialist, worker's leader, atheist, scientistand hung about
the neck with pride, as the theist goes about their usual business of seeking to corral,
and so to exploit the binding power of those who carry the label because of the
contents of their inner being derived from their personal circumstances. Whether the
device used is exploitation by exaggerating say union power, or subversion by short
circuiting the true meaning of the word 'atheism', the objective of the theist, the seeker
after social power, is the same. In exactly the same way that laws obliging action are
the same as laws that proscribe action, in so far as they aim at the same objective of
increasing conformity of the whole to the central identity of the core, and the function
of that identity which is to create an integrated superorganic being in its name.

I caught a bit of a kiddies history programme on BBC 2 today, 26/11/04, in

which the reason that the strikes occurred in the seventies, that we were told caused
people so much hardship, was accounted for in a bland manner cleansing the
movement of any hint of anti-social dynamic, and, by implication, any hint of a
justification for such an anti-social dynamic. The workers went on strike because of
inflation. Love it, the rewriting of the history I lived through and that made me the
person I am, by the theocracy, and in my own lifetime! This is beautiful, you do not
deny history, you rewrite it. This is exactly the strategy I always use to adopt as a
child when telling elaborate lies, I told everything just as it was so that I could rely on
my memory and be consistent, just omitting, inserting or adjusting as and when
necessary. It worked every time because I was a clever sod, and trying to tackle such
a strategy is beyond any normal means of examination. A fact that applies equally
well to history. You have to be impressed by the force of human nature working
through the organic medium of its social being. And when the runts that have been
exposed to these lies grow up they will teach what they were taught to their children,
and some will become great historians and delve into the records and show in ever
more detail the terrible effects of social disorder and why we must all work diligently
for all and ensure inflation is a thing of the past. We have history for plebes as we
have science for plebes, keeping us suitably ignorant, adjusting us to our place,
keeping the body working in an orderly manner.
As I review this work to try and ensure it is fit to present on the Open
University discussion forum, to make sure it is readable and reasonably coherent, I
find myself reading these comments on the way British authorities fabricate history
for the purpose of farming their livestock after watching a news report last night,
30/03/05, that mentioned Mugabe’s creation of history for the people of Zimbabwe.
It was implied that rewriting history was a terrible thing to do, something we most
certainly would not sanction. Of course our history is written by independent
professionals who only write what is absolutely true, irrespective of what that means
they might be forced to say about the nature of the society we live in; of course.
Elections are being held in Zimbabwe today, and a further point of discussion is the
use of food as a weapon. The people are facing some degree of famine and the states
control of food supplies is being used to intimidate people into voting for Mugabe. In
Britain we have our general election soon and all the talk is, as ever, about whether
tax will go up or down. Money gives us access to food and other essentials, and as
such the access people have to food in Britain is used freely as the main plank upon
which to select a party. There is a difference of degree between starvation in Africa

39
and alienation from resources in Britain, but certainly not one of kind in the way
people are badgered by politicians. The organism is the same, it is a global Jewish
organism. The Africans never had this kind of issue before Jewish civilization took
over the continent. But of course these deeper features of social dynamics pass by
unnoticed.
As we are learning here, our position today is infinitely worse than that of the
Victorians who lived at a time of hope for intellectual freedom. Now the theocracy
has regrouped, it has the institutional framework in place in the name of Darwinism,
and all of science is erased from life. Now when you study science you never hear a
dickey-bird about the social organism, all science is erased from the establishment. It
took me over forty years of wondering what was wrong before I figured this out, but
like a slave ant in the alien nest I always knew there was something wrong, like the
boy in the Hans Christian Anderson story I just never could see the King's fine suit of
clothes. So I always knew the sham of religion was something totally contrary to the
notion of the scientific world we were supposed to live in. But if this were the case I
should of realised on logical grounds that since religion was nonsense, but a social
reality, this could only mean that the apparent reality of science was the real sham.
But no one is that insightful, you have to solve the problem first, you have to discover
the key before you can see the answer, you have to recognise that human nature is
corporate. And this is immensely counterintuitive. Thus our pseudo atheist is
wilfully, or unwittingly, missing the point. The shift from periods of freedom back
toward ages of ignorance are normal, from the period of Greek freethought we shifted
into the abyss of Christian ignorance, from the age of European freethought we are
sliding into the depths of a Moslem darkness. In both cases this is the blackness of
Judaism folding over us, exactly as it should do. The fight goes on for freedom as
long as religion exists, atheism is not about not believing in God, atheism is about
erasing all religion from the face of the earth and letting humanity be free, letting
science exist. A nice thought, but nature won't buy it; still, that is the logic of the
argument.

The positive agnomen by which a real atheist ought to be known is scientist,

but it is self evident from within the linguistic medium that bathes us in our mode of
understanding existence that the use of this word for this proper purpose is
impossible. A word such as scientist has to create living form associated with itself in
the shape of exoskeletal structure because the word refers to an accumulation of
knowledge that can only ever take place in some form of cultural or artificial
expression, which must result in a form of exoskeleton. This exoskeletal growth has
occurred, there is a scientific institution, but its growth took place under the direction
of the theistic information mode so that the living form incorporating the meaning of
the word scientist has been half hitched by the long established exoskeletal structure
of theocracy. The scientific exoskeleton is an extension of the theocracy's
exoskeleton. So the place for a real independent scientific structure is no longer
available within which to form an independent exoskeletal structure which would
inevitably become an alternative organ of authority to that of the church if it were to
exist. This gives us a corporate expression of the 'gate keeper' mechanism that I have
in mind when I call an individual like Richard Dawkins 'the gatekeeper of the
theocracy', as I often do, because he takes upon himself the mantel of an atheist in the
form of a full set of scientific and philosophical labels but at the same time displays
all the characteristics of a theist in the way he declares humans to be uniquely free of
the impress of natural law; exactly like my friend who says he is an atheist because he

40
does not believe in God but tells me that he has had a former life and that people are
reborn in new bodies. This is like saying you are a car mechanic who can rebuild an
engine but you do not know how to do an oil change. This mode of self expression
amounts to a jumble of words creating a cacophony of ideas without any coherent
thread of logic informing what people are claiming for themselves. How can a
professional mechanic not know how to change the oil in an engine? The
combination of skill and ineptitude is insane and it is inconceivable that you would
ever meet with such a claim. So how can a person reject belief in God and yet
support belief in life after death? Unfortunately, knowing an extremely clever and
highly articulate person who does make this impossible combination within his own
self is of no help because when it comes to this one issue all I can draw from his lips
is "There are things we do not know."
When it comes to organs of authority an organism can only have one such
organ. Two brains, within the one discrete form, are counterproductive. The idea that
two brains are better than one is a reference to linking in series, or even more complex
arrangements that lead to a logarithmic increase in potential. Brains that
communicate as ours do possess a logarithmic potential that applies to their mental
capacity. Which accounts for the seemingly miraculous power of human intelligence
and the fact that this intelligence is a social phenomenon the reality of which is often
contradicted in the individual, and sometimes contradicted in the social phenomenon
of the crowd which acts like a wild animal, something we do not think of much these
days but was a popular subject for sociologists a hundred years ago. I suspect
television has something to do with the disappearance of the phenomenon of the
crowd, there being no reason for people to gather on mass to receive their instructions
from authority any more. The logarithmic factor equally well accounts for human
stupidity personified by highly intelligent people. How many times have I asked
myself how a person capable of tying their own shoelaces can be brain dead enough
to accept the ideas associated with belief in God? Thousands. So clever and yet so
stupid. And often it is the supremely intelligent individual that is the most debased
and pitiful in their love of ignorance and stupidity. Tony Blair, an unquestionably
clever man, presents himself as a passionate idiot, a Christian, a man who thinks that
when he is dead he will be alive! Excuse me! Help, how can this be? In that case
what is wrong with killing people? Nolets not even go there, I am damned if I am
going to start playing the lunatics game.
We may suppose that this type of behaviour is a charade buried in the
subconscious, that a person could easily slough off if the advantages of the pretence
should wither away, and this is undoubtedly true up to a point. But there is reason to
believe that people are fixed upon these ideas beyond any kind of reason. Christianity
earned itself a name, so we are told, by the way it produced people willing to be fed to
the lions rather than deny their God. Look at the appalling effect the Jewish slave
identity has on those inducted into the Muslim version, who are so willing to use their
own bodies as a timing mechanism in an explosive device. The logic of the suicide
bomber is actually very sound from a realistic perspective on the place of an
individual in modern warfare, but it is staggeringly slavish and makes my case for me
that there is no such thing as an individualin the most eloquent manner possible.
But even when considering the cynical case, one is still left with a need to discover
the functional basis of the advantage that a clever person with social power derives
from feigning mindless stupidity dedicated to an idiotic and repulsive idea. However,
the answer is the same in either case, and it involves the logarithmic dynamic arising
from brains so fluently interconnected that when attuned appropriately to a message

41
they form one state of mind constituting a super mind that requires clever people to
act as focal points of information sustaining the dynamic of collective consciousness.
In someone like Tony Blair we see a stable expression of the phenomenon, in
someone like Adolf Hitler we have the amazing spectacle of the awesome power of
this logarithmic effect arising when the theocracy is most under threat, as opposed to
being most in control as at the present time. Hence the fact that these so dissimilar
qualities, evident intelligence and apparent insanity, are always found in close
association with one another in figures of authority.
The logarithmic equation applicable to the integration of individual brains into
a superbrain explains all this perfectly, for it means there is also a super intelligence
and a super mind, and the individual is disposed to express this super mentality, which
however is not their own mentality. Hence the product of an individual’s intelligence
invariably amounts to little more than the expression of a software programme’s
instruction. The idea of immortality conforms perfectly to the true being that
embodies the super mind that the individual draws their developed mentality from. It
is this super mind that is therefore being expressed by someone who receives the full
package without duress of any kind. Thus we find inherently contradictory modes of
reasoning, the intelligent reasoning that is the rational and the stupid reasoning that
contradicts reason and is therefore irrational, united in the one individual. The source
of human intelligence feeds both modes to the socially committed individual and
causes them to appear in a most bizarre form, some strange state of madness, but a
state of madness that delivers supreme power; George Bush comes to mind as I write
this sentence. Human intelligence as represented in the sum of all knowledge is
phenomenal, and while the individual can access this in small amounts, there are few
who are able to comprehend its full meaning in real terms. I actually know of none
aside from myself, though this does not mean they do not existwho knows I exist?
and when I say this of myself I am only referring to the fact that I have discovered
for myself what human nature is, something no other person has ever done, and left a
record of having done so that others can freely access; a final condition I have yet to
achieve. The fact of the logarithmic power of the linguistic accumulator incorporated
into the brain actually explains why, and how, the human brain evolved. Something
no so called scientist can currently account for because they are prevented from
working from a scientific foundation when considering humans. Theistic scientists
are stuck trying to account for how this animal has an organ that costs a lot more than
its body can affordwho gave it the loan damn it? We want to know who the banker
is.
If we want to take this matter a little further, in biological terms, we can see
that in a preceding paragraph we are homing in on the biological dynamic whereby
the evolution of social structures must occur, for as we discuss the rise of the
scientific exoskeleton as an extension of the theocracy's exoskeleton we can easily
imagine the scientific exoskeleton breaking away from that of the theocracy once it
has formed an exoskeletal enclave of its own, and thus scientific authority grows to
dominance as religion dies. In the above we actually kept occupying the theistic
platform of individual conscious purpose by thinking of the theocracy creating and
possessing science, this is a product of the theistic language our brains were
programmed to operate with, this we shall correct now. This development of living
social forms that become independent of their progenitor bodies precisely matches the
manner in which racial physiology acted as the medium of superorganic form that laid
the foundation for language to evolve which eventually became so sophisticated it
broke free from racial physiology and created its own exogenous medium of social

42
colour in a linguistic form, that we call religion, which is now in its final phase of
realising its physical effects even as it finds itself giving way to a new evolutionary
cusp with the rise of science. The phase of shifting from superorganic colour vested
in the skin of individuals, to the superorganic colour vested in cultural artifacts is the
umbilical passage from superorganic potential to superorganic realisation that the
human species has travelled through to get to its current place in time and space. And
of course racial physiology is still a powerful identity dynamic, indicating that these
identity forms never give rise to completely independent beings composed entirely of
one identity mode. This is why a social organism comes into being in layers of
structural levels that evolve by creating exoskeletal structure that has lifted the
hominid form from the ape-like animal to the ant-like apes of today. We are talking
here of a process involving race and language that must of been going on for fifty to
one hundred thousand years or more, and is still actively proceeding to this day.
If the transformation from theism as a binding medium of identity to science
as the binding medium of identity took place, then nothing fundamental would
change, I suspect. There might be some consequence of the shift from the
intercession of lies between reality and knowledge and direct access to knowledge
that is implicit in this change of knowledge medium, but the laws of nature appear to
preclude the possibility of real change in our species in respect to knowledge of the
self. Unless we get to the point where a whole suborder of exoskeletal fabric can take
the place of living tissue as the third order of superorganic form, leaving a second
order of truly free individuals occupying the executive order of superorganic form and
an elite of intellectuals managing the knowledge that everything depends upon simply
because they are the only ones with the innate capacity to do so, the elite being
selected therefore from both orders without bias functionally created within a
structurally differentiated social structure as occurs in our own organism today.
This far off, not to say far-out possibility, aside, the usual mode of social
reconstitution when a revolution in outlook takes places sees the old guard shift from
the former position of power to the new position, like animals realigning themselves
to a new leader by grooming and presenting, and human courtiers seeking to ingratiate
themselves with a new monarch, such people only being interested in maintaining
their social position. This is an everyday behaviour, we see it in microcosm as the
Americans worry about Bathists becoming police officers in the new state the
Americans are making in Iraq to extend their empire into the area around Israel in the
name of God's freedom. More pointedly is the manner in which trade unions derived
from the roots of downtrodden people became the bane of the lives of working
people, allowing Margaret Thatcher to enlist the working classes in the destruction of
the trade union power bloc by offering the working classes a few titbits from the table
of the middle classes; something the next generation are paying for now in high house
prices, and we are all paying for in exorbitant council tax. It is not possible to create a
socially influential idea without invoking the laws of human nature. The shift of the
class of people who seek power, and their ensuing effort to increase the power of the
institutions they have gravitated toward, is a natural process. To wish this could be
otherwise is like grains of interstellar dust wishing they did not have to obey the law
of gravity and form planets just so that human beings could evolve and dump all over
them. Tuff, get use to it, it is all that is ever going to happen.
All that has happened in our first world environment as the industrial age has
progressed and turned into the technological age is that as machines have taken over
the heavy drudge of life working standards for the lower orders have fallen as the skill
level has shifted from the manual labourer to the intellectual. Now, since the

43
incubating centres do not teach knowledge, but only obedience, their products are fit
for nothing except service industry where obedience is the sole requirement,
expressed in the idea of team work. Machines have made people even more slavish,
not less, so the ideal is, as ever, proving to be elusive. And it is easy enough to find
Victorian commentators making similar observations regarding the shift from
agricultural work where the labourer had the benefit of being involved in the work
they were doing, to the soulless industrial pattern of labour where each person
specialised in one meaningless task for the sake of efficient productivity. This is what
gave rise to art movements like that of William Morris with the emphasis upon a
return to the craftsmanship of old; all very well for him, he was just one of the elite
playing games. Thus we see how the screw turns and, as a species, we become ever
more dependant, ever more robotic. Each generation is just one more thread, defined
in its turning degree by the degree of unwittingness it possesses due to the limit of
awareness an individual can carry of how the world they think they live in is not what
it is said to be. And nor will the world they think they are creating be what it is said
to be during the process of creation either. After the living in one band of time are
gone, the screw turns once more, represented by change in the social fabric such as
the demise of the pub and the coming of the mosque in our own time, as we go further
into the future state of absolute obedience to the theocracy that can never die, never
goes away, simply will not stop, and can never be terminated. It is amazing how
much deep philosophy there is in a Hollywood movie if you only know how to read
the hidden message, the robotic adversary seeking to consume all of humanity is the
God of Judaism; unless of course you are an atheist, then it is the social organism.
The fact of the matter is that we do live in an age of scientific knowledge, yet
we still live within an absolute theocracy within which there is no such thing as
science. There are two facets to the theological manipulation of scientific knowledge,
the first forms the core of this work, it concerns the manner in which science is
subverted to protect theism, but scientific institutions must still do something positive,
and not just negative, if they are to be able to carry the label 'scientific'. And they do,
they do what the theocracy set them up to do, they perform technical processes
producing data from which superorganic structure can be created, and they also
conduct experiments to produce scientific knowledge on the control and manipulation
of human social tissue, at all levels of organisation, as and when their political masters
require them to do so, such as providing contrived data on passive smoking. So
science is used to protect the age old ways of creating superorganic form. Science is
used to aid and abet these ancient ways of superorganic growth by producing data, on
demand, to justify laws controlling cellular behaviour, as in the case of smoking,
drink driving and speeding, and to prompt uniform cellular behaviour as in wearing
seat belts and so on. All these laws, both enforcing and prohibiting cellular
behaviour, that channel individuals into collective modes of behaviour, are derived
from fabricated tests conducted in scientific laboratories where the behaviour of
individual cells can be tested in idealised conditions that negate individuality by
eliminating variation between individual responses in order to find the lowest
common denominator for safe and reliable operation of units operating dynamically
within areas of the exoskeleton where fixed control is attainable. Such as when
travelling in robotic extensions of the cellular body operating in the superorganic road
network where individuality must be reduced to expressions of identity, such as
design features of the robotic extensions indicating cellular status. Scientists in our
theocracy therefore exist to serve the theocracy by producing ideals for the creation of
systems of control indicating how to fabricate superorganic structure that can be

44
monitored and controlled efficiently, in so far as conditions permit. This is like the
ultimate version of a time and motion expert ensuring the workers perform to the
maximum of their physiological capacity in the time frame given. Thus we see how
one facet of the theocracy's scientific establishment can be likened to the familiar
behaviour of individuals in the manner of an analogy, except this is no analogy, the
scientific organ is real and the data it produces licences the real actions the social
administrators have already decided are needed in order to manage the biomass
effectively in accordance with the Zionist principle of superorganic integrity. This is
the age of the scientific theocracy, all this science and God still rules OK. Isn't it
marvellous what nature can do. And we humans are not only powerless to do
anything about it, we do not even have a clue what is going on, we flip between
declaring we are the masters in one breath, and that we are the servants of our master,
the divine creator, in the next breath. Shall we laugh, or shall we cry?
Finally then, for the word science to have meaning it must create living tissue
in the form of an institution. This has been done in the name of religion so that the
theist possesses the word science, so that the natural word for an atheist, which is
scientist, is simply not available and consequently atheistically inclined individuals
who seek to resist the authority of the organism are stuck with the negative label
atheist; which will have to do for now; but we will be back.

45
 The Protagonists

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. R. 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-natural element is eliminated.
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.
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-

46
 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 people 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.

(Social Evolution, Benjamin Kidd, 1894. Pages 100-103)

Nothing could be more pertinent to this treatise than these thoughts of Kidd's.
But we can usefully make at least one observation to clarify a most important point
about this whole issue of the social organism. Kidd homes in correctly upon the
social system being constituted according to a religious formula, hence the reason you
will find me relentlessly referring to the absolute theocracy that we live in today, and
hence the reason you will find me declaring equally relentlessly that that theocracy is
Jewish. We do, incidentally, not live in a Western civilisation, we live in a Jewish
civilisation, this follows directly from the novel explanation Kidd provides for us here
that we must affirm is absolutely correct.
An important subject raised by Kidd that we need to turn our attention to for a
moment concerns the laws of social evolution. Kidd speaks of science discovering
these laws, and promoting this possibility informs part the effort we are engaged in
here, in a philosophical contribution to the required scientific effort. But what is also
implicit in the logic of his argument is that religion gives expression to these laws, in
other words religion has already discovered these laws, in exactly the same way that
the humans who first domesticated various species of plants and animals discovered
the laws of genetics. As such we can read the laws of social evolution directly from
the religious texts that shape the social organism. And we are today ruled by the laws
of human nature encoded into Jewish mythology, which is why the Jews are the
master race, because human evolution is focused upon Jewish identity. The Jews
were reviled by ancient authors because they made life sacred and thus preserved the
congenitally deformed. But the Jews have come to be the masters of all humanity and
this ethical regulation is at the heart of such a development because it so radically
alters the superorganic physiology, and it does so in a highly positive manner, from
the perspective of biological laws pertaining to the growth of the superorganism.
Darwin's flawed notions on evolution contradict the thrust of these ethical laws of
human corporate nature that derive from the real nature of the human animal.
Darwin's account therefore leads to the absurd characterisation of life that gives us a
law based on the survival of the fittest individual, where the individual is the single
person. Darwin’s scheme thereby castrates the power of any science created upon the

47
foundations he laid down to be actuated by human nature, while at the same time
securing that connection between religious authority and the natural law of human
biology which is therefore preserved in its sacred place. And this is why the
theocracy's scientific solution to the problem of human evolution took the form we
see in Darwin's Origin of Species that offered the amazing revelation that humans
were just talking apes. This of course told us nothing of any substance, it merely flew
in the face of religion's already self evidently absurd ideas of human divinity.
The evocative law of nature that we can call the 'survival of the fittest',
although no one claims this is a true law of nature, is actually a potentially valid law,
whose actual invalidity derives from its misapplication due the wholly erroneous
foundation of the entire pantheon of the human sciences, these sciences being based
upon the premise of God’s existence as entombed within the Bible, rather derived
from a grasp of human nature informed by the biological sciences. For any natural
law to be meaningful it needs to be treated as more than a mere label that can be stuck
onto any superficially valid form. Laws of nature must be applied to the forms where
their impact is felt, as determined by the causal effects that give rise to such laws,
causal effects that themselves ensue as a consequence of dynamics expressed by the
laws humans derive from observations of nature. The 'survival of the fittest' is a
macro law that applies to the maximum extent of a unified living entity to which such
a law of creation applies. In other words in order to apply this law correctly we must
correctly identify the individual to which the law applies. The 'survival of the fittest'
law has an all embracing, gravitational effect, applying to macro scale bodies. Within
macro scale bodies there will be micro laws that contradict the macro law of the
'survival of the fittest' because all such macro scale bodies necessarily have complex
structures associated with similarly complex dynamic systems. This can be visualised
by thinking of the law of gravity acting discretely only upon integral bodies such as
planets situated in the void of space, while still influencing all matter forming part of
the mass of those bodies, but not so as to preclude counter-gravitational motion acting
according to micro forces operating within the mass of the celestial object. Thus a
lorry travelling along the motorway is subject to the macro law of gravity in so far as
its mass is resting upon the road, but the law of gravity in no sense accounts for the
motion and forces responsible for that motion which is due to the micro scale forces
specific to the vehicle which operates within the remit of the macro scale laws. The
work of Zipf on the homologous and heterogeneous constitution of complex social
bodies is in harmony with this reasoning about the manner in which all systems
display diverse complexity contained within a field of unified simplicity. Zipf is
discussed in Appendix II.
Kidd, it is pleasing to see, while using the law of the 'survival of the fittest' in
the above piece, does so while applying this macro law to the maximal definition of
the human organism that can exist, that is to the living body created by religious
dogma. This Darwin most certainly did not do at any time, nor did Herbert Spencer,
Darwin’s colleague in the subversion of science as applied to human society, Spencer
being a major contributor to the English model of sociology which so completely
perverts the real sociology promoted by the likes of Lilienfeld. Lilienfeld is
sometimes described as a follower of Spencer, but it can be seen in the work
translated here that Lilienfeld is critical of Spencer.

At the same time that English intellectuals fought against the rise of scientific
ideas with their own distorted versions of biological reality centred upon Darwin's
lopsided account of evolution, it appears there were many more keen followers of the

48
truly scientific approach on the continent. We can scarcely consider this matter
without mentioning the French philosopher Auguste Comte who is credited with
having coined the word sociology, and who also seems to of been one of the first to
voice the idea of the social organism in a modern scientific context. But more than
anywhere else it appears to of been in Germany where the idea of the social organism
really struck deep into the intellectual psyche of the nation. It was not just in the field
of erstwhile sociology that people sought to apply science to human society. In the
field of law there were notable exponents of the idea that society was quite literally a
true organism. For this aspect of our field of enquiry we can turn to two English
translations taken from the work of Otto Gierke, Political Theories of the Middles
Age, translated by F. W. Maitland, 1900, first published in German in 1881, and
Natural Law and the Theory of Society 1500 to 1800, translated by Ernest Barker
1934, first published in 1913; both worth knowing about, but beyond the remit of our
present concern.
For a sense of the variety of commentators on the subject of the human
superorganism we can refer to Organismic Theories of the State: Nineteenth Century
Interpretations of the State as Organism or as Person by F. W. Coker published in
1910, which provides a review of such authors, but always from an inevitably critical,
not sympathetic, point of view. It is inconceivable that a practicing academic would
of been allowed to publish a book approving of the organic method at this time since
the theocracy had already succeeded in crushing the role of science in the human
sciences and supplanted it with the theologically complementary form of human
science that is now exclusively tolerated in all the world's academic institutions today.
Roberts, whom we quoted above, we may note was not a professional academic, he
was an amateur, an author of travel, adventure and of children's books, by trade. The
only academic book that is friendly to the organic idea, that I have discovered since
completing this translation and preliminary discussion, is that by Zipf just mentioned
above. This is the work of an economist informed by an Organicist stance, it is
therefore sympathetic to Organicism, but it is not itself an Organicist treatise.
Lilienfeld is considered in the book by Coker, but it was from another work by
a sociologist, Contemporary Sociological Theories by Pitirim Sorokin, 1928, that I
was inspired to check him out because the review here seemed to show Lilienfeld's
credentials as a scientist of human society to be the greatest ever attained at any time,
right up to the present day. Sorokin tells us Lilienfeld was a Russian of German
stock, and gives his dates as 1829-1903. Sorokin must be a perfect example of the
type of sociologist Roberts has in mind in the passage quoted above. Sorokin reviles
the idea of treating society in any remotely scientific manner, as do all sociologists,
and ridicules the Organicists in a most pathetic and absurd manner. Anyone despised
by this man had to be good news. It is for this reason that Lilienfeld is an attractive
candidate for anyone looking for a device to aid them in a contemporary revival of
interest in human society as a subject open to scientific investigation. When
reviewing the works of the continental Organicists, to use the term Lilienfeld says
became current in his own day to describe those who favoured the idea of society
being treated as a living organic entity, we find that few works have been translated
into English. One notable exception is the work of an author writing in German but
who actually came from Switzerland, J. K. Bluntschli wrote The Theory of the State,
from the perspective of political science, and it is worth noting that it is in the field of
political science that some trace of the organicist idea can still be found reverberating
in the otherwise empty corridors of academia as late as the 1970's. A prime example
from this modern era is a short book Biological Ideas in Politics: An Essay on

49
Political Adaptivity by W. J. M. Mackenzie, 1979. It is catalogued in association with
the then new subject of sociobiology brought into being by the American professor
specialising in the study of ants, Edward O. Wilson, who wrote Sociobiology: The
New Synthesis in 1975 and thereby inadvertently threatened to open the whole can of
worms I am deliberately trying to open here, until his fellow scientific colleagues fell
on him like a ton of bricks and silenced him stone dead, and seemingly obliging him
to direct his energies toward his safer concern for ecological issues where he could do
no harm, and of course no real good in comparison to what he might of done in the
field of human social organics with his knowledge of ant society. Biology and
Politics by Albert Somit, 1976, sounds relevant but it carries all the hallmarks of an
anti-scientific, pro-theistic effort. Returning to Bluntschli, from the introduction in
the 1901 translation I cannot be quite sure when the work translated was originally
published, but his first work appears to of been 1852. But for anyone of the present
time who has come upon the strictly scientific solution to the question 'What is human
nature?', the solution we are concerned with here, the idea of obtaining some sense of
what one of the greatest advocates of the superorganic nature of human society had to
say is bound to be an interesting prospect. Hence the translation offered here.
I might just say that I personally favour the term 'superorganic' and so I use it
freely, this does not appear to be the case with Lilienfeld. The term ‘superorganic’
seems to be promoted by various anthropologists of his time and the only one I have
looked at, A. L. Kroeber, The Superorganic, American Anthropologist, Vol. 19, No. 2
April-June, 1917, and it was not pleasing from an Organicist point of view. Kroeber
seems to be discussing the difference between the organic and the social, and trying to
assert the difference is fundamental, this tallies with remarks Lilienfeld makes toward
the end of the work translated here, and naturally he did not like this disunity any
more than I do. Science is replete with this extremely devious approach to its subject
matter whereby those who are essentially determined to defend the theocracy by
defending the unique status of humanity insinuate themselves into the relevant
sciences and become expert in their chosen field, then they insist on the divide which
must destroy the triumph of science at the same time it secures the freedom of religion
to exist unhindered. But I had better not go into this too much here, as much as I
would like to, because there is simply too much to say on the subject. The preceding
chapter discusses the linguistic source of this behaviour.

While we are on the subject of the word ‘superorganic’ we might as well

peruse its first use, in so far as we are able to shed light on this. The more works and
authors we mention, the more we illuminate the predominance and importance of the
theme of Lilienfeld’s work in his own day, something that is easy to miss given the
rapid disappearance of Organicism soon after his demise. From the genre of political
science we have The State & the Individual: An Introduction to Political Science,
with special reference to Socialistic and Individualistic Theories, William Sharp
M‘Kechnie, James MacLehose and Sons, 1896. McKechnie ridicules Herbert
Spencer’s individualism, and rightly so, it was this that ruined Spencer as an
Organicist thinker and made him contemptible. Not that his individualistic ideals are
not wonderful to imagine, but they are so much utopian nonesense. This why we do
not give any time to Spencer in this preliminary discussion of Lilienfeld. However
Spencer was the main English Organicist thinker, and he was a world famous
philosopher, so at least we can mention his contribution to the lexicon of Organicism
in the most telling fashion by noting that he may be the originator of the word
‘superorganism’. McKechnie says

50
 If organic is to be usedfor want of a better wordto include society and the
State, it must be extended to cover a wider connotation and to embrace many
objects besides animal organisms. Society ought perhaps to be described in
Mr. Spencer’s phrase as super-organic, or hyper-organic, rather than as simply
organic.

(Page 16)

There is an extensive discussion of the organic idea of society, so this book, which I
only acquired the other day, today being 31/03/05, is a very nice find. Again,
however, the author is a reviewer, not a philosopher of ideas, so his work, like that of
Zipf that I recently obtained, is not itself an Organicist treatise.
Taking my lead from this work I have dipped into the main account of the
social organism provided by Spencer to see if I could locate the use of the phrase
‘superorganism’, and I think we should sample this author’s work, accordingly we
have the opening of Chapter III Social Growth, of Part II The Inductions of Sociology,
of The Principles of Sociology, Herbert Spencer, D. Appleton, 1896. (First published
1878-80)

§ 224. Societies, like living bodies, begin as germsoriginate from

masses which are extremely minute in comparison with the masses some of
them eventually reach. That out of small wandering hordes have arisen the
largest societies, is a condition not to be contested. The implements of pre-
historic peoples, ruder even than existing savages use, imply absence of those
arts by which alone great aggregations of men are made possible. Religious
ceremonies that survived among ancient historic races, pointed back to a time
when the progenitors of those races had flint knives, and got fire by rubbing
together pieces of wood; and must have lived in such small clusters as are
alone possible before the rise of agriculture.
The implication is that by integrations, direct and indirect, there have
in course of time been produced social aggregates a million times in size the
aggregates which alone existed in the remote past. Here, then, is a growth
reminding us, by its degree, of growth in living bodies.

§ 225. Between this trait of organic evolution and the answering trait
of super-organic evolution, there is a further parallelism: the growths in
aggregates of different classes are extremely various in their amounts.

(Page 463)

Now let us find space for a criticism from Sorokin, to see the kind of facile
arguments pseudo scientists use to subvert the science they infest.

Since man is an organism, the laws of biology are applicable to him,

but from this it does not follow at all that human society is a biological
organism. The rules of arithmetical addition or multiplication are equally
applicable to an arithmetical computation of men, cattle, stones, and what not.
Does it follow from that that man is a cow, or that a cow is a stone, or that all

51
 these objects are identical? The laws of mechanics or chemistry are equally
applicable to man, stone, or plant. Does it follow from this that a man, a plant,
and a stone are the same things? In a similar way, from the supposition that
the laws of biology are applicable to man, it does not follow at all that man is a
cow, or a plant, and still less is it possible to infer that the human society is an
organism. In other words, the applicability of some rules or formulas of
uniformities (laws) to various objects, does not mean an identity of the nature
of these objects.
We may agree also that human society is composed of a living
substance, that is, of human beings. But it is fallacious to infer from this that
human societies are but biological organisms. In the final analysis, either a
stone, an animal, a plant, or a man is composed of atoms or electrons. Does
this mean that stones, plants, animals, and men are identical things, and can be
identified with one another in their structure, organs, or functions; or that they
could be interpreted with the same principles in their composition and
activity? We may agree that human society is a kind of a unity in which its
members are interdependent upon each other. It is, however, fallacious to
conclude from this that human society is an organism, because an organism is
also a kind of unity. The solar system, an automobile, a plant, an animal, a
river, or a man, all represent a kind of a unity with interdependent parts. Does
it follow from this that human society is the same unity as the solar system, a
car, a plant, a river; or that all these objects are identical?
As a unity, human society may disintegrate, the human being may die,
a stone may be broken into pieces, or a river may dry up. In all these cases,
each of these unities disappears. Is it possible to infer from this that the
various processes of the disappearance of each unity are identical, and that for
this reason the corresponding phenomena (objects) are identical also?
Evidently not. Meanwhile, the bio-organismic analogies of a similarity of the
organismic processes with the social (though both show the phenomena of
growth, sickness, multiplication, differentiation and so on) represent just such
a reasoning and such an inference. If a logician needs an excellent illustration
of a fallacy in analogical reasoning, he cannot have a better example than the
bio-organismic analogical methods. The above is enough to make clear their
"organic" fallacy. It is needless to make a detailed criticism of their organic
analogies. Their weakness has been ridiculed and criticized more than
enough. There is no need to repeat these well based objections.

(Contemporary Sociological Theories, P. Sorokin, Harper & Brothers,

1928, Pages 209 - 210.)

Reading this is like listening to a sermon from a ranting American preacher of

the kind we have been given the misery of listening to in the run up to the American
elections, which mercifully take place today. This is mere rhetoric. The fact is that if
humans are part of the organic world then they are indeed part of the organic world.
And why would we wish to take any other point of view? As scientists interested in
understanding universal reality according to scientific principles why would we want
to invoke a whole new level of existence in the universe, as Lilienfeld himself
demands to know, a social level to which only the human kind have been granted
access? Only one reason, to support established religious authority.

52
 Make no mistake, I got where I am today as a result of being a lifelong
passionate atheist, and this work is, as much as anything, a work of atheism, as close
to being a work of the devil as any work ever could hope to be, from a Christian
perspective, it is in other words a sublime piece of science, in spirit at least, if not in
the standard of its execution.
To this end I undertook the translation of Lilienfeld's Defence. I have
provided a note on the translation so I will not duplicate the points made in that
section. What remains to be done is to provide an introduction to this particular piece
of work by Lilienfeld. The Defence is a short monograph which the author explains
in the introduction was undertaken to address a particular issue that had presented
itself at a conference of sociologists, which considered the question of method in
sociology. Sorokin, informs us that the organic method took an absolute hammering
at this conference, which may well be the case and would explain the effort Lilienfeld
makes in presenting this Defence; it does not mean however that the attack was either
scientifically justified or any more rational than the irrational drivel Sorokin comes
out with in the quote above. Lilienfeld seems to of published his main work in the
1870's, Thoughts on a Future Science of Society, to which he refers the reader of the
monograph from time to time. Coker gives this as Thoughts Concerning the Social
Science of the Future and gives the dates as 1873-1881. My translation software
gives Thought over that Socialwissenschaft of the future, where Socialwissenschaft
means 'social science' leading me to give my translation where I render 'over' as 'on'
which Coker has as 'concerning'. At all times I try to keep my interpretation of the
machine's offering minimal to preserve the meaning as best I can since I have not the
slightest idea what the author is really trying to say other than that which I can derive
from the machine's offering. Anyway, given the preceding remarks concerning my
desire to revive an interest in this subject a short monograph justifying the use of the
organic method in sociology produced at exactly the time when this method was
about to be done to death, is ideal for the present objective. The fact is that while this
work by Lilienfeld is replete with antiquated modes of reasoning it is adequate for our
purposes here. The monograph gives us just what we need, a reminder of the core
issues concerning the validity of the method, the extent of its development before its
expulsion from the academic world by pseudo scientists working from within the
establishment to preserve the ancient theocracy which rules our world, and the nature
of the antagonism levelled against it by society when it was a prominent force in
society.
The Defence of the Organic Method in Sociology brings forward many of the
basic matters we need to be considering in relation to this subject. It reminds us that
no matter how much it may be disliked it is founded upon already proven facts of
biology, and so the validity of the method cannot be refuted on rational scientific
grounds. This is the supreme defence, indeed Lilienfeld closes with a restatement of
this point, it is the inspiration for anyone who today does not accept the official line
that humans are unique and distinct from all other known aspects of the universe,
giving us the current 'scientific' mantra that asserts that humans, alone in the universe,
shape themselves. See Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene for a fine example of this
supremely theological, and utterly unscientific statement coming from the pen of an
infamous atheist, an overt enemy of the church, and supreme defender of science
applied to human beings; or, alternatively, as I like to call him, The Gatekeeper of the
Theocracy, where he says 'We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the
selfish replicators.', page 331, OUP. 1999. The alternative, and opposite point of
view, is that humans are part of the universe, and are therefore in no sense divorced

53
from its natural laws, thus human society is just as much subject to the laws of nature
as any other life form. This basic tenet is infused into Lilienfeld's Defence. It is this
fact that commends his work to us.

54
 The Knowledge Cycle

Tragically, apart from some antiquated aspects of his scientific reasoning,

which are no real hindrance to the enjoyment of this work, we also find the strangle
hold of high minded European ideas, fostered by the self satisfied arrogance so typical
of Christianity, blinkering Lilienfeld's attempt to be free of the age old block on
understanding ourselves from a true perspective. In this respect Lilienfeld is not
alone, all critics of the social order that approach humanity from a true perspective
always fall shy of driving the point home beyond a point of no return where the nail
enters the idea of God, and kills it stone dead. Our aim, as protagonists for science,
has to be to drive that nail home, or we may just as well not bother being here at all.
The French philosopher Auguste Comte seems to approve of the notion of God's
demise, and he has a certain intuitive grasp of the dualistic dynamics at play in human
society, but he does not have the least inkling of the nature of the thing he calls a
'social organism'.

Among the infinite variety of political ideas which appear to be striving in

society, there are in fact only two orders, the mingling of which in various
proportions occasions the apparent multiplicity: and of these two, the one is
really only the negation of the other. If we wish to understand our own
condition, we must look at it as the result and last term of the general conflict
undertaken, for three centuries past, for the gradual demolition of the old
political system. So regarding it, we see that whereas, for above half a
century, the irremediable decay of the old system has proved the necessity of
founding a new one, we have not been sufficiently aware of the need to have
formed an original and direct conception, adequate to the purpose; so that our
theoretical ideas have remained inferior to our practical necessities, which, in
a healthy state of the social organism, they habitually anticipate, to prepare for
their regular and peaceable satisfaction. Though the political movement could
not but have changed its nature, from that time forward, becoming organic
instead of critical, yet, for want of a basis in science, it has proceeded on the
same old ideas that had actuated the past struggle; and we have witnessed the
spectacle of defenders and assailants alike endeavouring to convert their old
weapons of war into instruments of reorganization, without suspecting the
inevitable failure which must ensue to both parties. Such is the state that we
find ourselves in now. All ideas of order in the political world are derived
from the old doctrine of the theological and military system, regarded
especially in its Catholic and feudal constitution: a doctrine which from our
point of view in this work, represents the theological state of social science:
and, in the same way, all ideas of progress are still derived from the purely
negative philosophy which, issuing from protestantism, assumed its final form
and development in the last century, and which, applied to social affairs,
constitutes the metaphysical state of politics. The different classes of society
range themselves on the one side or the other, according to their inclination for
conservatism or amelioration. With every new uprising of a social difficulty,
we see the retrograde school proposing, as the only certain and universal
remedy, the restoration of the corresponding part of the old political system;

55
 and the critical school referring the evil exclusively to the destruction of the
old system not being complete. We do not often see the two doctrines
presented without modification. They so exist only in purely speculative
minds. But when we see them in monstrous alliance, as we do in all degrees
of political opinion, we can not but know that such an alliance can not yield
any virtue which its elements do not contain, and that it can only exhibit their
mutual neutralization. We must here, it is clear, regard the theological and
metaphysical politics separately, in the first place, that we may afterward
understand their present antagonism, and form an estimate of the futile
combinations into which men have endeavoured to force them.
THE THEOLOGICAL PARTY Pernicious as the theological polity
may be in our day, no true philosopher will ever forget that it afforded the
beneficent guardianship under which the formation and earliest development
of modern societies took place. But it is equally incontestable that, for three
centuries past, its influence among the most advanced nations, has been
essentially retrograde, notwithstanding some partial services. We need not go
into any discussion of its doctrine, in order to ascertain its powerlessness for
future service: for it is plain that a polity that could not hold its ground before
the natural progress of intelligence and of society can never again serve as a
basis of social order. The historical analysis which I shall have to offer of the
causes that have dissolved the Catholic and feudal system will show, better
than any argument, how radical and irretrievable is the decay.

The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte, translated by Harriet

Martineau, Calvin Blanchard, 1856. Pages 401 - 402. First published 1830 -
1842.

A lengthy quote, I know, but it is particularly pertinent to our present concern

with Lilienfeld's Defence of the Organic Method in Sociology, not least in the manner
it uses the terminology of warfare between two foes. The adversarial parties Comte
has in mind here compared to the ones that we have in mind leads to some confusion.
He seems to be speaking of Catholics versus Protestants as representing the old versus
the modern, both of whom he sees as absurd, and so both are bound to cancel each
other out, leaving the new scientific movement to fill the void. Whereas we approach
the subject from the position where the rationalisation of any conflicting identities
Comte described is complete, neutralisation to the point of mutual annihilation being
absurd in this case, and where we simply have religion versus science, now, and as it
has always been. If we assume my understanding is a fair basis upon which to use
this passage, despite the foregoing observation regarding Comte's thinking, then this
intra social warfare is best thought of as taking place between two opposite
conceptual polarities that are bound to cancel each other out only in so far as one
comes more to the fore than the other. This is exactly what I am seeking to indicate
has happened with the rise of the pseudo sciences of modern society based upon the
foundations laid down by Darwin in 1859 with the publication of The Origin of
Species, which placed the entire emphasis of science upon material form, and
dismissed from view any question of the nature of life as a subject for scientific
enquiry. The above passage, coming as it does from an early nineteenth century
philosopher of human society, shows the depth of this particular form of the conflict
between science as an emergent phenomenon and religion reaching back over several

56
centuries, and thus places Lilienfeld's Defence in its broader context, within an
ongoing battle that never ceases, although it passes through periodic lulls contrasting
with outbreaks of agitation.
With this deeper perspective we take in the thoughts of the acknowledged
founding father of sociology, Auguste Comte, written about 1830. We also have our
primary piece by Lilienfeld, published in 1898, but based on ideas formulated in the
1870's. And here we are in the year 2005. Thus we broadly cover a span of two
centuries, and we can appreciate that this is the kind of minimal time scale we need in
order to make a reasoned scientific judgment of a question such as the one we are
effectively seeking to deal with here; namely the matter of the real nature of the
conflict between science and religion, of which the problem faced by the Organicists
is only a symptom from a particular moment in time. These two centuries embrace
the bulk of the period of modern scientific endeavour, taking us from the early phases
of exciting promise right through into the space age in which we live today, where
science has become a hollow endeavour to illuminate human existence, reduced to the
mechanical servicing of society through the provision of technical prowess alone.
This bicentennial period is one during which awareness of the human place in a
universal scheme of understanding has risen from the most rudimentary of
imaginative conceptions, to the most profoundly astounding capacity to reveal
absolute certainties concerning our origins, our specific nature, and our place in
nature. Most of which possibilities have been crushed by the theocracy.
Comte gives us the setting, he invokes a battle, implicitly for social power, and
he makes the subject of the theocracy central to the discussion. But he also gives us a
fascinating impression of ceaseless progress, especially in the advance of intelligence
and of society, arguing that religion was dead and gone as a foundation of social
order, and science was destined to reign supreme. We can see how he got to this
entirely unreasonable position, an absurd position, by playing off the two main orders
of Christianity, but what we should take from this is how the situation appeared to
someone of his time. And this is important because if, when considering the
evolution of knowledge, we are dealing with a cyclical process that occurs on a
millennial time scale, then we must assume the manner in which the social forms
appear as the process progresses will be transformed according to the stage of growth
and evolution the cycle has reached. So we should not dismiss Comte's view simply
as absurd, but as narrowly focused, and misguided because of the early to middle
stage of the process he was observing which he thought was something completely
different to what it really was, and which he assumed, as people invariably do, was
the dawn of a new age of progress beginning in his own time, that he was making
known to the world. The passage quoted from Spencer in the preceding chapter is a
far more scientifically oriented description of the transformation and growth of
society than the essentially historical approach Comte offers us. But regardless of this
consideration, lets face it, dismissing the giant upheavals of the French Revolution,
which were superficial in terms of any real transformation in the nature and form of
society, the astounding new knowledge of science was staggering enough in its force
and appearance to make anyone think a new age must be dawning. How wrong
people can be, and the problem we are largely concerned with here is working out just
why even this radical shift in our collective perspective has made not one jot of
difference to the individual's understanding of their existence, and hence the fact that
base ignorance in the form of religious creeds thrives today as never before. It is
poignant to think that even as Comte was at work heralding in the new age of reason
and the death of the age of absurdity, in the new territories of the old world a

57
monstrous new form of ignorance was bursting into life under the title of
Mormonism. How would our progenitor of social philosophy of accounted for that
one wonders, if he could of seen the end game as we know see it in a world where
Mormonism thrives? There is only one way to account to for it, and this we are
unfolding now.
Before continuing our own modern exposition lets take a diversion into the
latter part of the nineteenth century to peruse a possible answer to the interesting
question just posed in respect to Mormonism.

Professor Huxley, some time ago, in a severe criticism of the "Religion

of Humanity" advocated by the followers of Comte, (Nineteenth Century,
February 1889) asserted, in accents which always come naturally to the
individual when he looks at the drama of human life from his own standpoint,
that he would rather worship "a wilderness of apes" as a Positivist's
rationalised conception of humanity. But the comparison with which he
concluded, in which he referred to the considerable progress made by
Mormonism as contrasted with Positivism, has its explanation when viewed in
the light of the foregoing conclusions. Mormonism may be a monstrous form
of belief, and one which is undoubtedly destined to be worsted in conflict with
the forms of Christianity prevailing round it; yet it is seen that we cannot deny
to it the characteristics of a religion. Although, on the other hand, the
"Religion of Humanity" advocated by Comte may be, and is, a most
exemplary set of principles, we perceive it to be without those characteristics.
It is not, apparently, a religion at all. It is, like other forms of belief which do
not provide a super-rational sanction for conduct, but which call themselves
religions, incapable, from the nature of the conditions, of exercising the
functions of a religion in the evolution of society.
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 sanctions.

(Social Evolution, Kidd. Page 114-116)

And thus we see the kind of clever evaluation a late nineteenth century
commentator was capable of arriving at in respect to ideas concerning the conflict
between religion and science. Most impressive. But still inadequate. In the closing
remarks to Kidd's chapter five The Function of Religious Beliefs in the Evolution of
Society, provided here, we can see wherein the failure lies. Although Kidd talks the

58
talk of science, talks the talk of biology, he most certainly does not walk the walk.
Having applied his insightful logic to the function of religion superbly, he then
chooses to regard religion, from a biological perspective, supposedly, as a social
phenomenon! Why, for crying out loud does he not see a biological foundation to
religion? He concludes by saying that since it is within the field of ethics that the
application of natural law driving human evolution applies then it is to ethics we must
look to understand human evolution.
So much brilliance and yet so blind. Language, this is what the necessity of
religion's irrationality should focus our attention upon, for it is the evolution of
language that makes this irrationality possible. I have said language evolved so that
humans could tell lies, but with the thoughts of Kidd expressed above we can be
somewhat more intelligent in the way we express this idea of mine, by saying that this
lying realises its function in the irrationality of religion that is observed by Kidd. I
see the centrality of language, Lilienfeld saw it, how could Kidd fail to see it? In
language we clearly have a purely physiological, that is to say, biological
phenomenon, that is necessarily the foundation of functional irrationality, a state of
mind that could not exist without the language that makes both rationality and
irrationality possible. We observed that language evolved to enable humans to lie to
one another, but to lie to one another in the capacity of organs of authority delivering
a message of unity to the body. In effect by making the irrationality of religion into a
super-rational necessity imposed upon individuals by religious belief Kidd is
circumventing biology and retaining the attributes of irrationality within the domain
of human reason, for irrationality is in truth a facet of human reason, albeit reason in a
negative mode of expression. Kidd, in other words, is saying that we choose to be
irrational because to be irrational is, in the long run, in the social context, rational.
This is of course true, up to a point, and something we can all intuitively relate to in
everyday life. But if this phenomenon of irrationality is to be understood in a
scientific manner then it must be seen in relation to the physical being of an organism.
Kidd's ideas ensure that the organism with which we are ultimately concerned is the
individual, not the social organism as a true living being in which the individual does
not exist. It is perhaps not exactly clear that this is where he is going, but the fact is
that he fails to recognise what human nature is, and he fails to recognise the
relationship of the Christian religion to the Jewish religion, and thus he does not state
plainly that the Jews are the master race, the people that rule our world, the people we
all exist to serve. This must make us suspicious of his ideas and reasoning since these
conclusion are absolutely inescapable, and utterly disastrous at the same time; and
certainly not something any sane person would want to be caught saying, but still, that
is science for you.
Kidd wants to examine human social biology at the level of its nature, but as a
system of ethics, whereas he should of been seeking the nature of humanity in a
creative force common to all life, a creative energy that is purely biological in its
nature, a force that connects life with creation itself. There is only one such
biological phenomenon and we call this phenomenon information. We must look at
the social phenomenon of communication as a biologically creative force in its own
right, an expression of information without any moral content, and making this
observation is all we need do to address the problem of social evolution. By failing to
focus on language Kidd fails to see the cycle of knowledge accounting for the two
inherently contradictory intellectual forces of social being represented by the theists
and atheists, by religion that is, and science.

59
 Language creates biological instructions delivering physiological form at the
level of social organisation in the form of an exoskeleton, an example of one such
instruction is the Jewish command 'Life is sacred'. This instruction is not a moral
sanction or an ethical adage, it is a biological routine. If this instruction was not
biologically functional then it would not of evolved as a central part of the ideology
constituting the leading superorganic identity. While the requirement for religion to
carry imbedded within it such functional instructions is implicit, the crucial point of
these instructions is not to get individuals to surrender their interests to collective
interests, as Kidd tells us it is, but rather, it is to achieve the effect of pooling
individual interests mechanistically, in a process beyond human consciousness,
beyond human rational comprehension that is, by forming one corporate being, a
social organism, to use Kidd's phrase, a superorganism to use mine. So it is not a
question of ethics, it is a question of identity, religion is not a system of ethics, and in
so far as religion appears to be a system of ethics it is really a system of physiological
instructions equivalent to the genetic code instructing the body's formation. Religion
then is a system of identity attribution that possesses the individual. The individual so
possessed by a religious identity does not exist as an individual in their own right,
they do not become ultra-rational in order to serve a social purpose. They cease to
exist in order to serve a social purpose, by being possessed by the religious identity
that they profess. By acquiring a robotic identity in this manner an individual's power
of action is channelled directly toward the organ of religious authority, thus human
energy is focused upon a superorgan via the channels of religious identity. This is
why the Jews are the master race, because all religions that are in any sense drawn
from Judaism channel the power of their adherents back toward the Jewish identity in
the same way that the organs of an individual channel the power possessed by each
cell of their body back toward the brain as the organ of motivation uniting the whole
being. The energy of a person is centred on the brain, the energy of the human
biomass is centred in Israel. This was so before Israel ever existed as anything more
than a fantasy imbedded within a religious creed's rigmarole, it has been so since
1947; as we all know to our bitter cost today. And anyone who has the slightest
familiarity with the Mormon travesty will be well aware of how the most absurd
aspects of Jewish mythical history is imbued into it, the logic of which involved a
need to associate the newly acquired territories of the United States with Judaism via
Christian ideology. Hence the daft ideas regarding the forgotten land where the lost
tribes of Israel had disappeared, and so on. It is truly remarkable that this religious
identity could bridge such changes and thrive, an outcome that forcefully vindicates
Kidd's brilliant observations on the function of religion.
Kidd then, offers us a nice opportunity in this passage to observe the most
important attribute of religious function. He is excellent in his logic concerning the
function of religion, and yet he reveals here, by discussing specific religious forms,
that he has not the slightest notion of what the nature of religion is, and consequently
he cannot have the least notion of what the function of religion is in any remotely
biological sense. He observes the contrast between an intellectual moral code and a
religious formula correctly, by contrasting Mormonism with Positivism, but by the
same means he also reveals his failure to recognise how the irrational attribute of
religion actually functions as the information catalyst bringing the social organism
into being when he contrasts Mormonism to traditional Christian forms.
Consequently his prediction that Mormonism would be bested by traditional Christian
forms was utter rot that has proven to be entirely wrong. Hardly a surprising outcome
since this assertion was an expression of pure bias mixed up with a reasonable

60
account, where, like tokens in a pocket full of coins, it bore no relationship to the
account it was mischievously imbedded within purely for the sake of pampering to
religious sensibilities of the time.
Kidd sees the travesty of Mormonism, but conveniently fails to see that all
Christianity is a travesty of ideas, Mormonism only being the more so because of its
formation in modern times when a person would think such gross ideas were
impossible to promote. The disgusting form of Christianity revealed in the stories of
Jesus would be set in stark relief if we had some real historical accounts of the period
as we do in respect to the role of Joseph Smith and the miracle of the copper plates
and so on, upon which Mormon theology, so called, is based. Thus Kidd predicts the
demise of Mormonism as traditional Christian ideologies absorb the misguided due
their superior formula. This hints at a desire for logic in religious worship which runs
counter to Kidd's avowed argument. Kidd ought to of observed at this point that the
logic and power of Christianity in general, in which we must include Mormonism,
rested upon the core power of Judaism which itself was based upon the associated
body of secular law and exoskeletal structure that had evolved in association with
Judaism over the course of millennia. And it was this solid foundation of biological
power in the form of a living superorganic being, the Jewish superorganism, that
made a gross affront to reason such as Mormonism was and still is, so adequate to
serve its purpose as a religion in the new setting of the United States where all the
new Jewish creed had to do was to act as an identity support creating a tentacular
outgrowth from the burgeoning monster of its super being.
To echo Bagehot’s ideas expressed in his Physics and Politics, described
elsewhere in this work, it does not matter what binds people as long as something
binds them. It did not really matter what the new Jewish formula said, it could say
anything, as it clearly did when generating the Mormon identity implant, and still
people would of lapped it up like Mother's milk because that is precisely what it was,
it gave access to the power of Judaism. We must be aware that we are all Jews in the
strictly biological sense, like it or not, know it or not, refute it or not. However, while
this is what Mormonism did for the uprooted people who robbed the new territories
from the resident natives, Mormonism did not evolve to serve this purpose as an end
in itself. Mormonism evolved to serve Judaism, not to serve the emigrants from
Europe sweeping across the plains of central North America. This is how the Jews
came to rule the greatest territory on earth thus far, and so came to establish their
mythical land for the first time, the territory set to be the core of their global domain
that is still to be realised in the millennia to come, as their creed homogenises the
entire human biomass of the planet in its name. I am of course not seeking to write a
critique of Kidd, I want to use Kidd to draw out important points of biological interest
regarding the evolution of the superorganism, points that he missed, for whatever
reason.
Kidd rightly recognises that it is the social form created on the basis of
religion that constitutes the social organism, so he should of recognised that the
differences between Mormonism and traditional Christian forms were not organic but
structural, since both constituted expressions of the same religious identity, namely
Judaism. And by the same token Christianity, Islam and Judaism were clearly
structural elements of one living social organism. It is difficult to see how this
obvious fact could of escaped someone who had looked at these issues so closely as to
recognise the far more involved factors of mechanistic logic concerning the function
of religion in terms of creating an ultra-rational motive force robotising individuals.
And having noted the contrast between a modern travesty of Christianity and the

61
similarity between the three established Jewish forms of identity implant, Kidd should
furthermore of recognised that while the contrast between Mormonism and traditional
Christianity was purely structural, the contrast between Christianity, Islam and
Judaism was more than this, it was hierarchical. This he could of likened to the
observation we might make in respect to a structural hierarchy in the body in the form
of its tissue structures, where the distribution of nervous fibre throughout the flesh and
bone prompts us to recognise skeleton, flesh, then brain as an ascending triadic
hierarchy where the identity of the whole is ultimately vested in the brain which is
composed of concentrated nervous tissue. But he does not say this, and we must
wonder why. He had a chance to annihilate Western (Jewish) civilisation, to erase
religion from the earth, at least in theory, by saying what I am saying now, by stating
the simple facts of human social evolution, but he did not do this. Why not? By
going as far as he did, but no further, he serves the objective of obfuscation that is so
important a facet of social control under a theocracy; so leaving religion in the clear
by short circuiting understanding.
Kidd's book was a big hit when published, but we hear nothing of the man
today, his purpose was served and his ideas are needed no more by the theocracy he
served. Kidd pretended, to himself too no doubt, to be applying scientific ideas to
human society, but we keep emphasising here that to do this means seeking to destroy
religion as part of the process of applying science to human society, the two
objectives go hand in hand and cannot, ever, be separated in the slightest degree. This
fact is implicit in Kidd's observations on the irrational nature of religion which has the
function of creating society, so he should of recognised that his job was to make belief
in religion impossible if he truly sort to apply science to society. Certainly, as he
observes, this scientific goal cannot be achieved, religion cannot be destroyed, but it is
the job of science to seek to do so nonetheless. In this introduction to Lilienfeld I
state plainly the biological fact of human existence in terms that are easily understood
and impossible to refute, and so I make it impossible to believe in religion, I do not
expect these ideas to be published, or to come into the ascendant if they were, but I
have done my job as an erstwhile philosopher of science by providing all the
knowledge anyone needs to prove God does not exist, and so to understood in simple
everyday terms what human society is from its most extensive form, down to its finest
detail.

Today everyone would agree that Comte's vision of inevitable social

transformation is exactly as history has played out, science has come to rule our world
and religion is all but extinct, making Comte a great anticipator of the future. Except,
this is as false an interpretation of society as it is possible conceive of. This
observation is made as a born-again Christian is just hours into his second term as
president of the only super-power on earth. We have been duped, science is
controlled today just as effectively as it was in Ancient Rome two millennia ago.
Controlled just so far as it needs to be for the sake of theocratic authority; which
means, put into Organicist terminology, so far as it needs to be for the preservation of
the social organism's identity. It is enough to make you think the likes of Comte were
part of the problem, certainly with the likes of Napoleon reasserting an iron grip on
France after the removal of the old monarchy it is hard to think of any real threat to
religion being tolerated in intellectual quarters.
The truth is that religion is as powerful today as at any time in human
existence, and we are ruled by it completely. A man was stabbed to death in Holland

62
this week, today is 03/11/04, for making a film blaspheming against Islam; this is the
real world. In Britain the Home Secretary is chomping at the bit with a desire to make
criticism of Islam a criminal offence, he being a devout Christian, of course. But the
real thing that is so astounding is the utter subversion of science, so that not only has
the old order Comte so nicely criticises become infinitely more powerful today than in
Comte's time, science has been reduced to a hand maiden of the church, being
confined to a technical role, and forbidden to comment on the real nature of existence.
Meanwhile the sham professors of science, people like Richard Dawkins, Susan
Greenfield and Stephen J. Gould, to mention a few infamous high priests of the clan,
never tire of telling us how wonderful science is and what a shame it is that human
nature and its evolution present such an impossible challenge to us today in this age of
science, when every other subject has fallen easily to our scrutiny, but not ourselves,
we are simply unfathomable. Oh dear me, why is this?
This state of affairs is not too surprising when one of the great scientists of
humanity of our day, Jane Goodall, specialising in the study of human nature via the
study of our closest living relative, the Chimpanzee, publishes a book like Reason for
Hope: A Spiritual Journey, 1999, in which she touts the religion to which she has
been a life long devotee! Can you imagine the church allowing passionate atheists to
become priests, giving sermons in church denouncing belief in God? Of course not.
So why is the science of humanity dominated by deeply religious people who have
often earned their credentials by being the ones who have done the field research, so
that they have taken possession of the basic knowledge for the church, and
consequently are given a licence to churn out their master's creed through the
theocracy's publishing housesthe only kind their areas they presume to decant the
kind of gush that only a theist can come up with on these occasions?
If the organic function of the organ of linguistic vision requires that organ to
control all public knowledge, and this means it must challenge the scientific impulse
when it is directed toward areas of reality like society, including its own institutions,
then this statement of required action is simply another way of saying that the priests
must become scientists. And this necessity grew as society, that is to say as the
superorganism, evolved and grew, and as knowledge of reality accrued accordingly.
So the organ of linguistic vision which had laid down exoskeletal structure in the form
of religious institutions began to lay down material structures in another form, these
were academic institutions. From these academic branches of theocracy the free and
independent academic institutions have evolved. Except they have not, they have
simply become special centres of linguistic vision serving their theocratic master
identity, which is the identity of the superorganism of which they form a part. This is
like the compartmentalising of the functions of a brain so that different physiological
functions become centred in the organ of corporate authority, or corporate being, like
speech centres and facial recognition centres and so on. Thus, as the sophistication of
the superorganism grows the complexity and size of the organ of authority, the organ
of being, also evolves and grows, and where we find ourselves speaking at one point
in our reasoning of the priestly structure as an organ of linguistic vision we soon find
ourselves having to think of it as a brain-like organ because of the combination of
special areas of linguistic control that it must manage under one centralised structure
of institutional authority that is the establishment. The social brain then, like the
individual's brain, is an organ of information reception and interpretation, and the
evolution of the social brain can be seen to follow a developmental path that allows it
to retain its original core foundation, that is its religious identity, even as it evolves its
specialised areas of structure which must originally of been legalistic, and are now

63
mostly recently of a scientific format. But the primary feature of human organic
evolution relating to the Jewish organism is the evolution of written information
codes. Transmission of information via script is the key to understanding the
evolution of our modern Jewish civilisation, the other elements, law, religion, science,
these are just facets of the ensuing form arising from the evolution of recorded
speech.
While this kind of superorgan therefore performs the same tasks as the
equivalent organ in the individual human body, it is not centred in one discrete
material form because of the comparatively diffuse nature of the superorganism,
where the social brain must deposit skeletal outposts of its structure in the form of
churches, schools, courts, town halls and so on all through the territorial areas where
the living biomass it relates to exists. Various features of identity are imbued
throughout this extended structure, all of it finally coming to a point of focus on the
overriding religious identity via a series of subordinate identity structures. So we
might have the person, the family, the profession, the town, the county, the country,
the nation, the religion, and finally the supreme religion which defines the global
superorganism of our world, which is, ultimately, Judaism, centred in the divine
territory of Israel, and brought to an ultimate point of focus, or point of being, upon
the temple of Jerusalem that is the focal point of Zionism in all three tiers of Judaic
being. And this is so simply because Judaism is the religious identity that evolved in
association with the linguistic forms that have created this global organism; we are
thinking of legal linguistic formulas when we say this, founded on the evolution of
script.
Laws are the genes of the superorganism that exist in a material form through
the corporate medium of written records. Therefore the actual material genes of
superorganic being are the written codes which record the actions the cells of the
organism must obey in order to sustain and create the superorganism's being. In
effect when clay tablets with fragments of the law code of Hammurabi impressed into
them are unearthed in some dirt heap, the investigators are recovering the fossilised
genetic code of their own superorganism's forebears lying amongst the other debris of
the exoskeleton that this code created. This indicates that in superorganisms the
genetic information is external to the bodies of the living individuals that make up the
organism. As long as the human superorganic genetic code existed only in the spoken
form it could not leave a full impression of the human genetic code even though all
cultural artifacts are impressions of genetic code of this superorganic kind created
through the medium of spoken language; just as fossil bones are secondary
representations of the genetic code that instructed their creation. Linguists use
languages to trace the relationships between seemingly distinct and far removed
human populations in a way that evokes the ideas used by biologists working with
genes to trace relationships between seemingly distinct species. People have therefore
implicitly recognised the common nature of these two mediums of organic
information in this respect. But it is evident that the coming of writing was really
something momentous, whenever and wherever it occurred, as it did independently in
several places round the world, in common with that other great transforming medium
of human social form, agriculture. Writing unleashed a further level of realisation of
the potential embodied in the human form created under the direction of human
corporate nature. This linguistically driven release of latent organic potential
embodied in the evolved form of the human body explains why the Jews were able to
exterminate the core bodies of authority ruling the vast superorganisms that had
existed as a continental sized body right across Europe under the headship of the

64
Druids for millennia, the Druid priesthood being vulnerable to this development
because they purposefully shunned the use of scripts for the preservation of their
secret knowledge of identity; as we learn from the writings of Julius Caesar. The
power of writing was fundamental because it was at the heart of the issue of life, it
was about controlling organic information where it impacted upon superorganic
growth at the level of social organisation, so that writing is intimately associated with
the coming into being of a whole new form of human animal; the civilised form, as
we call it. It is also by this means that Judaism has been able to form the essential
triadic identity that was a prerequisite of global domination, based upon a series of
purpose made scriptural forms of code. The creation of Mormonism, as farcical as it
was, epitomises the power of organic replication fuelled by the scriptural mode of
linguistic information. Writing, acting in the capacity of an organic information
medium, can seemingly do anything, just as DNA can. These are abstract information
mediums, relative to the organic forms they create. What is written is near enough
irrelevant up to a point, as long as it preserves and extends the core identity, and this
is exactly what Mormonism does, in a new form formulated expressly for the new
territories of Judaism that were opened up with the Christian conquest of North
America. To read an historical account of the rise of Mormonism, and to think this is
reality, social reality, and not the most miserable fiction, is as bizarre a thing as any
human being could ever hope to do if they lived a million years and experienced
everything there ever was to experience, no doubt about it. Unless of course you
happen to be a Mormon, a Jew, a Christian, a Moslem, a Sikh, a Hindu, a Buddhist,
a ......... and so on ad infinitum
What we need to recognise however, above all else, if we wish to understand
the true nature and form of our own living social organism is that every single minute
detail of the organism is always entirely Jewish in its nature and identity, and this is
so at all times, and in all places, no matter what. Everything that every part of the
superorganism does is directed toward the promotion of the welfare of the body of
which it is a part. Therefore even the Nazis were dedicated toward the welfare of the
Jewish being, and from an historical point of view this is perfectly obvious since it
was as a direct result of the Nazis that the third and final stage of the global
unification of the Jewish organism was kick started with the establishment of
Israelfor the first time ever in historyand the concomitant shattering of the world
structure, paving the way for the unification of the two substructures of Judaism, in
the form of the Christian and Moslem biomasses. Thus the stage was set for the
coming into being of one global superbeing under one identity. So the person, the
town, the country, the state, the religion, all, at all times, is always Jewish, and can no
more be 'not Jewish' than your foot, or mine, can be 'not you' or 'not me'.
This historical consideration of the consequences of Nazism which reveals its
Zionist nature, and indicates that the Nazis came into being as a Judophilic social
structure, of the military variety, is supported furthermore by a similar consideration
of the historical circumstances immediately preceding the coming of the Nazis. And
concerning this matter the present work is of great importance since we can see that as
the work of genuine social scientists attacks the core authority of society it follows
from the above that the resulting real science attacks the living core of Judaism. It is
Judaism above all else that must be saved, and protected in the future, exactly as it has
been. Clearly no one dare say the sort of things we are saying here unless they are
prepared to be tarred with the most terrible accusation of all, that of being a Nazi.
Thus anyone who wants to do real social science must reveal the true nature of the
Jews and put themselves in the line of fire of the Jews who have the name of Hitler to

65
protect them, and a most fearsome weapon this is. This prompts me to think of the
religious fantasies that are so popular on television nowadays where the vampire is
turned back in agony as the good Christian holds up their cross. So it is with the
theists in the real world today, if a scientist should come near them they simply pull
their swastika out of their pocket and hold it high, pointing in the direction of the truth
teller, the scientist is burnt to a frazzle by the acid of social venom this directs toward
them. How can science compete with this extraordinary defence?
It is unimaginable that anyone would ever dare say anything along the lines of
the above argument unless they were out and out fascists committed to the vile
doctrines of the far right. It is possible to buy books discussing the existence and
nature of Judaism, often they are written by Jews, and they are never antagonistic to
Judaism. Just recently, today being 01/04/05, there was a storm in a tea cup over one
of the princes attending a fancy dress party done up as a Nazi. Germans appeared on
our screens to express their horror, and we learned that in Germany displaying the
swastika is a criminal offence. It is easy to see from this sort of reaction what an
effective protective force the Jewish master race are able to derive from this
mechanism of slave control. Of course it was paid for in blood, but that is the nature
of sacrifice, as indicated in the closing comments in the above quote taken from Kidd.
The relationship between the Nazis and the Jews is anything but coincidental, or
psychotic, it is organic and highly functional, and, as such, related directly to the
constitution of the superorganism we are all part of. Nothing of any significance
happens in this universe without there being a very good reason to account for it, that
is the nature of reality. Of course, according to science, humans are not part of the
universe, occupying, as they do, in accordance with Biblical mythology, seconded by
the mythology of Dawkins, a unique place in existence wherein the laws of universal
creation are only able to operate under the guidance of human will.
The rise of the science of society was only brought to any kind of fruition in
Germany, as exemplified in the work of Lilienfeld. No wonder Germany as it was
then has since been destroyed by an alliance of states acting under the hegemony of
the Jewish theocracy. German nineteenth century militarism may look like the
obvious breeding ground of the Nazis but then where did militarism come from, and
why did it not serve the ends of the militarists but only the very theists that these
people set themselves against? Thus we can justifiably assert, on the basis of
outcomes we have linked to a longer term perspective of social dynamics in terms of a
cycle of knowledge, that the Nazis really gave voice to the fruits of the work of the
Organicists, but in a manner that was entirely directed toward destroying this
scientific work and protecting the Jewish theocracy which, without the world wars
and the Nazis, were doomed to be destroyed by the new science of sociology that
revealed the true nature and function of religion.
The cycle of knowledge in this context is of course a biological phenomenon,
a flow of organic information related to the growth and form of the superorganism. A
superorganism that is created upon the foundation of the ultra-rational knowledge of
religion as indicated by Kidd. When the creative flow of knowledge embodied in
religion hits a period of information conflict the clash of information induces a state
of interference impacting upon the organism's physiology, thus interfering with the
stability of the social order as it is induced by the religious medium. The reactions
within the physiological structure of the superorganism that is delineated by the
plethora of identities of which the superorganism is composed, present themselves in
an array of antagonistic displays reflecting the loss of order that is dependant upon the
stability of theocratic authority that is usually relayed to the body of the organism

66
from the core organ of authority in a uniform manner, like a queen insect pacifying its
extended being composed of its dependant individuals with a steady emission of
pheromones communicating tranquillity. These displays of agitation are recorded by
historians via a set of labels emphasising the individuality of the elements of society.
This labelling allows the law of 'structural division' which invokes the idea of divide
and rule, to be facilitated so that order can eventually be regained under the rule of
one harmonised authority of identity by causing the destabilised fractious elements to
engage one another so that harmony is effectually restored. Thus there is either peace
under a theocracy, or, there is war. It is fluctuations in the cycle of knowledge that
destabilise the emission of pacifying messages. These knowledge fluctuations
themselves arise due to superorganic growth that causes the basis of the religious
message to lose integrity over time and to need updating to suit the new conditions the
organism finds itself occupying as it grows. This is so because a superorganism
incorporates the physical environment into its physical being through the medium of
knowledge, making the requirement to adjust to the process of knowledge acquisition,
that enables this growth process to take place, an inevitable part of superorganic
behaviour that is revealed in the cyclical progression we are seeking to illustrate in
descriptive terms in this section of the work in progress.
The creation of the Mormon travesty is one telling example of the Jewish
message of conformity having to replicate itself in an even more slightly odd manner
than usual to meet an exceptional set of circumstances. What is interesting is the
Jewish identity routine had the flexibility to accommodate the new demands made of
it, and it had this ability because it evolved in the melting pot of the Middle East amid
the flux of superorganic evolution. Generic labels like 'militarism' further crystallised
into more specific structural outcomes such as we see with the rise of the Nazis, mean
the result of all this biological agitation of the organism's being is that war breaks out
and eventually resettles the organism’s constitution according to a new formulation of
the old order, whereby the conflict in the cycle of knowledge is regulated in an
orderly manner once again. Hence the introduction of Islam into Europe. Of course
this latest round of resettlement follows the outcome we have seen in modern times
where the genii of science was never allowed to escape from the bottle. Science was
controlled by destabilising society and reconstituting it in the manner we have just
described so that a form of pseudo science could become part of the theocracy's
message of tranquillity, a message that accommodated the requirements of traditional
theocratic authority as embodied in Judaism. But an historical overview reveals that
stability does not always result from internal fluctuations in the biological cycle of
knowledge due to growth. Distinct superorganisms formed on the basis of entirely
separate religious formulas inevitably collide along territorial boundaries at the limit
of their growth, and then the resettlement will be more complicated unless the result is
an outright extinction of one mode of religious communication. Judaism is
characterised by a declaration of its own unique supremacy and is driven by the overt
intention to exterminate all cultural forms not of its own derivation. This is why we
find the homogenising effect of the capitalist machine of Judaic authority driving the
world into the pit of mediocrity at the present time; but we won't get into that now or
we will be here for all eternity.
And so, we see how all these different factors of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century that have so often been linked to one another, do indeed come
together, but not in the manner the theocratic authorities relate. They come together
in such a way as to protect Zionism and to undermine real science, through the
subversion of science and the misrepresentation of the role of science in the rise of the

67
Nazis by setting science up in the form given to it by the Darwinists, who were not
scientists at all but theists in disguise, pseudo scientists. These affairs appear as tricky
and as complicated as we would expect them to be when we try to unravel the social
dynamics in real time, of the species that we are, a truly remarkable species. We can
gather from the preceding description that pogroms are a form of biological reaction
induced by the presence of the alien master organ of Judaism within the biomass of its
host, serving ultimately as a protective measure in which some of the living tissue of
the Jewish organ is sacrificed, thus relieving the pressure, but also providing various
forms of physiological defence strategies securing the place of the social brain within
the body by making it difficult to offer any kind of rational critic of Judaism within
the host body in the aftermath of the unquestionable horror perpetrated by these
defence mechanisms of Judaism. The scale of the sacrifice of Jewish core tissue in
the 1940's pogrom was simply commensurate with the size of the organism they were
part of at that stage of superorganic growth. And we may remind ourselves again of
Kidd’s comment on the centrality of sacrifice in religious belief, already recollected in
the preceding passages.
All these things simply constitute biology, nothing else, no human beings are
involved as conscious elements in these macro social dynamics, no humans are
responsible for these events any more than cells in a leaf are responsible for producing
sugar. Certainly the Jews always struggle to preserve themselves in a particularly
aggressive manner, and the people running a nation seek to protect the sub-Judaic
identities of Christianity and Islam in a manner that looks as if individuals are
involved in these efforts. But they are only following the specific programme they
have acquired because of their personal point of genesis within the organism, thus
their responses are not really expressions of individual intent or purpose. Tony Blair,
to provide a notable example, did not choose to be white, he did not choose to be
English, and, beyond the limits of the superficial, he certainly made no conscious
choice to be a Christian either. These things were simply presented to him as part of
the environment in which his individuality was formed in the same way we are
presented with sunshine or rain when we open the door, some people, like me,
worship the sun, others prefer the shade. But even these preferences are not really
selected by individuals free from any external fixed commands of one kind or another,
even though we freely speak of them as if they were completely at our discretion; as
we can see at the present time people cannot even decide whether to smoke or not,
they must be forced not to smoke by law, a law that consequently the smokers
themselves seem to be most grateful for! if we are to believe the propaganda put out
by the television media. A cell within the individual person’s body engages in as
much free expression according to its own dynamic parameters as these dynamic,
committed individuals, who are so full of their own divine nature. But that of course
is not what the filtered and focused version of reality emitted by the core organ of
linguistic vision tells the cells making up the social organism, and these cells have
little chance of knowing anything other than what they are told.
Today is 01/12/04, on the news last night there was a piece about the trouble
in the Ukraine where the elections where rigged to keep the country affiliated to
Russia rather than shifting it toward the West. A layman speaking of the Russian
opposition said that they are only told one thing and so they only have one thing to
believe. Really? you don't say, and does this man think there is some place on planet
earth where there is a media that is free from this bias? If so he is living in cloud
cuckoo land. In the West we get two versions of one story, not two stories, we are
therefore simply more easily deceived, that is the only difference. At least in the East

68
they know they are being lied to and manipulated. The war in Iraq for example was a
Zionist war fought for one reason and one reason only, for the sake of Israel. I have
never even heard this simple and undeniable fact voiced, not once. Firstly we had the
blatant lies about WMD, weapons of mass destruction, and when this first layer of
deceit was stripped away the second layer of deceit was broadcast, this stated the
cynics position, it was all about oil, about money. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Society is
an organism, our organism is a Jewish organism and all things that have ever been
done for the last two thousand years have been done to bring the earth under the
power of the Jews; this is self evident, otherwise it would not be possible for Israel to
exist. You never hear any balanced reporting of any real kind in this country, never.
I confess that my alternative account of history that conforms to an
Organicist's logic, based on the notion that society is an organism created at the behest
of a creative formula imbued with a religious identity that becomes the organism's
identity, is speculative in that it reflects the outcome as a product of bio-social trends
identified by applying the organic method. As such I am making my historical
description fit the outcome on the basis of my claim to have a valid causal basis for
the account given. We can see how important it is for the establishment to deny that
there is any causal dynamic operating in human affairs, by noting that my historical
account derives its validation from the claim that I have identified a causal motive in
human affairs by identifying human nature. Science is most insistent that human
nature cannot be determined, as it must not be if theocratic authority is to be
preserved. My analysis is not based upon the kind of details we see picked over in
historical accounts, rendered alternatively in terms of mechanisms relating to forms
and dynamics that would warrant a claim to be rigorous. But, if seeing a person get ill
because they live near swamps leads us to associate a given illness with swamps, and
so to call the illness swamp fever, is not reasonable then I do not know what is. Yes,
we can learn more with the aid of a microscope and discover that the mosquito is a
parasite acting as a vector of disease and so turn an accurate speculative observation
into a rigorous observation. But in relation to society sociologists are obliged to adopt
a speculative position initially because they are up against the academic
establishment's shield of deceit which ensures no rigorous attempt can ever be made
to examine human society because academia claims it is not possible to know what
human nature is. Added to which, given that we live in an age in which religion
thrives, then if this social condition is possible while an academic examination of
reality prevails then my somewhat free roaming conclusions are at least as good as
any proposed explanations for human history found elsewhere. And seen in this light
I have nothing to apologise for to anyone, I do not see how any truly scientific
alternative to the futile efforts of establishment academics could fail to be anything
but an improvement.
What we are saying of the Nazis applies at all times to all social groups. We
must come to the idea of the reflection effect that Lilienfeld uses so much in his
writing, an idea I do not quite know how to translate into English in a manner that I
feel comfortable with, hence the reason I have just left it as the machine gives it. But
this effect is the central feature of the organic argument in terms of its dynamics, for it
refers to the manner in which individuals are all made to conform to one common
mental state so that the superorganism has one true mind. The way to increase our
understanding of this idea and to make use of it in this difficult area where we are
linking apparently antagonistic social groups into organs constituting one harmonious
being, is to understand that this reflection effect is like a gravitational force causing
the whole biomass that is subject to one linguistic pattern, to collapse remorselessly

69
toward its identity core. The unity of this linguistic pattern is inherent in language
itself, because the evolution of linguistic ability creates a subconscious alternative to
the immediacy of reality sensed via the physical senses. So the linguistic effect
creates a conscious effect that puts people in a position that is like being in sinking
sand, where, finding yourself sinking, you may react against this unpleasant sensation
instinctively, but trying to fight the feeling by instinctively struggling against it only
makes matters worse. Thus the kind of reaction against Judaism we see expressed in
the Nazi regime only brings on the death of German independence and the rise of
Judaism as a global power, exactly as history reveals. So we are not saying that the
Nazis worked with the Jews, or that they were in some way Jewish subversives in any
political or conscious sense. But the Nazis were biologically Jewish, as we all are,
and hence the inevitable outcome of such manic political behaviour as characterised
the Nazi phase of Jewish history in the Jew’s German territory. The same conditions
apply today in Britain as the theocracy seeks to erase traditional British identity into
to turn this territory into a far more Judophilic Muslim territory, as part of the natural
Zionist progression toward global domination under Judaism. Hence the growing
force of globalisation that seeks to farm the population according to a global-friendly
organisation exemplified by global capitalism that ever increasingly extends
uniformity and the centralisation of social organisation driven by economic forces,
directed by the force of law which constitutes the fluid-genetic commands that are
directly responsible for creating the superorganic exoskeleton. Under these
provocative conditions the likes of the British National Party come to the fore by
sporting the same generic philosophy as the German Nazis, and so bring any potential
real science of society into disrepute, making it impossible for anyone to make a
genuine defence of British identity without being faced with the mark of the swastika.
Meanwhile, as a result, the theocracy pass laws to attack the indigenous population
and defend the aliens, and so the fascists show their true organic nature as an organ of
Zionism; and the linguistic quagmire of law drags all further into its grip. All
collective actions therefore lead remorselessly to the increasing unity of the whole as
the gravity of identity, under the influence of linguistic forces of information pull the
biomass forever inwards.
And while we are on the subject we might just note that this same gravitational
effect is seen to be a consequence of the Zionist warfare of Al Qaeda that seeks to
bring one global state into being under the Jewish authority in Israel. This is not what
they say they want, in fact, just like the Nazis, this is the exact opposite of what they
say they want, but it is already clear, with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, that this is
precisely the result that is unfolding. Al Qaeda and the Nazis are absolutely identical
organs, both strictly Zionist in their nature, and in functional terms. They represent
the modern forms of religious military action of the kind Comte refers to when
speaking of the alliance between religious and military forces in feudal times. It is by
adopting these Zionist attributes, seeking world domination, that these forces set
themselves up as expressions of Judaism that licence the forces of centralised Judaism
to take action that brings the Jews toward the position of global domination that
Zionism seeks. This result occurs because anti-Semitism sets up a polar opposite to
the one ideal that Zionism presumes to offer in its own name, and the Jewish organ of
authority must have its polar opposite in order to swing into action about a focal point
that is brought into being due to the existence of the Jewish identity which causes
social structure to form in its likeness. By circling about the focal point created by the
existence of Judaism the whole biomass so influenced is brought under the sway of
Judaism. By a process whose effects are recorded in historical accounts the biomass

70
is caused to be drawn in toward this focal point, so that Judaism constitutes a
gravitational force acting potentially upon the entire human biomass of the planet.
Judaism brings its polar opposite into being by a gradual process of territorial
advance, which is why we see the focal points of isolated polar opposites coming into
being through the expression of cultural antagonism, often of an extreme and bizarre
nature. Cultural forms crystallise the principles of Judaism in a grotesque and
superficial form without any depth rooted in social structures, so that they appear
psychotic, both in their reasoning and their behaviour, as in the case of the Nazis and
Al Qaeda. But in both cases it is most relevant that the good old Jew takes centre
stage in their campaigns of hate. This hatred is, to the Jew, manna from heaven;
because they are the real master race and they have all the power, they are utterly
unassailable; being created, not by God, but by the next best thing, by Mother Nature.
Jews never appear in their own guise in respect to these affairs, but only behind the
masks of the moment, be it Roman, British, American and so on; so the military is
distinguished from the priestly.
The actual dynamics of the biological processes we are seeking to illustrate
here must involve a flow of energy in an appropriate manner. The basic model
applicable to living systems would seem to be illustrated by the manner in which
micro organisms first built up an energy reservoir in the form of oxygen that allowed
energy to flow back from the uniform energy potential thus created, into a complex
domain of life whose evolution was generated by the supply of energy from this
atmospheric reservoir. In the human social context therefore we would hope to liken
the rise of Jewish identity to a position of dominance, to this primordial expression of
evolution by imputing to social form a similar process whereby some unifying
medium of information projects energy toward a reservoir of social energy that can be
tapped in an orderly manner that allows the projected pool of uniform energy to feed
back to its place of origin in a manner whereby it generates complexity. A simple
example of such a system would be fiscal, whereby a bank acts as a reservoir of social
energy which is fed back through a filtration system that appears in the form of an
exoskeletal social structure that serves both to create the reservoir and to control its
outflow of energy. A legal system has the same basic attributes, and a religious order
would serve the function of both combined, at a lower level of sophistication. This
idea indicates why social structure is necessary to allow a pool of social energy to
accumulate and hence to drive the process of superorganic growth.
Even the work we are engaged in now, if it were to have any social impact, we
would have to assume its influence would only serve the Jewish cause of world
domination, because it can only have that effect. Unless it actually succeeded in
destroying Judaism and bringing into being a new identity for the global
superorganism, but this is, while intellectually conceivable, not in conformity to the
laws of biology that we are revealing here. All mass is drawn toward a central point
according to its nature, and in the context of human nature corporate identity
determines the focal point. That we should be able to recognise this miserable
outcome is a mark of our truly scientific approach, we dismiss any idea of inevitable
progress either having brought us from where we were to where we are, or as far as
where we are headed is concerned. We see only the dynamics of evolutionary
biology as revealed by science. The one concession to our personal sense of
humanity that we may allow ourselves, which is certainly unscientific in its mood, is
the expression of dismay that we find ourselves in this terrible position; after all, what
individual wants to be a robot?

71
 We have discovered two cyclical modes involving the role of knowledge in
human society. Firstly the gravitational motion of social masses shifting to and fro
about a focal point of authority as the social knowledge spectrum evolves and builds
an organ of authority by drawing upon, and thus controlling, all sources of true
knowledge. The result being, in our own time, that science and religion come in and
out of prominence over a broad time scale as the foundation of scientific enquiry and
the expression of social authority shift their ground. This macro scale motion is
therefore rotational in its nature, and revealed in the historical record of social events.
Secondly we touch on the energy dynamics of social growth in terms of the function
of exoskeletal structures generated by linguistic information, such that material cycles
constituting the substance of superorganic physiology are set in motion.
Physiological cycles that can be likened to the cycles of water and carbon recognised
in the wider domain of the planets ecosystems. Thus we link the living mass of
human society with the inorganic mass that forms its own attached environmental
ecosystem in such a way that the two must constitute one living body, a
superorganism. All these zones of process are linked to one another ultimately as the
whole of life, and the planet that supports it, must form a unified system, one way or
another, if the scientific project of understanding is to make any sense at all.

72
 The Colour History

A cell in a leaf that is part of the process of making sugar is not responsible for
making sugar! I think we would all agree with that if what we mean by responsible is
that the cell has a choice, and that it makes a conscious decision to make sugar. And
the same can be said of the role of all humans in society, at all times, in respect to all
things. This might be more controversial. But why, since it is so obviously equally
true? Even when a person does something quite deliberately, like my spending
decades seeking the answer to the question What is human nature? and, upon finding
the answer, devotes even more years trying to find a way to communicate, they are
not in the least bit responsible for this effort. Such a one as this did not create the
question, nor the urge to know the answer, nor the conditions that hide the answer and
make the effort a battle for freedom against authority. These are social conditions for
which no person is responsible. The only sense in which it is possible to argue that a
person is responsible for their life’s work is by comparison with other people who
have not made the same specific effort. But since there is no such thing as an
individual as an end in themselves, all such comparisons between individuals are
absurd from a scientific point of view. Social systems exist, and we form part of
them, and that is that.
History is part of the rainbow of colour perceived by the human mind courtesy
of the process of linguistic filtration by the all seeing eye of the core organ of
authority, an organ that emits a linguistic formula by means of which the organism
perceives all that its components, as in you and me, see. History can be understood as
one bandwidth of the linguistic spectrum of perception. We have already seen that
this process of linguistic filtration relies upon diverting the real phenomenon of
existence that are observed through a prism which focuses the dynamics of social
events through the artificial medium of the individual, who, within this state of altered
reality, is understood to be the beginning and end point of all action. The idea of the
individual is as artificial as any artifact ever created by humans, it is less tangible
because it just happens to be a conceptual artifact serving a specific purpose. All
artificial products are natural from an Organicist point of view but we will use theistic
language where necessary in this work. If we wish to understand how the prism of
knowledge that is the organ of social authority creates our consciousness as
individuals, thereby producing a corporate mind at the social level of organisation, we
will benefit from considering a variety of examples of the individuation of structure
that generates a series of levels making up the exoskeletal structure of the social
organism. We cannot have too many examples of the situation that the relay of
observed information via a social eye leads to, if we are to be able to interpret the
meaning of this transformation in our mode of consciousness and to understand it.
There have been a flurry of counter historical history programmes on
television lately which come under the heading of What If? histories. What If the
Nazis Won the War? To some extent this is good history, it looks at the detail of how
our lives would of been improved by the destruction of the secret organs of social
power like that of the Freemasons if the Germans had conquered Britain. But this is
still history perceived through the prism of individuality, not real science. Which is
why the actual programmes consider the destruction of the social structures that
enslave us to Judaism, such as the Freemasons, to be a bad thing. If European wars
were battles between states as ends in themselves then history as we know it would

73
have some meaning, but they are not, because there are no such things as states that
exist as ends in themselves. The prism of individuality inverts the process of
understanding which generates an inverted image of reality which takes the place of
reality by means as the same conceptual prism operates as a source of linguistic
authority that directs the consciousness of the superorganism. We might speak of the
prism of individuality or the prism of linguistic authority, but they are one and the
same thing. We use the idea of a prism to make linguistic information a feature of
environmental dynamics relating to humans on a mechanistic par with information
derived via the perception of light . Light is an energy flux relative to information,
language is a flux relative to information as it too carries images. Both of these
information mediums carry images, and the meaning of those images arrives to each
individual as a complete package, whether it is the face of a lion or the picture of a
person hanging by a rope. People are not responsible for images of any kind at any
individual level, no matter what the flux carrying those images might be. The organ
of authority's mode of operation is essentially linguistic, the act of inversion that it
executes in relation to reality takes the initial impression of reality and inverts it to
produce an individual impression of reality by manipulating, and thereby determining,
the meaning attached to words. So that where there can only ever be one truth in
reality, we know perfectly well that in the world of humans the different expressions
of truth are infinite. Hence the reason we shift from one description of the prism to
another as we seek to understand the manner in which this dynamic of inversion must
work in order to produce the effect of collective consciousness based on irrational and
palpably absurd notions of the reality that exists beyond the social domain.
The relay of information via an organ of a living entity is necessarily oriented
toward serving the being of the organism. Legs did not evolve to enable walking as
an abstract activity, they evolved to enable walking with a purpose. The same is true
of the evolution of language, which evolved to empower the organism, not to allow
people to tell each other accurate information about the world for the fun of it;
individually allocated eyes filtering light were perfectly good enough for this purpose.
And we might note that two such uniquely human traits as walking and speech ought
to of evolved to serve the same purpose, in the same way feathers and wings did for
birds in their capacity as flying creatures, and this is so, walking and speech, along
with all other uniquely human traits, expressed the development of the evolving
human organism in accordance with its superorganic nature. We desire to obtain
some idea of how language evolved to accord with this function through its creative
role in the evolution of the superorganic mammal that humans are. As language
evolved so the organ of authority that gathers raw information of reality and
transforms it into a useful form grows, and so language increases in complexity
accordingly as the social authority elaborates its self serving mythology via the
manipulation of information. As we reason along these lines we readily see why a
whole new form of organic organisation should be so closely associated with the
evolution of a pure form of linguistic accumulation occurring in the fabric of the
exoskeleton in the shape of writing. As organicists the linguistic prism we seek to
relay our observations of reality through equates to the universal prism of reality, a
prism that shows reality as it is without any act of inversion taking place. So that
humans are revealed according to their true form in nature, just as an alien from
another star would see them, uninfluenced by the organic purposes of the living being
that we are part of. Clearly our real understanding, courtesy of the organicist's
method, delivered by this true linguistic prism, cannot be allowed to become the norm
for our species. States would then be revealed as simply the internal structures of one

74
superorganism that carries a common identity, which it imparts to all the states that its
body is composed of. And therefore the idea of one state winning in a competition for
power against another is about as close to absurdity as it is possible to get. Knowing
the overarching identity would destroy the internal feuding between states that is, in
reality, the means by which the organism grows and reconstitutes itself under the
eternal impression of the unacknowledged master that is the religious identity all
states recognise.
We suggested something along the lines of an organic law of subdivision in
the previous chapter in association with the delineation of individuality in society.
We will not seek to define this law, it is only intended to describe a pervasive feature
of social structure that has all the appearance of being the product of a law of organic
being. Zipf’s account of the homogenous nation composed of a heterogeneous
collection of states implies such a law, see Appendix II. Introduction to Political
Science: Two Series of Lectures, Sir J. R. Seeley, Macmillan and Co. 1896 arrived
yesterday, 04/04/05, and at the end of the first series of lectures, given in 1885, Seeley
gives us a useful summary which states what the structure of all states must consist of,
and what the foundation of the structure is. This summary affirms the necessity of a
law of social development that leads to a hierarchical structure, which means a law of
differentiation, operating, in this case, at the largest scale of consideration. This book
prompts me to consider a further appendix on the subject of political science. It
seems crazy that in 2005, well into the space age, the impending age of control over
the genome, the age of the computer, when we know all about our fossil relatives, we
must turn to books written in the very earliest stages of the scientific investigation of
human society in an attempt to engage in scientific enquiries about this subject. But
such a ridiculous strategy is the inevitable result of the suppression of knowledge by
the social authorities that rule society with an iron grip.
In our discussion here we see this law operating at the macro level of social
organisation in such a way that the nineteenth century organicists seem to of been
taken in by completely. For organicists of this period the social organism was the
state, as incredible as this blindness must appear to us who easily see that the
organism is defined by the religion it sports, which is always Judaism as far as our
society is concerned, and this is so in respect to the society of any modern person who
ever concerned themselves with the idea of the social organism. The primary feature
of the law of individuation is the role of competition between individuals. This is
what characterises Darwin's pseudo scientific treatise on evolution that is in truth a
partial theory of creation, not a whole theory of evolution, since it segregates life from
none life before proceeding to apply itself to the question of origins. Is this how the
universe works? Did the universe suddenly reach a point of development where it
came to a halt, flicked a switch called life, and then went on its way again? It would
appear so from Mr Darwin’s account of the process.
In respect to human social history we see the dynamic of competition being
made the active principle in the act of war occurring between states. Clearly
competition is a fundamental principle of Jewish culture. But while individuals
respond to this biological mechanism the competitive process is not about either the
mechanism of competition or the individuals that take part in making the social
process happen. Seen from an adequate distance, where the activity of all individuals
blurs into an organic process, all that arises from the operation of the competitive
mechanism operating between individually defined living forms is that an efficient
organ of superorganic being comes into view, whether it be in the realms of a
transport system, education, law enforcement, economics, warfare or whatever. This

75
is why capitalism has evolved to be the dominant mode of operation in the super-
massive superorganism. These patterns of superorganic physiology are created by
‘linguistic genes’ that we call laws, and both ‘states’ and ‘economic systems’ are the
product of law. But, crucially, all European states are the product of one legal system,
as is capitalism, derived from one common point of origin, which is the same point of
origin Judaism is derived from, a system dispersed across Europe via the Romans, and
hence spread across the globe via the Christians. A system realised in the Christian
identity package which is the form in which the Jews domesticated their hosts by
means of a subidentity routine, hosts which the Jews proceed to farm as the
Christiansand this applies to the Muslims toobecome sufficiently well established
to allow such farming to proceed fruitfully. It is this physiological process that makes
the family of European states into organs of one living being. States then, rather than
suggesting the idea of an organ due to their internal form and discrete, yet subidentity
status, ought to suggest the idea of discrete tissues of a common kind serving the
organism they are part of in a complimentary manner. Muscles then, pulling together,
is what we must think of, not organs performing specialised tasks that suggest each
state should differ from one another. Hence, no matter what wars occur between them
all European states followed a common agenda, such as foreign conquest and empire
building, which took Christianity around the world, conveniently dividing the
Americas into Catholic and Protestant zones, thereby maintaining a balanced harmony
in the superorganic structure, and allowing Judaism a means of expansion into both
areas according to an established pattern. Battles between states are simply healthy
physiological processes of superorganic being, all tending in the same ultimate
direction, toward global domination under one identity, drawn by the gravitational
effects of the reflection effect arising from the law and theology that is woven into the
Jewish identity that creates these large organs of superorganic being; this is so despite
the fact that we individuals do not tend to take this calm view of these processes.
All wars are Zionist in their nature so that no matter what state comes to the
fore in the process of military endeavour there is always only ever one winner. And
history confirms this. There may of been a Spanish empire, a British empire, and an
American empire on its way; German, Dutch, Danish (as in Vikings), French, Italians
(as in Romans), and Portuguese have all had their day. But there is now, as there has
always been, only one victor, one ruler still extant, and that is Judaism. The Jews
complain about the Spanish expulsion at the time of European expansion, but why did
this surge of anti-Semitism break out at this time, and could there of been any better
time in terms of our Organicist model? Christianity requires Jews to be its masters,
Jews had to travel from Christian countries to the new lands. Force had to be used
against the Jews in order to maintain the structural order, to do otherwise would of
meant Jews and Christians were to enter the New World as a free world, where such
an egalitarian basis would destroy the functional structure whereby Jews rule
Christian society by being ostracized from its mundane official functions and being
forced to occupy only specialised positions to do with business and social
management of all kinds.
In Seeley’s book, mentioned above, on page 195, all societies are said to need
governments, but because governments are focal point of absolute authority they need
a network of unconditional support. Hence we get a triadic macro social structure
because we have the focus of command, which is the government, the penumbra of
social might, and the masses that are governed and coerced. Since we make the social
being an organism and we say it is Jewish, and it has a triadic structure wherein the
hierarchy is Jewish, Christian and then Moslem, then we must equate the Jews to the

76
master, or government, the Christians to the muscle, exemplified in the complexity of
state structure constituted on the basis of secular law, and the Muslims to the masses
who have no state structure, no secular law distinct from the Koranic law, but who are
attached to the Jewish master identity via the umbilical cord of Jerusalem, and whose
only idea of a territory to which they belong is the planet itself. But this triad is as yet
an incipient creature, so formed as to be able to create a uniform global organism
which may yet take a couple or more millennia to come fully into being. From this
model we are able to see how the various empires that have come and gone in
association with the Jews have performed the role of muscle guiding the central
authority onward through time so that our own superorganism has come into being
and is continuing to grow according to its old manner. In all of this the most
remarkable thing is the implication that a guiding political authority exists that
understands these processes, or else why institute an expulsion just when it is needed?
How is a mythology evolved that fits precisely the requirements of the structure that is
wanted over the course of the next few thousand years? The answer is that language
provides the formula, the genome of social form, and the ensuing structure takes care
of the rest as endless generations of people just follow the programme carried by the
structure language creates. Language then is the governor, social structure is the
constraining and directing force, and living people are the body that is directed by the
preceding two; in all, just one great organic being.

Wars are essentially political events, to our mind, and rightly so. The earth is
flat, to our minds, and rightly so. To confront such self evident facts of life requires a
considerably advanced form of understanding. But the fact is that we are organic
beings, and contrary to the ramblings of flat-earthers like Sorokin and Dawkins, this
means that society and everything that takes place within it, is biological in its form
and nature, and in no sense not biological in its form and nature.
Last night, 05/11/04, on a BBC 2 gardening programme, a piece was done on
the invasion of the Lizard in Cornwall by an alien plant that was taking over the
native habitat. We were told the history of this invasion, some traveller had found the
plant on his travels, liked it, brought it home and cultivated it. The plant had come
from South Africa, it had no predators here, no frosts occurred in this part of England
to control it, it even survived a dip in the sea so it could fall from its cliff top perches
and spread along the coast freely. This then is history, and jolly interesting too. But
you could write a big book about all the incidents of this kind of species transfer
brought about by humans just since the modern age of the territorial spread of
Judaism, never mind the earlier stages of Judaism's spread that brought rabbits and
such like to Britain. And the fact is that these none political, or semi political events,
being secondary effects of what we call political events, are clearly not only not
political at all, nor are they even historical. They are entirely biological. And it is by
getting a handle on such unequivocally biological events such as these, that we still
compulsively think of as historical, and even political, because of the linguistic
formula delivered to us from the core organ of linguistic authority which delivers to
us our mode of conscious comprehension, that keeps us all obeying one common
mode of collective consciousness, that we can begin to disperse the various colours
making up the theological rainbow of knowledge, the colour history, the colour
politics, the colour war, the colour person, the colour nation, and so on, and begin to
see the pure white knowledge of unimpeded, unfiltered reason. And thus see things
for what they are, and not what they appear to be as they are relayed to us by the
organ of linguistic authority.

77
 Lilienfeld often talks about the world of social appearances, which I render as
social forms, he is constantly seeking to transform our way of perceiving familiar
events, and here we are attempting to bring forward a more modern and direct
approach to this effort.

78
 Colour Organs

It is some two centuries since Comte was producing the ideas we are
interested in here. His perspective takes in the preceding three centuries since the
new age of science arose to challenge the old order. It is only now, at the beginning
of the twenty first century, that it is possible for us to appreciate the manner in which
the old order, since being given the measure of the initial challenge to its authority in
Comte's day, has reorganized itself as the dominant force in society by using its old
weapons of war, not by acting as a mishmash of a self annihilating belligerents, but
quite the reverse, by acting as a self promoting unity of bellicose elements. We have
already touched on the role of two world wars and the Nazi horror that arose in order
to defend and promote the Zionist theocracy, revealing that the device of the dual
pronged front that Comte describes is alive and well as Zionism continues its
remorseless push toward global dominance via a process that involves continual
renewal of its superorganism's outer form as that form grows. And this growth has
resulted in the emergence of the latest Zionist military identity, a new military wing
that calls itself by a Muslim name and sets up Jews and Christians as its foe. This
process of emergence is continuous, Nazi flows into Communist, Communist flows
into Al Qaeda, in each case the Jew is the foe and the West is aligned against it, and
as a consequence of a victory that is never in any doubt the Jewish organism spreads
its exoskeletal fabric over the territories where the newly formed military conflict has
taken place. What we really need to be clear about when describing these major
historical events in terms of organic physiology of a superorganism is that the
combatants identified here by the law of individuation do not exist as individuals, we
are not dealing with a black and white, good versus evil dynamic here. There is no
axis of evil, that is priestly rhetoric to the enslaved; a piece of malicious information
with the intensity of a laser beam. The Germans (Nazis) were already Jews, the
Russians (Communists) were already Jews and it is impossible to think of any group
of people who are more Jewish than Al Qaeda. These factions of Judaism, that is to
say these components of superorganic being, that come into conflict with the
gravitational core of identity are each instituting specific occurrences of a common
process of physiological consolidation, not conflict. And this is why the initialiser of
such conflicts always lost the conflicts they initiated in what can only be thought of as
an expression of a compulsively suicidal instinct. The crazy foe of the world who are
reported in history as the great tyrants, dictators or adventurers engage in conflicts
they were always going to lose, and that were started when there never really was
anything to fight for in the first place, from a rational, or, that is, a political point of
view, when there was never really anywhere to go, except toward the Holy Zionist
goal of one world under one superorganism. What was Napoleon fighting for? What
was Hitler fighting for? What was ...... you name them ... fighting for? Nothing. All
the efforts of all such people look like madness from beginning to end, the illusion of
sanity is only drawn out by applying the law of individuation that makes the
individual the beginning and end of all human activity.
When I say political I do not mean to say that the political is inherently
rational, I mean to say that political ideas are the rationalised product of the linguistic
law of individuation. The law of individuation, which drives human consciousness of
self toward the recognition of individuality, and so delineates integral elements of
superorganic structure in such a way that individuals are unaware of the true nature of

79
these social structures, and so unaware of their role within them, is a law of organic
information applicable to language. It is probable that this organic law of information
also applies to any other source of social information in whatever species
communication occurs, and whether light or bio-chemicals are the carrier medium. In
each case the physiology of the organism and the message it mediates creates a sense
of meaning via a process which can be defined as a law of individuation telling the
unit how to respond in a given social context. The operation of this law produces
organs of colour defined by specific modes of linguistic medium, of which a single
language is one particular example. These organs form as a result of the
homogenising effect linguistic information has upon those individuals who are
attuned to the specific variation relevant to the organ in question. A theocratic and a
scientific language would be modalities of language that can exist as sub-languages
within one actual language, giving rise to the intractable conflict between atheist and
theist. Languages therefore reflect the structure of superorganic physiology of each
superorganism, and ultimately of the planet's entire human biomass. As we recognise
that language is the fluid-genetic medium of exoskeletal form it follows that the
distribution of linguistic variation is reflected in the macro form of the superorganism
in relation to its structure. We only need look at the form of a human conglomeration
in such a manner as to discern overall patterns and we can assume within each
boundary defined by a given discernable physical pattern a unique linguistic pattern
will be found operating between the units, where the linguistic variation will be
responsible for maintaining the pattern that is observed as a social structure. In this
respect we can even home in on the most miniscule attributes of language, those as
subtle and as seemingly arbitrary and meaningless as local accents, such tonal
variations are a powerful source of structural differentiation, and as such of significant
importance in the delineation of superorganic structure. The distribution of social
structure therefore always has a linguistic basis to it, and social structure is therefore
linguistic in nature in the same sense that racial variation is genetic in its nature. All
these things then, are not as they seem from our everyday perspective submerged in
the flux of information pumped out by the theocracy. Revealing the true meaning of
these things in the scientific terminology of biological function is the real challenge
for a social scientist today; unearthing the knowledge is tough enough, but the job of
dissemination has yet to be tried in earnest.
We need periods as long as half a millennium to gauge the full cycle of these
socioganic processes. Historians present a theocratic historical message, one that
conforms to the needs of theocratic authority by putting the linguistic information
through the filter which focuses all consciousness upon the individual, and dismisses
underlying natural forces that are at work in society but which are beyond the direct
influence of individual people. Our correct mode of approach sees in the absolute
dominance of overt theocratic power, linked to military and economic power, rising
and then succumbing to change as its own success draws in new information that
forces new modes of formation to come into effect, which in turn lead to a resurgence
as the old regime does succeed in reorganizing itself, a society conforming to the
familiar kind of macro cyclical patterns science observes throughout the natural world
that are, when it comes to humanity's nature, disguised by the fracturing method of
knowledge control used by the core organ of authority in its production of social
knowledge.
One of the most remarkable things to my mind is the fact that the same old
church can pull this stunt off in this age of astounding scientific knowledge. But I
was always amazed, from my youth, that something as intellectually obscene as

80
Christianity could emerge after the golden age of real knowledge in Ancient Greece.
This alerted me to some strange goings on right from the start. And the only possible
explanation for these social outcomes is the one we are seeking to promote here, that
the human organism is a superorganism that has a life of its own that we individuals
can marvel at, but we most certainly cannot have any influence over, except that
influence that the organism's own needs obliges us to have, exactly in conformity to
the evolutionary dynamic that has created us and dictates what we will door not do,
perhaps, but only at our peril, and then not for long.
There was a programme on Channel Five this evening, 05/04/05, about the
Old Testament which concluded by saying that some two thousand eight hundred
years ago there emerged a new social concept embodied in the Jewish culture which
had been fashioned in the maelstrom of the usual internecine human behaviour that
destroyed the first Jewish nation and obliged them to shift their territorial foundations
and hence their cultural constitution. This is therefore a strictly historical and
individualized account of Biblical origins. The radical new concept that broke with
all tradition, a concept upon which Western civilization is based, was that individuals
exist in their own right, a status defined by their possession of responsibilities and
rights. Putting the new idea succinctly, the Jewish idea was that there is such a thing
as an individual. Nothing could be more antithetical to reality, as Organicism makes
plain, as science makes plain; which is why science has been perverted by the
theocracy and Organicism erased from view. This historical overview therefore fits
perfectly with the Organicist idea which recognises that the Jews are the source of the
information core about Western civilisation has formed, and this is why the Jews are
the master race and all humanity is enslaved to Judaism.
This programme was simply another message beamed out by the master, from
its ‘colour organs’ of conceptual control, to feed the masses with their knowledge of
the society in which they live. This particular message took the form it did because
the primary objective now is to accustom people to the fact that Israel exists because
it has every right to exist. Israel of course has no right to exist in terms of any rational
argument. Israel exists because it is a feature of the living superorganism we are all
part of. Israel is an organic thing, and no organic thing has any right to exist, as the
fact of extinction tells us. From this core idea of individual responsibility and rights a
whole new social structure arose. But of course this new mode of individual
interaction with the social structure was always imbedded within the cement of
religion, where the supposedly empowered individuals became like pebbles making
up a concrete body by virtue of their more intimate affiliation to it. This loss of
freedom due to the process of individuation is perfectly obvious to anyone who does
not simply conform to social rules without question. Rights are not benefits, they are
statements of possession. How can any authority give people the right of equal
treatment? The idea is absurd unless this right has first been taken away. And all law
supposedly of benefit to the individual is of the same kind, all law is an act of stating
and asserting possession of the individual. It is this method of reinforcement of the
social structure that the Jews appear to of made their own through the medium of
language. It was a perfectly natural process controlled purely by mother nature.
The fact is that people form social agglomerations on the basis of aggression
that results in a master slave relationship between peoples which, over time, has
become ameliorated into the modern condition. This is why all bad things, like the
Nazis and global terrorism, are central to the invigoration of all good things, like
religion and the worship of God. This is, to answer the age old question, why God
permits evil to exist, because without it He would not exist. This is why, although

81
religion is responsible for war and terror it is religion that benefits from war and
terror, this will be so as long as there is a central core of authority about which these
two opposite polarities can rotate. That core is Judaism because it is detached from
the social matrix within which it exists. So the Zionists in the form of Moslems bomb
Madrid and cause a terrible slaughter, and the people of Spain come together to
worship the Zionists in the form of Christians. So no matter what, Zionism, which
means the domination of the world by Jews, is empowered. But without this kind of
terror Zionism would not function, it must play off opposites within the system. This
dynamic has to do with the physiology of the human organism however, it is nothing
to do with politics or people as individuals.
So individuation is not about freedom, as our masters love to tell us;
individuation is about superorganic evolution. Finally the programme closed by
saying that modern scholarship was showing that the Bible was a human construct, a
highly partisan construct but nonetheless remarkable and powerful for all that. A
leading Biblical scholar, having already told us that the Bible was written over the
course of one thousand years, by a hundred and fifty authors using different
languages, said that he is always amazed at how the Bible, given its unplanned
formation, should of resulted in such a flowing body of work that makes such perfect
sense in its conception of a universal God who is yet so personal. This he says,
declaring that he hesitates to use the word, then immediately blurts it out, is a
“miracle”. Of course if he knew the one thing that it is necessary to know in order to
understand any facet of human existence, if he knew that human nature was corporate
and the human organism was a superorganism, then he would understand the subject
he professes to be an expert in properly. He would see that this perfect, yet seemingly
impossible result, is perfectly natural and simply a product of nature, having nothing
whatsoever to do with human ingenuity, effort or partisanship, or anything else that
our masters tell us it is about.

From the deep organic perspective we have sort to obtain by harking back to
the attempt at a scientific vision of social dynamics provided by Comte, we are
enabled to apply a mode of observation recommended by Lilienfeld as essential to a
true realisation of the meaning of social appearances. We can see that the theocracy's
ability to face the challenges of new social conditions and to come through
invigorated is contrary to everyone's expectations, in all phases of history that
observations can be made. This is because of the localised nature of the observations
in time and space, and their consequently limited breadth of comprehension, hence the
requirement to obtain a deeper perspective of what is going on. Certainly this depth is
precisely what history is supposed to obtain, but because academic history is driven
by the mechanism that creates theism, the mechanism arising from the law of
individuation, it can never see further than its nose, and according to wherever its
nose happens to be at the time. History individualises all events, or individualises
processes, making events of such things as the industrial revolution, it never discerns
a causal thread running through all of human existence that is responsible for every
minute detail that history records, as it should do, from before the evolution of
humans as we exist today right up to the present time, covering a period of millions of
years, as the scientist must do. A deeper perspective, by definition, means seeking,
and finding, causal threads of continuity running through social affairs. Science today
stalwartly attacks any suggestion that there is any kind of continuity in human
existence, insisting that each point of progress is a conscious decision taken by
individuals striving to make human existence what it is, that progress is therefore

82
liable to be lost at any time if we fail to maintain our efforts to better ourselves.
Science even denies the impetus toward progressive sophistication in nature, it will do
anything to protect the divine lord and master that created its institution.
And this is the crucial point we must latch on to at this point in our
deliberations. It should be perfectly clear that no individual could direct the course of
these macro cycles of social dynamics and the transformation in their associated
social structures. The theists struggled instinctively to fend off the advocates of
enlightenment, they were happy to burn scientists alive, they burned books, just as the
Nazis did, they made ownership of the newly written encyclopaedias an offence
punishable by excommunication that would mean eternal damnation to their
followers. These people could never realise that in the long run the answer would be
for the priests themselves to be the advocates of scientific progress in the form of men
like Darwin and Spencer, and women like Goodall and Greenfield. They would turn
over in their graves if they knew what had been done to save God. And this is always
the case, and this is so because these achievements are in no sense political, that is
individual, they are organic, and they are directed by the exoskeletal structures
composing the command structure of the superorganism. Structures, that is 'colour
organs' reverberating with linguistic 'colour', which have the longevity to retain
control during immense periods of social time, so they have the means to make the
required adjustments to the message which is at the core of their being. Taken overall
these miraculous solutions, to these political problems, that allow the brutality and
ignorance of theism to survive no matter what, can only be realised as a result of
organically produced programmes which provide a forward acting organic directive, a
naturally produced purposeful dynamic that exists because human nature is corporate
and the maximum potential of corporate being must be realised because this is how
the information-energy dynamic that created human beings is played out. It is not
surprising that the people who found themselves the mediators of this kind of natural
force should of come to represent it in the form of an all powerful being, a universal
God, for that is exactly how it appears to be, just as the earth appears to be flat and the
centre of all thingsit just isn't, that's all. And from these considerations it is obvious
why theology insists upon purpose being unique to humans, as the great contemporary
defender of theocracy, Richard Dawkins insists it is. And why Darwinism rules
purpose out of the natural processes at work in nature, which is a complete travesty of
reality, but one vital to the filtered vision of theocracy because, as ever, if these things
are found in nature then the whole pack of cards that theocratic power depends upon
comes tumbling down. Purpose in nature exists as a latent potential for a transfer of
energy to occur between discrete physical systems. The physical products of energy
exchange between systems reveals a direction of flow that, when expressed in life we
call evolution and progress, and when expressed in human life we call purpose. It is
all one dynamic that we discern through an array of theistically oriented words that
allow theism to exist as a valid body of authority. As we have been insisting this
issue is all about the war between religion and science, and Lilienfeld should of
realised this was so and made this issue of the antagonism between religion and
science the central ground upon which he stood. The issue is not the search for new
knowledge, it is the struggle to free knowledge from the power of the religious
authority that rules society.

As we begin to gain a clearer understanding of the sham role of the great

scientists who were great because they were promoted by the theocracy, and in some
cases still are, such as Darwin today, and we can take Ptolemy in the role of

83
astronomer in Roman times as an earlier example of the same kind, an example from
when people's conception of the divine was still very much located in the heavens,
and as we find the forgotten scientist in the likes of Lilienfeld, we start to gain some
sense of the kind of sound writing that might of existed in Ancient Greece and Rome.
None of which have even left anything more than the merest whiff of their existence.
Perhaps people were not so utterly stupid and pathetic as history suggests, anymore
than we are, today, hopelessly idiotic and degenerate, despite all appearances to the
contrary. Look at this nonsense over the Pope’s death this week. The Pope, who on
earth, what on earth, is a Pope! Insanity. There is hope, it is possible, if we rise to the
challenge and seek to erase religion from our world, it is possible, maybe, for
something vaguely worth calling human to exist. Well, we can dream can't we? We
are lucky still to be able to unearth the likes of Lilienfeld, albeit that we find ourselves
reliant upon the highly tenuous thread of a maverick to perform the act of
resurrection. There I go breaking out of my scientific cocoon again, forgive me. Of
course we are robots, we always have been, and always will be; Amen.

84
 Linguistic Wavelengths

If institutions are organs of filtration that discern linguistic colours then within
an academic institution we must be able to narrow our focus to the point where we
discern wavelengths of one pure kind. And this is exactly what we find, in fact this
degree of filtration is the key to the system of colour management within the field of
linguistic information rendered as knowledge images.
And the form in which this human behaviour is expressed is that of the expert.
Experts are people who are often affiliated to the finest discernable wavelength of
linguistic colour. They come in a huge variety of kinds, they are seemingly infinite in
their kind, anything that can be thought of, any word that is that can be generated, that
can be given a meaning accepted by the establishment, can generate a wavelength of
linguistic information capable of sustaining a distinct element of linguistic colour. An
element which, in turn, demands a material representation in the form of an expert in
order that the specific wavelength of image formation can be fixed according to the
one overarching modality of the collective mind.
Thus we can have experts on death in babies. These people can pronounce
upon any and all deaths in babies just by hearing of the incident. An expert in this
field is capable of determining who killed a baby just by watching a television
programme about the incident that does no more than present an interview consisting
of a chat with a relative of the murderer. It is enough to make us think such people
might put the police out of a job, but no fear, they just give them more work to do.
Such experts can be employed in courts to send people to prison on a whim, because,
as we already noted above, the rule of human collective communication says that he
who is heard is taken to speak the truth, not he who speaks the truth is heard. The
recent series of appalling cases in Britain where this kind of offence against the
meaning of the word justice caused consternation, drew a response from the relevant
class of experts, paediatricians, declaring that they were a responsible and
professional group of people that did do good work, they just needed to do it better.
You don't say!
The truth is that the role of the expert is organic. Experts exist to control
knowledge as a social phenomenon, not to possess knowledge as an abstract entity.
When tragic cases like those referred to above proliferate we know they arise because
the regulating power of the organism is bursting out of its structural confines through
the physiological control mechanism of expertise, and jarring with the mass individual
perception that is provided by the sum of experts who generate and sustain a
harmonious collective mind. The physiological equivalent of this pathological
superorganic condition, seen in individuals, would be like glints of blue light
appearing in the vision when we look at green leaves. Eyes that produced such an
aberration would be troublesome and tend not to be an aid to their possessor and so to
be filtered out of the population by the evolutionary process. Likewise as these rogue
experts fail to conform to the pattern of their kind they are weeded out. However, we
should note that all knowledge is fundamentally false in the same manner as the
knowledge presented by aberrant experts, in that knowledge invariably assumes a
moral dimension within the context where an expert opinion is called upon, whereas
in reality there are only biological dimensions.
These expert dynamics are an eternal feature of superorganic physiology, not
just a modern phenomenon, they simply appear in a more modern guise today. The

85
linguistic patterns of information we are talking about here in terms of wavelengths of
colour have a strictly organic function to perform, concerned with the harmonisation
of the organic biomass that exists within the exoskeleton that consists, in part, of the
command structures that house the centres of information where experts are
developed and from where they perform their main functions. Of course babies get ill
and doctors become expert in their illnesses, and so they legitimately come to form a
specialised class of doctor, a paediatrician. But then this medical specialisation, that
only exists as an expert class because it is sanctioned by the establishment, by virtue
of the investment of authority in it, becomes a tool of the establishment, capable of
being used to establish or reinforce the authority of the establishment. In this way real
knowledge is abstracted from the physical domain that knowledge draws its form
from, to create a socially functional extension of reality in the form of an exoskeletal
structure based upon an interpretation of real knowledge according to the authority of
ideological knowledge. And this is what makes it possible for all forms of gross
ignorance to be touted by the establishment, such as belief in God, without any direct
reference to reality. The establishment comes into being by hiving off reality into a
special compartment of the being that it is in command of. Such activities as those of
the rogue expert can be related by analogy to the kind of functions we find in an
individual body. Robert Morley, author of Biopolitics, first became interested in the
idea of society as a living body by thinking of the pathological condition of an
individual body suffering from cancer as a political system in a state of turmoil, like
that of a society in conflict. He then extrapolated his resulting logic from this effort
back upon society and made society into a living body. This makes him sound
interesting to us, but it shows why in particular, despite his apparent uncompromising
commitment to the organicist idea, he failed to give a sound rendition of the nature of
human society, because he did not first discover the key and work from there. The
key being that human nature is corporate and the form of the individual evolved to
facilitate the evolution of a living organism at the level of social organisation in which
the individual is reduced to the status of a cell within the living body. If all we have is
talk of an analogical kind wherein we let experts mimic cancerous cells we just have
daft story. We must first see that it is the actual nature of the species that generates
these functional roles from the evolved form of individual physiology. Then we do
not need analogies, we only need make all facets of social form conform to the idea of
a corporate nature driving evolution toward the superorganic being wherein the social
structure is recognised to be an exoskeleton, and individuals are seen as taking their
form from their location within the structure. Hence we try to make our most
outstanding attribute, that of speech, into an extension of the physical domain wherein
information is transmitted as a medium of energy transference between systems, and
so we speak of linguistic wavelengths and organs of colour management, and so on.
Knowledge did not evolve in a vacuum, and without a strictly determined
biological function. That function, as should be evident from all that we are saying, is
to produce a living form composed of individual humans. And so there has to be a
direct relationship between the evolution of knowledge and the form of society. Laws
exist to directly create and sustain superorganic physiology, and the expert is just the
modern term we apply to some of the more esoteric functionaries that act as units of
the organs of systems control in the body, maintaining conformity amongst the
biomass composed of nondescript individual cells that require to be managed. In the
past witch-hunters will of performed the same role as the modern specialists in the
divination of causes of death in babies, if anyone had cared about this particular event
in the time when these people were the experts of their day. Crime exists to help

86
create fear and conformity in society, a familiar refrain of the functionalist sociologist,
and about as close as an establishment sociologist gets to comprehending reality. But
crime has to be created by the core structure, it does not just exist of its own accord.
You cannot have people who drive recklessly until you have created something for
them to drive. You cannot have people guilty of killing babies until you have an idea
that killing babies is wrong. So you make a law to say killing babies is wrong, you
develop experts able to show why this is so, you call them theologians, or
philosophers, or experts, and you then kill anyone that any expert says has killed a
baby in conformity to what they have determined is wrong; or you just throw them in
prison for a couple of decades, which is pretty much the same thing as killing them.
Of course the determination of wrongness is not supposed to be the whim of
an expert, not that it matters too much if it is because the function of such evolved
forms of behaviour is to generate an homogenous constitution amongst the extended
general biomass. As the biomass increases in size order can only be maintained by
refining the processes of control, so that social structures become more refined
creating superior organic systems as the rigour with which expert determinations of
this expert kind are orchestrated increases. Relevant experts in linguistic colour
coordination call this becoming civilised, and the organs of linguistic colour
management generate verbal formulas under broad headings such as human rights,
which, being found to be highly effective, are extended to animals, often with far
greater emphasis than they are applied to humans. Witness the cavalier manner in
which our government obeys the Zionist command to go to war in Iraq in the name of
Israeli security and eternal Jewish interests in general, slaughtering hundreds of
thousands of innocent civilians who take up arms to fight for their freedom from the
horror of democracy, while that same jingoistic government is tormented to
distraction by its desire to destroy a bulwark of British national life in the name of
protecting vermin that like to find their way into chicken coups so they can have the
fun of ripping the heads of the birds trapped within. These corporate behaviours
mean something, but never confuse morality with morality, there is no such thing as
morality at the collective level of operation, all there is is biology, and all that biology
means, in human terms, is Zionism. All these collective behaviours of government
are purely biological, they are generated by the organs of colour in order to sustain
superorganic unity through the transmission of linguistic messages suitably focused
into a consistent beam of social knowledge. The war in Iraq is about one facet of the
Zionist cause, extending a tighter form of Jewish authority over an already Jewish
population. And the destruction of British culture, a Jewish culture that needs to be
revitalised, has the identical purpose. This is about destroying an ageing identity to
bring forth a new one amenable to that identity which is now coming into its own in
the Zionist being, the identity of Islam. It is clear that old seats of local culture must
be a major hindrance to the Islamification of the world in the third stage of Zionism
which is in the early stages of its unfolding at the present time. Multiculturalism is
the phrase the experts in this field of linguistic colouring have concocted to give a
positive message to the self destructive act of ethnic cleansing that Europe is inflicting
upon itself at the present time, or, more precisely, the Jewish farmers of the
population of Europe are inflicting upon their domesticated Jewish livestock. The
delineation in this uniformly Jewish being is hierarchical and complex. It was
interesting to hear the comment made in the news item concerning the murder of the
Dutch film maker by a Moslem fascist last week, that we have already mentioned, that
this man had done a study of the effect on Dutch society of the recent murder of the
political figure who was vocal in his complaints about the influx of Moslems, that

87
showed that Dutch society was ruled by a layer of establishment authority that
consisted of some one percent of the population. Well there is a surprise, not; this is
how the organism has evolved, there is nothing that can be done about it.
We are being somewhat blasé about this important aspect of social physiology
because it is something we need to mention, but not something we want to be drawn
into discussing at length because it can be a lengthy subject to discuss, and we must
be aware that this preliminary discussion of our translation is already headed for being
twice as long as the work it is introducing. Of course when a donkey carries a man it
often looks like the burden is twice the size of the baggage, and we are only
presenting a translation of Lilienfeld's Defence in order to find a vehicle through
which to express the same idea in an updated and more robust form. So we must
leave this interesting facet of the manner in which the linguistic wavelengths are
focused, built into colour bands, cast as images upon the organism and experienced in
action for real, in life as it is.

88
 The Nature of Authority

Our entire view of life, as represented by this work, in which we include every
conceivable facet of human life, is organic. Therefore whether we are considering the
command role of a cell nucleus in a three billion year old microbe or the command
role of a brain in a budgerigar, or the command role of a structure in a modern
democratic society, the rules we lay down when we speak of the nature of command
are equally applicable in all cases. The only case we are concerned with here
however is that of the socioganic structure.
The organ of authority that we have been discussing above is derived from the
evolved energy base of human nature delivered to the point of command via the
physical form of the human individual by means of linguistic information, and it
constitutes an organ of command existing discretely within a body, of which it forms
a part, a body that comes into being at the social level of organisation. All command
structures must conform to the rule that requires them to exist within a body,
otherwise they make no sense as an organic phenomenon. The body must, by
definition, be inert relative to the command structure, this too has to be a law of
organic life. The idea of command inevitably associated with inertia should evoke the
idea of a hierarchical structure making up a unified form. The body subject to a
command organ is therefore divided into two distinct structures whose relationship to
one another consists of a feedback loop of information. This information loop is itself
neutral in its operational role as the medium of authority. That is to say the biomass
gives orders to the command organ that have equal authority to those orders coming
from the command organ toward the biomass, in respect to operational actions. This
has to be so otherwise the command structure would not be capable of command and
the return element of the feedback loop would be meaningless. Thus if a person
touches a hot pan the brain receives a signal that obliges it to order a command to
move the hand. An expert might want to assert their sole right to discuss such topics
as a qualified scientific authority by disputing this simplistic interpretation of such an
event, but it is the gist of the idea we want to derive from this description, not the fine
detail of human individual physiology. The inherent purpose of a living thing, which
is to sustain itself by seeking food, that is by taking energy into the system of its
being, is a product of such a feedback loop, where the hot pan is replaced by hunger
pains.
We might alternatively think of the nervous system, which is the material
extension of the command organ into the fabric of the biomass, as belonging to the
command organ itself, so we may consider nerves to be part of the brain and not part
of the bulk of the biomass. In terms of the exoskeleton this would be like thinking of
the electrical wiring in our houses as part of the power plant that produces the
electricity for the national grid. A light bulb being, therefore, an extension of the
electricity generating station, which of course it is, if there was no power station there
would be no light bulb. But we do not think about the material facets of our society in
such organic terms, hence we do not make the direct connection between the wiring in
our houses, that we may even fit ourselves, and the nuclear power plant that generates
the power that we most certainly cannot think of in personal terms. It is possible to
think of the point of creation and the point of end use in such systems as inherently
discrete and distinct from each other, but it is equally obvious that the one is
inherently dependant upon the other, the difference being merely hierarchical. Which
is to say that if one person decided to remove a light bulb from their home the power

89
plant would not close down for want of a purpose. Whereas, if the power plant closed
down all light bulbs would become dead objects.
The directional bias of the dynamic state of interdependence operating
between these structural elements indicates the hierarchical nature of the relationship
via the force of dependence, in the context of which the physical form of the objects
concerned is irrelevant. In other words, where the dynamic relationship existing
between elements of a complex structure is unidirectional the physical form is unity.
The significance of this point being that the power plant and the light bulb are of
equal significance in terms of their nature, which is another way of saying they are
part of one unity, the significant inequality in their relative status is derived from the
directional bias in the force of dependence which is revealed in their form. But it
makes all the difference in the world to our comprehension of the system if we decide
to take the form as the starting point in our determination of the hierarchical
relationship between elements in a system. In this case we may well be led to think
that the light bulb is the commanding structure in the power network because it is here
that the end of the network is realised when we see darkness turned into light, the
power generating plant would make no sense without this end result; but even so the
state of dependence still acts in the opposite direction, from the power plant to the
bulb, not from the bulb to the power plant. And no one would reason that the light
bulb was the dominant element in the power system of a human exoskeletal structure.
The mechanistic dynamic applicable to the above hierarchical system should
be perfectly applicable to any human hierarchy of any kind. There should be a
directional bias in the force of dependence that should reveal differences in the form
of between elements making up any complex human structure, of whatever kind, even
though the nature of the forms will be equal in that they must be part of one unity in
order to be elements of a complex system. Thus if there is a hierarchical relationship
between cultural entities then although the forms will be of an equal kind, being
human social entities, there should appear some evidence of bias in the dynamic of
dependence. Thus states in the third world are of the same nature as states in the first
world, both being discrete communities, but if this terminology means anything there
should be a bias in the dynamic of dependence such that the first world is in the
position of the power station relative to the third world light bulb. The same applies
to the historical difference between the Jews and the Romans, or the ongoing
difference between the Jews and the Christians, or the current difference between the
Jews and the Americans. If there is a truly hierarchical relationship between the Jews
and all other identities with whom they are associated other identities should come
and go, or rise to prominence and fade away again, while only the Jews remain eternal
and forever unchanging. This is what Organicism predicts, and this is what history
reveals to be correct. This indicates an organic relationship between these elements of
unity that has a directional bias, and this tells us that here we are discussing a living
thing, a superorganism with an exoskeleton, albeit an exoskeleton that it is composed
of none living matter; there is nothing unique about this last fact. The power station
and the light bulb are just as much parts of the living human organism as the shell is
part of the snail.
These material considerations regarding the command structure come to the
fore in the case of society where we would see the kind of military outposts of central
government such as the Romans operated as incursions of the command centre into
the body of the people it sort to rule. Today we do not officially interpret a police
station or a speed camera as the incursion of an alien authority because a ceaseless
barrage of propaganda tells us this is good, and for our own good, and not about

90
controlling the domesticated population that the biomass consists of. Immense social
structures are founded upon the basis of misinformation, rather as religious
institutions are constructed upon the basis of mythology. Government, law and
material distribution all reinforce the misinformation that informs the form these
social phenomenon take in society. Thus, in a sense misinformation is true when
taken on its own terms, this is so because language is the genetic medium of social
form. Hence, if it is said that black people are inferior to white people, and black
people only do menial work, then it is true that black people are indeed inferior to
white people. Such logical contrasts are a product of the difference between actual
and ideal representation.
Misinformation, or social information, is only false in so far as it strays into
the domain of reality that is beyond its power of control; it strays in this manner as a
necessary adjunct of asserting its social authority. The curious thing about this
however is that social authority is determined by biology, and nothing else, hence the
conflict that arises as science applies itself to society. Contemporary instruments of
authority are then no different to the military outposts of the Romans, even though
this is something we have no way of knowing today from personal experience
because the impact of an alien way of life being imposed upon our population has
mellowed as the alien command structure imposed upon the local population has
evolved an exoskeletal form derived from the command structure that informed
Roman exoskeletal form; an elaboration of alien authority that was folded upon itself
by the overlay of Norman influence that was only a nuance of identity already
fashioned from the Roman dictatorship. Individuals cannot ordinarily see the deeper
nature of things that is embedded in the forms that are part of their own world. This is
only like saying that charcoal burning is no different to a nuclear power station, when
in saying this we are referring to the unchanging nature of the form which concerns
the production of fuel, not the ever changing structure of the means used to achieve
this end. Nonetheless it is implicit in the fact that a third of the male population has a
criminal conviction of some kind, that most of us experience the law as an enemy of
freedom, not an aid to our enjoyment of liberty. The extent to which the biomass
accepts the rule of the central organ is a measure of the evolved state of the organism,
the means by which this is achieved is neither here nor there. Organic features of the
exoskeleton like military outposts, police stations, cameras and so on come to exist of
their own accord without any conscious decision making on the part of any human
individuals or combination thereof, the growth of exoskeletal structure is induced by
the force of authority inherent in human corporate nature.
This week, today is 09/04/05, in the North West of England, two students
were given ten months in youth custody for plastering graffiti all over railway
property that had cost tens of thousands of pounds to clean off. What is this
behaviour all about? These youths are clearly driven by their egos to seek attention
from their contemporaries, there is no other possible explanation or motive, as is clear
from the personal and cliquish content of the graffiti itself. Hence there is always a
force in society seeking to express authority, the famous book by Laurens Van De
Post about a group of kids stranded on an island expresses this idea. This is the force
of authority latent in evolved human nature, the force of authority in human corporate
nature. The establishment is merely the evolved accumulation of that force, or the
growing expression of it that can be likened to the coral reef that is the expression of
the accumulated lives of billions of single corals acting in the same direction over
time. Society will therefore always be obliged to contend with this force erupting
from its well spring, even as the welcome force of authority is personified in the

91
fountain head of society that is the establishment. Hence, we may note, that the
graffiti these boys were punished for was exoskeletal structure of an unwelcome kind,
just as Organicism, or unconstrained science we should say, is exoskeletal
information of an unwelcome kind.
How do we transfer this simple mechanistic idea of a command organ ruling a
body from a simple organism to the body of a human society of the kind we live in
today? The dynamics must be the same, it is only the complexity that is altered. And
the complexity can only really be referring to the exoskeletal socioganic structure and
the flow of information in the feedback loop. In the final analysis, viewed from a
sufficiently broad perspective, the simple dynamic applicable to all organisms should
be as readily observable in the most complex human society as it is in the most basic
life form. And of course it is as long as you are looking through the correct
conceptual prism provided by a suitable linguistic code, and not the one provided by
the core organ of linguistic imagery.

Electrics are not social analogs of living nerves. Electrics are living tissue,
tissue that is alive, just as much as nerves are living tissue. Because electrical fabric
is exoskeletal it is only alive when it is part of a whole system, the same condition
applies to nerves, where the difference arises is when death ensues, or when decay
sets in. Being exoskeletal the electrical apparatus does not take on the same form as
nervous tissue by rotting and decaying, it takes on a shell like form, becoming dry,
losing its shine, corroding, forming a solid deposit and eventually decaying, if it is not
'digested' by the superorganism in a process called recycling. This apparent
independence of the ‘shell’ from the living tissues creates the illusion that the
exoskeleton is not part of the living body of the organism. Victorian scientists failed
to make this simple observation, this was the fatal flaw in their reasoning, the
omission of which led directly to the death of science because the ludicrous idea of
analogy was allowed to corrupt all sensible scientific argument, allowing theology to
take control of the argument through the medium of its own self centred linguistic
mode of creating consciousness.
Thomas Edison did not invent the light bulb. Light bulbs are made from glass,
therefore if Edison invented light bulbs he also invented glass, but this is preposterous
since glass evolved as part of the human organism thousands of years ago. Edison
merely acted as the intermediary unit in a complex flow of linguistic information that
brought the possibility of the light bulb out of the flux of information as it
reverberated in his own time, and so the light bulb emerged from the realms of
potential form into the material world of the living human organism. Indeed, there is
some dispute as to who the true inventor was, Edison being said to of taken the
accolade simply because his business acumen made him more zealous about self
promotion. In other words the light bulb was emerging of its own accord and there
was nothing anyone could of done to stop the light bulb from evolving. However we
see here a perfect example of the law of organic information, that is commensurate
with the law of individuation, whereby our individual consciousness is created in such
a manner that we see only our individual selves and are made blind to socioganic
corporate reality. This linguistic law causes us to see each fragment condensed from
the organic flux of information as a thing in its own right, so that when a new discrete
combination evolves from the flux via the agency of an individual the new form and
the individual are linked together, and so together they define the creative process.
This welds the individual into place as the vector of emergence acting in each case of
the superorganism's new material elaboration. So although the superorganism is

92
evolving via the activity of its cellular components, who are oblivious of what they
are doing or why they are doing it, nonetheless it is the individual that defines the
creative process according to the concepts that take shape in the pinhead minds of the
cellular units involved in building the superorganism they think of as God.
Note that we are saying the law of organic information gives rise to a
linguistic law of individuation that arises from the fact that creative information traces
a seamless flow of energy that transfers from the genetic to the linguistic context, so
that the same organic law covers both contexts. Only the name applied to this law of
organic information alters according to the nature of the tissue through which the
information flows, tissue that the information therefore generates. That is to say
whether the tissue is itself living, or whether it is an exoskeletal fabric that
accommodates discrete packages of living tissue by forming a superorganic structure
in which these living units exist.
This organicist model of society is undoubtedly how intelligent aliens from
another star would understand us within the context of our own planet’s biosphere.
They would not be blinkered by our self centred self consciousness that tells us we are
divine and in no sense a part of nature, that we are in charge of the creative process
rather than the creative process being in charge of us. Why, we must ask ourselves,
has no scientist ever thought that humans might be a part of nature, a living creature,
life forms like any other life forms, subject to the same laws of the universe as all
other life forms? All they needed to do was to see this very simple, obvious fact, that
human society was exoskeletal; but not one person ever came remotely close. Why
not? How could they all be so blind?

When it comes to our own existence, and we see the interaction between the
social command structure and the social body we interpret the outcomes in our own
peculiar way, as they appear to us as people, and in terms of how they affect us, which
means according to a political formula. This mode of understanding is linguistic, it is
a linguistic image of reality. As social evolution develops the complexity of
regularisation, creating harmony between the organ of authority and the biomass, we
find the modern idea of a free society ruled by an elected body is a leading outcome.
According to this modern idea the command structure tells us, we are in charge of it!
The biomass lets its needs be known and the command structure must then obey the
command coming from the body, this is what the message coming from the command
centre tells us is happening in the democratic model. Now, as we have already
recognised in the section above discussing the hierarchical relationship between the
power plant and the light bulb, and the force of dependence operating between them,
there is an element of truth in the fact that a feed back loop means the command
structure is obliged to obey certain instructions from the body, such as moving the
hand away from hot objects. But essentially the command structure unites the body
and thus the body exists to serve the command structure. We see this relationship
expressed in the politics of British society where all that the political class ever
concerns itself with at election time is the bread and butter issues of tax and the
provision of essential services related to taxation that constitute the physiological
issues of social substance. Even when a motive issue such as a Zionist war is brought
to the fore simply because the command structure has just engaged in such a war
without being able to hide behind the motivation of defence, despite all their idiotic
effortsWMD, there is no means by which people can influence such motive issues
on any established basis. The political structure simply does not provide any means
for the body to control the motive power of the command structure because no

93
political party can appeal to the electorate on such an ideal basis and still hope to
acquire power. This is because of the role allocated to parliament, which is
dominated by strictly managerial functions. And this fact is a direct consequences of
the evolved structure of the exoskeleton that constitutes the social fabric. This is
exactly as it should be in a superorganic structure defined by an identity which carries
a motive imperative that is distinct from that of the superorganic unit over which the
command structure has control. In relation to British society we are of course
referring to the Jewish identity which invokes the Zionist idea of one world under one
God. Popular government is confined to the management of territorial matters that
are essentially physiological in nature. The motivational forces directing British
collective action are determined by the territory’s slave status delivered through the
medium of the population’s sub-Judaic identity. Which means that in all matters of
national motivation the state will exert itself in the global interests of the Jewish
command structure, which is, as far as possible, universal in the context of political
territories. Hence the Zionist war in Iraq just engaged in, and indeed the former
interest of the British state in an empire including Palestine and Iraq in the past, and
the state of Israel today. Britain is just one segment of muscle in a framework of
territorial muscles activated by the Zionist impulse focused upon Jewish identity.
It would be perfectly easy to provide a truly democratic political structure that
was organic but only concerned itself with motive forces embraced by the populace of
the territory over which the elected body had command, by separating the
physiological aspects of social administration from the motivational aspects of
political action. This would be done by creating a civil service that had the job of
managing all matters of administration, such as determining revenue income and
expenditure, and thus leaving the elected bodies to campaign on purely motivational
issues, such as who the nation should exterminate and what kind of slaves were most
popular to keep as pets. No such civilized society has however yet evolved; or was
that the Roman agenda? Dam, and I missed it. Authority, however you slice it, has to
be autocratic, and has to involve an exaltation of one structure in contrast to the
negation of another. If we do not wage war in the old manner or keep slaves
anymore, it is not because we are in any sense superior individuals as compared to our
predecessors. It is simply because the organism has evolved beyond those more
mechanical mechanisms now, it no longer needs such brute force, we are
domesticated, infused into the structure, without any trace of individuality left to
cause friction. This super refined personal condition is reflected in the exoskeletal
structure, with its sophisticated electronic communication and slick silicon chip
technology facilitating ever increasing homogeneity throughout the global Jewish
biomass. Above all else the mark of slavery is preserved, as religion rolls on toward a
horrendous future, as it has emerged from a horrendous past. And there is nothing we
can do about it, except prey that our offspring will be morons, free from any sense of
reality, as our forefathers have always been, as, mercifully, we are, almost to a man
thank goodness for Lilienfeld!

It is 08/12/04 14:22:58, I have just caught a snippet of a programme on Stalin's

terror on the UK History Channel in which we were told that Stalin orchestrated the
terror as terror, pure and simple. We might imagine he had read Emile Durkheim's
ideas on the need for crime to invoke consolidation against a threat. The slaughter of
people was devised according to a statistical policy so that one city might be told that
5,000 had to be shot this year, and who was shot was irrelevant. This was reported
with a sense of deep dismay, but it is in no sense different to Hitler choosing Jews to

94
gas or our government choosing to single out people who like to drink to be sent to
prison and to have their lives destroyed by the police. The object in all three cases is
to fulfil the need to spread terror and to engender a state of rigour in the community
thereby. We might argue that our modern democratic society goes about these
functions in a far more sophisticated manner, but the result is no less horrific in its
nature, although it certainly is in its form. People are certainly free in a society where
they never want to do anything that is not allowed, but that is not the world we live in.
The accommodation of people to the law is an after effect induced by law, whereby,
being too afraid to be criminals people declare all law to be good and just, and they
condemn those who break it; which is rather a different thing to being free and
consequently voluntarily law abiding. In Britain much is made of the idea that we
have policing by consent. But this is part of the propaganda of command. In so far as
a show of what is claimed must be made this idea is strived after, but the foundation
of its success is realised in so far as it is, by a complex interlinking between the
elements of the social fabric based upon the rule of law, that gives a sufficient degree
of interest in support of this idea to allow us all to make it our ideal, so the illusion
works. But the fact is that law is oppressive and certainly not democratic. All of
which is only discussed here to bring home the fact that society is not a political
phenomenon composed of universally free people where most are good and
responsible while some are bad and irresponsible. Rather, society is an organic entity
that demands certain dynamics are always active, dynamics which induce these
structural distributions in the fabric of the population delineated by law that is
supported by moral invective.

But, social structures are not like this, society is not an organism. Except it is.
Why else would the command structure of gone to war in Iraq when the social body,
on mass, demanded that it should not do so? Why was I hunted down and attacked by
the police, who were executing their duties as given them by the state, as if I were a
wild animal, while I was simply going about my normal everyday business? (In my
case because I refuse to be domesticated.) The answer to the wider question is that it
is the Jewish identity of the social organism, focused upon the command structure,
which ultimately determines these outcomes. Individuals like myself have absolutely
no say on these matters and certainly not the slightest power of influence. The
command structure only knows what it is because of its strongly Jewish identity;
obviously overtly Christian, but Christianity is a Jewish identity, or a sub-identity of
Judaism. If there was no such thing as religious identity then there would be some
argument for saying commands in society were simply responses to the desires of the
mass of the people. But there is religion and there always has been, and it is
impossible to conceive of a society not being based upon a religious command
structure, because religion is an organic phenomenon and so is society. This is
something Comte clearly had not the least inkling of, and neither has anyone else I
have ever found speaking on the subject unless they were trying to promote theism
and to say there was a God; in which case they were not saying society was a true
organism.
Nonetheless we always interpret these organic structures in political terms and
this gives us ideas of democracy and ideas of slavery, ideas of monarchy, theocracy
and dictatorship. These are all words formulated by the organ of linguistic vision and
emitted from the extended structures of the organ of authority to be received by the
masses in order to make the body conform to the commands it is given by supplying
individuals with their thoughts ready made. Yesterday, 06/11/04, the news discussed

95
the upcoming attack against the Jewish terrorists of Fellujah in Iraq, by the Jewish
troops of America. The Jewish journalists of Britain were saying that the insurgent
Jews were unseen, deadly and ruthless, they had planted car bombs killing thirty
Jewish Iraqis yesterday. A Jewish American officer was then interviewed saying that
these Jewish insurgents were faceless, but they would hunt them down and
exterminate them, they had a face indeed, he said, it was the face of Satan, and they
would destroy them. Wow! Scary people these American Jews. What is Satan when
it is at home? Belief in Satan is the programming of the Jewish identity that drives
the thoughts of these Jewish robots. Meanwhile if we could interview the insurgents
they would use precisely the same terminology, only in a form developed by the
Jewish command centre of linguistic vision which delivers to them their own nuance
of Judaism. Everyone in this situation is a Jew, the meaning of the military activity is
simply one of amalgamation, which is the means by which a superorganism grows. If
the Iraqis were not Jews then the Jews would simply of exterminated them, as they
did the indigenous people of America a couple of centuries ago; the remnants of
which are now as Jewish as the rest of us. It is because the Iraqis are Jews that the
attack centres on the extermination of the local command structure, which was out of
step with the central Jewish command structure in Israel. The objective of the present
war is to implant a modern form of command structure called ‘democratic’, that will
secure the regional peace and thus ensure Israel's position can progress toward
whatever outcome growth determines it should have.
I have of course inserted the surname Jew, the family name as it were, after
each of these individual identity structure's personal names, Iraqis, Americans,
journalist, terrorist, officer and so on. I have done this to emphasise the nature of the
organic being we are considering in this situation. This would be like me saying the
Howard's foot, the Howard's teeth, the Howard's stomach and so on if I wanted to
show someone that each of the parts of my body, despite carrying a distinct name,
were nonetheless still as much Howard, that is me, as any other part, or the whole
thing put together. Meanwhile we continue to think of these things in personal terms
and speak of them in political language. This account I am presenting now would be
condemned in the most aggressive political language if it were made public even
though it is a purely scientific account that states the exact case as it is in reality,
detached from any personal or political interpretations. The command organ gains
control of social situations by giving them political interpretations, which is why we
use words for people who kill, like ‘soldier’, which is very good, and ‘terrorist’,
which is very bad, where the difference in the interpretation of the identical act is
merely determined by whether our command organ of linguistic imagery has ordered
the killing or not. An Israeli shooting dead a school girl sat at her desk in school, as
happened a couple of weeks ago, is given the honourable title 'soldier' while a teenage
Palestinian blowing themselves up in a restaurant in Israel, which happens frequently
enough, is called a 'terrorist'. Clearly there is no inherent difference between the two
acts, although the political interpreters would have no difficulty in justifying the
nomenclature endlessly according to their own linguistic formula.
We all know the long and tortuous route by which humanity got to where we
are today, where we have a reasonably comfortable society to live in, if we are lucky.
We would be naive to think that our world is as the establishment tells us it is. But
the degree of elaboration of the message is so astounding that it is almost unbelievable
what the limits of naivety are, as they appear to be limitless. I too was completely
duped by the system, I thought we lived in a society that sought to be free, and just
had not succeeded in making it. I was raised to believe we lived in a free society, it

96
takes a lifetime to see the depth of the duplicity. And the only way you can discover
these depths is to always accept that something is not right and to be forever
wondering what it is so that you spot it when you get the chance, you can never stop
probing for a moment if you want to know the truth. I never expected to find that
Darwinism was a sham perpetrated by the linguistic forces of theocratic authority, but
there it is, plain as day once you have seen it.
No matter what system of social governance is in place the feedback dynamic
has to be the same, the command structure has to have a purpose of its own that is
distinct from that of the body. Clearly no matter what the legs, arms and linguistic
centres of the body wanted to do, if we wanted to go to the pub they would have to
cooperate in making that happen. Indeed these organs could not even have an
alternative sense of wanting. It is true that at the social level of organization this solid
form of organic being is not present in quite the same way. But institutions that have
the same self centred characteristic most definitely are. The tribute to the Radio One
disc-jockey John Peel, that was on BBC 2 last night, 06/11/04, spoke of how he was
recognised by the BBC to be from a public school, so, despite all appearances to the
contrary, he could not be just some motor-mouth, as the women telling this part of the
story put it, and the credibility of the BBC relied upon John Peel for years, she added.
What is this kind of conversation about? It is about the delineation between those
who rule society, who farm it, and those who are ruled, who are farmed.

Last night, 07/12/04, the news carried a report about 3,000 job loses in the
BBC and on Newsnight they discussed the structure of the BBC and mentioned the
effort made by the last director to rid the BBC of its institutionalised old boy
character. But these are not political phenomenon, they are biological, and the elite
have to have an alien identity relative to the masses, and they must be raised to be
alien, otherwise they could not possibly rule society as an organ of command must
rule the superorganism it is part of, and that it exists to rule. The effort to destroy the
institutionalised nature of this great public organisation only goes to show that organic
power is shifting to a new structural organ of the superorganism. This particular
power shift is of course part of the transfer of social power from public structures of
governance to the private sector in the ongoing reaction to the power of democracy
that had made it difficult for those who farm society to get on with the job of farming
the domesticated livestock. In effect democracy itself is being domesticated. This
process, the privatisation of political power, is well advanced and it is just now getting
into the likes of the television media because it has had to await the development of
the superorganic infrastructure to enable this shift toward autocratic power to take
place according the biological laws of life that requires an organism to have a discrete
command structure. New physiology in the form of satellites and digital broadcasting
have saved the day as the threat of freedom for all has been erased from the set of
future possible outcomes for humanity, freedom that could only of meant the
extinction of the human superorganism. We are born to be slaves, we are slaves, we
are only free as long as we believe we are free, look around, and the cage falls in
about your ears.

The fact is that as a socially functioning individual who must operate within or
between institutional structures these social forms are just as solid as any organs in a
solid body. As the popular adage has it, it is who you know not what you know. This
intuitive recognition of superorganic dynamics is valid because the organic structures,
in the form of institutions, to which this kind of insight applies, have the attributes of

97
machines that require piloting. Any idiot can run them, just as any idiot can drive a
car. What is important therefore, is that the right people run them. This means
appropriate people, people who are trained up to serve the purpose, trained within
matching institutions of identity incubation, specifically within those identity
incubators specialised in the training of the master classwho all do, by virtue of
being raised within these hot houses of identity, know those they must know in order
to be chosen. If you do not belong in the BBC you will not get into the BBC, in
precisely the same sense that if you are a liver cell then you will not be found in the
brain. If you do not belong in Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, etc. But what really
makes a cell suitable for the social organ of command is that it is overtly dedicated to
Judaism, as in being a committed Christian, or at least not being an overt atheist
dedicated to the overthrow of religion. Those theists who sport the regalia of atheism,
who speak respectfully of religion while calling themselves atheists, are of course
most welcome, they are like criminals who inform on their fellow criminals to the
police, they are, as people, traitors, but as cells in an organism they are just one more
subtle line of defence and consolidation. And as such particularly valuable to the
establishment. Other things, like being a lawyer or a business person would also
constitute a sound qualification because these subjects are at the heart of the nature of
organic Judaism too, but clearly, ultimately there must be a dedication to Judaism
ruling all societies or else Judaism may as well not exist, and indeed could not exist.
If the mass of society became conscious of the true nature of the command
structure that rules our society, that is if they became aware of the true nature of the
Jewish people acting as a corporate organ distinguished by their overtly Jewish
identity, then we are bound to interpret this, the command relationship the Jews have
relative to the rest of us, in political terms. If we take the example of Iraq, although
we could take examples from law or economics equally well, then we can see that the
Jewish command structure is so delineated from the rest of us in terms of identity as
to give them a different view of purposes related to the issues in Iraq. But thanks to
the Jewish identity implant called Christianity and Islam, the differences are only
sufficient to allow the Jews to remain as a distinct core of command, thus Jews are not
complete aliens. This is crucial because the consequence of this highly evolved and
extremely subtle identity structure is that instead of the relationship being like that of
master and slave as it might be if we were talking about the Roman dominion over the
Europeans of their day, we have a common social structure where the Christian
command structure mirrors the Jewish command structure, only with specific and
important differences distinguishing the two. The result of this discrete delineation is
that Jews living in a Christian social body are not cast by Nature in the role of master
to slave, but a far more powerful and organic role of farmer to domesticated livestock;
which ultimately becomes brain relative to body.
If the identity of the Jews as the master of society comes too much to the fore,
as it cannot help but do periodically, and thus becomes known to the public then a
defence mechanism kicks in simply by exaggerating the normal state of affairs, which
involves interpreting social dynamics in political terms. Thus part of the core of
authority starts to use its access to the means of public expression to speak of the Jews
as masters and the rest of us as slaves, just as the Nazis did, and many have done
before them, and many may yet do in the future. But, this behaviour is a defence
mechanism preventing the whole Jewish social structure from collapsing, so anti-
Semitism and the resulting pogroms are ultimately part of a healthy Jewish
superorganism. And indeed this is self evident since this anti-Semitic reaction is a
permanent feature of Jewish societies, and Jews always survive and continue to thrive

98
despite them, which cannot be said of any other people on earth. The Jews
themselves say the survival of their identity is because they are so pure in their
thoughts and behaviour, this is a political interpretation, the biological account we
have in our hands is the correct interpretation of these purely organic aspects of
human beings.
Ultimately of course these relationships have evolved by purely organic means
and the relationship between the Jewish core identity and the Jewish subidentity that
reduces none Jewish populations to the position of a host body is best thought of as
symbiotic. As with domesticated farm animals kept by human farmers, domesticated
humans farmed by Jews are beneficiaries of the farming process. Like their
domesticated counterparts on the hills, they get fatter, they are protected and as a
result they have, in becoming what is called civilisedthe word given to domesticated
humansbecome dependant upon being farmed. And in doing so their kind have
been dispersed across all territories of the planet, ousting the none domesticated form,
or more specifically the none Jewish humans; the domesticated species have, as the
Jewish farmers say in their political speak “inherited the earth”. This process of
replacement by stealth is exactly what happened in Europe some twenty five thousand
years ago when our species, in feral mode, exterminated the only other truly human
species to of existed coextensively with our own, the Neanderthals. The Neanderthals
had evidently not evolved the refined linguistic physiology and concomitant attributes
of superorganic form that gave our kind the fully fledged corporate nature that made
their groups more thoroughly superorganic, attributes that made our form so much
more potent than the groups made up of Neanderthaloid humans.
The present day recipients of Nature’s good graces could not exist without the
specialist services of those who farm them anymore than the humans that replaced
Neanderthals could of done without their pool of cultural knowledge passed on
through language, a process which must of involved some sort of incipient priestly
caste, if only in the form of a witch doctor, a possessor of special knowledge, the ones
who painted the caves and worked the magic on which the group depended. The Jews
who farm society today are simply the expression of this incipient force of authority
inherent in human corporate nature. This state of dependency explains why the basic
tenet of Judaism says that all life is precious, sacred, because this creates an ever
increasing state of dependency for those who are alive only by virtue of this form of
regulation. And it also makes the population grow to its maximum possible extent,
which all farmers want of their livestock; something that is clearly key to the Zionist
mantra of world domination by one master race, an ideology that is the supreme
expression of human corporate nature. This law, that says life is sacred, is therefore
one of the most important superorganic linguistic genes in the Jewish superorganism’s
compendium. We can put the eradication of native healers, in favour of doctors, into
the context of the shift from one form of superorganic structure where the core shares
a common identity to the biomass, something more tribal, to a more rigid form of
superorganic macro structure where the delineation between the core and the biomass
becomes far more distinct, and thus experts distinct from the mass emerge to deliver
structure based on core authority. Judaism is not just about religion, as we have noted
it rests upon law, and law creates the body into which the Judaic identity is infused.
Given how literally science finds it must interpret the evolution of Christianity in
terms of a process whereby farmers domesticate none human species it is remarkable
that Jesus, the Jewish master of the none Jewish livestock, should of been cast as the
shepherd leading his flock. This seems so crass in the light of science, the real nature

99
of the relationship between master and slave could hardly of been expressed more
explicitly from a scientific point of view.
Noting the relevance of the evolution of experts to Jewish master priestcraft
we can begin to appreciate the value of learning and knowledge as a management tool
that is central to the organic form associated with Jewish identity, something which
has become a hallmark of the Jew in the form of the Christian too, and is even found
expressed occasionally in some Islamic thought, only very very rarely. And we might
suggest, from this reasoning, that it is the inferior physiological position of the
Christian as a domesticated hominid base for a distinct authority to rest upon, an
authority that is vested in an alien kind, the Jew as a Jew, that has caused the real
burgeoning of intellectual power to evolve in the human species, because the
Christian substructure of the Jewish organism was empowered to act like a robot
serving its master in the guise of Jesus Christ. Christianity was a robot set free to
roam by the subordinate nature of its being. Christianity acted like an independent
body with its own priests and authorities, as any robot must, but really this self
motivated existence was not Christianity’s true nature anymore than it is that of a
robotic machine. Were this its true nature it would of had a structure and form
inclining its core authority to be even more jealous of its secret knowledge than it
was, if that can be imagined. It is precisely because of the slave status of Christian
culture that science has been able to thrive within its domain because in the end,
although Christian society is and always has been an absolute theocracy, it is not a
Christian theocracy, it is a Jewish theocracy and it suits the Jewish master perfectly
that its host should develop all means of empowerment, as long as it preserves its
attachment to Judaism, since the master does not have any respect for the slave
identity it imposes upon its host; Judaism knows it is all that matters, and Christianity
is just a piece of nonsense that only has value as long as it serves its purpose. Which
is why Islam was soon brought into the European territory when the host developed a
degree of immunity to its Christian identity implant, as it began to do during the
modern period up until the world wars crushed the enlightenment and reasserted
Jewish mastery over the earth.
This indicates that the Nazis were really Jews, but they were not Jews as such,
presumably. So, more to the point, this indicates what the real nature of the force
operating behind Jewish identity must be. And this is something I have never been
able to get a grip on in terms of a political body or cultural identity. Icke’s lizards are
as good a bet as anything when you get to this point in the game, so it is best we stick
with what we have and speak of the Jews as the master race and religion as the key to
human enslavement. Really, asking what lies behind the power of the Jews is like
asking what lies behind the power of the lion. The answer in the case of the lion is its
genetic inheritance that gives it its form, and the answer is the same in the case of the
Jews, except the creative information in their case is linguistic because the context
with which we are concerned in their case is solely that of human society. So the
Nazis were Jews in the sense that the linguistic code that creates the Jewish master
race also generates the emergence of anti-Jewish antagonists when the master loses
synchronicity with its host. The Nazi is a form of Jew therefore, in the same way a
bank robber is a form of banker, or a forger is a kind of great artist, or indeed in the
same way a cold sore on someone’s face is part of their face even it is a product of an
antithetical piece of genetic material which demands the body react against it.
Wherever a system exists that has true forms associated with it there must be invoked
the potential for antipathies stealing the true image in order to tap the energy of the
system. Mimicry in nature must occur on the same basis of tapping energy from an

100
established system, otherwise mimicry could not exist. A virus exists by tapping the
energy of system by means of a truncated piece of DNA that takes command of an
organism’s cellular machinery. Therefore it is not surprising that if a human organ
has evolved to take command of the social organism on the basis of a linguistic
information routine there should be alternate modes of the same code that erupt in
times of stress and compete for control until the body is stabilised. In the case of the
Jews the dynamics are on a superorganic scale and beyond the motives of individual
action. The Nazis were an example of an emergent reaction that is drawn from a
latent potential of oppression created by the existence of the alien presence of the Jew
within the body carrying the alien subidentity of Judaism. The form of antagonism
invoked in anti-Semitic reactions to the alien master readjusts the balance between
master organ and the body, and reinforces the relationship thereby. This is why the
pre-eminent Jewish anti-master, the Nazi, attacked the master directly, and then,
following the process of physiological readjustment, the master reconstituted the
host’s identity implant with the more virulent slave identity of Islam massively
reinforcing the Jews grip upon European society. Something we have seen illustrated
perfectly by the gut wrenching display of servitude in Rome this week following the
death of the symbol of debased slavery to Judaism, John Paul II, which drew head
priests from all over the Jewish dominions and millions of mourners came to see the
dead body of the supreme slave of Judaism. At the same time that control over global
territories was being reasserted and extended by means of world wide warfare the
master organ achieved a significant objective of its own exclusive identity command
programme with the establishment of its focus of universal rule, the mythological
territory of Israel. The Nazis then owe nothing to Hitler, Hitler was a puppet fronting
the image of the temporary anti-master, in this very real sense Hitler was a Jew, and a
very important Jew to boot. And we will see later on in this work why we need not
just think of the anti-master reaction as a pathological condition of the Jewish organ
but why it may instead be considered as a healthy facet of the growth process that an
alien master code gives rise to as it perfects it symbiosis with the body it takes
command of.
I have just caught a bit of Page Turners on BBC 1 this morning, 11/04/05, in
which an author was talking about his book on Hitler, saying how he is fascinated
with this subject, the way one man single handed took control of Germany and led the
nation toward destruction and so on. It is no wonder this man gets his work published
and a slot on TV to advertise it, his master has to be delighted with this individually
focused offering to his fellow slaves. As in ant society nature employs the slaves to
manage the slaves. Who better to do the job?
The tension set up between the physiological hierarchy of the Jewish
superorganism is presumably responsible for the almost unrestrained liberation of
knowledge that could not be contained by one centralised priesthood, such as
maintained a grip on Chinese society for so long, and so prevented this precocious
civilised superorganic form from going global. This was so, simply because there
was no single centralised priesthood within the Christian identity programme because
a Christian was at best only a slave to the Jew, the real master race whose functional
role was, and is, to act as a symbiotic, but still alien, master of the Christian
domesticated biomass. Thus the Jewish interest in its host would mean there could
never be a stable centralisation of power vested in Christianity leading to the demise
of all other identities, and most specifically to the demise of the Judaic identity from
which Christianity had evolved. This invokes a Machiavellian role for the Jew in
Christian affairs that sounds nefarious because it rings so true to the slanderous

101
reputation of Jews, but I cannot help that; you know what they say "There is no smoke
without fire". In effect I am saying the Jews programme the Christians, manage them,
and juggle the variety of Christian identities existing under the guise of nationalities
to orchestrate this role. The Diaspora was no accident, it was a biological
inevitability.
Do we see in the above passage some hint of the inevitable tension between
religion and science, or do we still think there is no natural antagonism between the
free and unrestrained pursuit of knowledge for knowledge sake, and the preservation
of religious authority?

The modern formula that seeks to assert that the people are free and in charge
is, to use a technical philosophical term, if you will forgive the jargonising, as 'arse
about face' as can be. But this is typical of Jewish mythology, as exemplified in the
Christian notion of death being the beginning of life because this is the moment you
go to join your maker in heaven. In a scientific context we are use to reading about
the link between the rise of farming practices and the coming of civilisation. This
idea, being the conventional account, has to be an inversion of reality, and it is. This
misrepresentation of the facts of the matter cannot simply be inverted in the linguistic
frame within which it is presented because the subtlety of linguistic image formation
is more powerful than that. Thus you cannot simply say that civilisation gave rise to
farming, this for a start would be self evidently ridiculous. The process of generating
powerful and logically consistent misinformation has at its heart the jumbling of
structural levels of organisation; it is about breaking the true chain of causal events.
Central to our real scientific evaluation of society is the discovery of the key to
producing a consistent scientific account, this key consists of recognising the
unchanging character of human beings, which we call human nature and which we
therefore know will always inform all developmental attributes of human beings.
This nature is a thread that human forms are strung along like a series of beads whose
sequential order is strictly fixed, thereby giving either an evolutionary time scale or a
growth cycle depending upon the view one is taking of human existence. However
the result of stringing this thread is a more substantial three dimensional form which
is the human superorganism, not a two dimensional piece of jewellery consisting of
discrete items linked by a material line. Thus we would seek to understand the
relationship between things by way of reference to this key, that is we would seek to
relate human forms to one another according to their relationship to this common core
of human nature. Proceeding in this manner always means that things of a like kind
will be compared, so if you want to discern the meaning of agriculture in relation to
that of the social structure we call civilised, which arose as a direct consequence of
agriculture, we would want to reduce both these material factors, agriculture and
civilised social structures, to the state of comparative natural dynamics that links them
together. We would thereby see agriculture as a product of the hierarchical forces
inherent in the social organism, inducing domesticated behaviour that is fixed to a
territory and relies upon extensive knowledge of that residential domain, localised
knowledge which must fix the population that depends upon it to the territory they
occupy. The principle of this relationship between a population, the territory it
occupies, and the knowledge it possesses is evidently one that predates true farming
cultures. There is therefore an information feedback loop between the territory
occupied by the human superorganism in a pre-civilised form, and the shape of the
territory resulting from the use made of it by human occupation. This information
loop that involves the genetic attachment of the people to the location, which is

102
expressed in each discrete territorial enclaves unique racial physiology, and a
linguistic attachment that is expressed in the cultural product of their intimate
dependence upon local knowledge of the environment and their fixed attachment to
that environment. The overall characteristic of the relationship is then one of a
superorganism to its exoskeletal form, albeit that in the hunter gathering stages the
appearance of the exoskeleton as such was minimal, in that the humans it housed
integrated themselves into it rather than acting as mediums of exoskeletal fabrication
within which they were then housed, as we see today.
Thus from the outset the human form revealed a creative continuity in its form
that was seen in the relationship between the territory and the superorganism’s being,
and was expressed through an information continuum that extended across the range
of the genetic and linguistic wavelengths. So that the flow of organic form which
brings full blown farming into being in association with the rise of complex social
structures was a unified organic process occurring as the social organism grew and
evolved by means of releasing, or we may say expressing, the potential of its
superorganic nature. It follows that what is significant about the practice of farming
is that it is a supra-localised mode of subsistence that has the potential built into it to
cross the limits imposed by natural ecological boundaries. Thus the act of
maintaining gardening plots within a jungle to provide a staple diet is the incipient
kernel of a none localised social society. And by recognising this early evidence of
this principle of superorganic extension we can see that in actual fact a global society
is inherent in the energy dynamics of such gardening practices, although the potential
to go global does not show itself until gardening in support of hunting and foraging
turns into a fully fledged farming culture, where the whole edifice of the superorganic
being is founded upon the basis of managed food species. A global superorganism
was therefore inherent in farming, and Judaism emerged from one such pool of latent
potential. No one created Judaism anymore than anyone created Nazism, anymore
than anyone created light bulbs; all these features of superorganic form are emergent
expressions of the latent potential of universal matter as it is expressed in life, and
especially through the nature of human life, which is corporate.
Methinks “Should I change the title of this chapter to The Jew, the Nazi and
the Light Bulb”? Na, better stick with the subject matter at the heart of the discussion,
shame.
In Chapter three of Zipf’s National Unity and Disunity, which is entitled
Towards a General law of Social-Economic Development, page 88, we have a
consideration of the laws that might of led from the mosaic pattern of human
territorial distribution bereft of any centralised organization to the condition of
continental wide social structure within which population centres conform to a
harmonic distribution according to their size. We can see that his base line should of
identified the latent potential of the cultivation mode of subsistence that unlocks the
ecological gate and lets the human population expand beyond the natural limits set by
nature upon the extent of one discrete superorganic form attached to a specific
territorial niche. Upon being released into a wider domain the superorganism
inevitably evolves new internal structures in order to retain its social integrity that is
now intimately linked with the agricultural method rather simply then being fixed to
the naturally provided niche environment. From this description of early human
social dynamics we can see how the emphasis would of shifted toward the linguistic
mode of generating superorganic structure in association with knowledge of the
environment, hence the dual pronged nature of human language with its capacity for

103
carrying social mythological content and practical rational capability delivering
control of the fabric of the environment.
Zipf’s discussion only begins to get interesting on page one hundred when he
identifies two behavioural parameters determining the dynamics of developmental
change leading to increasing order. These behaviours involve the production of
artifacts and the concomitant organization of labour needed to achieve efficiency in
these activities. The motive force driving this behaviour is deemed to be competition
across territorial boundaries. By following this method Zipf seems to give us,
unbeknownst to himself, a dynamic plan of the evolution of the human exoskeleton
from minimal toward greater material complexity, wherein living tissue is united with
the exogenous fabric its naturally driven behaviour generates.

It is the superorganic structure of the human animal that inevitably gives rise
to the domestication of none human species because this process of domestication is
an extension of the dynamics of human nature into the environmental domain upon
which humans rely for their existence, and with which they therefore have an intimate
organic relationship. This is why farming had to evolve once the latent potential of
the human biomass had reached a critical point of development in a suitable
environmental setting, and did evolve independently in several places according to
identical laws, as Lilienfeld himself notes with reference to the mode of social being
of the Central American civilisations when compared to those at a similar stage of
evolution, or growth, in the Ancient Middle East. Here we see our feedback loop shift
between the command structure and the body, as revealed in the resulting
superorganic physiology as hierarchical forms inculcate domestication of none human
food species, and as this developmental process reaches a cuspidal point so that the
process shifts its emphasis back in the opposite direction and the fruits of farming
induce the elaboration of the social structures of hierarchy so that forms of civilised
human life evolve and grow in intimate association with the process of domestication.
This is not a social process operating in harmony with a biological process, this is a
dynamic biological process in which we have sort to delineate the bipolar form of its
expression as the flow of energy shifting between an array of interconnected systems,
driving their transformation relative to one another. If we follow this cyclical process
of superorganic growth right up to the present we can account for all features of
human society accordingly, down to their last minute detail, always relating the social
formagricultural, industrial, technicalto the form of the command organ, such
asmonarchical, theocratic, democratic, militaryas the two material components at
the centre of the dynamic process of human evolution spiral about the common thread
of human nature and thus give rise to a uniform body that embraces both elements of
social form and command structure in one corporate being, with one all embracing
identity which is always religious in its nature; hence the common idea that humans
are by nature religious creatures.

As an appendage to this chapter I would like to mention a Channel Four

programme screened last night, 05/12/04, looking at the questions we still do not have
answers to. The programme was basically crap, it discussed the possibility of life
elsewhere in the usual pathetic manner, and when it came to intelligencewell I went
to the pub, and so ended up getting breathalysedand did not hear the arguments, but
they were obviously not going to point out that human intelligence was a product of
our superorganic nature and as such was just as inevitable and as unexceptional in its
nature as eyes. But the idea I want to mention is that of convergence that was

104
described by a biologist who argued that there were a narrow set of inevitable
outcomes for life forms wherever they might exist in the universe. He said that, for
example, an eye is something that all life, anywhere, must evolve according to certain
basic considerations and according to a limited number of possible variations on the
theme. The logic of this idea is central to my ideas concerning the corporate nature of
humans, and leading to the superorganic form of society. Convergence says there is a
strictly limited set of blueprints for the structural form that any life can take, and these
blueprints are repeated endlessly in the process of evolving the infinite variety of life
we see all about us. This is like saying there is the heat engine, then there are cars,
trains, planes, sports cars, tanks, tankers, jets, passenger planes, motorbikes, big bikes,
little bikes, and so on ad infinitum. So you have structure, then you have identity,
where identity represents the fine tuning of structure. As I said commonsense, but it
is from this simple logic that I justify the idea that humans are obviously the outcome
of this limited application of the structural dynamics of life to the mammalian form.
From the law of convergence we could even work backwards to a time before
mammals existed and predict that given the rise of superorganic forms in the insect
kingdom we must anticipate that with the coming of a new body plan in the form of
mammals, a form built around a kind of organic heat engine, at some time there
would evolve a truly superorganic mammal, and here we are, seventy million years
later.
And continuing on this subject of limited basic plans determining form in all
kinds of locations I was fascinated to hear, just a couple of weeks ago, of an entirely
new kind of superorganism, shown in an episode of the BBC Blue Planet series about
coral reefs. This was a shrimp living in sponges on coral reefs that had a social life
wherein a queen laid all the eggs and a differentiation of forms meant that some
shrimps had enlarged claws and acted as solider shrimp, if that is not a contradiction
in terms! Beware the shrimp are coming, break out the mayonnaise! And so we can
see the nature of authority is organic, and with the biological idea of convergence
authority emerges in all sorts of places, exactly as we should expect it to.

105
 The Hierarchical Structure of Superorganic Identity

It is perfectly clear that Lilienfeld had no intention of seeking the eradication

of his true enemy in the struggle to bring reality to the understanding of human
society. He does not turn to face his enemy, religion, and seek to destroy it, quite the
reverse he seeks to placate it, to honour it, to extend it. And as such it is not
surprising that, albeit indirectly, his final act is to do to his offspring what Spencer did
voluntarily to his own, to set up the field of his endeavours in such a way that the
birth of this idea for which he struggled so long, could end in only one thing,
complete obliteration. There can be, as Auguste Comte indicates in his founding
sociological work Positive Philosophy, only one, there is either science, or there is
religion, ne'er the twain shall exist in the same world at the same time. Today it is all
too clear that, as so often before over the course of human existence, religion has
taken science by the throat and joked the life out of the neophyte before ever it could
say a thing against its foe. Today we live in a world bereft of science, one in which
our lords and masters tell us religion is on the wane because science rules everything,
and yet a world in which religious warfare is rife and 'science' cannot even answer the
simplest question about human beings, apropos What is human nature?
Well 'science' may not be able to, that is to say the scientific establishment
may not be able to say what human nature is, but as advocates of real science we most
certainly can. And it has to be our first and most vociferous complaint against our
hero, Lilienfeld, his failure to see the argument in these terms, to see that he needed to
take the logic of the idea he was fighting for to its proper conclusion and to assert that
humans have an organic nature and this was the core of their being, an understanding
of which would inform all things in relation to human society. The closest he gets to
an imputation along these lines, in his Defence at any rate, with which we are
concerned here, is where he makes the remark that in order to understand human
society in a true fashion we must take the same kind of expansive view of society that
we find is necessary to understand any other large scale phenomenon such as the
earth, which can only be understood in its true form by visualising it from afar, where
we can appreciate it is a globe like object existing in space. In order to obtain some
such handle on human society he says we must seek a similarly distant viewpoint of
society and the best one for this purpose was that of religion. However, although
homing in on the appropriate target in this way, and correctly indicating the manner in
which Christianity intuitively recognises the organic nature of society in its own creed
by invoking the idea of the individual as a unit that only exists by means of its
connection to God, he fails to decode this mythological presentation of reality and
thus to offer an alternative scientific account of the organic nature of religion and
especially of Christianity. He had all the pieces of the jigsaw, he held the two most
telling pieces in his left and right hand, the organic nature of the Christian mythology
and the central role of language in the formation of the social organism. If he had put
the two together he would of seen that the myth was a linguistic representation of
human society from an intuitive point of view, that is to say from an organic
perspective where ideas are produced by a spontaneous mode of processing linguistic
information. Furthermore, he might of had some inkling that where race is corporate
identity generated via biological informationgenes were not know then but the
implications of evolutionary theory were obvious and ideas about germ plasma being
transferred between generations were being discussed by a German called Weismann

106
then he would of seen that religion is corporate identity generated via the medium
of linguistic information. Thus race and religion are of the same nature and
functionally identical, although associated with different levels of expression of the
potential of mammalian corporate nature as it is expressed in human form. The
scientific response then had to be of the opposite kind to that of religion, it had to be
none instinctive processing of linguistic information, giving counter intuitive
scientific ideas of reality that were universal, none organic, and ideal. This would
render the Jewish myth into scientific language by decoding its intuitive use of words.
The first requirement would of been to state plainly that God, in Jewish mythology,
was literally the social organism, or the superorganism as I would have it; the
corporate being. So simple, so obvious, so absent!
This missing piece of the argument is the key, it is everything, hence the
reason why real science must go hand in hand with real atheism. Without this direct
attack upon the religion that rules our world you cannot propose a scientific account
of society, if a scientific account is to be a true account. And this is why we have the
unbridled success of the Darwinian account, because it is not true, it is partial, being
formulated to conform to the requirements of the preservation of religious authority as
founded upon the Jewish creed presented to the world in the Bible and the Koran.
What we invariably find when we read any author who deals with this subject
of human nature from a strictly scientific viewpoint is an express statement of intent
not to conflict with religion. One wonders why they bother wasting their time trying
to understand anything if they are not determined to destroy that which must be
destroyed if and when they succeed in achieving their stated goal of achieving real
understanding. In Lilienfeld’s Defence of science applied to human society we find
Christianity honoured on its own terms, we find Christ spoken of in the most
sycophantic terms, we find an immense effort made to insist that the organic method
in sociology is in perfect harmony with the ideals of Christianity. What is the matter
with the man, why can he not see what is obviously clear enough to all of
Christianity's defenders? Science applied to the understanding of society must
annihilate religion because it must reduce all things to their true form and nature.
Thus Lilienfeld should of been decoding the Christian mythology and showing us
how it came to exist in precisely the same way any attribute of any organic being
evolved to serve the whole being of the organism as an organism. Clearly, it was not
possible in Lilienfeld’s day to give voice to such uncompromisingly atheistic
conclusions arising from science.
Today we live in a theocracy, religion took hold of the threat posed toward it
by science, as represented by the organic method, and crushed it gently, by a slow
process of smothering. The suffocating pillow used by the saboteurs was Darwin's
Origin of Species. This produced a pillow with the conceptual consistency of a gas,
not a chocking gas, an odourless smothering gas, imperceptible to mental acuity it lay
heavy on the mind of all who would try and unlock the key to understanding human
nature. Smothering all attempts at reason by providing an all pervasive alternative
that would not allow true ideas to ignite and burn. But this source of intellectual
suffocation was only the beginning of the process of defeating the threat to religious
authority and mythmaking. We can see that Lilienfeld considers Darwinism to be a
fellow sufferer at the hands of the enemies of a true science of humanity, and there is
no doubt that this illusion is an astounding charade, one that is more than likely to
completely fool anyone because of its all pervasive application to every facet of the
argument. But there are two important contextual aspects to this ploy that is
Darwinism, if it is to work as a theistic defence mechanism. Firstly it must be

107
attacked as the most vile product of atheistic reasoning, and secondly it must itself
reveal nothing of any significance about human nature. And the history of Darwinism
reveals that it conforms perfectly to these requirements; it has been attacked
remorselessly by theistic bigots, and it has revealed nothing about the nature of human
beings.
But more than this, while the theocracy was obliged to come up with
Darwinism in order to see off ideas like those expressed in Comte's Positivism, the
glaring truth of the idea of the social organism, plus the abject failure of Darwinism to
account for modern society and to force religion into obscurity, were together, bound
to mean that the real method of understanding human society would inevitably
resurface if real science were not forced into some state of purgatory. This was
achieved through the creation of the Nazi ideology of the German philosopher and
statesman Adolf Hitler. Hitler produced an interpretation of society based upon the
theocracy's subversion of science as constructed by the joint efforts of Darwin and
Spencer. And since Darwin was reviled as a scientist science became the scapegoat
for Hitler's murderous philosophy of anti-Semitism. The result being that ever since
Hitler's promotion to power by the theocracy no intellectual has ever again dared to
voice opinions invoking a true scientific interpretation of human society.
Hitler stole the thunder of people like Lilienfeld, thereby saving the Jews from
inevitable extinction due to the death of God and the religion that forms Judaism’s
spinal cord. As you can see from my own application of the organic method to
human society, the dominant role of the Jews just leaps out of the picture. No
scientist dared say this, evidently, for to do so is to destroy society as it existed then,
and as it exists now. And we must remember that the word ‘scientist’ denotes an
official expert, someone who is sanctioned by the state and derives their authority to
speak from that source. By that definition we are not scientists even though the work
we are concerned with here is the most profoundly scientific work anyone ever dealt
with concerning human society. But others did dare state these forbidden things,
Hitler for one. Only instead of giving these ideas their correct scientific
interpretation, which has no moral imputation within it, he gave them a perfectly
natural political interpretation redolent with the moral invective of Judaism by ranting
on about being destined to rule and the inferiority of all as compared to the German,
and thereby focusing natural forces upon individual wilful agents. Hitler simply put
the German in the place of the Jew by using the logic of Jewish personalised ideology,
and so Hitler saved Judaism by making a sacrifice to the cause of Zionism that was
drawn from the Jewish portion of the biomass, in the time honoured tradition of the
pogrom. "And God asked Joseph to sacrifice his son" .........sort of touch. To act in
this manner is to act as a defence mechanism for the very thing you attack, and given
the unmitigated insanity of everything about Hitler as a political and military figure
one has to wonder how else his antics can be made sense of other by placing them in
the context of an organic dynamic which controlled him by causing him to emerge
from the social maelstrom of the time. It is clear from our organic analysis of society
that the primary insight of this organic mode of understanding society is that social
structure has a purely functional aspect to it. This means that all the dynamics of
shifting populations and competing cultures means something in purely physiological
terms. And at the core of these processes is the need for hierarchy focused upon a
supreme identity to impart a uniform direction of flow to the energy driving the
process generating social form in the manner we interpret politically.
Thus, for these growth processes to occur on a regular basis, as they always
have, and as they continue to do, primarily by way of warfare, as at the present day in

108
Iraq, there must be some means of fixing the progress that is made, and this fixing
must be able to act against an energy gradient or else the resulting social structure
could not be hierarchical in its outcome. Where are we driving to with this? Simple.
Today in Britain our native culture is being ethnically cleansed, to give it an emotive
political description, it is in other words being replaced by the Muslim identity
package. We as a people are determined that this should go ahead at all cost, and we
will do anything to see that these people who we despise take the place of the culture
that we love. What?
In the preceding paragraph I am shifting between two levels, the level of the
master who farms society and is determined to erase British culture in order to ensure
the process of Global domination in the name of Zionism proceeds as it has done for
thousands of years. While at the other level we have the indigenous natives who, not
being directly attached to this remote identity, resent the alien intrusion and wish to
preserve their personal cultural freedoms that constitute part of the identity to which
they are attached. Today is 11/04/05 and Michael Howard, the Jewish Tory leader,
has been banging on about immigration because he knows the mass of the population
are deeply concerned about this matter and resentful of it. This political clap-trap in
the run up to an election is just the mumbling of the slave controllers who need to
placate the masses as the process of transition from slavery to Judaism via
Christianity is transferred to slavery to Judaism via Islam. This process will take the
best part of the century as the generations must die off and be replaced before the
implantation process can take full effect and settle down. The masters know all about
these macro scale social dynamics. Exactly the same distinction between the biomass
and the core was noted when the Jews took over Europe in the Christian phase of
Jewish expansion which erased the pagan religion in favour of Judaism. The elite had
no real problem with the Christians but the general populace resented them bitterly,
just as the Greeks had resented the Jews whom the Romans obliged them to tolerate
within Greek communities on the Jew’s own terms. What we have here is the
operation of the feedback loop focused on the command role of the inner core that
allows a shift in the identity of the entire biomass to progress via a gradual process of
identity infusion through a transitional replacement of the organic biomass of society.
An alien ingress into the social fabric that is under assault occurs, whose advance
must be protected at all times during the stages through which the transformation of
the population's identity takes place. The transformation is sustained in the manner of
an 'identity ratchet' raising the invading alien identity into the place of command and
control via a complex array of linguistic formulas and their associated devices,
devices which come to form the exoskeletal framework of the organism created by
these organic means.
There are many linguistic devices that invoke political forms to aid this
process of transformation. The development of pacifying ideas such as that of
equality would be one, and from this we can see why the Christian form of the Jewish
identity evolved as it did with its formulaic expression of love, peace and equality so
well adapted to the function of inducing a population to evolve with a pacifying idea
of compliant oneness via a process of subjection to the infusion of an alien identity.
Today the modern expression of this pacifying mechanism of linguistic support is best
seen in the word multiculturalism, which simply means equality between racial,
religious, and none religious identities. Of course since some races and religious
identities are superior to others, and all are superior to an absence of any such
affiliation, it clearly serves the interests of the superior to have a dominant philosophy
of equality that deprives the subject majority from attacking the superior minority on

109
the basis of the religious identity that makes them superior. Thus the point to note is
that ideas of equality protect a master race, as a master race, by definition, has to be
numerically inferior to the majority, which is why it needs some such pacifying
linguistic device to allow it to command a social structure providing control over the
might of the majority. Such pacifying messages beamed from the core are not
sufficient in themselves. They rest upon the general platform of Christian identity
dogma, and this in turn is reflected in law that controls social structure. The master
then uses the might of the masses against the masses themselves, and in the interests
of the master by delivering a cultivated identity in association with an enforcing social
structure. Clearly a British law prohibiting discrimination against none whites is a
law that discriminates against a numerically superior indigenous white population by
preventing them from favouring their own kind. Such favouritism being a perfectly
natural superorganic instinct, but in racial mode not one that favours the natural
process of superorganic growth that we are seeking to understand here, where the
constitution of the superorganism has evolved to a higher level of linguistic operation
by virtue of the religious nature of the alien core that farms society in the name of
Judaism, in accordance with the modus operandi the Jewish core has been
programmed to pursue.
Aside from these subliminal forces of pacification that shift remorselessly over
great lengths of time there are bound to be moments where the pressure of the social
changes reaches a critical point, this is in the nature of beast, and when this fragile
socioganic state is reached something has to give. It is at this time that the Jewish
theocracy needs its most vital mechanisms of defence, and it is this need that produces
earth shattering shocks such as the emergence of the Nazis horror exemplifies. But it
is clear that the anti-Semitic interpretations of the shifting forces of society extolled
by the Nazis are essential to take the pressure out of the situation created by social
dynamics conflicting with the power of Judaism. We might say anti-Semitism is
Semitism, because it is its mirror image, the one cannot exist without the other
because of the authoritarian nature of Judaism. In the same way police cannot exist
without crime. The police are not formed into a social phenomenon that exist in
tranquillity for long periods of time awaiting a reason for their existence to appear,
and neither are the Jews. Jewish culture is a proactive social phenomenon that seeks
out social structures to subject to its legalistic authority, a clash between Jews and the
societies they farm is periodically inevitable because of the symbiotic nature of the
relationship. Alternatively the host culture may simply wither away or die as the Jews
move on as ancient history reveals happened repeatedly, and modern history reveals
the same process is continuing today as we see the emphasis of Jewish power shift
from Britain as a once great colonial power that provided the means to create the
fictional state of Israel in the real world for the first time ever, and now, with this act
completed, the focus of manipulation has shifted to America to continue the Zionist
work of global domination. The conflict dynamic has therefore changed over the
millennia and it may change again as the world comes to speak one language,
inevitably English, and as the only religions of any significance come to be the two
sub-Judaic forms of Christianity and Islam, which naturally always sustain an inner
core of Jews. Then there will be one harmonious society as integrated and as
peaceable as any that ever existed, in which the priests rule in the name of Judaism
just as they always have and as they do now. With the entire world at their disposal
they will be able to seek new territories on other planets, new sources of energy, new
goals for Zionism. Boy is that a long way off; as we shift our gaze from two
millennia ago to two millennia hence. And I worry about the loss of British culture in

110
my own day, no more real beer, no more real pubs, no more anything worth having in
simple everyday terms that most of us live with as part of our lives. But there it is, it
cannot be stopped, it cannot be reasoned with, it will not go away ......... it simply will
be, now and forever more.
The Nazis, albeit they are the most precious thing in Judaism, in a certain
sense, had to be resented, and had to act murderously toward their beloved, those who
they wanted to be. Just as Darwinism had to be resented by religion if it was to serve
its purpose, even though Darwinism was religion's saviour. These duplicitous
machinations are not faked, the individuals obeying the dictates of their programming
that produce these organic effects are oblivious to the functional reasons for their own
actions. These actions are invoked by the structure of the Jewish superorganism
according to the dynamic state of its organization at any given time. And so we find
that reality that is ordinarily hidden is now, due to social changes, staring people in
the face and someone has to say something about what they see. It is clear that if
people were sensible they would end up saying what Lilienfeld said, or what we are
saying now. But if people had ever of been able to respond in this open manner to
such revelations arising from a process of dynamic change the Jews would never of
escaped from Egypt, Babylon, Sumeria or the desert tents they are supposed to of
come from originally, never mind the dire straits they faced in nineteenth century
Europe as science came to a head. Talk about Houdini, these people are the original
escape artists. The whole process of superorganic growth by this means of shifting
identities could not operate if everyone always saw the social effects for what they
were, indeed, to shift the emphasis, we might say if anyone ever saw the social effects
for what they are. Today if this line of argument were presented to the British people
it would cause consternation and throw the whole process of assimilation of Muslims,
with a view to turning Britain into a Muslim state, or at least returning it to its
devoutly Jewish status, into chaos, putting the progress of Zionism in jeopardy. There
is no way this is going to happen, the priests would do anything to prevent it, this is
why they went to the whole elaborate effort of concocting Darwinism, a job that took
half a century, quite remarkable, this must of been done deliberately because of the
elaborate manner in which it was carried out, but still done under the spell of partial
unwittingness as the people responsible were still simply obeying their programming
as masters which told them to control the populace in the name of Judaism and
therefore not to allow knowledge to conflict with the core social mythology of belief
in God. The relevant scientific literature of the nineteenth century is strewn with
evidence of the effort put into protecting religion, an effort that was supremely
successful; science never stood a chance.
In the end the day would be saved because the fascist wing of Judaism would
rise up and start attacking Jews and Muslims in the most vicious way. Yesterday,
08/11/04, there were pictures on television of a Muslim school in Holland that had a
bomb placed in its entrance way in response to the murder of a Dutch film maker last
week by a Muslim fascist, that we have already referred to. It is vital for the well
being of the process of superorganic growth in the name of Zionism that Jewish aliens
are attacked in this way when they come under serious threat within the host biomass.
This is what protects their status and gives them security, as perverse as this statement
seems. The reason is perfectly obvious, there is clearly a problem in relation to
cultural conflict in a complex society like ours, whether racial or religious, and as we
are revealing here it is easy enough to get to the bottom of it, and so this readily
available sensible explanation cannot be allowed to prevail, because the answer to
such a wise account of the problem would be to abolish religion forever and get back

111
to a world of relative peace based on freedom. But this would be the worst possible
outcome for human evolution which did not make war an inherent facet of human
behaviour for nothing. This appearance of self harm in defence of self makes perfect
sense when we take note of the fact that the Jews are masters of society by virtue of
their identity's relationship to law, not by virtue of the sheer physical mass of society
composed of Jews as Jews, which is of course minimal. The transformation of the
mass of society into a Judophilic population via the sub-Judaic identities is obviously
related to the development of Jewish power based on law, and so the mechanism of
core protection is extended to the sub-identity structure, as we see in the case
regarding Muslims in Europe at the present time. We can see that this argument in
respect to sheer organic mass is comparable to the relative mass between the brain and
the body, where the brain does not command the body by virtue of its predominant
mass, but quite the opposite, by virtue of its being the hub at the centre of the nervous
system. The Jews are the hub of the social organism’s legal system, something
looked at in Appendix I that considers the relationship between the Jews and the
Romans, as referred to here and there in this discussion.
When the alien authority imposed upon society by way of the evolutionary
process that develops the superorganic form by means of law, according to the
dictates of human nature, is attacked its defences must rely upon the invocation of a
legislative process. Thus when difficulties arise it is not the law that the religious core
relies upon directly, but the provocation that triggers legal processes attuned to the
core’s religious identity. So the terrorist, the Nazi, the BNP activist, the racist, the
bomb maker, all of these are vital to the position of authority of the core organ of
religious identity that can only survive if laws are passed that mobilise the defensive
structure of the superorganism against the masses whose interests are represented by
the terrorist, the Nazi, the BNP activist, and so on, in an organised manner. Jewish
religion and terror go hand in hand. The same imperative condition applies to the
evolution of all forms. The small ears of an Arctic fox can only evolve where the
pervasive biting temperatures force an appropriate genetic response. The evolution of
the Jewish identity is forced by the ceaseless pressure coming from a population
managed by an alien authority that implements a system of regularised administration.
Such an alien authority is not military, it is administrative, the Jewish identity is a
priestly identity, a form of religiously defined civil service organically imbued into
the social organism’s physiological structure on the back of expansion spearheaded by
military conquest fuelled by the agricultural mode of subsistence that unlocked the
ecological gate at the level where such social structures had to evolve to cope with the
further release of the potential of human corporate nature. Meanwhile, any possibility
of a reasonable presentation of the case against the core must be short circuited so that
the only possible representation of anti-Jewish sentiment will be via the criminal
elements that the law can act against in an uncompromising manner. And this
description matches perfectly all that we see in society today. The rational voice is
crushed in this case by the perversion of science through Darwinism which prevents a
diametrically opposite rational account of reality to that provided by religion from
being heard. From this foundation all else follows as layer upon on layer of
misinformation is spewed forth until the only outlet in the real world is through
terrorism that the law can act against with everyone's support, even the support of
those who are being duped by the process and so destroyed and who are therefore the
real victims of this organic process of identity diffusion. This is the ratchet of identity
in operation, lifting Judaism into a position of unassailable power by means of law
woven into the identity structure of the superorganism. Thus the Jew survives not by

112
brute force coming directly from them, but by brute force coming from the body
under its command due to the structure of the nervous tissue of society created
through the dissemination of Jewish identity into a variety of forms all connected via
the same laws; hence the idea that all are equal under the law. It is clear that in order
for this kind of superorganic physiology to evolve the body must take on the character
of the alien organ of authority, thus Christianity had to evolve to allow Judaism to go
global, and Islam followed for the same reason. The role of the minor historical
identities, the Egyptians, the Romans and so on, was that of an incipient structure
leading toward this final outcome arising from the dictates of human nature which in
turn evolved according to the biological laws of convergence regarding the evolution
of organic form that meant a mammal of the superorganic kind had to evolve at some
point, all other relevant factors permitting.
To ensure warfare continues the Jewish priests who rule us pass laws to
protect the fascists and hence we find our blind Home Secretary is determined to pass
laws against provoking religious hatred, in other words, against anyone doing as I am
doing here, against anyone getting anywhere near the truth. Anyone who understands
anything about religion must hate religion, unless they love power more than anything
and are bereft of any moral fibre, religion is the essence of evil, if you want to use a
theistic word, which does seem fitting on this occasion. One only need look at people
like Tony Blair or George Bush to see that this is so, more disgusting examples of
humanity simply do not exist on the planet, they will say anything, do anything,
respect nothing, have contempt for all things, just so long as they get their way, in the
name of Judaism. The more smarmy these priestly kinds are about their presentation
the more repugnant the effect is, I prefer a total psycho like Hitler who at least left
nothing to the imagination, and said what he wanted. But I am getting personal,
writing these things gets to me, makes my blood boil, all this is Nature's doing, no
human or group of humans, has anything to do with these outcomes, there is no such
thing as personal responsibility for anything on this scale of social existence. The
point being that as nice as our politicians seem in a superficial way, they have to be
dedicated to religious values or they could not pass through the tests that make them
our leaders, and it is this testing structure that delivers social control toward a Zionist
centre, and this structure is biologically evolved.
The scale of the Nazi upheaval in Europe was simply commensurate with the
size of the problem and in keeping with the growth cycle of the Jewish organism, as
horrendous as this period of history looks on a personal level. Jewish civilisation, in
its various guises, had been under threat many times during the course of its existence
and rise to global dominance, although in real terms the Jewish organism has always
been global in the context of the known world of the time, and therefore always has
the characteristics of a global superorganism, its history is really about growth, not
being. Before the phase of so-called European expansion the extent of the world was
not known, not publicly anyway, and the world as it was then known was ruled by
Judaism, as it is still ruled by Judaism today, or that rule is on its way to being
finalised if it can be argued that it is not yet complete because of China. But I would
say that the communist political status of China reveals its true Jewish credentials.
These latest threats against the Jewish hegemony occurred in the form of a conflict
with Jewish mythology, where the power of the organism, its size, the force of new
knowledge, had an impact on the scale of the upheaval that must take place to resettle
the social form imbued with Jewish identity. In Lilienfeld’s work we see the
substance of the problem that Judaism faced that made the world wars and the rise of
an anti-Semitic clan on the scale of Nazi Germany vital to the survival of the Jewish

113
theocracy. And it was in Germany where this real view of human nature was
emerging most forcefully too, which accounts for the development of an anti-Semitic
political model capable of focusing upon the true nature of the Jews in a most salient
manner. And of course nearly sixty years on this summation of the history of the
period we are discussing in purely biological terms makes perfect sense in relation to
the outcome which sees the utter lunacy of Judaism reigning supreme over the hearts
and minds of all people, and all governments on earth.
The communist mask of Judaism had not come of age in Lilienfeld's life time,
but he criticises this utterly theistic ideology under the heading of Historical
Materialism, which is the philosophical label attached to the ideology of Karl Marx
that poured Jewish mythology into an industrial mould and so corralled the newly
formed industrial biomass of Europe under the age old identity of Judaism. Today the
Jewish Palestinian freedom fighter Arafat died, and the former Israeli prime minister
we often see given a platform on our TV screens said that he was a terrorist, not only
against Israel but against Western Civilisation. I liked this affiliation of Judaism with
Western civilisation, just as much as I liked it a week or so back when the same
spokesperson for Zionism said that Jews did not rule the world, they had to live in it
with everyone else. Now where would he of got the idea from that anybody thought
the Jews ruled the world I wonder?
Nazis did not choose to be Nazis, anymore than Jews have chosen to be Jews,
anymore than liver cells choose to be liver cells, or nerve cells choose to be nerve
cells. As social scientists we have to keep this in mind at all times. As human beings
we will still have our personal opinions and our political objectives, I for example am
a passionate atheist who believes in the freedom of knowledge as the supreme
expression of human social existence, and as a necessary corollary to this my political
objectives would be to seek a world cleansed of the least indication of religious
culture, of any kind. Actually, that is not wholly correct, I like the idea of the extinct
primitive societies erased by Judaism over the last few centuries having been
preserved by being left alone, and to that extent I do not like universal atheism
anymore than I like universal Judaism. But it is too late for that and we are obviously
headed for a horrendous, boring, monotone world no matter what we do now, so at
least let it be one expunged of all religion, one where science can bring some real
colour into our lives and allow real individuality to thrive. I also recognise the
personal humanity of some religious individuals and the personal inhumanity of all
fascistic individuals; but discerning these differences and evaluating them on their
own terms are not the object of my enquiries, to take such an approach is to take a
political approach. These personal aesthetics are a facet of social being, not the sum
of its totality.

Fascism: the desire to impose personally held views upon others, however
they may of come to be held (it being obviously absurd to refer to any view as being
personal in any ultimate sense), or to assert the primacy of personally held views over
the personally held views of others. Clearly the idea that life is sacred is such a
personally held view, and the idea that it is wrong to be cruel to animals is too, which
means that all forms of moral activity, such as those of anti-fox hunting brigades, are
forms of fascistic activity. This does not necessarily mean I personally do not share
these views, or that I do, I am only seeking to give a rational definition of the word
‘fascism’ that will indicate why I use it where I do in a manner that others would not,
as in my description of the Muslim murderer of the Dutch film maker as a fascist.
What defines a fascist then is the element of force related to personally held views.

114
Believing fox hunting is wrong does not make you a fascist, believing in God does not
make you a fascist, but wanting to pass laws to stop people fox hunting does make
you a fascist, and wanting to teach religion to others makes you a fascist. Teaching
knowledge, on the other hand, such as science, is not fascistic since true knowledge is
not personal, it is universal, it can be seen to be true by anyone who cares to look at it,
irrespective of who they are or what they believe, their personal beliefs permitting I
suppose. Which means, in effect, that true knowledge is not associated with any facet
of human identity or associated social structures.

All this is not to say that Jews or Muslims routinely carry out these attacks that
I describe as vital to their continuing presence ensconced within superficially alien
social biomasses, as a defence mechanism. Clearly that would be absurd, and they
have no need to because the identity structure of any society Jews are implanted into
makes this kind of rejection response spontaneous as and when conditions demand;
after all, society is an organism, therefore all parts are interconnected. The social
body that constitutes the host is therefore induced to act in such a way that it itself
protects its master when it feels the urge to reject the master implant. This induced
response is based upon legislative routines and the associated exoskeletal structure
that has been imposed upon any society that is made prone to attack by Jews. In
saying all of this we can see we are unravelling a natural process according to a
logical plan that has the thread of human corporate nature running through it. This
continuity of creative force directing the evolution of social structure explains how it
was possible for Judaism itself to evolve, and then for its two prime sub-identities to
emerge in a consistent manner by gradually infusing identity and associated structure
into an ever greater extent of the human biomass of the planet, to bring us to the
actuality of a global organism that is Jewish, and that we see all about us today. The
content of the previous sentence can be taken as the substance of the definition I give
to the word Zionism when I use it in a manner that is detached from any specific
association with Jewish culture and history. So there is an Organicist definition of the
word Zionism that means the force of continuity that arises in human culture as a
product of the expression of human corporate nature. The thread of human nature is
Zionism, there could be no better word to give to this force of human nature, a core
phenomenon of human nature that Judaism has made the essence of its own inner
being via the natural process of socioganic evolution. We should remind ourselves of
the earliest indications of the Zionist force that we noted in the previous chapter
where we spoke of unlocking the ecological gate through the evolution of a mode of
subsistence allowing a population to expand beyond the confines of a naturally
constrained niche environment. Zionism then, as we would expect since it is the
expression of human corporate nature, began emerging long long ago.
The role that overtly religious people play in ensuring that terror inducing
responses will occur is crucial. Their obsessive, self righteous insistence upon their
divine nature and their commitment to seeking social power in the real domain
ensures divisions will either exist or the Jews will rule without question. The person
who plants the bomb makes a statement, a statement that the Judophilic authority
would not allow to be made in any other way, not in any way that would be politically
meaningful anyhow. Thousands may gather in a public square to show horror at
assassination, as in Holland recently, but nothing will induce the theocracy to give up
ruling the biomass by means of identity implantation based on the Jewish slave
identities of Islam and Christianity. As we see in Britain today the remorseless job of
Islamising the territory goes on, occasional riots may break out, but the ceaseless job

115
of increasing religious education is unstoppable. And this is because of the
institutions which form the exoskeletal organs of the command structure that are
occupied by individuals who are raised to occupy the role of master within the
organism. Which is why we find privileged education not only persisting in itself, but
continuing to serve its true function of providing the class of cellular units
programmed to rule that we find in the BBC and all other positions of power, of all
kinds, throughout society. We have all recently been treated to the finest example we
could ever wish for of how meaningless public feeling is when the core purpose of
Zionism is in the driving seat, when no matter how many people stepped out in public
our Christian saint Mr Blair, strode steadfastly toward the killing fields, or killing
streets I guess we should say in the case of Iraq, with lies oozing from every pore of
his body in anticipation of the blood soon to be gushing from the corpses of his many
victims. But he is right, Zionism is the be all and end all of everything and no one can
deny this, and nothing can be allowed to stand in its way; not that he admitted this,
but this is implicit in his actions and words.

In our daily lives we deliberately set out to differentiate, in the strongest

possible terms, between the very behaviours we find ourselves uniting into one
uniform scheme derived from our core identity. Thus we find the finest religious
values, expressed in laws of the most high minded kind along with political ideologies
of a similar mythical tune, linked harmoniously with their exact opposites so that
good is allied with evil, so to speak. While the physical state of unification is
decoupled through linguistic artifice operating according to the law of individuation
that allows this trick to be performed spontaneously by denying unity and making
individuals ends in themselves. This is exactly as it should be for society is an
organism in which there must be all the functions of growth and consumption
working harmoniously together to make the whole into a dynamic living thing.
It is 09/11/04 19:58:16, and I have just turned the TV off. I had watched five
minutes of a BBC 2 programme called Undercover Report: The Dolphin Hunters in
which the presenter went swimming with dolphins and chatted up a sweet young
Japanese girl who was in the pool with him. Then he took her back to his van
andno this was not the X-rated versionshowed her some film of a dolphin hunt
during which the dolphin they had been swimming with had been captured. She was
upset and said she did not know and it should be stopped. She was obviously a very
nice sincere person, and this put me in mind of Christian moralists, and people who
want to stop fox hunting in England, or people who want to dig up dead bodies of old
ladies whose families provide animals to laboratories for animal experiments. The
animal 'nutters' are obviously mentally and emotionally disturbed, and no doubt this is
why this type of cause appeals to their damaged selves, but these states of mental
disturbance, at lower levels of intensity, are the norm, and their existence as a facet of
human psychology is fundamental to the running of human society from a core organ
of authority that requires people it can attune itself to via emotional triggers not
rational argument. This kind of emotional behaviour is what the love and peace
ideology of Christianity, which invokes above all else the law of life's sacredness, is
appealing to in its function as a device of ethnic cleansing and control which serves
the purpose of superorganic growth. It is fascinating that this law can set the life of
none humans above that of humans, it really is quite amazing. This is accounted for
by the function of the organ of linguistic authority that fabricates linguistically
induced mental images for mass consumption in terms of the moral acuity of civilised
human individuals, invoking a state of induced sensitivity which has sympathy for the

116
victim and seeks vengeance against the perpetrator irrespective of whether the victim
is an animal and the perpetrator a human. When I say induced I do not mean the
evolved emotional inclination is induced, it is not, it is part of the human psyche. The
state of induction concerns the focus of the sentiment and while this will be
automatically focused upon the tribe, the race, the religion, the nation, the school, the
family, the football team and such like structures as a matter of course, in the case of
our modern complex societies the priests-cum-politicians work their magic by
focusing this instinct more precisely upon any suitable target, be it gays, women,
hunters, drivers, smokers, there is a bottomless well of opportunity for the cunning
priest in this department of their enterprise. And as can be seen from the few
examples chosen the beauty of the system is that over time all members of society are
prone to finding themselves move in and out of favour as the social dynamic shifts,
which is bound to aid the unification of all into one. All very amazing, and all of it
only makes sense in the context of the social organism in which individuals do not
exist as individuals.
Now, this description I have just given may sound bizarre, and would be easy
to dismiss as such in our deranged world, ruled by religion as it is. But faced with the
irrefutable evidence of the subversion of science provided in this work, whereby the
natural answer to the scientifically minded of the Victorian era was subverted by the
theocracy working through the bias efforts of people like Darwin and Spencer, with
the inevitable result that we had the world wars and the rise of the Nazis and the
sacrificial slaughter of the Jews in the concentration camps, we find we have backed
the Christian into a corner. These compassionate people who worship the Lord Jesus
and do good works for the sake of love and peace are now in the same position as that
into which the reporter managed to manoeuvre the innocent Japanese girl who did not
know that dolphins did not have to give their consent before they were allowed to
spend time in a swimming pool entertaining humans. Here is the moment for the
Christian to stand up and say "But I did not know, someone should stop it, we must
destroy all religion, we must destroy Christianity". Do you think they will? Of
course this particular TV programme about the lovable dolphins that is inducing a
sentimental love of none human species, and thereby possessing these none human
species for a political purpose, domesticating them in fact, by bringing them into the
orbit of the human organism, is itself part of the Jewish panoply of control devices
since it is pulling on emotional triggers, inviting people to feel a variety of emotions
central amongst which is the urge to support the rule of their laws over the entire
breadth of the world in the name of these lovely little critters. Globalism in other
words is all this sentimentality is about. Having said that, on this occasion at least, I
go with the globalist's sentiments, if not the globalists; set Dolly the dolphin free!
My saying this sort of thing, undermining the moral basis of animal rights
action, should not be taken as a defence of the abuse of animals. I am only indicating
the hidden forces behind why nature has produced an organism which displays this
kind of 'moral' self righteous behaviour we are discussing here that seems to favour
other species over its own. One minute it is Saddam in Iraq, the next it is some pool
attendant in the Philippines, then it is the country folk of England; the same string is
being plucked in each case, and we see the plucking of this string being invoked
openly in America for the purpose of justifying the various Zionist wars the Jews are
launching around the world when Bush speaks of bringing democracy to the world as
a gift from God. This presidential behaviour is as obscene, deranged and as autocratic
as the behaviour of any Roman emperor ever could of been. It is one thing to be
moved to action against localised incidents of oppression that seem inappropriate,

117
quite another to be moved to attack other people's cultures on this basis. If ones own
culture were perfect, if people did not live in slums and work in inhuman factories,
living the life of a battery chicken, and so on and so forth, then one might be inclined
to pay some heed to such moral invective.
As it is, in our society sentimentality for animals on the scale we have become
familiar with is the height of obscenity from a moralistic point of view, and clearly
illogical to boot. Unless that is you have an organic explanation such as we have been
pursuing here that can make sense of this madness. It is a question of deliberately
confusing two aspects of one subject and thereby blurring boundaries for political
motives. Thus from the principle of the legitimate use of animals, that includes a
responsibility to care about them, we shift to questioning the right to use animals at
all, and in making this shift the language of abuse is applied without discrimination to
the subject of use. This shift is only possible because of the evolution of the language
of abuse, and hence we see how the evolution of linguistic patterns facilitates the
development of social structures that can exploit these linguistic wavelengths of
thought to create a power enclave under the auspices of those who say they care. As
we have noted previously human rights are not about caring for people, they are about
enslaving people. Care is a way of claiming authority and therefore power over
others. The mantra of the caring authority is entirely cynical, and as such it simply
amounts to any alternative use of animals by those who have no interest in using them
directly, instead they use them indirectly as a means to abuse other humans by making
out they have the altruistic aim of protecting animals. This sham motive is self
evident, otherwise the animal rights protestor would not be so psychotic. And of
course the same analysis applies to the anti-abortionist, the whole thrust of all this
fascistic altruism can be associated with the Jewish mantra of life being sacred which,
made into law, is used to attack indigenous populations that do not share the Jews
idiosyncratic and self serving values. And this is how the Jews through their evolved
affinity for law have become the master identity on earth. The string of compassion is
plucked for the same reason the games in Rome were put before the people, to invoke
a mass emotional reaction. I cannot connect the games logically to the act of ethnic
cleansing and the spread of Roman rule in any direct manner, I do not know enough
about every day life in that society, but the plucking of the emotion of compassion in
our time is directly connected with political power and the urge to use force to police
people and to exterminate old traditions and the cultures that go with them, and so to
spread the authority of Judaism according to its current mode of growth. The
infiltration of written law into societies is synonymous with the spread of Judaism.
All human behaviour is biological, there is no other kind of behaviour.
All these behaviours, at all times, only derive from biological triggers, and
serve strictly biological functions to do with the control and extension of the
organism. When we speak of devices in this sense we should think in terms of tools,
mechanisms that serve a particular function. We should certainly not think in terms
of individuals and their emotions, or their emotional motives. I said earlier that a
paediatrician may have a basic function that is self defining, but because of the way
they are accredited they become part of the authoritative force of the establishment
and from this position, as a bona fide expert, they become latent tools of authority
awaiting activation as such, as and when required. And from this singular example
we can extrapolate to every other facet of human behaviour you can think of, for all
individuals have the same potential to become tools of authority. The news today is
full of the idea of getting a police officer appointed to every person in the country, to
protect them, so that communities can feed the rich pool of information they have

118
about their occupants to the authority that farms society; except they did not, not
quite, put it like this, but they nearly did. I knew the introduction of community
wardens would mean real trouble for the ordinary citizen going about their harmless
business of living, this is the state insinuating itself into our communities in the most
insidious manner. And sure enough within a year of this development I find myself
netted, but not caught, in a trap set by a punk police officer using these wardens to
launch his own private notion of law enforcement; it was inevitable. Naturally, in
accordance with the dynamic discussed above whereby different elements of the
community come under attack as the form of the biomass shifts, the government will
always be able to claim that a majority of people support its power games because at
any one time no portion of the community so victimised ever amounts to more than a
minority of the biomass of the organism. Praise be for the fact that people cannot go
to sleep leaving their backdoors unlocked anymore. If burglars did not exist, as
Durkheim almost said, then the state would have to of started a training school for
them. It is no wonder it is the householder who goes to prison if they try to defend
their property from a burglar, and the burglar who gets compensation for any injuries
incurred in the process. See, it all makes sense really, you just have to look a little
closer to see how, and why. The current fuss over this situation changes nothing, it is
just one small detail, this fuss is the exception that proves the rule. Soon we will all
be able to be tools of Jewish authority, and to take part in enforcing our own state of
submission to mindless ignorance and slavery, that is biology for you, oh to be a
robot, how clever to get individuals to be their own slave masters! Nature is
wonderful! You can see the conversation in the boardroom of life "These slaves we
have to go about beating all the time, couldn't we just get them to beat one another, it
is so tiring, and even boring in the end. If we let some do the beating, according to
our directions, they would love it, happy slaves at last. Yes, and we could call it
democracy, they could vote for the people who will beat them up". No novelty there
then.
As social scientists we must at all times be clear in our minds that it is not
possible for us to think of direct communication with our subjects as a means of
conducting conclusive scientific investigations. A social scientist cannot investigate
human society by asking people what things mean to them, and then taking the replies
at face value. This comes across strongly from the above considerations. If we talk to
intelligent, articulate people who oppose fox hunting and we tell them that the reason
they support a law against fox hunting has nothing to do with compassion for animals
but is all about ethnic cleansing in the name of Zionism they would think you were
mad. Naturally you would approach this point at a tangent and explain that the good
thing about the fight to preserve fox hunting is that it is the only time any English
people have ever stood up to fend off the wave of destruction that has been sweeping
our culture out of existence since the last great war. But even preparing the way like
this you would never persuade the individual that what is of such meaning to them
actually meant something else in reality because they did not really exist as an
individual, and that it was only the accumulative effect that they were contributing to
leading to the eradication of traditional culture that really had any meaning, because it
was this seemingly incidental result that extended the superorganism's growth and
integrity.
On Newsnight on BBC 2 last night, 11/11/04, there was an obscure but telling
piece on one of the details of our loss of culture, concerning apples. The programme
was accusing the Common Market of being to blame for a problem threatening the
rich cultural heritage we have as expressed in our native produce. But what it

119
revealed was that it was the supermarkets that were destroying our culture. They have
been bulldozing their way through our culture for decades, turning us into mirror
images of farm animals forced to feed at their troughs. This is the kind of thing I have
in mind when I say that a wave of ethnic cleansing has been sweeping across our
society since the war. And this is a Zionist force, it is part of the reduction of the
entire planet into one uniform society that can be farmed by a central authority, an
authority which is the core of Zionism. This focus of economic power is what gives
Judaism its real power, the religious identities are essential to the process as they
homogenise the farmed biomass, but these economic dynamics are the engine that
fuels the growth of the superorganic beast that we are, a beast that, properly speaking,
goes under the name of Judaism. These developments are the modern expression of
the key that opened the ecological gate allowing the human organism to expand when
humans first left their territorial niches in the forest and began to build a true form of
exoskeleton and thereby to form true superorganisms. So that now human ecological
activity concerns the physiology proper of the organism itself, which is why we as
individuals end up being farmed by human specialists in the process of superorganic
management. To leave this paragraph as it is could invite ridicule - Apples! - is the
man mad! The subject of apples was put before me by the news report last night, I
had already been made aware of this issue from a flier in a town pub selling locally
brewed ale, in which the threat to English apple production was put in terms of a
threat to cider of the Scrumpy variety. I am far more conscious of this problem of
cultural eradication in relation to a much more insidious attack on our culture in
respect to English beer and the traditional pub, things that really no longer exist.
Therefore apples in this instance are symptomatic of the problem. And if you think
this is petty, perhaps I should fish out my early eighteenth century account of
parliamentary debates in which there is a record of a speech from a West Country MP
praising the virtues of cider in the most effusive terms; he had probably had a flagon
or two before standing; on second thoughts, from my experience, only a glass or two.

In the introduction to sociology in one of the Open University courses I took

recently the professors set out the special attributes of studying humans. They said
that it was not possible for a human to exist outside the society they were part of.
This is clearly not true since the state of separation that is being spoken of is not
physical but intellectual, and if it is theoretically possible for an alien from another
planet to study our society, their being inherently separate from our society, then it is
conceivable that we can put ourselves intellectually in the same position that such an
alien would occupy as a matter of course. Naturally the first thing to do is to
recognise the true organic nature of human society which sociology, in its present
form, and certainly as taught by the O.U., exists to ensure does not happen. They also
dealt with this subject of interpersonal communication mentioned above, invoking the
idea of inner privilege which made the individual the supreme lord of their own
thoughts and feelings. They said that unlike all other subjects if scientists wanted to
study humans they could actually ask them what events meant to them. So for
example if there were a road accident a social scientist could investigate this
occurrence, in part at least, by asking the individuals involved what this event meant
to them.
This is the pinnacle of the consequences of destroying science in relation to
the study of the living human species and the exact inverse of what is scientifically
valid. If we speak to people in the local public houses at the present time the subject
of a ban on fox hunting will find favour, especially amongst women, the antagonism

120
against religion, focused upon Islam will also find a strong voice amongst the
indigenous population. But it is only fox hunting that produces a political movement,
an anti-Islamic faction of the main political parties is not created to give voice to this
popular idea. Why not? Because the political rulers do not want to select this aspect
of popular opinion for their objective which is driven by the inner core of Judaism
which is bound up with law and religion. And the process of selection does not only
operate in one direction. People might of been just as keen to attack fox hunting
centuries ago as they are today, but today various factors have made it of use to the
inner forces of the political system and so it draws in people who have stood against
hunting and give voice to this issue so that it becomes a matter that individuals take
up across the country and a snowball effect ensues. The sum of all these points is that
you cannot interpret communication in terms of individual meanings, all human
communication must be seen as meaningful only in the context of the wider dynamics
of society acting on mass. Language is not about meanings, it is about messages
which have a function, and that function cannot be discerned by interrogating
individuals because they necessarily have no idea what the function is, or even that
such an ulterior function might exist. The fact that sociologists say we can discover
the meaning of social behaviours, such as those whereby one section of the
community attacks the social activities of other sections, only goes to prove the none
scientific, theistic nature of sociology as we find it practiced in the academic
institutions of the state today.
We can conclude this discussion of the functional role of ethical and moral
behaviour by responding to a lengthy discussion of the same subject appearing in
Kidd's Social Evolution where he discusses the quandary that people of his day found
in the conflict between Darwin's notion of the 'survival of the fittest' and the fact of
human altruism which contradicted this idea. We cannot go into the detail but we can
use this generic term altruism as our word for this subject matter, and state
categorically that there is no real moral sense involved in altruism. Altruism is a
means of binding units into a homogenous mass according to the needs of the
organism. It is thus a product of the Zionist force and it could be thought of as a slave
making mechanism, except the special attribute of the moral quality is such that it
induces obedience on a basis that makes individuals conform from internal motives
which are fuelled by their psychological make up, and concerns their emotional
impulse to conform, to feel guilt, to want to be included and so on. Thus altruism
makes people conform willingly and in a manner that makes them oblivious to the
slave-making and ethnic-cleansing like functions of the moralistic imperatives driving
them into a state of uniform conformity. And in saying this we can see why the
attachment to animals is so useful because by projecting the moral impulse beyond
the human species it provides an imperative to conform to a core moral ideal that is
capable of including all humanity, and is thus tailor made for the new global Jewish
state. Which explains why an idea such as Speciesism, as bizarre as it is, should
emerge in the advent of an emerging global society where there is a need to find ever
more inclusive mechanisms of control, since no human is a none human you cannot
do better than to make a none human the subject of obligation to conformity in the
search for autocratic control over a global population. No wonder the philosopher
who cooked up this particular bit of nonsense has become one of the most famous and
successful philosophers of the ruling Jewish state of today. Although the attachment
of a sacred status to none human species in pre-civilised cultures was seemingly
commonplace, along with the usual imputation of spirit to all sorts of environmental
phenomena, both vital and inert. In both cases, the prehistoric and the modern, the

121
function of serving superorganic integrity is undoubtedly the same. And this
functional value in respect to superorganic bonding is exactly what we see being put
to use when propaganda shifts from fox hunting at home to bull fighting in Spain,
veal rearing in France, whale hunting in Japan, and so on and so forth. Today these
age old human behaviours imposing social control appear in a form commensurate
with the physiology of the organism making them, on a global scale, because the
entire globe is the territory of the organism that engages in this multiplicity of
activities on a common theme in the unspoken name of the Jewish organism that it is.
The organism does not speak its own name, it is unknown in human speech, it is God,
the supreme being, that which is nameless; not a who, but a what. Oh yes, animal
rights is a corker of a slave-making device. One Kidd notes the prominence of
himself when he mentions the foundation of the Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals.
It is not appropriate to use the term slave to describe a person who lives in an
ethical society, because the unwitting compliance with slavish mechanisms means
that the human individual is no more aware of their role in society than a
domesticated animal is aware of their role in the human farming, or, come to that, the
ant farming economy. Thus humans in an ethically dominated society, like ours, are
not enslaved, they are truly domesticated. Any law can be passed on this basis, as we
saw in Scotland yesterday, 10/11/04, when the newly created Scottish parliament's
first act of any significantly independent nature was an act of overt suppression of
individual liberty which outlawed the disgusting habit of smoking in places that exist
specially for people to go to for a smoke, public houses that is. If a public house is
not a place to go to for a fag then what is it? I do not smoke by the way, but I am
rather partial to individual freedom, that is to say the idea appeals to me anyway, and I
would love to experience it some time. This news was presented by the journalist as a
symbol of Scottish independence that even the smoker could of been proud of, in a
statement that made me want to weep with the excruciating perversity of its claim. It
was to me the supreme example of what devolution is all about, making it easier to
control smaller units of people, just like the idea of ensuring everyone has a police
officer appointed to them. Can you imagine Westminster ever passing a law of this
kind, prohibiting smoking throughout the UK? No way. To inflict a law like this on
such a scale contradicts the laws of legislation themselves that rely upon the
mechanism of divide and rule whereby the population is targeted in portions that
means the victim will always be an insignificant minority relative to the whole. It is
funny, when I was being inducted into the monster in the sixties, all our history was
about the wars of unification which had so recently completed the creation of the
United Kingdom, now we see the immense effort being put into breaking it apart
running in tandem with the Zionist scheme to make a United States of Europe. The
game of fabrication is ceaseless and the masters are programmed to play it to the end
of eternity, or as long as needs be. To inflict a repressive law like that which bans
smoking in public for no reason whatsoever, except that some people do not like it
and it damages the usefulness of the units and increases their maintenance costs, is to
invite open rebellion. It therefore has to be done piecemeal, and it is brilliant that the
Scottish parliament has shown its true colours with its first move, an extra bit of
muscle with which tighten the ropes on the slaves. This reveals our master's true
motives behind the process of devolution they are forcing upon us by any means they
can dream up, fair or foul. Divide and conquer, it is a strategy that works once you
have established a larger centre of power, and what could that be I wonder, if I said
Brussels would that be a sufficient clue? What a relief the Geordies ditched their

122
chance to be more closely enslaved, it has saved the rest of us for a bit longer from the
threat of a regional assemblies. But in the end the farmers will build their fences and
we will bunch up and do as domesticated livestock must do. Naturally these devices
to increase our subjection make us free, as being domesticated to moral imperatives is
the sign of being civilised, as death is birth, as ......... you choose your favourite piece
of theistic absurdity, there is no shortage to choose from.

As it is we do not have to project ourselves into a state of alien being in order

to step outside our society because our society is not composed of individuals. If it
were then our society would have a perfectly homogenous intellectual constitution, in
that at no matter what point we intersected its substance by interrogating an
individual, we would find the same information of existence reflected in their
answers. Our society is a superorganism within which there is a very small core of
authority that emits a message that gives the huge biomass it controls its conforming
identity. Therefore if we want to step outside our society all we need do is to extricate
ourselves from enslavement to the message of command and find an alternative
platform of understanding existence upon which to stand. The message of command
is necessarily false in its factual account of reality or else it could not serve its
function of delineating the social organism into a command structure controlling a
body. Therefore there is only one valid strategy for anyone who wants to step outside
the society controlled by an absolute authority and that is to seek to know what is real.
If we do this we step outside the society within which we live in a very real sense
because the elite core can be constituted on any number of conceptual bases so that a
human stepping outside their society is really just engaging in an act of taking up a
new basis of core authority; which explains why human knowledge of reality is
forever extending itself but never gets any closer to a conclusive accommodation of
social authority to physical reality. What we have in the case of Marx versus
Lilienfeld is Marx taking an alternative expression of the age old Jewish basis of core
authority, which is why communism has changed nothing in the world. Whereas
Lilienfeld was creating a whole different basis for forming a social core authority that
would of changed everything in terms of identity structure since Organicism denies
the existence of the individual and makes some other account of existence
incompatible with Judaism inevitable. Lilienfeld still did not tell us what reality was
however, as far as I can see, but he was on his way, which is a lot more than could
ever be said for the likes of Marx.

123
 Veiled Lilienfeld

The knowledge that society is an organism persisted into the twentieth century
for a few decades before petering out between the two wars. An interest in the
organic account of society has bubbled up from time to time, but always only to be
met with the most vicious attacks by those who know to invoke the Nazi name against
this true science, in defence of the theocracy that rules society today, as they have
always ruled society. As a lifelong passionate atheist I have sought the solution to the
question why religion persists in our modern sophisticated world. As a youth I went
to college to study anthropology, and I generally took an interest in questions
concerning human nature coming from a scientific viewpoint, but never did I here a
whisper about the ideas of the Organicists, the only remotely scientific ideas ever
applied to questions concerning human nature. A huge body of scientific knowledge
had just vanished from the world as if it had never existed, shunted into some
backroom along with notions like those of magic and alchemy. Only when I twigged
the idea myself, when I realised that human nature was corporate, that we have a
common nature with creatures like ants, and that the fixation of our interest in our
own evolution upon our ape form, by Darwin, was a spurious diversion, did I go out
into the world looking for some indication that people had considered this idea. It
took several years of looking to hit upon the deep seam of intellectual ideas developed
in the nineteenth century when people first applied science to the interpretation of
human society before the theocracy had a chance to smother this true knowledge.
First the priests discerned the threat, then they buried it by virtue of their control of
the social structure.

But what does all this mean? What is religion, what is science, and why is
there this incessant war between the two? That can be answered very easily by
applying the key to understanding all things concerning human existence, the key
being the idea that human nature is corporate, which means that every facet of our
individual being evolved to serve the objective of creating an organic being at the
level of social existence. This means there is only the social organism as an end in
itself, and the individual as we ordinarily understand the idea of the individual does
not in any sense exist as an end in themselves. In describing the human state in these
terms, as corporate, whereby we recognise the true form of the human self, we
provide ourselves with the same insights into Christianity's creed as Lilienfeld noted,
to the effect that Christianity incorporated this organic reality into its creed. It is
because Christianity's mythological identity implant inserts a coded interpretation of
human nature into its Judaic religious formula that Christianity proves to be functional
in the growth of a dominant superorganic being. Kidd says Christianity came to its
dominant position because of the great store of altruism that this religion accumulated
in Western culture which induced European society to break free of the age old
practice of subservience to a political master class. The man simply had no idea.
This notion of altruism was a major device used in the misinformation produced by
apologists for the theocracy, people like Thomas Huxley; used in conjunction with the
idea of the social organism being only an analogy such distorting linguistic tactics are
a potent defence against the scientific truth. Anything to destroy science and preserve

124
religion. So we see, once again, the truly superb work of the intellectuals of this time
being made to serve the exact thing they pretend to be out to destroy. Is this always
unwitting, or is it conspiracy? Who cares, in the final analysis we are only concerned
with where we are today. But obviously all the underlying physiological attributes of
the human species, such as linguistic ability, evolved to support this outcome. And it
is precisely this final twist of logic that is lacking in the work of Lilienfeld as we can
see in the piece presented here, translated into English for the first time, albeit in a
less than perfect rendition, one that is nevertheless adequate for the purpose of
showing the thrust and theme of the work and the idea it sought to promote, and the
difficulties it faced in the process.
There are themes running through the Defence, naturally, one of the things
Lilienfeld repeatedly refers to is the effect of attraction which I cannot translate
directly with any more insight than that which appears with the aid of my translator,
the result of this effect however seems to be a state of reflection. A perfect translation
may still be no more useful in respect to understanding this theme as an effort is
required here to comprehend the idea the author is trying to put across that can
perhaps only be garnered from reading the whole of his work. There is one point
toward the closing pages when he says the individual is moulded to the collective
mindset, or words to that effect, by this attraction effect, and this is an imputation I
like. Basically, we can get the gist of his meaning from the context. When using this
phrase he is evidently referring to those aspects of social life that impinge on us in
such a way they influence us in some collectively determined manner, events such as
a song, an accident, a political announcement, a meeting, anything which invokes a
reaction that can evoke a common sentiment or feeling of any kind. Lilienfeld also
notes the primacy of language in this context. This is a critical point central to a
modern representation of the corporate idea of human nature, but he does not go
anywhere near offering a sound modern approach whereby linguistic information
should be presented as an extension of the genetic code, so that we might have fluid-
genetic material extending the reach of solid-genetic material, or some such
description seeking to unite the flow of creative organic form extending from the
individual to the social body wherein DNA becomes language.
I have not yet read my own translation, during which process I would expect
to take notes and seek to understand each point of value. I think this might give a
better interpretation of the actual words attraction and reflection, but by using the
word search facility in the word processor and leaping to these words we soon see the
manner in which he first seeks to derive these terms from the language of biology
where the effect of nerves on body tissues gives rise to this mode of description. No
wonder it does not lend itself to a colloquially expressed exposition of social
interaction, and no wonder these thinkers fell foul of the analogy trap.
There are frequent references to the equivalence found between functions
operating in the social structure and those seen at work in the structure of an
individual body. But he notes that the resulting mode of analogical expression has
been a source of great benefit to the Anti-Organicists who ridiculed science by
making a nonsense of this way of thinking through idiotic exaggerations, whereby
some enemies of science demanded to know where in society the hormonal secretions
were stored and from where they were excreted. This kind of degenerate mentality
being typical of the theist who is an instinctive delinquent in the field of intellectual
ideas, and consequently the lowest form of human life we can conceive of. But what
he fails to do, in common with every other Organicist author I have had any inkling
of, is to recognise an appropriate way to comprehend the artificial world of the human

125
animal. There is only one appropriate way to describe it, and that is the correct way,
as an exoskeletal form. This is an extremely powerful idea, albeit one that is
somewhat difficult to attune oneself to upon first thinking about it, but it is an
immensely powerful idea. The power of the idea is not intuitive, it really comes from
the intellectual dimension provided by anthropology which so forcefully connects our
being with the organic world of nature all about us. Hence we can echo the
sentiments of Morley Roberts when he spoke of how fatally flawed sociology was by
a lack of understanding of biology, by saying that today we might replace the faculty
of biological knowledge in regard to this sentiment with that of anthropology. A
sociologist really should have a sound grasp of physical anthropology in order to be
cognizant of the power of the idea that all that is called cultural or artificial is in fact
physiological, and constitutes the exoskeleton of the organism. Let me explain why
this is so by taking a moment to discuss the idea of human nature as something
definite that can be stated simply, as I have repeatedly stated it above, as being
corporate, that is, evolved to form a body.
Taking Susan Greenfield, the famous neurologist, president of the Royal
Society, and maker of television propaganda documentaries expounding theocratic
dogma concerning the subject of human nature. In a BBC Four broadcast in 2004 that
she gave to promote a new book, Greenfield stated that it was not possible to say what
human nature was. This is the standard theistic dogma defending the idea of human
divinity, and indeed this has to be so in order to preserve the Biblical creed that
asserts that humans are unique and each individual is an end in themselves.
Greenfield however, obligingly explained, most succinctly, why it was that we could
not say what human nature was, she did this by saying what it would mean if we
could say what human nature was. She said that if we knew what human nature was
then we would be able to look at human behaviour at any moment in time, available
to our examination, and find that nature expressed in what we saw. And she is
perfectly correct. This means that whether we are looking at the world today or the
world of stone age hunter gathers, there would be one common theme perfectly
represented. Exactly so. And that is precisely what we do see. And much more than
that.
Not only do we see human nature, human corporate nature that is, expressed at
every single point in human existence, in all circumstances, and when or wherever we
look, we even see human nature expressed perfectly in our specifically human
antecedents, exactly as we would expect to see it. Thus millions of years before
humans existed we find human nature expressed perfectly and in full form, identical
to the way we see it today, shown through different physical forms, but with an
identical nature. And so this leads us back to the idea of an exoskeleton as the
product of human creative effort that we describe as artificial, and which we speak of
as the mark of our unique status as the sole maker of ourselves in the universe, known
universe if you like. Once you have the notion of all creative products of human
effort being simply exoskeleton then whether it is an Australopithecine bipedal
hominid making a communal shelter from branches hewn with a crudely fashioned
stone implement, or a space shuttle, the two things, although different in form, are
readily classed as being of a common nature that allows them to be justifiably strung
together like beads along our three dimensional time scale of human evolution with its
unbroken thread of human nature acting as the string. A string which is in actual fact
a stream of information, which we might otherwise describe as an energy trace of
human evolution which includes the genetic code, the cultural expression imbued into
the exoskeletal form, and the linguistic output too. From this simple point of

126
recognition that says all that we call cultural or artificial is in fact exoskeletal in
nature, all good scientific ideas flow. The exoskeletal idea connects the social
substance with the key idea of human nature as being corporate that we use to destroy
the idea of God, and at last we have ourselves properly located in nature right back to
the very beginning of time. No inconsistencies, no anomalies, no uniqueness beyond
the uniqueness that applies equally to all. This is the true end product of the organic
method applied to humanity and one has to wonder how on earth all these people
working during the nineteenth century, in an environment as conducive to the full
flowering of the idea as it was ever likely to get, never came even close to achieving
this degree of insight.
However one has to try and grasp the significance of a few crucial gaps in the
knowledge of the late Victorian era as compared to the fullness of knowledge realised
in the generation born into the second half of the twentieth century. The unravelling
of the secret of DNA is critical, but other knowledge of a more biological kind such as
the realisation of the function of genetic material can also be seen to be vital in freeing
the way we can now think about these questions as compared with our forebears who
tried, but failed miserably. The fruits of modern physical anthropology have also
been enlightening. Only yesterday, 13/04/05, on a BBC 2 programme, I saw a piece
about the ancient inhabitants of Britain which mentioned the discovery of a beautiful
hand axe in Norfolk that was getting on for three quarters of a million years old! The
oldest artifact ever found in Western Europe and said to belong to a stone age
predecessor called Heidelburgensis. This is a phenomenal stretch of time during
which modern human creative activity has been well established. These animals, who
made this tool, were equipped with highly evolved human skills, and we have to be
capable of relating them and their creative behaviour directly to ourselves. And it is
only through the simple act of ascribing the evolution of craft ability to the evolution
of superorganic form that creates an exoskeleton by merging group being with the
environment, and then eventually evolving the emergent environmental union to the
present stage of development where we see vast cities like New York rising from the
earth, that we have any chance of rendering this connection in a simple, convincing
and straightforward manner that makes perfect sense, which it does because it is true.

A further issue which does not arise too much in this Defence by Lilienfeld,
but does come to the fore in contributions to this genre of work from some other
authors, Bagehot being a prime example in his Physics and Politics published in the
last quarter of the nineteenth century, and we might also refer to Gierke in his account
of the social organism given from a legal perspective, is the issue of the state, the state
as a nation that is, as a social entity sporting a distinct cultural identity. At all times it
seems as if the farthest that these people could think was toward the idea of the
organism culminating in the state as the final point of organic growth, giving us a
social being which thereby constituted the one true individual from the Organicist
perspective. I think I did see a reference in Bluntschli's work to religion that
recognised religion constituted something superior to the state, as is quite obvious
since a number of states adhere to a common religion or religious denomination,
thereby grouping states into religious families. In the logic of Organicism the central
principle tells us there can only be one, a principle which really applies to the identity
of the superorganism, so that where we see familial resemblances emerging from
otherwise seemingly antagonistic social structures we must suspect the antagonism is
of the order of a structural tension, while the shared commonality that denotes a
familial identity defines an order that indicates the existence of one whole being.

127
Nonetheless this simple and blindingly obvious fact is recognised nowhere fully, and
is dealt with nowhere at all. But it has to be said that to take this simple and
inescapable observation, and to work with it, would be to produce a nail as good as
any nail capable of killing any possibility of anyone ever again believing in God, and
therefore providing the means to rid us of the bane of true knowledge, namely
religion. These people could so easily of destroyed religion, or so it seems, and so
saved the world from so much misery, futility and ugliness, but they did not.
But religion, like anything else, harking back to the question asked above
about the meaning of all this, exists for a purpose. Bagehot is suggestive about the
significance of religion, at one point he mentions how we care for the Jews, and says
he could say so much more on this subject, but does not do so. He opens his book
with a very powerful statement about the role of a communal identity in which he
says it is better to have a bad identity than none, all that matters is that a group of
people have some kind of common sense of identity, no matter how defective an idea
it might be. This statement cannot be improved upon as a recognition of the nature of
humanity expressed at the functional level in relation to the need for a common
identity. Bagehot is giving us the implicit outcome of the assertion that human nature
is corporate and that there is no such thing as an individual. But he expressly states
that he will not deal with religion, and he does not, he harps on about the state and the
nation.
Again, in another book of the same period but published a bit later by an Irish
author Benjamin Kidd, called Social Evolution, that we have already mentioned
several times, a book that was widely acclaimed at the time, we find a sound
understanding of the significance of religion as the ultimate medium of identity. Kidd
states that it is religion that acts as the binding medium of the organism. This too
cannot be bettered, once this has been said everything has been said, all you can do
thereafter is to unravel the specifics of the story in the same way that once Copernicus
had given a sound description of heavenly mechanics it was, and is still, just a matter
of accumulating and interpreting information accordingly. But of course in the case
of religion this job of interpretation never came about because with the poison of
Darwinism doing its work, and the efforts of Spencer likewise providing the
foundation for a theological model of society which has become modern sociology
and anthropology, where the individual is all and the social organism is nowhere to be
seen, these insights could go no further. The massive backlash of effort provoked by
the science of humanity was not one of accumulation and interpretation according to
one new key insight carrying humanity forward, but rather, it was a stupendous effort
to weave and fabricate a veil of immense proportions capable of blinding the whole of
humanity for an eternity, burying humanity alive in an ancient past. An effort to grow
a skin over the collective eye and to solidify the exoskeleton into an impenetrable
outer casing once and for all, through which no light could pass, of any kind. So that
no human could ever again see the light of reality existing beyond the blind ignorance
of Judaism's nasty little shell. Face it folks, it is a big, big big bigness out there, and
there is nothing between it, and us.

Taken further, these original, thwarted insights, lead to some devastating

conclusions that annihilate religion. And if we now consider a couple of the
incontrovertible conclusions our various authors came to and put them together and
consider them in the context of this discussion we can see just why, on purely
theoretical grounds, science had to be crushed, and therefore how it has been possible
to crush it. A further point made by Bagehot, a most important point, was that if you

128
reveal the true nature of reality, if, that is, given the central importance of having a
binding sense of unity, you then destroy that binding sense of unity, and then you kill
the organism that is so bound. So, with Kidd in mind, we know that religion is the
binding medium that makes the living organism. From Bagehot we know that to
destroy this agent of unity is to kill the organism. Hence, if we reveal that in the
Judaic mythology which gives our global organism its identity, in which we include
the derived identity information structures of Christianity and Islam, the key to the
code upon which this mythology and therefore its identity hangs is God, and that, by
means of science, we can prove that God is the organism, then we destroy the
religion, therefore the identity, and so the organism. And we are the organism,
Western Civilisation, as it is usually referred to is the organism. To pursue science
then, to its logical conclusion, is to commit suicide, for ourselves and for our
civilisation. From this simple chain of logic we arrive at the reason why all these
people, no matter what they learnt, in the age in which they lived, were unable to
reveal the truth. But crucially we must see that for this act of survival to be carried
out there had to be a massive sense of affinity to the core identity vested in a
sufficient block of the population, and to this end this is where the elite come into
their own, they are sufficient in power, not mass. When those with the power to rule
society face these issues they associate with the religious identity under threat
absolutely, and the elite are all that matters in this situation. To them survival is all
that matters, a couple of world wars are as nothing in this context, any number of
pogroms, of any order of horror, are just flea bites on the hide of their sense of self.
And, if I pause to inject a slight self analysis at this point, I can explain how it is that
one such as I, who has no such affinity with the core, and no intimately held social
status beholding to the establishment, would gladly seek to do to death the identity of
the organism I have nothing but contempt for. I look forward to a new Phoenix rising
from the ashes of Judaism, a truly civilised world based on the idea of human
corporate nature as revealed by science, in a universe known by science and by
science alone. And in this personal sentiment we must also recognise the thread of
human nature is getting the better of me for this expresses a degree of unity beyond
anything even remotely comprehended in Judaism or any other codified form of
nonsense evolved to impose one social block upon another.
I wrote this work in the last quarter of 2004, and in the first quarter of 2005 I
hit a rich vein of books including one called Social Adaptation by Lucius Moody
Bristol in which this point about a society committing suicide is made explicitly, and
in the context of this exact discussion. The present work follows a train of thought
developed from the act of translating Lilienfeld’s monograph in the light of my state
of knowledge at that time. Things may move quickly when new material comes to
light, but to try and insert any new discussion prompted by Bristol’s work would jar
with the train of thought expressed in the present work, and so I have simply added a
series of appendices to allow me to deal with new material in its own terms and as it
relates to this work, but expressing thoughts as they were prompted by the new
discoveries taken from the intellectual stratum in which we find Lilienfeld’s own
work deposited, and from some other more recent deposits. See Appendix I for a
consideration of ideas expressed in Social Adaptation.

So what is stopping us today? We have alluded to the bad name given to

genuine biological ideas by the terrible results applied Hitlerian philosophy that was
devised by means of the theocracy's subversion of science by a cohort of intellectuals
led by the combined efforts of Darwin and Spencer. But while this stands as a guard

129
against anyone like myself speaking the truth, the first barrier is the blanket of
ignorance spread across all of the academic world by making Darwinian ideas the
founding basis of true science as recognised by the hard sciences of the establishment.
Now of course on the face of it Darwinism is a perfectly valid approach to take
because these people are looking at the material basis of life, exactly as Darwin did.
But Darwin dismissed the nature of existence as being a subject of any concern, and
looked solely at the existence of extant forms, so he split the appearance of form from
the nature of form. This segregated life forms from the unilinear creative process that
is implicit in the unity of the universe recognised in more fundamental scientific
accounts of existence that oblige cosmologists to link the presence of the earth back to
a prospective big bang scenario. In a series of essays by a biologist called Morton
Wheeler this point is made nicely, albeit in slightly different terms. He says that
whereas Comte launched the study of society from the perspective of biology Darwin
inverted this relation and imposed the dynamics of society as we know them upon the
living world, which is of course why the evolutionary process which is as cooperative
within species as it is competitive between them came to be understood in purely
competitive terms whether we were concerned with the internal structure of living
things or the external environment brought into being by all of life. This was a
travesty, and it seems to my way of thinking that it can only of been deliberately
orchestrated to some extent by those forces of opposition to which we find reference
in the Defence where Lilienfeld talks about the organic theory finding itself arraigned
against a foe that harks back to the days of witches and demons for its inspiration.
The same foe is still alive and well in the field of science today and promoting
Creationism where, in this grotesque form, it is even tolerated in the exoskeleton's
identity incubation centres, otherwise known as schools. But whatever we do we
must not get carried away with ideas of conspiracy because such ideas, being focused
upon individuals and their personal motives, are derived from the deepest well Judaic
mythology that Judaism draws its power from and as such conspiracy theory is a very
useful tool for the theist to use against science and society at large. Conspiracy brings
to the fore the idea of individual human motives based on good and evil, and imputes
other purposeful objectives as the reason behind actions that the theist loves to weave
moral invective against, while practising the things they say they abhor, but practice
justifiably on their own behalf in the name of their God. Conspiracy then, for the
Organicist, is a big no no; just as analogies between individual and superorganic
physiological structures should of been. What we should do is recognise that we
evolved to be receptive to a common identity, and to be blind to those aspects of
existence which threaten the strength of the unifying force of identity, and so those
who would resist the revelations of science are working human nature with the grain
and those who would do otherwise, who seek to reveal the bare truth, and so hammer
their chisel across the grain of the wood, are finding it understandably hard, and
highly resistant to their efforts at penetration. The challenge for science therefore is
not to discover the truth, but to become the truth; the problem faced by the science of
society is a socioganic problem, not a scientific problem. Science, in short, needs a
philosopher. For science to have a philosopher is akin to science having an ally in the
enemy's camp, a situation that ordinarily only applies in reverse, where the entire
encampment of science is made up of the enemy. I want to be that ally, aside from
that, philosophy is nothing to me.
And so, I have given you all you need know to unravel the final account of the
truth for yourself. Copernicus gave the astronomers all they needed to know to
progress further in their studies and Organicism can do for sociology what the

130
Copernican revolution did for astronomy. The Organicist revolution has yet to
happen, I would like to give it the initial boost it evidently needs, but the effectiveness
of that boost is determined solely by the degree to which others pick up the idea and
propel it forward against the inertial force of absolute ignorance vested in Judaic
power that determines the world we live in. Today our existence is just as much
subject to a theocracy as any human society ever was. We can tell this by thinking in
terms of our freedom to know the truth. Today the theocracy has been secreted
beneath considerable growths in the exoskeleton that evolved to bury the brute form
of a priesthood that appears always to be deeply resented. Thus we see the machinery
of a democratic government and we hear it applauded all the time, and we know it is a
sham. We see religious wars waged, we see religious power burgeoning, we see this
so called democracy doing all it can to suppress science and to promote the creation
of people implanted with absurd religious beliefs. The theocracy bursts forth like a
blushing cheek on an ageing alcoholic, deranged, and as dangerous as ever to the well
being we like to think our masters have in mind for us. But all this is as nature
intended.
We know that, despite all the intellectual achievements, Ancient Greek society
was a theocracy because when people produced knowledge that threatened the
mythology based on a geocentric cosmology they were attacked and routed by the
priests. And today, now we know what the real nature of Darwinism is we can see
that the same must apply in our own time. Darwinism is a sophisticated response to
the problems of advancing methods of interrogating reality but it has a forerunner
from the ancient world, the astronomy of Ptolemy which sort to preserve the idea that
the earth was the centre of the heavens. Such an astronomy was no kind of
astronomy, it was in fact theology, and the same applies to Darwinism, such a model
of life is no kind of biology, it is in fact theology also. Properly speaking Darwinism
is a partial theory of creation, not a whole theory of evolution. It is this fact, given the
emphasis that Christian mythologists put on creation, that suggests that when the
establishment sent Darwin around the world in the Beagle the elite knew exactly the
kind of idea they expected him to come back with. An idea entirely focused upon the
creation of life as distinct from creation in its entirety. By separating the organic from
the inorganic at the outset it was preordained that the resulting theory of creation
would exclude the artificial facet of human creation that could then only be accounted
for via the unique creative powers of humans themselves; as granted to them by some
magical force not known to exist anywhere else in nature save within the domain of
human creative action. The artificial was forever alienated in biological terms from
the organic as defined by the living fabric that was the sole concern of Darwin’s
theorising. This was just what the priests ordered. And it is this fact that proves
conclusively that we live in a theocracy. What is the identity of that theocracy, I have
told you if you have been paying attention, it is Jewish.

But we cannot leave the matter there, or else we do as our predecessors have
done, we betray our own identity. By refraining from saying all that we could say we
silently declare our acquiescence to servitude. This means we forfeit our national
identity as English people to the Jewish identity which takes silent possession of its
omniscient position unacknowledged, something not to be said aloud, like the Jews
ancient word for God, Yahweh, never to be pronounced. So today we must never
pronounce the name of our true God, the Jew, made of flesh and blood, the ruler of
our world, they who farm us, unseen, but always there, unknown movers behind all
things. I was raised as an idealistic Englishmen taught to believe that our values were

131
those of freedom and this was encapsulated in our uncompromising belief in free
speech. Silly I know, but there it is, I am a bit obsessive when I get my needle stuck
in a groove and I fell for this line in my cradle. In Bagehot this subject is raised in the
most fascinating way since he actually discusses, as noted above, the jeopardy that
freedom of information means for any society that tolerates it, it means impending
peril for the living being it actually is. Therefore he says this is a state of affairs that
has never been allowed to exist, until, low and behold, his own time in his wonderful
English world where at last true freedom came to be. And yet even as he makes this
boast he declines to reveal the knowledge he seems to hint that he possesses about the
true nature of religion, and by this lack of action he makes it plain that this very
pinnacle of social development is no more real in his world than in any other that
went before. Kidd also speaks of the immense freedom of thought in his day and the
philosopher John Stuart Mill, that Roberts mentions, is famous for his defence of free
expression which he puts in terms of the benefits accruing from allowing people to
speak freely, arguing that we should not fear the challenge of whatever anyone says
because if it is false then we can counter it while if true it can only be of benefit. This
in essence is the naive tradition of free speech my journalist father raised me to
believe in; silly silly. A fine goal but certainly not a fact of life. We see a mixture of
the desire to suppress and to apply the principles of free speech whenever the British
National Party make it onto the front page, where the debate then rages around
denying them the oxygen of publicity, to facing up to them and showing the falsity of
their ideas. Today, 14/12/04, the news reported that Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP
had been arrested, following a BBC undercover programme, for inciting racial hatred.
These dynamics are real, race, religion, power structures revolving around identity, it
is part of our world, and it means something, and only science can tell us what it
means. And the only science that can do this is the science of biology, or the science
of sociology founded squarely upon that of biology, via a couple of intervening layers
of intellectual output such as physical anthropology too, if you like. The organic
world should be viewed like this, in layers, as the physical world is where physics
underpins chemistry and so on. Of course the BNP, like the Nazis, are as theistic as it
is possible to be without actually being a religious body because they do not reject
religion and they are all about individual privilege backed by irrational ideas.
Religion is the supreme expression of fascism, which is why the Catholics and the
Nazis made natural bed fellows. And the servile cheek turning mantra of Christianity
does not obscure this fact one bit once we know what human nature is.
Just this month, in the run up to the general election, as the campaign officially
began, Griffin and his mentor were arrested and charged with race hate crimes dating
back to the undercover programme mentioned earlier in this work. Griffin said they
had been informed from within the Crown Prosecution Service that this was just a
political stunt on behalf of a government in electioneering mode, and that the charges
would be dropped after the election. Sounds like business as usual in our free and
open society.
Today we may speak of the god-kings of ancient civilisations and their priestly
politicians in contrast to our democratic world of accountable politicians, wholly
distinct from the priests that still nonetheless play a significant role in politics. But
politicians are just the reincarnated priests of old whose identity has been tweaked by
using a little linguistic algebra so that from priest-politician we get politician-priest
with the deletion of the redundant suffix following the decoupling of the church and
state legislative structures. In truth the modern politician is far more priest than
politician, just as the ancient priest always was, they are figureheads, nothing more,

132
and this explains why they are all front and no substance and their words are worth
nothing, unless you value lies. People do not get the leaders they deserve, that is just
more priestly twaddle, there is no such thing as people, or leaders, nor even priests if
it comes to that, but one has to use some words somehow to communicate these ideas.
There is just the organism; and so all is as it must be.

133
 Judaism

Free speech is not real in my world, but I would like it to be, and it is
supposed to be, so if assumed to be, and taken advantage of with care, we might just
get away with acting as though the ideal, were real. In order to do this we need to
follow up on the revelation of the true nature of God, and the true nature of the
religious formulas that this revelation relates to, this means specifically Judaism, in
which we include Christianity and Islam. We must consider what it means to know
that the Jewish code word God refers to the living human organism. We need to write
about the power of Judaism, and how it works. We are dealing with an organism and
the fluid-genetic component, which is language, that creates the exoskeleton by
delivering a flow of energy revealed in the form of information that condenses matter
into the form of the exoskeleton, thereby giving a physical representation of the living
superorganic form. This linguistic dynamic condensing into superorganic form
includes a 'waveband', if you like, of 'colour', within it, that is infused into the organic
form as it comes into being, so the waveband of linguistic colour appears in the form
of an identity. Thus physical form and its material function carries at one and the
same time a non-physical communicative, or social component. The medium of
information is the carrier of the nature of things, human nature is therefore carried by
human DNA and by human language, and this carrier deposits the material
expressions of the nature that it is. It is the infusion of identity into this dualistic
information-material process that denotes the focus of power, not the mass of
substance that lies beneath the colour of information. Hence it is information that is
the essence of power in living beings, not the substance that it is associated with that a
being consists of. The form of a being is secondary to the nature of a being. This is
why Darwinism performed its duty toward the theocracy Darwin served by directing
science toward human form and away from human nature. Which is why the essence
of identity, which is concentrated in Judaism, defines the master organ even though
the mighty social being is only seen in the guise of the military power that transmits
this eternal Zionist identity through time, be it Egyptian, Roman, British, American or
whatever. We must have some such account of the creative life force in order to
make the organic link between the information that delivers predominantly living
tissue and the information that delivers predominantly inert social tissue. Utilising
this idea of continuity between DNA and language is central to the destruction of the
theistic account of society and the imposition of a scientific account of society in its
place.
The thread of human nature appears in the form of a social identity that
constitutes a core identity along which beads of identity are strung. The Jews are the
thread and the various bodies with whom they have been, and are associated with, are
the beads. We have already spoken of the exoskeletal social forms in terms of beads
strung through time in a three dimensional social array, here we are seeking to
associate the cultural identities in terms of their names, Egyptian, Roman, American
and so on, with these cultural forms that constitute the social array so that we have a
sense of the whole social process moving forward through time in accordance with
the dynamics of biological evolution and in terms of the social forms as we know
them. We have already noted that Judaism has woven the thread of human nature into
the inner being of its culture, giving the name Zionism to the drive of human nature
toward a corporate form as recognised in Organicist thinking. So when we mention

134
identity in relation to this thread of continuity created by the evolved form of human
nature then, in our extant world, Judaism is that thread, Judaism is human nature
made actual. And this interesting given that all so called science denies the possibility
of even recognising human nature. Not only can we real scientists say what human
nature is, we can point to it, in the real world, actualised in its purest physical form,
the form of Jewish culture.
Lets just intercede here with a general thought about the actualisation of the
ideal that is represented by the nature of form.
Form actualises the informative ideal in a none ideal, that is to say, in an
actual representation. The nature of a form is, in other words, the ideal of the form
that is realised in nature. The nature of a form is eternal, it is the essence of the form
that can be actualised in a series of none ideal representations, all of which carry the
essence of the ideal they represent. It is the limitations of our sense of conceptual
perception realised through language that requires us to utilise these alternative modes
of expression concerning the ideal and the actual, the nature, that is, and the form of
reality, if we want to understand reality and be able to create a model of reality using
linguistic representation in the form of knowledge. We must try and understand the
relationship between these ideas of the ideal and the physical in terms of our use of
the idea of human nature as the core of our being, which gives rise to all that we know
of ourselves if we are to understand our being in terms made available to use by
modern science that have hitherto understood in terms of ancient mythology. Human
nature is the ideal, an ideal realised in actual social forms that transform their
appearance over time but always retain the same core nature, the same ideal of
corporate being that is human nature, that is the human ideal. This human ideal is not
of our making, it is not a personal ideal, indeed I, for one, personally abhor it, it is
however who we are, whether we like it or not. Who wants to be a cell within a body,
a robot? That is why those knowledge forms that imbue a liking of the ideal, or at
least an acceptance of it, an obedience to it, come to rule our world. Not because we,
as conscious beings, like these knowledge forms, these mythologies, these religions,
or because we desire them. And this is why we find contradictory strains running
through this scientific work dealing with human nature, the most glaring contradiction
of all being that here I am, the ultimate individualist, making the greatest possible
denial of individuality, an effort being made in defence of individuality! Most odd,
but nonetheless logical for all that.
It may be argued that to set Judaism upon a pedestal by making it the
actualisation of human nature precludes the logic of the attempt to destroy Judaism
that goes along with this argument. But this logic would be farcicalhence we must
expect the theist to rely heavily upon itand hence we may as well consider it. The
simple answer to this dilemma is to consider the nature of an ordinary physical form
such as that of a mode of transport. All modes of transport are of the same nature, be
they legs, horses, cars, trains, boats, planes or space shuttles. If we destroy one
ubiquitous mode of transport such as the horse by discovering another alternatively
ubiquitous mode of transport such as the car, then we do not lose something, we
merely alter something at the heart of our being. To recognise what Judaism is in
reality is certainly to set in train the destruction of Judaism, but a train of destruction
that is creative, not destructive, because it opens the way to a move forward toward a
new expression of that which Judaism is, a new actualisation of human nature upon a
platform wholly different in form to that which human nature realised through
Judaism.

135
 We have said that by identifying the nature of human nature and utilising the
clear statement of Susan Greenfield on the implications of being able to do this we not
only confirm her insight but we actually go further and recognise the existence of
human corporate nature in animals that existed millions of years before humans
evolved. This seems illogical, but the conflict lies in the operation of language, it
does not indicate a flaw in our Organicist understanding of reality. Language initially
identifies discrete material forms according to our ability to identify them sensually,
but with increasing knowledge of factors beyond the immediacy of the senses material
forms become less fixed than their labels suggest. Even the bipedal gate that evolved
millions of years ago was an expression of human nature, since this development
evidently took place in direct response to the impulse to generate a corporate form of
mammal on the basis of anthropoid physiology as the incipient corporate nature of
mammals emerged toward its culmination in human form. We have also noted the
same dynamic concerning the emergence of Judaism in that we recognised that where
the human fauna made of patchwork of small superorganic bodies across a terrain
reinforced by racial identity, it was the evolution of the intimate bond with the
territorial environment culminating in the formation of a key to unlock the ecological
gate and release the potential of human corporate nature onto a new energy level that
ignited the Zionist impulse driving the homogenisation of the patchwork mosaic of
globally dispersed superorganisms that has been proceeding ever since in one form or
another; ignition having occurred in several places. Thus the Zionist impulse is an
expression of human corporate nature that is personified in the Jewish mythology of
global domination under one identity that can be seen operating thousands of years
before the Jews existed, and is found in many different places. It is useful to our
understanding of Organicism’s argument to attempt a clear statement of the manner in
which we see human nature represented through time by stating explicitly what the
seemingly contradictory facts concerning human evolution mean, so that we have a
readily understood conception of the idea we are talking about in terms of the real
world we inhabit.

From the foregoing we can infer that human nature always finds expression
through a core medium of identity from which spurs of identity evolve. So that white
skin, for example, must represent a major break with black skin occurring in
conformity to this law of human nature. And the multitude of white identities
represent the beads making up the local human superorganic fauna generated in the
aftermath of white skin's evolution. And this process of creating human faunas based
on a common pattern of social being can be followed into further levels of delineation
with the European races which evidently evolved a further level of definition of
superorganic faunal populations by way of hair colour, acting as a mode of extending
territorial definition on a racial basis. But the whole process of increasing definition
can be reversed by shifting the thread of continuity onto a higher energy level,
represented in the macro world of material structure by new fundamental sources of
energy and the more complex forms through which they are realised. This is what
happened in transport when the exoskeletal form shifted from a domesticated organic
form, in the shape of the horse, to an artificial organic form in the shape of the heat
engine which powers a car. This shift in energy levels is also evocative of the ideas
used in relation to molecular structures whereby electrons define universal elements
in terms of the levels of energy occupied by electrons orbiting inner cores, cores
which also alter their form according to the electron array surrounding them.

136
 In terms of the standard evolutionary theory that speaks of the survival of the
fittest in a challenging environment, when applied to the context of the human
superorganism where the environment becomes part of the organic being of the
species, and we find that the species retains its genetic integrity, each discrete pocket
of superorganic form represents a focal point of evolutionary potential that, if realised,
can impact on the whole species. In terms of life on earth this retention of species
integrity across all environmental zones seems to be the one special and unique
feature of the human species. The retention of species identity within one generic
form incorporating the ability to evolve different organic forms through the medium
of linguistic information is what makes human superorganic form unique; but it is still
entirely biological and natural. The priest has utilised this uniqueness to underpin the
Biblical idea of human divinity which says humans make themselves rather than
being obliged to evolve in obedience to the demands of the environment. But the
developments that ensue as a result of linguistically driven evolution still follow the
same mechanistic pattern as occur in any species. Which is why we find humans
invariably destroying the environments they depend upon, because the environment
has become an intimate part of their living being, and so it too must eventually die
along with the superorganism that grows and consumes its environment in the act of
living. And this purely natural dynamic driving human existence today as much as
ever, is why we also find humans engaging in interminable wars between the
alternative pockets of creative evolutionary development.
The human species constitutes a genetic unity that dispersed about the globe
with the physical characteristic of an amorphous form able to fit any territorial
location. The common genetic origins of this amorphous being meant that it evolved
from a point source and dispersed throughout the globe in the form of a variegated
organism, with the latent potential to form one integrated global organism from the
outset. It is inherent in the nature of the process that such a creature would have to
expand into all territorial niches and stabilise to a point where the pressure of its latent
potential to begin going global would be released by competition. So in the early
stages preceding the initialisation of global ignition this inherently global species had
to appear as a pattern of incipient superorganic beings, each one with the ability to
ignite into an active mode of superorganic development, providing it evolved the
linguistic routines that alone could make the energy available from the environment to
release the inherent potential of the species that each localised pocket of cultural
diversity held within its genetic make up.
Summed up in terms of an evolutionary mechanism the unique feature of the
human species is its intra-specific mode of evolution, that derives from its evolution
of an incipient superorganic form that relies upon language to generate the infinite
series of keys that unlock that superorganic potential by enabling the organic
foundation to merge ever more intimately into the physical environment and to
become at one with the environment in the process. This series of infinite keys is a
euphemism for that which is known as the artificial, or cultural products of human
effort, what Organicists identify as the elements of exoskeletal structure. Whether we
are thinking of the creation of tools, the use of fire, or the development of the heat
engine not so long ago, the dynamic consequence is the same. The unlocking of
energy potential by these ‘keys’ empowers the residents of the zone of origin where
this development occurs, and this empowerment reverberates around the extent of the
species open to the impact of the creative event that has unlocked the particular
ecological gate in question. So we have intra-specific evolution whereby focused
shifts in the form of inner structure impacts upon the shape of the whole structure.

137
This basic pattern of structural dependence cannot be any different to that which
shapes any ecosystem that is made up of a variety if interdependent species, the only
difference is that with a superorganic species the dynamic is turned in on itself so that
the species becomes its own environmental sphere where the evolutionary process
develops the one central species, not an array of species. So instead of an array of
species informed by the nature of the shared ecological niche, we have an array of
social structures informed by the integral nature of the one species.
A true account of evolution then involves populations emerging toward a
potential benefit induced by a pool of latent energy potential. Evolution does not
occur by way of a chance advantage occurring in the genetic pattern of individuals
which just happens to mean that the individual survives and gets to breed when
selected by the competitive dynamics of the environment. Life just is not like that.
Expressed in personalised terminology, the potential for genetic change is not a
device for escaping danger, it is a mechanism for exploiting opportunity. The
Darwinian model is plain stupid. If we think in terms of localised representatives of
one form finding themselves drawn toward exploiting a localised potential and then,
as a result of evolving to exploit such a potential they find they come to possess a new
attribute that amounts to them having become part of the isolated pool of energy
potential, then it follows that these newly formed representatives of a species will
expand outward from that focal point. Thus in some localised spot cartilaginous fish
acquire hard bone that allows them to exploit some specific niche in a more efficient
manner. Next, equipped with this new body plan, bony fish disperse into the territory
occupied exclusively by cartilaginous fish by evolving elaborations on the bony
theme to exploit a zone which in terms of boniness becomes a latent pool of potential
energy because there are no newly evolved bony fish occupying that environment.
In the cultural domain the same dynamic applies. Once a culture has evolved
the heat engine under the direction of localised forces making such a development
possible, the focus of energy potential upon this new form of energy exploitation
automatically transforms all other discrete cultural enclaves of the species into latent
pools of energy potential relative to this new cultural attribute. And sure enough the
whole world has come to be dominated by cars because of the biological dynamic that
causes attributes to be distributed throughout the biomass of the species due to its
genetic integrity which defines the human as a superorganism that merges with its
environment. So although we have shifted our emphasis away from the individual
mutation to the group living in an environment with a latent potential for energy
exploitation, we still admit the basic dynamic of competition. Except competition is
now understood in terms of energy dynamics. So that evolution is seen as a process
that occurs as forms evolve in relation to pools of latent energy potential whereby,
once a form has evolved, it constitutes a gateway allowing energy to flow through the
medium of the form itself toward the wider pool of energy at a lower level of potential
relative to the form that composes the gateway. That wider pool being the universal
form of the species based upon the genetic integrity of the superorganic form. Hence
in the case of the heat engine the car that arose as a result of its evolution constituted
an ecological gateway through which energy released by this form of transport could
flow in the direction of the universal form of the species, through which this organic
form of the car evolved as an attribute of the animal’s exoskeleton. Added to this we
must note that as many factors were involved in realising this localised evolution of
form we call the heat engine, in terms of cultural factors, so this means that as the
energy pours through the ecological gateway of heat engine so its draws along with it
many of the relevant attributes of cultural form that are associated with it. Keys and

138
gateways, it is all about these; and while the environment constitutes the gateways,
and the attributes of the life form constitute the keys, the relevance of this model of
reality comes from the fact that energy shifting through matter in accordance with a
pattern of informationlight waves, genes, languagedetermines the totality of the
material system we experience. Physics, biology, culturedid we miss anything?
The kind of energy shift from one discrete level to another that is implicit in
the dynamic model set out above is what occurred under the auspices of Judaism as
Judaism itself came to the fore as the leading element in human cultural evolution that
defined the globalising human superorganism. Judaism must of been one in a series
of evolving forms being realised on a new pan-cultural level based upon the energy of
mythological linguistics and its associated engine of exoskeletal institutions, all
arising on the foundation of a key that opened all ecological gates, a master key
indeed, one key that made the idea of one god almost mandatory. That ecological
master key was of course a fully agrarian system of subsistence. One such social
engine of a similar kind to Judaism, in that it was a master identity, but came from an
earlier time and was replaced by Judaism, was Druidism. Druidism must of had its
roots running back to the metal working Beaker cultures of the archaeologists and the
monumental stone culture of prehistoric Europe which is associated with this priestly
cult. Druidism evidently represented the identity of the exoskeletal form of these
powerful technological societies that built monumental stone structures on an
elaborate plan evidently invested with an immense amount of complex knowledge
about the environment they were merged into by their superorganism’s mode of
drawing subsistence from the earth; exoskeletal structures that were the physiological
counterpart to our churches, mosques, parliaments, courts, schools and so on that
Jewish priestcraft imposed upon Druidic territories after they exterminated these
ancient priests. On this basis Stonehenge can be described as a component of the
Druidic social engine. But Judaism evolved into a more finely tuned social engine,
and for this reason it overtook and consumed the social organism formed by Druidism
in the species wide race to form an ever bigger social organism.
The strange notion of perfect form evolving by means of an infinite series of
minuscule chance events is precisely the question that Creationists query most
reasonably concerning the Darwinian model of evolution. How does something as
perfect as an eye arrive fully formed and never appear in any imperfect state? The
answer is that it evolves in a series of imperfect stages through a long series of distinct
forms each more complex in its structure overall than its predecessor, and each
perfectly suited to the place it occupies in nature. However the point by point
difficulty associated with the random selection of genetic mutation as a means of
building organic forms that are each perfect in their own right still nags. The problem
exists because of the central need for Darwin to ensure that his mythological account
of creation in life did not scupper the mythological account of creation as the Bible
applied it to man. With the true account of man provided by the Organicists of
Darwin’s day the problem of this mythological conflict does not arise since atheism is
implicit in true science and the Organicists addressed this issue by trying to formulate
a natural religion to substitute for the socially essential moral component of Judaism
that they accepted without question was, as it appeared embedded within the Biblical
matrix, lost in the light of modern knowledge. What they did not realise was that the
functional essence is only part of the story and that the mass and the essence together
are the basis of an elite social structure that rules society, so there was a battle to be
fought with authority in order to allow science to bear fruit according to a free
investigation such as they thought they were engaged in. This naivety cost these

139
people their objective, and threw humanity back into the dark ages where we all
wallow now; a world in which all that humanity exists to serve the Zionist objective
of a world run by Jews, as we can see in the ceaseless wars that have gone on in the
name of Judaism since the close of the nineteenth century right up to the present.
But aside from this moral dilemma there was nothing stopping a true scientist
from recognising a process in nature that was an analogue of the uniquely human
behaviour we call ‘purposeful’ that the Jews have made their own. Thus by
recognising that imperfect eyes evolve initially as a poorly organized collection of
light sensitive cells connected with other cells able to interpret the input as
environmental information, so that an organism by evolving new attributes relative to
the environment it lives in thereby comes into being by climbing an energy gradient,
we can see how the automatic reduction of the relative environmental energy gradient
surrounding such an organism induces forms possessed with light sensing cells to
disperse via the evolutionary process that selects advantageous genetic mutations in a
progressive series of structural developments facilitating merger with the surrounding
pool of relatively low energy, where the consequent variety of forms compete with
each other on the basis of the possession of eyes and so form a food chain in the
ecological niche they share. Thus the old difficulty of the Creationist is completely
negated since we have a smooth model of evolution in life that is at all times
commensurate with the idea of progress that we so adore in ourselves courtesy of the
Jewish priest. And so we do away with this rankering feature of Darwinism which no
matter how it is accommodated could never make sense on any intuitive level, and
needed some considerable brain ache to try and comprehend, this despite the
fundamental nature of the difficulty concerning progress and its pervasive relevance
to all life. What is the use of a theory of creation that does not make perfect common
sense when properly formulated? All scientists know that the beauty of any
formulation of reality is the harmony revealed in the end product. There is self
consistency in Darwinism which is beautiful and therefore constitutes a winning
formula, except this harmony ends completely when Darwinism meets modern
humans. One of the predominant themes of nineteenth century philosophy is that of
the idea of progress which we can see was pertinent in an intellectual environment
that was wrestling with the issue of life’s natural origins and the human place in this
picture. Herbert Spencer, the leading British representative of the Organicist school,
although he was a traitor to the cause, produced a work entitled Progress: Its Law and
Cause which appears in volume one of his essays first published in 1857, although it
has to be said that a quick look at a bibliography of Spencer’s work indicates there is
not much Spencer did not write about, still progress was a major theme in nineteenth
century Europe’s intellectual circles. Progress and evolution went hand in hand to
these people, but in making the connection between the two they projected the idea of
human social progress upon the natural process of evolving complexity and diversity.
Hence events such as world wide warfare that broke out decades later threw the whole
construct of progress into disrepute. Such difficulties do not arise with a real
scientific analysis of creation that embraces all facets of existence including the
human, because progress in the scientific context has no moral dimension, it is simply
a facet of the physical universe. Increasing complexity arises as living matter
gravitates toward localised pockets of energy that constitute an untapped source of
potential energy relative to the life forms juxtaposed with these locations. Once life
forms have adapted to such sources of energy they explode outwards from their point
of origin in the form of a newly constituted organisms. Species are therefore in some
respects like point sources of ripples occurring in a sea of energy that is the material

140
universe, forever coming and going and causing one another to ripple in and out of
phase as the ripple they produce transmits the energy around the biomass that is the
sum of all life on a planet, a biomass that therefore equates to this particular ocean of
energy in which life forms make waves. Could we find a more intimate way than this
of expressing the unity between life and the none living environment that was torn
asunder by the violence of Judaism as personified in the Darwinian account of
creation? I do not think so.
Today a special effort on behalf of the scientific establishment has ensured
that race is an unapproachable subject, from any angle other than the theistically
formulated one that is pumped out by the scientific establishment in obedience to its
political master's unabashed requests. And we can see why this should be, for to
interpret the meaning of race is to interpret the meaning of religion, because this is
what the shift to a new energy level of social formation centres upon in our case, a
shift from race to religion as a power base of identity. To recognise the nature of race
and so religion, is the same thing as recognising the nature of humans. Each whole
set of ideas stands together like a pack of cards, you either have God as the centre of
social gravity, or you have the superorganism recognised by real science as the key to
every idea concerning human existence. The general significance of race is
mentioned in Bagehot, if I remember correctly, and it is implicit in his discussion of
collective identity. We might say that racial identity is a good example of the all
important sense of collective identity founded on a poor basis; poor that is in contrast
to the power generated by a cross racial religious formula. If we shift forward to a
couple of decades after Bagehot we come to a Scottish anthropologist who seems to
of favoured the organic method, he appears to of been a good friend of Morley
Roberts, and he gives us the logical formula for recognising the real nature of racial
identity. The argument is to be found in Ethnos or the Problem of Race, Sir Arthur
Keith, 1931, in which he puts together the simple facts of the matter. The same
argument was also advanced in an address to the Royal Anthropological Society given
by Keith, as president, in 1916, in which he utilises his highland origins as an example
of the tendency toward localised differences induced by psychological factors of
human disposition. Since we known that races when given the opportunity to mix
produce mixed races, and never remain purea white and black couple interbreeding
do not produce either a pure white or pure black childit follows that some barrier
must of preserved the distinctiveness of races that were found to exist everywhere
people looked when Europeans first travelled the globe. Since the delineation of race
could be attributed to no physical factors Keith reasoned that the only possible
explanation for the existence of racial types had to be derived from the interaction of
two factors, one physical, liable to produce racial variation due to isolation, and one
psychological, inducing the condition of containment. This is it in a nutshell and it is
so simple, so straightforward, so utterly impossible to question or refute, it only
requires to be researched and understood. This of course was not done, this scientific
approach was squeezed out by the theocracy and has never been heard of since, and
no modern day academic would dare resurrect it, I am sure.
Keith did not know what the factors responsible for racial diversity were, the
ideas, new at that time, regarding hormonal secretions seemed to him to be a likely
candidate; which goes to show how handicapped people of this generation were in
terms of comprehending the true organic nature of the human species. Clearly the
psychological impulse to keep to your own kind was a means of creating a
superorganic form, but one that is plastic and capable of being the foundation of
structural development given suitable conditions. Modern religion is a linguistic

141
phenomenon that belongs inherently to the domain of the superorganism as we know
it, and it is the means of creating such an organism. This dualistic dynamic as defined
by Keith, if applied to religion, something he of course did not do since no
anthropologist would dare interrogate religion to the point of making belief in God
impossible, sets the scene for the evolution of ever more effective religious identities
capable of acting as the creative bond in the evolution of those increasingly powerful
structural forms of social being that we know as societies.
And from the above we have a brief summary of the nature and origin of the
master race, the Jews, as we know it today.

16/12/04. Blunkett is gone, excellent. There goes a man we could all hate
with good reason, an enemy of freedom, a natural enemy of civilised people; and of
course, as such, a devout Christian, a robot, a slave of Judaism. What kind people
with sight would tolerate a blind man leading them? It says something about the
social world of such animals as this that they do not consider sight a prerequisite of
understanding the world they live in. How can you be a minister for education if you
cannot see a school, see a pupil, see a teacher! Yesterday in a morning chat show on
current affairs, The Wright Stuff, they were discussing hair, and how people were
defined by their hair. A politician on the panel pointed out that it is a common
observation that we make up our mind about someone in the first five seconds of
meeting them. It is not for nothing that we do this, it is for a good reason, and a blind
person is locked out of this information. He cannot look at a public school with all its
rich facilities and see the power, he cannot look at a state school with all its
deprivation and see the misery. Yet they say Blunkett was close to the lower order
because he came from them. Yet he wanted to impose identity cards on people in
order to prevent terrorism. The man knew how to increase the sheepishness of the
lower order because he was from the lower order, he did not understand anything.
Life is a portfolio, as long as you can read it, and recite from it, hey baby, your
as good as the next man, or even better than one who cannot read from the hymn sheet
of authority. This blind minister of theocracy is just one small example of the
everyday evidence that proves the human animal is a superorganism. Even the sight
of an individual, by far and away their most valuable personal asset in terms of their
physical being, is meaningless in life beyond the personal realm of the everyday. And
this morning we have Blunkett's successor coming forward and saying he holds
identical views to Blunkett on all matters, and there would be continuity. Well, there
is a surprise. Identity cards, like terrorism, are organic phenomenon produced by
nature, not by individuals, and the continuity the incoming Home Secretary Charles
Clarke speaks of is not maintained by individuals, it is relayed by them. This allows
us to see how important terrorism is to our societyour superorganismand how
much we need terrorism, and so how much terrorism is the creation of our society,
part of our society. Because without terrorism we would have no need for identity
cards and, using these cards as emblematic of the nature of society, without a need for
identity cards we have no need for society. Identity cards are a symbol of authority
that personify our individual relationship to social authority, a needful relationship, in
which our need for protection from authoritythe authority of the terrorist in this
caseforces us to accept ownership by authority. Terrorism is society, society is
terrorism. And authority, whether it is the one that attacks us, or the one that protects
us is always the same, in our case it is always Jewish. Do you want to be eaten by the
masterful lion or the mange hyena? is the question authority always seems to be
asking of us. Bin Laden is as dedicated to the Zionist cause through the impress of his

142
Muslim identity implant as David Blunkett is dedicated to the Zionist cause by the
impress of his Christian identity implant; there is nothing to tell between them, they
are both equally devoted to the One, and driven equally and solely by the force of that
impression. One nice cop, one nasty; maybe, but, just like the real thing, this is a
descriptive, not a functional distinction for sure; all cops are nasty by definition, Who
wants to be policed?
I use to say as a youth that if identity cards came in I would not carry one. But
they were always inevitable, like cameras spying on us everywhere we go. The
organism cannot say no to this kind of exoskeletal rigour, although as a youth I did
not know why this spiral into the pit of slavery was so inevitable, why people always
relished this repulsive outcome in the long run, and never thought to put a stop to it in
any absolute and final sense. It is no wonder people believe in God, there truly is an
all powerful authority that you just cannot resist; mind you it does not help the effort
to resist when there are people going about saying this is so, and resistance is sin.
Continuity: one robot out, one robot in.

143
 Identity Gradient

And now we come to a very nice summation of much of philosophy's

explorations, for we can state precisely, in scientific terms, what morality is as a
functional device, and fit morality into a biological structure. That is to say, we can
make the evolution of religious morality a behavioural product of human superorganic
physiology. We have already considered the manner in which mores act as a means
of control, setting universal standards which all others are obliged to conform to. We
discussed this in relation to the modern fascination with animal rights where urban
dwellers attack countryside culture because they have no material interest in animals
so they are free to make use of them instead as sentimental emblems of their social
power, and certain cute species are made tools of international social warfare of the
same kind because their cuteness invokes an empathetic emotion which humans
evolved precisely in order to sustain corporate unity. It does not matter what these
standards are, to echo Bagehot's point concerning the necessity of unifying
mechanisms of identity in human groups. Standards can be good, bad, or indifferent
from an intellectual point of view, all that matters is that these standards of behaviour,
that oblige people to conform to a common pattern exist in some form, in order to set
a parameter within which people can know who they are, or should be. This explains
many of the ugly rights we find expressed in all human societies, from ritual slaughter
revealed in bog burials in Europe to elaborate acts of torture utilised in Central
American organisms, down to witch burning in pre-modern times. And, on the good
side, there are the acts of immolation of court retinues, participated in willingly by the
victims who were buried alive with their king as revealed by the archaeological
researches into ancient Sumerian culture, and, persisting into our own time, the idea
of a divine person coming to save humanity by getting himself nailed to a lump of
wood. All very bizarre and incredibly primitive to the modern mind, but functionally
identical in biological terms as these behaviours generate and express the unity of the
organism in a forceful manner.
These intense social behaviours trigger responses in the nervous tissue of
individuals that inevitably induce an instinctive emotional reaction that galvanizes
individuals into forming the fabric of the true human organism. From this biological
explanation we can understand the ubiquity of human sacrificial behaviour. But the
point is that sacrificial behaviour is biological, it is not done by people for any reason
they understand directly for what it is. The examples just described are obvious acts
of sacrifice, but they were presumably experienced as real events with real meaning
attached to them when they were carried out, hence the apparent willingness of people
to die alongside their lord in his tomb. Today the collective mindset is different and
the unifying trigger cannot be fired in this manner as an overt act of sacrifice. The
required galvanizing effect has to be realised in a manner we all believe because we
take it at face value due to the sheer intensity of the horror and enormity of the event,
a manner which has meaning for us, but still serves the same unifying function of any
act of ritual slaughter. And from this understanding we can see that the effects of
such sacrificial behaviours are precisely what we experience through acts of terror.
September eleven, Bali nightclub, Madrid railway station, all the victims of these
atrocities are in reality sacrificial victims who were slaughtered in a ritualistic act
invoking the integrity of the global organism in the name of Judaism, or Zionism if
you prefer. This is the true nature of these acts of terror, they are sacrificial acts of a

144
purely biological kind, a natural response of the human organism as determined
strictly by Nature in its mastery of who and what we are.
And have we been galvanised? Have we ever. The good cops are stepping up
to their podiums with a new sense of vigour and delight as never before, spreading
their odious messages of love in the aftermath of their brethren’s performance of the
sacrificial acts that have called everyone’s attention to the master identity. Sacrifice is
of central importance in Judaism, it always has been, it still is. What else do you
think a suicide bomber is if they are not a sacrificial victim of the Judaic cult of global
domination? A murderer, did I hear you say? Well of course you think this, because
you are a dupe of the same cult. The circle is closed for you because you are trapped
on the inside. Although, coming back to the point just made, the fact is that these are
terrible acts, with horrible consequences, so they push past any calm analysis that
might dismiss this fact, such as we have been indulging in here, they force themselves
upon us by virtue of a meaning we can hardly deny in terms of the sheer cruelty of the
result. And I think we can be sure that if this argument were in the public domain the
priests would wheel out the real victims of the atrocities we are being so blasé about
and give them access to the media where their ‘self evidently’ independent outrage
would descry, and so deny, our rationale on the basis of the emotional impact these
people had endured. In other words the theocracy responsible for the terrorism in the
first place that we are uncovering here would use the natural sense of individuality of
their victims, that is inherent in our individual physical being, to defend themselves
from the charges. And it is the illusion of individuality that would make all parties
agree with the victims and the priests and lead to an attack on the only honest person
trying to destroy the illusion in which everyone is complicit, where they all see the
naked King’s fine suit of clothes woven from nothing but words.
But one simple thing is key to grasping the sacrificial significance of what we
call acts of terror, the anonymity of these actions. Anonymity puts us all in the frame,
and this effect is what should really give the game away for all who read these words
and have difficulty connecting with the reality of what they say. Think about it, is it
not true that anonymity is the really potent aspect of acts of terror, what really gives
the horror a sense of fear and so puts the T in terror? This could be us, we are all part
of this. Well, this is what defines these acts as sacrificial, how else would you make
sense of such random acts of murder? They must have an objective, so what is it?
Reverse the logic of the idea of anonymity which names no one. By naming no one
you name everyone, just the thing to qualify a job well done as an act of sacrifice to a
cause that embraces everyone; and that cause is the fulfilment of the imperative of
human corporate nature that is expressed through the Zionist culture of our living
superorganic being. First the priests enact the sacrifice, then they perform the act of
worship. Certainly we could develop an historical account of these behaviours and
trace the rise of terrorism in the modern age culminating in the new and unexpected
phenomenon of global terror, appearing almost farcical in its insanity like something
out of a James Bond movie, and reminding us of Hitler’s deranged ambitions. But in
the end this behaviour has to be made sense of because it is real and not fiction, and it
only makes sense as an expression of our species’ organic nature as set out in this
piece of work. Theists love to sentimentalise over the question why an all powerful
God allows evil in the world, but as scientists we need to ask seriously why these
behaviours occur because they are of considerable importance to our subject of
concern, which is human nature.
Clearly there needs to be an object of identity associated with such mores to
identify the being that moralistic limits define, giving shape to a form that people

145
identify themselves with as they take on the moral attitudes of their cultural kind.
This social situation is exactly as Keith tells us must pertain in respect to the creation
of racial types but the dynamic is equally applicable in relation to social types. In the
case of racial identity it is the visual stimulus of race, culture and speech that together
provide the conscious element that we call identity, that people come to know as
themselves. In the case of linguistically defined superorganic bodies, created through
the limits sets by mores, it is the religious identity that embodies these mores, that
takes the place of racial physiology as the medium of corporate identity to which
people feel consciously attached. A variety of visual clues supplant the racial image
and from this we may surmise a reason for the evolution of clothes wearing behaviour
in mammals that initially became hairless as a means of expressing their corporate
identity. Clothes provide a dress code of cultural identity identical in its nature and
function to skin colour, but amenable to the linguistic mode of generating organic
structure in the exoskeletal framework of superorganic being. Religion has evolved
visual clues to its identity as decorative features of the exoskeleton that religion gives
rise to, in order to provide a living support for its moralistic foundations that inject
rigour into the living tissue of the biomass, because the human animal evolved to the
point where moralistic religions took over from racial identities in the formation of
corporate being. Racial identities being heavily dependant upon visual clues
moralistic religion could not simply cut itself off from this mode of transmitting
corporate identification, although the progressive evolution of religion has been
associated with the dropping of visual symbolism and the placing of emphasis upon
moral ideology, and by knowing what human nature is we are able to state in purely
biological terms why this happened, as we have just demonstrated.
It is interesting to consider the nature and function of global capitalism in
relation to the above discussion as this economic process is diffusing a uniform
cultural identity around the entire globe that encroaches upon every conceivable
aspect of social life, and delivers the basic Western model thereby, bearing in mind
that Western means Jewish at its core. The development of such an economic process
provides the means by which the Jews farm host societies by delivering a cultural
structure fabricated through law, economics based on money being a secondary
product of law. We have no readily available way of knowing the actual people who
take the decisions that determine how we live our lives in terms of the finest details of
what we will eat, do for our leisure, watch on TV, and so on, these people are the
heads of corporations disbursed all around the world. What are the names and
addresses of the people who took the decisions that meant the destruction of the only
focus of community in my area some ten years ago, the vibrant and popular local pub,
which was erased as a public resource to be turned into a family friendly facility
catering to children, thereby losing any potential to act as a social venue for the
community at large? They probably live in Honk Kong, New York, London and so
on, they may as well live on another planet from my point of view but they determine
the most intimate and important aspects of my life, and yours too if you dare admit it
to yourself. Six million pounds is being spent on the local shops right now, today
being 18/04/05, another vital component of the local infrastructure, and very nice too
you may say. But the people who own the shops are based in London, the other end
of the country, and who the hell ever asked them to update these shops, we all liked
them as they were? Now they want to change the name of the buildings and they
have invited the locals to offer input, isn’t that nice, the livestock get to have a say in
the naming of the troughs they are fed from! After more than sixty years of cricket on
television it was announced yesterday, 16/12/04, that we will no longer be able to see

146
any cricket on public television ever again, something decided by just such faceless
people working the machine that farms society. Cricket has now become part of the
farmer's portfolio of devices used for extracting power from the population. A new
example of this process of encroachment upon cultural forms, an example that is best
thought of as an expression of ethnic cleansing by stealth whereby the social farmers
substitute the multifaceted original form with a homogenised concoction of their own,
was brought to my attention last night, 15/12/04, by a piece in the news about the
spread right throughout the country of a Christmas pantomime company with all the
characteristics of a bland supermarket chain. This transformation had occurred in this
particular aspect of cultural expression because pantomime was easy to dumb down to
a common formula, such homogenisation being a central trait of all mega economic
structures that exist expressly to farm the community, resulting in a formula that
essentially consisted of putting a face from the television before the gormless
audience and dressing up the performance in some naff way, and taking the money of
course; it turns out that this genre of acting is highly lucrative. We must recognise
that this face of global capitalism is the exoskeletal structure of the Jewish
superorganism operating according to the capitalist principles that have long been the
foundation of Jewish cultural identity. The Christian rule that forced Jews to be
money lenders being the simplest example of the same attribute expressed at an
earlier phase of the global organism's growth. But specifically, in terms of our
discussion of identity, what this proliferation of a uniform global identity via the
process of global capitalism represents, is the Jewish organism evolving its
physiological identity on the back of this economic global expansion. This accords
perfectly with all that we have been saying about the organic process of growth
whereby form is imbued with identity as a living being evolves so that the information
of structure always carries content that is information of identity. We had something
to say about this when we spoke of the evolution of the heat engine at one point in the
global biomass, thereby lowering the latent energy potential of the rest of the global
biomass relative to this point of new development, thus lowering the energy gradient
between the territorial zones concerned. The result being that products of the heat
engine became keys unlocking an ecological gate through which energy had to pour
as these heat engine equipped forms spread throughout the biomass as a result of the
energy differentials involved in their evolution, carrying with them in the process
information of identity. Ultimately of course this Jewish expansion rides upon the
back of the successful trifurcation of its ideology into the forms of Christianity and
Islam. Therefore the macro scale impact upon the energy configuration of the
biomass induced by these religious identities act as terrain generating formulas that
uplift massive areas in a manner we see in terms of political differentials described as
first and third world relationships. Within this large scale social morphology then the
micro elements of energy dynamics associated with items of technological innovation
constitute rivulets running through valleys that are trade routes producing lakes of
cultural concentrations. As these effects disperse over time they eventually form vast
seas of cultural conformity to the One that is the source of religious identity at the
heart of the process, because religious identity is the expression of corporate identity
that is synonymous with human nature. And all the while the social terrain is subject
to the pressure of fresh inundations from new material impacting upon its exoskeletal
form that come from the unseen clouds hanging above the whole social biomass, so
that the flow in the process is forever carrying on in a form we see as progress driven
by innovation, but which is really evolution generating growth via the fluid-genetic
medium of linguistic information resident in the central knowledge structures of

147
command ruled by the theocracy from where the whole pressure of superorganic
being emerges in what we now experience as global capitalism. It is in the name of
Zionism that global capitalism is spreading in the soul destroying manner we all hate,
fear and loath, while we know there is nothing we can do to prevent this development,
and in fact, on the contrary, we must do all we can to aid the process. We are but cells
in an organism.
And we might just note here that this discussion of the role of leading
capitalists in the act of farming society is as close as we come to any sense of truth in
the idea that humans are self made creatures. To say this however is like saying that a
person who jumps eleven feet eleven and a half inches clears a twelve foot chasm
more nearly than the person who jumps five feet. True, but irrelevant, as both end up
dead the useful difference is none existent. And the same conclusion applies to the
proximity to truth achieved by way of this added degree of complexity in our
reasoning about the illusion of human self-madeness. Self-madeness is all illusion
irrespective of how nearly true one presentation of the illusion appears to be in
contrast to a less well developed argument. It is the control of the masses by an elite
acting in the interests of the elite that leads to society being formed as it is. Thus to
this extent we can say, in so far as an elite makes humans what they are, humans are
self-made. Christian and Muslim society is shaped as it is to serve the Zionistic force
imbued into the Jewish identity. Thus an alien identity, Judaism, is always on hand
within these societies to act remorselessly in favour of the natural force that an
organicist might call Zionism irrespective of any comparatively minor forces of
contradictory attractive effect created by alternative focal points of identity associated
with the localised structure of the Christian and Muslim slave units. This alien urge to
disregard localised cores of identity to which the alien is really oblivious is
overwhelmingly evident in our world of global capitalism that ceaselessly wipes out
any rich cultural heritage it can consume and supplant with a dross culture in the
name of global uniformity, the product of global capitalism is in other words Zionism
made real. And we should perhaps just note that each focal point of identity, from the
slightest position of authority existing in a small firm to the leadership of a state or a
kingdom, acts as a nerve centre relay point, the total sum of which points make up the
nervous tissue of the organism that carries the motive force of society toward the core
identity of Judaism. So within each aggregated element of social tissue there is an
alien core, so to speak, acting as a force focusing motivation upon itself before
relaying its load of motive energy upward toward the next level of the social
hierarchy. Money we may note is the exoskeletal form most obviously responsible
for this aspect of the organism's physiological processes, and this is why an animal
evolved the use of money. However it is only when we come to the final summation
of this dynamic in the identity of the Jews that we can justifiably use the term alien
for it is here that the ruling identity is completely hidden from us, while being at it
most forceful. And so we see why the idea of individuality which cuts the individual
off at all points from the next hierarchical element of superorganic being is central to
the evolution of the Jewish identity and the organism it gives rise to. If it were not for
the illusion of individuality we would always see the connection between the
economic detail and the final resting place of the energy accumulated by its
coordination. This obscuration of power reveals that it is energy that is transmitted by
money, the accumulation of money itself is not the object of the system, just as it is
the command of bodily energy that is delivered to the brain by the blood supply and
not oxygen itself, the brain is not a cavern for the storage of oxygen and the Jewish
culture is not a body for storing financial wealth, the brain and the Jewish culture both

148
constitute organs at the focal point of motivation that commands the focused use of
accumulated energy in each of their respective living systems. It is interesting to note
that in the Roman empire where the Jews relied upon the power of the Romans for
their freedom to farm none Jewish societies the Jews were allowed to send their crop
of wealth back to the temple in Jerusalem. So no matter how elaborate the intellectual
contortion that seeks to make people responsible for their own world it can change
nothing in the real account that says humans are as subject to the laws of nature as all
other life forms, for the behaviour of the elite is as much a product of the laws of
nature operating through humans as the behaviour of the domesticated slaves they
manage. There is no escape from the logic of biological science applied to human
society. So get use to it.
We must not leave this subject here however, for we live in a very interesting
time in respect to the observation of these superorganic dynamics of identity
manifestation. Having noted the so called progressive shift toward a more modern
ideological religion, less dependant on the rich display of symbols associated with
traditional Catholic belief, we cannot help being aware of the intrusion into our more
purely ideological society of the still crude and primitive Islamic symbolism at this
time. The regressive shift in the opposite direction that the ingress of Islam into
Europe represents would inevitably be noted by the pseudo social scientists as being
associated with the Moslem faith as distinct from the indigenous Christian practices,
and as such must be understood as simply different, and neither more nor less
primitive. However as real social scientists we know that both identities are identical,
both are simply hierarchical structures within the one Jewish organism. Therefore we
should not interpret this different expression of a common attribute as the
consequence of individuality pertaining to a group, but as the structural dynamic
relevant to the present state of the living organism as it exists on the European
continent, and in relation to the whole earth which has become this organism's natural
domain. The ingress of Islam is just that, an invasion, and as such it requires a variety
of strategies to support its progress. The virulence of the identity programme, as
expressed through the intensity of its symbolic display in the guise of personal
identity is required to be intense because of its aggressive nature. Such religious
intensity equates to a valid definition of primitive, in relation to religious belief. The
more intensely religious a body, the more socially and intellectually primitive its
adherents. The fundamentalist groups in America being a perfect example of the
primitive type existing in the modern world, they think that the Bible must be taken as
literally true despite its utter absurdity as a representation of reality. In the case of the
Muslims this aggressive aspect of their demeanour has resulted in the French passing
laws to control the overt expression of these intensely slavish attachments to religious
identity, in the circumscribed public space of their schools at least.
The display of extreme modes of religious identity that we see presented by
Moslems in Europe, the blanket cover of the female being the pinnacle of this identity
programme's enforcing devices, displays an act of assertion toward others and of unity
toward the kin of the identity programme concerned. As such it is identical in its
nature to the identity displays of any species on earth, only it has a special quality
because it is a medium of structural identity operating within the body of a
superorganism which takes shape at the social level of organisation. When in an alien
environment this presentation automatically serves as a militant display, one recently
backed by Islamic terrorists in Iraq who have threatened to kill hostages in the name
of reversing the French ban on wearing headscarves in school because they intuitively
understand the nature of their symbols of identity in the progress of their identity

149
programme's Zionist imperatives. They do not, however, understand the wider
implications of these display behaviours. They do not, for example, know they are
simply slaves to Judaism. To be aware of this would be counter-intuitive because it
would be to deny the identity you are prepared to fight and die for, that you think is
your own because of the programming your brain has undergone in the cultural
setting within which the individual mind's genesis took place. This is a political
interpretation however, the real scientific explanation is that the Jewish organism is in
a particular phase of growth at the present time, during which the spread of the third
tier of Zionism is overtaking the older second tier, and the virulence of the Islamic
display is a facet of the organism's growth necessary to this biological process of
transition. It makes perfect sense for growth of this kind to occur in a superorganic
species, growth in such an organism must come down to an expression of intense
identity in competition with a relatively weak identity, otherwise there is bound to be
trouble of a destructive kind. The war between the Japanese and the Jews represented
a clash between two absolutely alien identities and resulted in the supreme act of
aggression performed by any superorganism when the Jews dropped their new
weapon of war, the atomic bomb, on the innocent people of Japan. We can also relate
the ceaseless destruction of British identity orchestrated by the authority that rules
Britain, and this also applies to the rest of Europe, to the need for this growth process
to take place in order that Jewish authority can be maintained against the pressure
coming from the modern scientific world. Religion needs technology, always, to
build the exoskeleton it is associated with as an identity, but it never needs new
knowledge as distinct from technology since religion purports to be knowledge in its
purest form. The political word, or we can equally well say the theistic wordtheistic
and political are essentially words with identical meanings in terms of the social
organs they apply tofor this organic process is progress, the scientific word is
growth. And clearly, growth has to take place in living beings, or they die.
Fragmenting Britain's government will make it easier for Moslem strongholds to take
over the political control of regions and in three or four centuries time this will result
in the Islamification of the whole country, a must for the global progress of Zionism
as managed under the auspices of Jewish corporate identity. Meanwhile, in the real
time of our living existence we see this process occurring, we see programmes on
television about British Moslems revealing the powerful sense of identity these people
have, celebrating Islam and how it enriches our society. Contrasted with programmes
asking whether you even need to be able to speak English in order to be genuinely
English. This is an English television station effectively denying our existence, to our
faces! English, what the hell is that! Imagine if you were out in public and a person
walked up to you and acted toward your companions, your possessions or your person
as if you did not exist, and when you objected they looked at you as if to look through
you and said to your face "You, you don't exist". This is the kind of propaganda our
masters subject us to now! Stunning. Or it would be if we did exist. But of course
we do not exist unless our masters say we do, and what our masters say is that the
Moslems exist, and so they do, they say we English do not exist anymore, so we do
not.
There is no such thing as an individual, there is only the corporate being as
delineated by an array of structural identities. Only the Jews exist, and without their
permission, no other identity can expect to last long. The Palestinian identity, for
example, does not exist because it is being forged by the Jews as we speak, when the
Jews have finished the Palestinians will exist exactly as the Jews need them to exist,
just as the British and the Americans exist exactly as the Jews need them to exist. As

150
long as there are Jews this has to be the way because we are a superorganism created
by the sociogenetic material which carries the Jewish identity. All these television
programmes questioning British identity and boosting alien identities in the name of
multiculturalism are propaganda emitted at the behest of the core organ of linguistic
image manufacture, produced in spontaneous response to the decades of
transformation that our country has been subject to as the farmers of society wage a
war against the indigenous population. All the while the indigenous population dies
off as endless waves of immigrants infiltrate into the population and gradually, decade
by decade, the identity of the biomass is transformed; so then the immigration stops,
the job is done. It is not the first time the Jews have orchestrated this process in this
land, this was done when the Romans slaughtered the Druid priests and let in the
Jewish priests; but it may be the last. As such the present round of transformation
from Christian to Moslem is not quite an invasion in the sense that it would be in
China say. Britain is not virgin territory from the Jewish point of view, they already
rule this land, it is an invigoration, the nature of a superorganism, with its relatively
fluid structure, demands this kind of revitalising in order to remain vigorous. And
this fact of superorganic physiology explains why Judaism evolved to be as it is,
because Judaism's triadic identity structure is a more powerful expression of the
superorganic form where the life cycle of the organism does not have to undergo a
complete process of replacement such as we may suspect happened in the melting pot
of the Middle East where the Jewish identity programme evolved, time and time
again, before this modern form capable of retaining an inner core while reconstituting
its body, eventually came into being.
This is why when taken over a period of time exceeding the lifespan of
individuals moral sanctions change, and society can shift from deploring
homosexuality, for instance, to adoring it. The selection of the moral target cannot be
purely random, it must invoke emotional intensity, such as we see occurring in the
animal rights movement, but the process of selection certainly has no inherently
rational basis either. It is interesting to see the sights of moralists aimed at
paedophiles in recent decades since the loss of the homosexual target in the sixties.
We might now say the earlier target was facile as it was based on prejudice and had
no true moral rigour to it, whereas adults who favour children for sexual pleasure
always inflict definite harm on others. However at the time when homosexuality was
outlawed it too will of been spoken of in precisely the same terms we now apply to
the behaviour of men who like young boys or girls as sexual partners. There is
certainly a rag to pull at in these situations from our personal perspective, but it is not
all that it seems to be and the real reason an animal exists that engages in this kind of
moralistic behaviour is purely to do with the biological nature of the species. In a
religiously constituted organism these moral limits set the boundary of Keith's psychic
force which enables the organism to come into being on a scale that reaches beyond
the limits set by the physiology of race and locality, such as Keith discusses when
considering the problem of race. On BBC 2’s Newsnight last week, today being
17/04/05, the prospective African replacement for John Paul II was shown to us in his
pulpit from he told us that religion taught people to think of humanity as one so that
they were all the same irrespective of race or such like differences. Well so it does,
and now, thanks to our wonderful Organicist science, we can know precisely why. So
we do not have to put up with these charlatans who use the ignorance they generate
and perpetuate to inflict mayhem upon us in order that they can then be the mediums
of the message of unity that is supposed to save us from the disunity the same people
create freely whenever it serves their nefarious ends. We know why this religious

151
device is so popular with the people who rule the world by exploiting fractious
behaviour that their own armies create by shattering societies they do not control, so
that once in control they come in with their curative creed. Eh, what could be better
than to cure a disease that only you can cure? Judaism got there long before any
runaway Japanese cult ever woke up to the idea of poisoning the Tokyo underground,
and the Jews did the job right, they wrote a virus to poison the collective mind that
could only be remedied by becoming a slave of Judaism, by letting the virus take over
your being. Humans are cellular robots relative to the superorganism they must form
part of, and we all know that a virus spreads by taking over the command centres of
its host’s cells and utilising the machinery to its own ends. Which is Judaism in a
nutshell, or, in a mind-cell, more to the point. An African pope; two centuries ago
there were ten thousand African tribes forming a uniquely native human fauna suited
to the continent. The politics of Africa at the present time indicates that Africa is
coming into its own as the latest hunting ground for Jewish identity slaves and the
appointment of a black pope will be the sign that the job of enslaving Africans to the
Jews is well and truly sorted. Any idiot could of foreseen this outcomethe
appointment of a black popewell before the death of the pontiff who was drawn
from the theocracy’s communist territories for the same reasons of interest that
applied when Poland was yet to be let back into the first world domain as apply to
Africa today as so much emphasis is put upon the Jew’s continental territory of
African. Will he be black? They are meeting now, we shall see. 19/04/05 17:55:52
so much for my power of prediction, the pope is white, some fascist reactionary old
git. One robot out, one robot in.
Look at the appalling effect a Polish pope has had on Poland. The country
was deeply traumatized by the imposition of communism by the theocracy operating
in another guiseMarx’s communism being just another form of Judaismso they
were relieved to be freed from this misery in a process which presented the pope as
their saviour, while he was really only the benign face of the instrument of their
torture. Now Polish law forces all children to be made into slaves of the Catholic
church through their schooling, the exact opposite of the French position on religious
teaching in school. But whether for or against, whether communist or theistic,
whether Polish or French, religion always takes centre stage, it never just goes away.
So even here in these details of everyday state politics we see how the gradients of
identity are forever being subtly arranged and rearranged about the various
compartments of the one superorganic body that is always ultimately obedient to the
One, the Jewish master identity which remains at the core of all activity in the global
organism about which all things rotate.
In the above then, we have an account of the manner in which the organ of
authority acting upon the biomass over which it has influence, over time, induces an
identity gradient between portions of its body whereby the resulting distinct bodies
occurring within the total biomass defined by one authority, that are attuned to the
core identity programme, are facilitated in their development and movement. While
the inert portions of the total biomass occupying an established territory, which has
grown out of tune with the inner core identity, are made prone to the pressure coming
from the presence of the newly favoured portions of the biomass. So the inert bodies
are made porous by the dissolution of their sense of identity, and this may well
explain why the cultural revolution of the sixties was allowed to happen in the name
of freedom, when in fact the exact opposite was the case, it was about facilitating the
introduction of an even heavier yoke. The grip was loosened for a moment before
being tightened even more firmly. Hence we get comments from the arch priest Tony

152
Blair to the effect that the problems of youth today arise because a generation arose in
the libertine period of the 60’s and 70’s that renders them incapable of acting as
responsible parents today. They have an excuse for everything these damned priests.
The disarray in British society today that is epitomised in news reports on television
today, 18/04/05, about firemen being attacked by demented youths, is due solely to
the fact that our culture is being systematically destroyed by these people who have
the power to preach to us while we can do nothing to express ourselves or fight back.
Tell me, how do we get Islam out of these islands? Are any politicians dealing with
this question? Like hell they are, all three main parties have policies appealing
directly the Moslem voter we are told. Whatever happened to British secular society,
how can a secular party have propositions appealing to a religious enclave? And thus
a long established culture is infiltrated and supplanted by a process of organic
diffusion exactly as we have seen in many industrial areas of Britain, leading to
territorial pockets taken over by aliens determined to preserve their alien identity at all
cost, resulting in events like the race riots in the North West in the last couple of
years. In time, with regional assemblies the aliens will be able to develop their
positions of power and eventually the position of alienation will be reversed entirely;
and all by means of law, the fluid-genetic information units of social being. And what
do we get on Sunday morning with Frost, talk by priests of multiculturalism about
how British restaurants are the best in the world because of all the immigrants we take
in, do not talk about immigration being good but, the preacher said yesterday,
17/04/05, talk about immigration being good therefore!
Tosser, what world does he live in? Where is my English pub, where is my
English beer? That is what I want to know, not what some stuck up international jet
set think of the world’s face stuffing venues. “I know you feel as though your once
great country is lost forever, your culture dead and gone, your heart broken and your
life seems worthless but, there is a great restaurant just around the corner and they
take gold card and .........” Stuff your bloody restaurants I say. As we have noted, as
it was when the Jews were exterminating paganism in the Roman empire, the elite did
not mind, it was the plebes who resented the destruction of their lifestyles, and so it is
today. The usual attitude of the elite to a disgruntled populace sick of being abused is
to declare “Let them eat cake”, and we all know whose last famous words these were.
A nation’s culture is defined by what the plebes value, not what the elite patronise,
since by definition what the elite subscribe to is exclusive and not available to the
masses. Although it is amusing today to see the priests taking to football as a means
of ingratiating themselves with the plebes and trying to force the link in the other
direction by forever pushing their own form of masochism in the shape of opera on
the rest us. Spare me from them both, and give me my beer!
Things are what they are, but from a purely scientific perspective we must see
all these shifts in the biomass, including the extension of exoskeletal fabric in the
form of the heat engine and such like going one way, and the living tissue in form of
people and their culture going the other way, in terms of a physiological dynamic that
is all of a piece. All this motion comes together as an expression of energy
differentials created by the evolution of organic forms in an act that knits the fabric of
the superorganic being according to the code derived from the loom of language upon
which the pattern is woven, a loom that is created by our genes. Culture is not
chosen, it is given. Life is not a cultural supermarket from which we select our life
accessories, despite all the evidence that this is precisely what we think it is; if only.
The patterns woven into our lives are just as subject to the selective evolutionary
process as the forms that carry them, the two are inseparably linked.

153
 It is fascinating for me to think back to the discussions I vaguely recall having
as a young man in the 1970's, while passing through London on my way somewhere,
with young Arabic types, in which they eagerly told me how my society had become
decadent. I suppose the sixties era with its drugs and free love thing was the subject
of the argument. They were passionate, I, silent, intense in my concentration upon
what they had to say. I did not have a clue what they were talking about, I thought
that in our peaceful social revolution we were breaking free of an age old stranglehold
upon human society that had always been brutal and ignorant. I thought they were
full of shit. But in the light of the relationship of Islam to the Jewish superorganism
and the nature of the British identity relative to this organic conception of reality
presented here I see they were dead right, after a fashion, only I doubt they knew any
better than me why this was so. Of course our society was decadent, it was breaking
away from Judaism, these young Muslims were here to correct the situation, to return
the land to the master and make us all abject slaves once again. And a damn fine job
they have been doing ever since, if you like that kind of thing that is.
Crucial in this process of growth is the limit of individual comprehension of
these shifts in cultural attitude which are beyond the grasp of people due to the short
lives we live. Hence my puzzlement all those years ago, and the blind enthusiasm of
the young Muslims who had arrived to take over my country in the name of their
Jewish religious identity programme. This is why we would not normally be able to
see the blimp of sixties revolution as a trick performed on a collective scale like that
of a date rapist who slips their victim a micky before shafting their behind. Added to
which those professionals whose job it is to discern social patterns are obliged by the
theocracy to confine their examination of social dynamics to the interplay of
individuals so that, being without the organic method which recognises the seamless
connection running through all social events, the connections we have just pondered
cannot possibly even be entertained, never mind be rejected. How could people
organise these shifts in the superorganic fabric? People don't!! That is the point, they
occur spontaneously according the organic programme that is running, this is what
real sociologists would discover if such people existed.

Discussing this social phenomenon of migration in human populations,

operating as an intersocial dynamic in terms of identity gradients, as opposed to
territorial migration of populations into virgin territories such as the Americas over
ten thousand years ago or the Australian zone some forty thousand years ago, which
relocations were not intersocial and did not involve the dynamics of identity
gradients, at least in the complex form we seek to discuss here, immediately presents
us with the idea of social energy differentials, and makes social form subject to
technical analysis of a kind that can produce laws, in this case laws of identity
distribution and dynamics. Zipf adopted a similar dynamic approach to social change
operating according to an organic model, and we have been trying to symbolise the
detail in a more user friendly conception by making organic forms, including those
called artificial, into keys that unlock gates allowing forms to flow down energy
gradients from positions of high energy where these keys first evolved by a process of
evolutionary ascent, toward places of latent potential relative to the energy utilising
attributes of the new forms.
Being able to associate the transfer of energy in biological systems with social
identity means we can account for the ability of evolution to create those social forms
in human societies that we call cultural. By this means we make the material
connection between the normal legislative social laws acting as units of fluid-genetic

154
information, and the social forms to which they give rise, and the evolution of
language as we know it in our own kind via the action of DNA. This is all DNA ever
does, when reduced to its most simple conception, sets up energy differentials in
organic forms favouring one creative path over another, and therefore enacting an
energy transfer from one repository of organic energy to another form of being. In the
case we are concerned with now this means that within the organic form called
Jewish, the energy shift is from one hierarchical level called Christian to another
hierarchical level called Moslem. A shift induced by a combination of cultural factors
but central to them all is the structure of our society's law. These legally defined
dynamics cause an energy transfer, not one occurring directly via the information
medium of DNA, but through the linguistic information medium of the law of the
Jewish priestcraft. This leads to new social forms appearing in place of the old.
This dynamic description that we have just applied to modern social forms
applies equally to any ecosystem found in nature, where the energy gradient set up
between forms creates a pecking order from base organism to dominant organism
which can be understood in terms of base identity to dominant identity. In all such
living systems the dominant is dependant upon the existence of the base unit, and thus
it must of evolved in harmony with the continuing existence of the base identity. In
the case of a superorganism the process of evolution becomes inverted because the
organic environment specific to an organic kingdom itself becomes a resource of
latent potential available for life forms belonging to the particular animal kingdom in
question to exploit like any other physical domain. What happens is that the single
species becomes its own ecosystem as a mammal evolves to exploit the attributes of
mammalian physiology, but without diverging into new species. This amounts to the
evolution of life to exploit the domain of social being that life itself brings into being,
but exploitation within the incestuous confines of the one species; hence we get races
of human beings and not species of human beings, thus creating social structure
resulting in a superorganic being rather than ecosystems composed of many locally
adapted human species. This incestuous nature explains why you get strange
outcomes like sterile males who either do not mate, as in the case of insects, or who
mate with other males in sterile partnerships, as in the case of mammals (humans),
that in both cases have a specialised structural function that is an attribute of inner
structure applicable to a corporate social being. Human males having lost the
reproductive function of the drive which because of the psychological imperatives of
corporate identity of the kind discussed by Keith in relation to race, only this time
these psychological dynamics of corporate differentiation are attached to gender
identity rather than those of racial identity so that homosexuals inevitably form a
distinct class unto themselves which explains why they are sometimes in favour and
sometimes out of favour but never out of the collective sight or mind for long.
All these aspects of cultural dynamics can be accommodated within an
historical account. But history is merely an extension of Jewish priestcraft, and is self
evident nonsense as a method of explaining the events it processes, records and
presumes to discuss and analyse from the false premise of the individual as an end in
themselves. History is bit by bit block by block processing that denies causal
continuity of any absolutely deterministic kind in relation to human affairs. But is it
not inevitable that Africa, to pick up on a subject already raised in this chapter, had to
come under the dominion of the global hegemony centred upon Judaism so that in the
end the states of Africa created by Christian states, like the states of Europe before
upon which they were modelled, had to fall into line under the Christian and Moslem
slave identities? And if this was inevitable in terms of a millennial long process then

155
how can these changes result from an historical process reliant upon the individual
actions and motives of the people concerned? Clearly it is a charade to pretend this is
so and that behind this unfolding of history there does not lie some more fundamental
force, a biological force, the force we have been revealing throughout this work. For
sure the acquisition of an empire can be traced through a series of actions rendered in
terms of one state competing with another under the directorship of powerful
individuals and associations. But in the end these political events are meaningless and
soon slip into the past while the repercussions in terms of far more ancient features of
the historical record persist and make sense of these outpourings of energy on a
completely different level to that which history is permitted to consider due to its
denial of any existence beyond that of the personal. And turning to Darwinism with
its central premise of natural selection that has come to be linked to the bit by bit
chance mutation of genes we must see that this pseudo scientific model carries the
hallmark of Jewish historical priestcraft. Only now the purposeful direction provided
by human will is replaced by the selective power of the challenging environment.
They just jumble it anyway they want.

REAL ATHEISM REAL SCIENCE

156
 Social Gravity

While all Jews, of all kinds, would rush to the defence of Judaism, like
phagocytes converging on a gash in their master’s flesh, there is one kind of Jew that
would take up their crucial role in the defence of Judaism that we must take special
notice of in this scientific account of the human animal, this is the Nazi. Remember,
we are all Jews, whoever we may say, or think we are. The attraction effect, acting
like a gravitational force galvanises the social biomass so that it coalesces about one
focal point of true Judaic identity that is the Jewish identity and culture of the people
who call themselves Jews. Anti-Semitic behaviour has to be a normal part of Semitic
being from a biological viewpoint, just as each point of the force we identify by the
names 'north' and 'south' pole of any object carrying a magnetic force, no matter how
we name them for our convenience, have to be as much a part of the one as of the
other - north is south, south is north, as up is down and down is up. It is easy to see
the fine detail of the anti-Semitic organ working in favour of Jewish identity overall,
if we consider the impact of Hitler or the BNP on the societies in which they act.
Certainly social coordinates are of a different order of complexity to spatial
coordinates, but the fact is that society is an organism and the organism knows who it
is and what its structure is by virtue of the modes of differentiation associated with the
various functions attached to each element of the organic structure. The Nazi and the
Jew are in effect spatial coordinates of the superorganic being that is Jewish, and it is
via the interaction between these elements of the one living being that the overall
continuity of the organism is sustained under the one true identity of Judaism through
time. Hence the continuity of Judaism as such compared to the effervescence of Nazi
blooms of which the Nazi proper is only a representative of the kind.
The reason the attraction effect is gravitational is that its action has to do with
the nature of human identity. Because humans and ants have the same nature we can
extrapolate from ant society to human society in respect to macro social dynamics and
their material products. It is for this reason that Darwin did the theocracy such a vital
service by misdirecting our collective consciousness toward the apes as the source of
our kind, and therefore the place where we must look in order to scrutinise our natural
nature in relation to our evolution from within the natural world. The most crucial
common feature of ants and humans is therefore the fluid nature of individual identity,
that is as it is as a direct consequence of these specie's corporate natures.
Pupae raised as slaves in slave maker ant's nests have no way of knowing they
are other than they know they are from where they find themselves to be. By the same
token Jews and their sub-identity kin, Christians and Moslems, have no way of
conceiving of themselves as other than they are from where they find themselves
placed in society. Consequently like the Roman captive slave or American farmed
negro slave, raised from birth in alien communities, the Christian and Moslem identity
slaves find themselves in a culture to which they belong, but with a difference, where
the captive and negro still have a recollection of freedom in contrast to the Christian
and Moslem who are as robotised as the ants that live and die for the master that
enslaved them as if they were one and the same blood. This is the trick of Judaism
which indicates the true power of religion that makes religion the founding force of
civilization. Religion makes humans into perfect slaves, slaves that love their masters
and think of themselves as the personification of freedom. How the Christian loves to
sing of freedom, listen to Bush promote his war against terror in the name of freedom,

157
poor sad little peoplethe masters of the earth. The meek shall inherit the
earthNOthe slave shall inherit the earth, because it is this mechanistic mode of
individual being which will enable the greatest superorganic being to evolve. When
the unity between the implanted identity and the individual is near seamless all
individuals pull together, spontaneously creating the gravitational reflection effect that
creates a super massive social being. If the Nazi-Jew pulls against the Jew-Jew all
that happens is that all the nerves throughout the organism tighten in one direction.
Triggered by a common identity the biomass is pulled toward the Nazis problem in a
typical organic response toward an alien invader. Although the dynamics in this
particular situation are more complex than this, the Nazi being anything but an alien
invader in a Jewish organism.
But if identity slaves are a perfectly insinuated part of the greatest power on
earth, people that have all the wealth and everything everyone could want, as many of
us Westerners do, why are they slaves! Because they do not know who they are, it is
as simple as that. This is why we are taught Darwinian science instead of
Lilienfeldian science, because the one makes us slaves and the other sets us free. If
learning false knowledge is no problem to you because the wherewithal of life is at
your beck and call then so be it, in that case being a slave by virtue of ignorance is not
an issue. Indeed, to tell the truth, the final answer to all of this debate, and why the
stupidity of religion and the pseudo sciences that protect it works, is that most people
are complicit in the charade. If the necessities of live began to fade away support for
the theocracy would vanish in close order. But we cannot deal with this facet of
reality as we develop our argument since that is part of the dynamic of ignorance that
not only destroys religion but takes science and the very meaning of life along with it,
and as such takes us into another ball game altogether, one where we might find our
answer to the question posed when we say we can prove God does not exist, which is
“Have we left a way out?” Why would we want to do that? We have just said why,
because the charade is what makes us powerful. If you want to be positive about this,
and the Roman slaves of the later empire set a precedent for such an attitude, the
answer is to think of slavery as a good thing. As long as you are wealthy, healthy and
never have to do a days work, who cares about being oblivious of the fact that all that
you have arises because all that you do is directed by your attachment via an invisible
thread to some sadistic degenerate that you hate. Yes you hate global terrorism, yes
you are unwittingly responsible for it because you are complicit in the charade by not
questioning the stupidity of religion. But you do not know you are responsible for
such distant effects of collective order, because you do not question, and as an
obedient slave you fight against those intransigent slaves who do question, so where is
the problem? Enjoy your ignorance, it is a luxury, enjoy your slavery, it is a privilege.

It might be asked why the tension persists in the form of the Nazis in the first
place. To answer this we need to think of two factors. One is the requirement for
internal structure which necessarily translates into a multitude of group identities.
The other factor was described by Keith in terms of the twin dynamic of a force
driving divergence that is contained by a compensating force imposing unity, the
former is physical, the latter is psychic or psychological. By reducing this description
to the information system that enables lines of force to exist as mediums of energy
transference shaping identity gradients that result in the formation of social structure
we can say the physical is genetic, and the psychological is linguistic. Keith then, in
his discussion of race, should of been speaking about a genetic force contained by a
linguistic force, thereby adhering to one common modality, namely information;

158
information being the form in which humans recognise, or see energy, and therefore
respond to energy differentials. An energy potential is useless to a life form if it
cannot respond to it. Keith knew there was something he did not know, but genetics
were ahead of his time of course. It follows from this reasoning that the tension
surrounding the reality of human social identities is a permanent feature of human
society and given the fragile nature of the identity implant, a state of fragility which is
itself an inevitable consequence of the need for this feature to be plastic enough to
change, stability in the social biomass leads to identity drift away from the core
master identity. As Christian and Moslem territories become established by replacing
former master identities such as priestly Druids in Europe or tribal chieftains in
Africa, they develop their own distinctive culture along new lines and in time an
emerging counter Judaic identity structure is bound to come into conflict with the
Jewish over skin. This is why structural tiers of government culminating in states,
kingdoms, nations and such like evolved as elements of Judaic superorganic
physiology, in order to contain the process of identity drift within segments,
somewhat like extended cellular domains.
It is as a law of nature where forces are concerned that like must contain like.
If we want to mess with setting a stellar inferno alight in a bucket we need that bucket
to consist of something up to the job, that means a magnetic force to contain the
resulting flux. If you want to contain an identity then you need a suitable medium of
identity to do the job. The only way to extend the reach of a universal identity such as
Judaism across a host of identity structures, once you have expunged the resident
queen identities in each case, is to divide the territory that underpins the biomass
concerned and segment it into plots that each have a distinct identity of their own, but
remodelled along common lines derived from the Jewish priest’s code book of
exoskeletal formation. This means states must be shaped along legalistic lines, hence
legally defined states, hence governments. And this indicates why the Romans, who
were the Jewish phalange that exterminated the resident identity cores, also had one
other central feature to their cultural programming, they were law givers. The British
performed the same role through their empire building drive, destroying cultures,
implanting Christian slave identity, imposing exoskeleton making law and so paving
the way for Jews to farm the conquered territories, then withdrawing back into
obscurity as America took the lead role in the Zionist expansion of Judaism toward
global domination. Perhaps China will get a turn before too long. The Jews made the
Romans and the Romans made the Jews, as the Jews made the British and the British
made the Jews, as the Jews made the Americans and the Americans made the Jews.
The patchwork comes and goes, the Jews remain the same. As these linguistically
generated organic structures evolve in complexity the time comes where the states
they consist of can be welded together by the usual means of trade and intermittent
warfare that shift along the identity gradients and eventually wear the social terrain
down to a level cultural plane. States are therefore facets of Judaic priestcraft that act
as cells of identity containment serving to allow the organism to grow in stages, each
with its own identity, like a series of patches on a quilt, each may be different, but
altogether form one quilt, as each European or American state may be different, but
they form one Jewish quilt. It is amazing that the Victorians never saw the central
importance of Judaism to European affairs. I find it so hard to comprehend how they
could of failed to see that Christianity is Judaism, and that Judaism is the master. It
must be because of their pre-Israel time frame, although I do not feel as though the
resurrection of Israel is the key to this knowledge, all that is necessary is to see that
religion is not true and so to ask what religion is. I like the idea of thinking of

159
Judaism as an identity reactor, where the states and nations of the world are rods of
identity immersed within it, this keeps with the energy theme that is so becoming to
the Organicist method in sociology; got to be better than patchwork quilts.
The evolution of state structure by means of law is a product of Jewish
priestcraft that can be made sense of in relation to this dualistic dynamic, for the state
was a subunit of the church, and as such an office of the church. This device is useful
because it allows identity to be localised while the state institutions always remain
committed to the Zionist aims that they exist to serve. There could never be a better
example of this than the current political situation in which the Americans and British
are fighting in Iraq, in the name of their own states, while self evidently fighting a war
that can only possibly be of direct service and significance to the Jews of Israel.
Naturally there is an immense amount of misinformation about terror and weapons of
mass destruction pumped out ceaselessly to try and keep up the pretence, and this
pretence is all about the subject of identity, and it reveals the reason why identity is
central to every facet of human society. The trend toward super states on a
continental scale, modelled on the American system, is in full view now, and human
evolution is naturally driving the planet's human biomass in this direction, so we can
easily predict the pattern of the human fauna come the next millennial celebration,
which makes something of a nonsense of the resistance to the European community at
the present time, but all this toing and froing, blowing hot and cold over Europe, is an
inevitable result of the balance that must be struck between the requirement for
corporate identities to be plastic enough to change but not so plastic that they melt to
the merest touch of a gentle stroke. It is from these socioganic dynamics that the
historical activities arise that are recounted in the Jewish priesthood's history that tells
us all about who we are. "And how are we mere mortals to come to know any
different?" said the ant to its uncle "This is where we find we are".
Aside from the Nazis, who were a flash in the pan, although a flash that made
a deep impression, they were a phenomenon that under their own name were of no
significance whatever in the grand scheme of things apart from their role in providing
Judaism with its ultimate line of defence against rogue slaves. The real threat to
Judaismthe organic method in sociologywas fried and burnt to oblivion by the
process of continental wide, not to say world wide, exoskeletal refabrication in the
form of the two world wars. Two wars that provide particular examples of a regular
form of social behaviour that shows what it takes to melt the plastic identity when the
order of the day is a big job. This particular act of reformation was a feature of
lasting value and its underlying conceptual constituentDarwinismis set to last for
millennia to come as Judaism comes into its ascendancy as the one global organism
set to last to the end of time; time as measured in terms of human existence that is.
So it is the force of identity that creates social gravity, indeed we can say that
social identity is the force of social gravity. Information and energy are one and the
same thing in that where energy goes information is to be found. Therefore all
systems must have information associated with them that reveals the energy pattern of
the system, and in the case of the human superorganic system it is the information of
identity that traces the relevant flow of energy that allows us to understand the form
and evolution of the particular organism in question. Which is why Jewish identity
forms the core of the living superorganic being we are part of. The social force of
identity acts in precisely the same manner relative to its own material substance as the
universal force of gravity, in so far as it has a tendency to draw all matter of the same
order toward a single focal point at the centre of the mass under its influence. A
centre will of course not be central in the same sense in a social population as it is in a

160
cosmic context. Naturally in the case of a life form this means the centre of such a
mass will be known by an identity, such as Jerusalem, and specifically the temple
located there. Social gravity is the force that creates the superorganism by drawing a
dispersed biomass toward a focal point thereby constituting a social entity. Any
superorganism must conform to this dynamic, be it a coral reef, a bacterial colony, or
an insect nest. And of course the identity gradients we discussed in the last chapter
exist between these focal points of social structure that create the social landscape’s
morphology that maps out the social energy of the superorganism as it is dispersed
across the planet’s terrain. The social space lying between these focal points of social
structure is therefore curved in terms of the differential energy of cultural information
that joins the points together, giving us the identity gradients we have been speaking
of. The less curved the cultural space the greater the state of social harmony between
focal points of social structure distributed across the terrain. Which explains why
there is a force driving the human biomass toward cultural homogeneity overall. A
force we experience as social, political and economic with results that are deemed
historical. The degree of curvature of social space is indicated by the flow of
information occurring between social centres, a straight line of communication
indicates no cultural voidan Englishman in England, sort to thingtotal cultural
harmony, perfect reception of information between individuals of a like kind.
Communication and identity are the two most distinctive attributes of a
superorganism, they are the two most telling attributes of human animals. As
individuals we see identities as distinguishing, but in truth identities are unifying even
when they are most apparently disuniting for it is the intensity of opposition that
forces intimacy where otherwise there would be none.
From this it appears there are two kinds of social gravity, positive and
negative, one that harmonises in the act of unification and one that clashes in the act
of unification. Each has its own characteristics but both share a common function in
the same process of unification that causes all social action to orient toward a
common object of identity. In this biological process there will always be a focal
point of identity but the structural state of the biomass will vary according to the
distribution of the energy of identity within it, and taking the total biomass of the
planet into account we must view this totality as a mass of common form with many
points of focus distributed within it, giving an overall form that might be likened to
the discrete bodies of planets, stars and so on making up the cosmos. Therefore
during the process of evolution and dispersal sending the human biomass all around
the globe a series of discrete focal points of identity evolved. But at a given point
when all the vacant niches were filled there was an inevitable recoil whereby the
energy of the discrete biomasses of each social being clashed with those around about,
and so the Zionistic phase began, a phase of contraction within the human faunal
biomass upon a central core of social authority which involved increasing structural
complexity and the resulting unification of the panoply of focal points toward one
common point, as we have already discussed above. Without the superorganic model
of human social being it is certainly impossible to make sense of human evolution in
the modern period, covering the last fifty thousand years, and so the fairy tale
mythology of the theist is all we are left with.
We may still envisage a panoply of identities and express this impression in
terms of a multicultural social world, but these are no longer independent bodies of
organic mass, as they were originally. Now, in truth, there is only one central core of
identity, and so there is only one organic mass. This process of unification, or
Zionization, is as yet far from complete in as much as it has a long way to go before

161
stability is reached under the dominion of one common identity in the manner that we
normally recognise one common identity. But this said, it looks as though the process
of unification is gathering pace, just the other day, today being 18/12/04, there was a
report, if I heard it correctly, telling us that three billion people speak English, that is
half the world's population, and language is key to this process. Clearly in one
thousand years time there will be only one common language known on earth, why
should there be more?
As I read this last couple of paragraphs I find this model ties in nicely with the
magnificent information the cosmologists give us regarding the creation of matter
which means that the fabric we are made of is literally star dust, material fabricated in
the nuclear furnaces of stars which then exploded and cast their material all about,
sending shockwaves into nearby dust and gas clouds causing them to collapse, and in
the process creating new stars with planets containing the precious elements made in
the interior of their star's predecessors. This cyclical process, alternately creative and
explosive, that is in other words positive and negative, whereby one form evolves
then disintegrates, and in the process delivers the complexity that its own lifecycle
generated to a new generation that is born further along on the crest of possibilities,
resonates with the idea of humans evolving in a wild state toward a point of global
domination, and then bursting into pieces upon reaching the limits of this phase of
expansion only to cause a new form to come together in the aftermath of this
disintegration that condenses in an amazing new form whereby the old animal like
hunter-gather suddenly, overnight seemingly, becomes the wizard technician who
flies to the moon and drops nuclear bombs on his buddies. Bloody marvellous.

162
 The Queen of Social Gravity

We are now half way through November 2004 and a couple of weeks ago
there was a news item which carried the message that here was an end to an era, it
involved the closure of a mine in Yorkshire, I did not catch the beginning and cannot
say whether this was the last working mine in Britain, but the report gave that
impression, it may just of been the last mine in Yorkshire. This prompted me to write
this section on the relationship of gender to the formation of the core organ of
authority.
The subject of gender arises as a matter of course in this debate because of the
prominent form both human and ant society takes. We live in a male dominated
society, as we all know. Creatures like ants, meanwhile, are focused upon a breeding
queen that is the soul of the collective organism. Gender is in your face when you
look at these animals. But how to make sense of the gender dynamics of human
society that are by no means as self revealing as the forms we see in our insect
cousins? It is interesting to note that Lilienfeld, back in the late nineteenth century,
was still referring to the royal insect by way of the male agnomen King, this reflected
the bias of his own world that remained to be corrected by better scientific
observation and reasoning.
And so we come to the subject of work. The report of the mine closure
invoked in me the usual response. These men weep for the loss of their work, yet
who would want to do such work? The question, for me, goes too far. Who would
want to work, full stop? is plenty far enough in my opinion. We speak of a shift to the
agricultural way of life and the magnificence of this change, but the hunter gather
lifestyle is infinitely superior from an individual point of view, and most especially
from an individual males point of view. And it is because this fact is so self evident
that anthropologists often ask the question why the change occurred. Such pseudo
scientists however can never give any kind of sane explanation for such social change
in the human species because they are always thinking of the wrong kind of animal
when they ask their questions. They think of the human as an individual person that
makes their own world, whereas a human is a social entity that evolves just like any
other organic form. And this difference makes all the difference.
Have you heard the one about the Irishmen and the Englishman? Well. The
Englishman has gorn orf to the Emerald Isle for a bit of a trip. Getting himself lost in
the back of beyond he happens upon an old Irish fella and asks for directions. "I say
old chap, you couldn't oblige I don't suppose, by setting us on the right road for
Dublin?" "Cor blymee guvnr." Comes the reply. "Now to be shure, if I wuz a onetin
to be gorn ta Dublin right nar, I'd nort be startin from 'ere." A bit of a humorous quip
might seem out of place in a serious, ground breaking, scientific work. But in this
piece of blarney lies a message for the astute traveller of life's byways back of
beyond, and off the beaten path. We can take the essence of the message and put it
where it belongs, somewhere where it will make the most perfect sense. Thus we
may imagine saying to Ptolemy that "If I be a onetin to discover the true nature of
dem dare 'eavenly motions, I'd not be a startin from where I am a standin. I'd be a
setting myself in the place of the sun." And to the would be real anthropologist the
accommodating Irish savant might say that "If it be 'uman nature 'e be lookin f'r, then
I'd knee be startin from in deese 'ere woods, I'd be edin for dem d'ere wee 'ills
o'yonder."

163
 Its not where the monkeys play, but where the insects scurry that the secret of
human origins lies hidden.

We might note that the gathering part of the old way of living was the female
job, and it is from this work that we would expect agricultural activities to arise, even
if they began with the domestication of animals, for men would be expected to kill
them, not nurture them. Is this a clue to the gender impact of the process of
domestication that occurred when humans found themselves living in a 'self-made'
world? What worse life could a man have than one in which he must work
ceaselessly in order to live? I cannot imagine, the very thought appals me. Why
would people want to work? The answer is dead simple, at least in its prime motive.
There is one thing a male wants, just one thing, beside which all else pales into
insignificancea women.
This harks back to Darwinian logic concerning the fight for the right to breed
and its relationship to the Spencerian interpretation encapsulated in the phrase 'the
survival of the fittest'. But in the human being, which is a superorganism, there is no
such thing as the passing on of favourable genes from one individual to another in this
sense. There is no such thing as an individual, as in a you or a me, that exists as an
end in themselves. All individual activities, of all kinds, are summations before they
are anything; prior to be being summed individual activities are just random, and, as
such, meaningless. It matters not whether you are gorgeous, healthy, strong, a genius
of any kind, or whether you are a blithering idiot, ugly as hell, weak, congenitally
flawed to the limit of existence; as an individual you are one, and one is all there is at
this level of human being. And at this level one is as good as another in the same
sense that if one person says red is best, and another says blue is best, then both are
right. You can only make a distinction between individually defined qualities by
setting them in a relevant comparative context, and this action utilises the principle of
summation in human social physiology. It is from this principle of summation in a
relevant context that the idea of emergence comes into play whereby qualities not
present in components take shape when components unite; a relevant context meaning
where there are inherent relationships between the elements coming together, and not
just a physical and temporal coincidence creating a geological type of conglomerate
that only offers incidentally new material qualities. When living elements unite there
is necessarily some deeper implications that must be reflected in the inner structures
of the elements concerned in the observed phenomenon of unification. Just as a nut
and bolt have the inner structure of a matching thread to unite them. And this
structure has a hidden element to it, not the thread you can see but the turn on the
thread that is less apparent but that needs to match.
If we live in a society that says those who show red get to have a women and
those who show blue do not, then we have a point of reference that allows us to say
that indeed, red is best, no matter what those who favour blue say. And thus in this
example the quality of redness has emerged as a social force. The reason why
emergent properties of this kind have power connects to Bagehot's idea that any
device invoking a common sense of identity in humans is better than none. This is
because such devices are attuned to human nature that has evolved to invoke this
unifying response. From Bagehot's initial principle an evolutionary dynamic is set in
train whereby an inferior device will create structure that can then be tested in acts of
competitive engagement with alternative social structures formed about an alternative
unification device. Red plus blue may come to be a more effective power base than
red on its own, so purple evolves. So the devices of unification are caused to evolve

164
in their ability to induce ever more coherent forms of social structure, ever more
massive, ever more powerful. It is this very process surrounding the abstract device
of social unification that led to the evolution of human speech, there can be no other
explanation. Eventually the simple abstract device of racial physiology receded
before the empowered device of linguistic communication so that race has given way
to religion as the dominant force in the shaping of the human organism. And from
these simple, obvious facts, we can see just how important these basic ideas are in the
scientific understanding of ourselves, and why so much effort is put into destroying
this knowledge by the social structures of religious abstraction that stand to be
destroyed by this knowledge. In time of course those favouring blue would become
extinct which raises the question of variation, but in fact what happens is that inferior
abstract forms may survive because this provides the means to create social structure,
this is how we come to have hierarchical structures fixed by varieties of identity
attachment, resulting in structures embraced by an overarching identity which unites
the whole subject to two interrelated forms, that of law and religion, which are united
in Judaism. Law and religion are therefore just abstract forms of organic physiology,
like the fancy horns of an antelope or the flash colours of bird. It does not matter
what law or religion there is, so long as there is some, and all human societies ever
known bare out this assertion. Law and religion are the superficial colours that result
from the underlying structure of the organism, hence the reason these forms are so
often highly abstract in their nature and carry such emotive messages as those
concerned with life after death, and the meaning of life itself. How pretentious can
you get! Horns still have a practical dimension, as may a bird's fancy feathers, and so
do human laws, but it is the display value of impressive horns and feathers that catch
our attention, and it would be the same with human law's most boastful laws. The law
of Human Rights for example, these would most impress the anthropologist from
another star system trying to understand our kind, "Human Rights" they would say,
"Look at that Billy goat, it thinks it is such a fine thing. It has licked all the rest and it
shows its dominance by presuming to make laws embracing all of its kind" The alien
would see straightaway that such laws as those calling themselves the laws of Human
Rights were nothing but vacuous show, about enslaving and possessing, and not one
bit about freedom or rights at all. In the case of an animal's physiological expressions
of displayhorns, coloured feathers, abstract moral lawsthe underlying structure
that the evolving abstract forms are responding to are social. This is what causes such
things as oversized horns, rich colours and fancy laws to be so abstract in the
tumescence of their form.
It is from the above considerations that we come to understand the 'moral'
imperative that is the key to Jewish power, fixed in the religious command and the
law it gives rise to, that says that life is sacred. Thus Jewish myth determines what is
and what is not 'fit' in relation to the survival of the fittest. And since strong powerful
people are put to death or put in prison for going it alone, and the weak are supported
like precious beings, it is clear that the imputation of Darwin's insights as interpreted
by the likes of Spencer are a complete travesty of the real biological dynamic at work
in human society. And the reason for all of this is that human nature is corporate,
Judaism conforms to the demands of this human nature, as Kidd tells us human
decision making must do, Judaism must be rational, that is conscious and unconscious
decision making must conform to the demands Nature makes upon it, and that is that.
Rational in terms of the development of none ideal functional forms, not rational in
terms of the eternal nature of forms that can be idealised. What this means is that it
can be rational to believe in God even though the idea of God is insane in terms of

165
everything we know about reality, where our superorganic form has made authority
central to our existence and this has created the idea of God which it is therefore valid
to believe in because of what God represents, which is the none ideal form, not what
God is said to be, which is a universal creator that wants us to exist as Judaism says.
Because of this conflict between the sense of self and the demands of nature rational
decision making is obliged to be couched in irrational terms which Kidd understands
in terms of evolving a super-rational sense necessary to make individuals conform to
the demands of social life. But this is a feeble way of expressing this insight because
it still leaves a way out for people to think of themselves as somehow different to the
rest of nature and in command of themselves, even as they are being told this is most
definitely not the case.
Still the sexual dynamic exists and humans have to reproduce themselves, so
the male need for a female and the urge to replicate has to be sustained appropriately
within the biomass of the organism. However with the shift from the tribal system
where a man often had more than one wife or indeed many wives, to the domesticated
form of social structure, that we call civilised, we eventually come to the perfection of
the human organism in the Jewish form we are today. And in this physiological
arrangement we find nature has imposed a social structure in which sex and the
distribution of females is subject to the most intense pressure of control, so that the
elements of social structure and dynamics relevant to this aspect of life are strictly
channelled by authority. The result is that if a man wants a women in this world he
must work. And this system is so contrived that it is actually policed by women on
mass, as individuals, as no female would favour a male without the means to pay.
Once again, when saying this we are thinking all the while in terms of the summation
of common behaviour, not the fringe elements of variation which either have a
subsidiary role or are peripheral to the system and a reflection of the necessary
plasticity of such an organic structure as a superorganism is.
The important point to derive from our correct understanding of the real status
of the human animal is that it is not the individual female that benefits from this
attraction effect of the sexual force acting on males and driving them to conform to
the system. The principle of summation operating within the rigidly controlled social
system that is managed down to the finest detail results in the gender based social
gravitational effect focusing itself on the core authority which sets the conditions
giving rise to these effects, which is as ever the Jewish identity as vested in the
Jewish-Jewish people. Thus the Jew not only represents a core organ of authority,
what is more this organ has a gender arising from the effect it gives rise to through the
legislative body of regulation it emits which harnesses the female power of selection
over the male which directs all male effort toward a focal social point of identity and
form.
This Jewish organ of authority is therefore a true queen with a gender in
common with that found in other superorganic species aside from humans. And while
I have never got to grips with the social dynamics of the overtly female society, as
opposed to the overtly male society that we think we live in, this subject was of great
interest to early investigators of society who were very conscious of the two forms.
From our point of view the female society is now rare, ours, being conceived of as an
independent Christian society, being thought to be a male society, while the distinct
society of the Jews is of course female in the important respect concerning the
passage of identity which is passed through the female line, not the male. But since
we can see that in truth the idea of an independent Christian society is the height of

166
absurdity then, despite all appearances, we must admit ours is ultimately a society
subject to the female force, it is a society that has at its core a queen.
And this accounts for the female adoration of viciously oppressive male
dominated religious regimes which we see arising under the influence of the Jewish
slave implants in the form we call Christianity and Islam. These biological systems of
social invigoration are attuned to the female psyche and needs, despite the superficial
appearance as observed from our skewed perspective as we live in a powerful modern
product of this system of female rule where many traditional social structures are
currently being transformed due to the particular mode of growth the Jewish organism
is undergoing at the present time. Given the role women played in hunter gather
societies we can easily imagine that the qualities of the female psyche are liable to be
more attuned to the needs of an organic structure fabricated through a system of work
because this is the system of close grafting cooperation that has always been the lot of
the average female.
Another further interesting aspect of this discussion comes readily into view
here too because the evolution of males who love males can be understood in relation
to this queen dynamic since such males are effectively shedding their male role and
acquiring a female psyche, something which is possible because there is no such thing
as an individual as an end in themselves so the social organism can induce any form
to arise within its cells that fits the requirements of the organism. The homosexual,
by transcending the gender boundary defined by reproduction rises above both
genders in certain respects, being a superior male because they have acquired the
psyche of the female while being a superior female because they have freed
themselves of the burden of female power which is expressed through the need to act
as a womb for the process of reproduction to take place. On an intuitive level this
description of homosexuality makes sense because such men are particularly gifted in
the female qualities of sociability, they are self obsessed, which is the male sense of
superiority and ego dominance, and they are simply adored by women, presumably
because females instinctively relish the feeling of being in the presence of the female
psyche driven by testosterone. It is certainly something to be in the presence of a
good looking, intelligent and extrovert homosexual and to see the buzz of the females
about this queen of queens.
And just as we have linked the demise of the regulations criminalizing one
male expression of sexuality to the rise of intense interest in another male expression
of sexuality, in relation to the nubile class of female, and its neuteristic male
equivalent (boys), so we may take note of the manner in which the decay of legal
strictures ensuring women's social status as the chattels of men has resulted in the
male becoming a dog on a leash in the hands of women, because of the natural
predisposition women have to be in command of men via the need men have to
possess females. The reality of this new state of affairs is brought to our attention at
the present time with the increasingly vehement campaign of fathers dispossessed of
their rights as fathers by the females they mated with, a campaign modelled on the
superheroes of popular culture as men in tights climb steep obstacles to draw attention
to their plight under the law. This shift in social dynamics orchestrated by changes in
the law is fascinating from the organicist point of view and Lilienfeld, in his
discussion of our approach to social affairs, talks about the lack of an underlying
theory to support our predominant ideas, these observations we have just been making
on the switchback of social gender in relation to law are a fine example of a response
to this criticism operating in real time.

167
 While the subject of the neuter gender is fresh in our minds we should take
further advantage of this subject by noting its absence from the work of Victorian
scholars of human social biology. This is a telling fact. It does not surprise us given
the impression of moral frigidity imposed on the collective society in which various
subjects were made taboo. But in this work, this organicist work that is, the primary
subject of taboo is human nature, a taboo indirectly expressed in the total
unwillingness to face the subject of religion head on in a scientific manner in which
the biological nature of human beings is made the be all and end all of the argument.
How could the likes of Lilienfeld, Bagehot, Spencer and Kidd fail to see the
relationship of Christianity to Judaism, and so reveal the whole panoply of social
dynamics, is something we must ask ourselves? With the subject of the neuter
gender, homosexuals that is, we come up against the very same query, how could the
subject of homosexuality not force itself onto the pages of the works of social
scientists?
All those people able to write such works were members of the social elite,
there were no secrets from them. They will of been aware of the place of
homosexuality in their own society, and what is more they will of been trained in the
classics and of been more aware than we are today of the central role of
homosexuality in the Ancient Greek and Roman civilisations. The fact was that this
subject was taboo, just like the subject of religion and the nature of Judaism relative to
Christianity. And this is the social milieu in which the foundation blocks of our
modern pseudo science of humanity were laid. When a loose canon like Richard
Burton did bring home the juice, freely recording his personal experience of the taboo
subject of sex in primitive societies, we need not be surprised to find the guardian of
Jewish authority personified in the form of the self-righteous Christian female making
a funeral pyre of the man's lifework the moment he is dead and gone, depriving us
moderns of his priceless records of those ancient human organisms, records consumed
by the all devouring voracious beast that is Judaism, this time in the guise of a prudish
female slave of Judaism. This was no free society, the society in which people like
Lilienfeld lived, far from it, even if not as far from it as we are today because the
straight-jacket of pseudo science with its Darwinian stays sown in was only being put
together at that time; now we are well and truly laced into it. We talk the talk of the
scientist, but we most definitely only walk the walk of the somnambulist.

I am a little less clear about the contents of this chapter than any other section
of this work. But I wanted to say something about gender however vague it was and
as limited as the logical product of my reasoning on this subject might be, the subject
must be relevant to the organicist model of human existence and cannot just be
ignored, so a start has to be made somewhere. The superorganic role of the peculiar
neuter gender of the homosexual is easy to recognise and discuss, and indeed I have a
book written by a homosexual about homosexuality (Virtually Normal: An Argument
about Homosexuality, Andrew Sullivan, Picador, 1995) that concludes by speculating
about the reason homosexuality evolved in a manner that matches perfectly the
functional ideas I use in my interpretation of this seemingly absurd development,
absurd according the theologically minded science of Darwin that is. The argument I
try to hint at regarding the dynamic operating between the straight female and male is
not so straightforward. But it is clear that gender produces immense social power
structures and these must be accounted for in exactly the same way as any other
aspect of our existence, by virtue of the key which is that human nature is corporate.
The slavish need people have for authority is almost parodied in sex with the intense

168
attachment it induces called love, and some other interesting features too. And the
ideas of attachment we may play with in this respect have to be extended to the role of
children too, for offspring often invoke even more intense feelings of enslavement
than sex based attachments. And wherever intense emotional attachments exist there
is a crucial device for authority to exploit in terms of fabricating bonds of dependency
woven from the individual into a chain attaching the entire biomass of the
superorganism to the core. Love then is the most potent link to the integrity of the
superorganism, and thus it is no coincidence that the identity that first formed a global
organism should of utilised this idea of love attached to its pseudo key, making God
the God of love.

169
 Self-Made Absurdity Self-Made

It is the accumulative effect of evolved human nature, acting over a

period of time, that produces the fabric of society. Which means Nature
makes all social fabric, of all kinds, and, conversely, this means, humans do
not make anything. Humans do not make television sets anymore than they
make stomachs. Nature makes television sets to communicate with just as
surely as Nature makes stomachs to absorb nutrients with. Humans do not
choose to live a world with television anymore than they choose to live a
world with digestion. This may not appear to be so, but then it may appear the
earth is flat, or that it is standing still, neither of which obvious things is at all
correct. Perspective is everything when seeking to understand reality.

It is by means of a unifying conception of reality that we are able to define the

most fundamental distinction of interest to humans, that between the living and the
nonliving, on a sound basis. To do this we need to take account of our own role as
observers in the reality equation, in order to ensure our role does not influence the
outcome of the computation. Our understanding is therefore to be an interception of
the energy of existence, making it a carrier of the information of reality, not a
contributor to the being of reality. This is our ideal aim even though our intellectual
ability evidently did not evolve to act as a neutral carrier of information since life can
hardly evolve attributes of living things not functionally intended to serve the living
beings they are part of. That said, perhaps our learning to detach our powers of
understanding from our intuitive sense of self is a possible next stage in our evolution
as a living organism. Such a development would be akin to the dispersion of core
authority throughout the biomass, a biological expression of the social force we call
'democracy'. But could such an information shift work? One thing is for sure it could
only occur if religion became a thing of the past, and this would especially apply to
Judaism.
It is clear that if we want to see an end to anti-Semitism then we must see an
end to Semitism. This statement has the hallmarks of a supremely anti-Semitic
statement. It is like saying that if we want to put an end to homophobia we must
destroy all homosexuals, or that if we want to end racism we must wipe out all
coloured people, who are the usual victims of the superior force vested in the white
races. However this issue is not to be dealt with so simplistically. The whole point
about the evolution of these various determinants of social structurerace, religion,
gender loopsis that they operate in distinct ways according to the level of
information modality at which they exist. Examples of information modalities would
be the genetic level and the linguistic level. Homosexuality is primarily genetic,
although it has a social dimension, and the only way to prevent its expression is
indeed to kill all homosexuals as they 'come out', or, to find the genes responsible and
screen for them; a sci-fi notion if ever there was one. Why is this idea science fiction?
Because the social organism has a genome that is dispersed throughout the biomass of
the organism in such a way that the genes causing homosexual ‘organ’ of
superorganic physiology to be expressed must be randomly distributed to the degree

170
that homosexuality can only form a diffuse concentration in the population.
Homosexuality cannot be a rigidly fixed attribute of a highly focused set of people, if
it were the sterile nature of the behaviour would drive its expression toward
extinction, which is certainly not what we see in reality. The alternative is to argue
that homosexual behaviour is entirely cultural, but that idea is utterly ludicrous; which
is of course no hindrance at all to its promulgation. Hence homosexuals can emerge
anywhere within the population, something which is logically inevitable since
homosexuals must be born to heterosexuals, in the main. Meanwhile because we, as a
species, have shifted into the linguistic physiology mode as opposed to the genetic
physiology mode, then race, as we still think of it and experience it, is being
exterminated as we speak. This is precisely what multiculturalism is an expression of,
and is thus facilitating, exactly as the admixture of various distinct racial tribes in the
past has led to the creation of the modern English type that carries a mixture of
formerly distinct racial types all of which had whiteness in common. So Judaism
exterminates racial expression as a matter of course, this process of racial cleansing of
the human biomass is already happening. Priests give a moral twist to the ethnic
cleansing of the biomass via a religious identity programme that supersedes racial
identity, but as we can see these processes are without intellectual meaning, being
purely biological in their origins, forms and expression. Which brings us to the
original question concerning the solution of anti-Semitism lying in the eradication of
Semitism. Well why not? Because Judaism is an exclusively cultural marker it can
be eradicated without doing anyone any harm, exactly as applies in the case of race by
dissolving the application of Keith’s psychological constraint on racial interaction
which is all that allows race to exist. No one need die in the process of eradicating
Judaism from the earth, we just need to move on, into a world beyond master-slave
dynamics, into a real democracy where there is no authority organ whose constitution
relies upon a secret codification of the force of reality that is vested in human nature.
That is the theory anyhow. It is like giving up paganism or belief in witches, who
needs these primitive, idiotic and dangerous myths today?
Last night, 19/12/04, I had a Channel Four programme What we still do not
know on TV, in the background, while I approached the completion of my
transformation of Lilienfeld's third volume into text form, ready for translation. All
sorts of juicy little philosophical gems cropped up in this episode, and one that was
relevant to this point in our discussion is a familiar piece of religious propaganda that
comes up in scientific discussions all the time. I have just said that humans have
shifted from the genetic to the linguistic mode of evolution, last night they mentioned
that humans had now shifted from the biological to the social mode. The crucial
difference is the point in the structure we pay attention to. As scientists, when
speaking of change we concentrate upon the level of creative transformation where
continuity, and hence causality, can be observed, at the information level. The theist
uses the level of appearances where nothing can be seen in continuity, where all
appearances stand alone and speak for themselves as bit by bit features of reality in
which figments of the imagination have as valid a place as anything else; which is
perfect for theistic scientists to create their mythologies from. And this is how theistic
science presents its version of biological reality, as a division between the biological
and the social. You will find this theistic interpretation appearing in all sorts of
places, the initial development of this mythological idea took place in the early
twentieth century. A number of American sociologists and anthropologists helped
distort reality in order that people could come to think in terms of psychological and
social factors, and cultural systems, instead of organic biology. Thus allowing a

171
ludicrous form of ideology to evolve that continued to present humans as they are
presented in the Bible, as being the makers of their own world, so that theology now
appeared in a modern scientific guise.

Pure Sociology: A Treatise on the Origin &

Spontaneous Development of Society
by Ward, Lester F.

About this title: Pure Sociology is a synthesis of Ward's sociological thought; his next to last
book. Lester F. Ward (1841-1913) worked as a government geologist and paleontologist from
1881 to 1906, when he became professor of sociology at Brown. One of the first and most
important of American sociologists, Ward developed a theory of planned progress called
telesis, whereby man, through education and development of intellect, could direct social
evolution. Ward was eulogized at his death as one of the last giants of nineteenth-century
sociology, and many of his ideas - the primacy of artificial over natural forces in the
development of human society, the psychological rather than the biological basis of human life,
and the stress on process and function rather than on structure in the study of society -
provided leads for the researchers in sociology who succeeded him. The emergence of the
modern welfare state and the involvement of professional sociologists in the practical problems
of politics, poverty, and race represent a kind of vindication of his work

The above was taken from the Alibris website a couple of days ago when I
looked for works by Ward. The title sounds magnificent, and I wanted to see what it
was, but as ever, it was a spurious piece of linguistic distortion, completely
misleading, like all religious gush, pure nonsense. This indicates exactly what I mean
about the perversion of science in order to protect religion. An act of perversion that
is conducted through the linguistic information medium, something we must counter
continuously, just as the flow of subversive information pours forth relentlessly from
academia precisely in order to ensure that science never comes to the forefront ahead
of religion. So, once again, we do not live in a period of social evolution, nor
artificial evolution, we live in a continuing, seamless period of biological evolution, a
period that can be justifiably be called linguistic evolution in contrast to the preceding
period of genetic evolution. We are obviously not the only species to evolve in this
way, all superorganic species must evolve according to a medium of exogenous, inter-
individual, social communication, all of which forms of communication must
constitute a mode of linguistics. Human language is not rational, it is informational, it
does not deliver knowledge, it delivers instructions, messages that both induce the
fabrication and operation of structure. The American anthropologist I have in mind
when I speak of cultural systems is Leslie A. White, his last work, published
posthumously just after his death, was The Concept of Cultural Systems: A Key to
Understanding Tribes and Nations, Columbia University Press, 1975. This man was
another menace to science; he had me going for a while.
And I must say an awful lot of work of this kind seems to come from this
university, the subversion of science through pseudo science in the sociology field
seems to be a speciality of Columbia, as the subversion of science in the field of
biology seems to be a speciality of Oxford, where we find the gatekeeper of the
theocracy Richard Dawkins is based. Each university probably has its own specialist
role in the suppression of science and the protection of religion, we certainly get a
sense of this as we delve deeper and deeper into the intellectual deposits laid down
over the centuries.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand. Thus by applying our unifying ideas of
reality we can unite life with none life in one continuum, but still fix the point at
which the transition is made from one state into the other. In nonliving matter there is

172
energy as a dynamic force, in living matter this energy becomes an information
medium that is sensed and pursued in a far more elaborate manner than we see in the
nonliving domain of matter. And the difference between life and none life is as
simple as that, and can be summed up as the difference between energy and
information. Although in using the word difference in this context we must
understand that there is no fundamental difference between energy and information,
only that we experience energy as information and so we discern a difference. And
this mode of description also reveals the significance of language in the role of
providing humans with knowledge of the real world. Language in this information
generating role acts as a blade that cuts into reality, it is itself not part of the aspect of
reality that is under scrutiny, anymore than a knife is part of the form it cuts into. But
of course when a knife cuts material it creates form, and as we have often had cause to
say, language is a creative information medium, so language too creates form when it
is applied in a creative mode that directs the manipulation of physical reality. In
creative mode language will therefore become part of the forms it creates, because
linguistic information is necessary to the continuing propagation of these ‘cultural’
forms. Laws, for example, therefore create social structure by ‘cutting’ and ‘shaping’
the biomass over which they have jurisdiction, and in doing so the mechanisms of
activation that make laws operative form a specialised part of the superorganic
exoskeleton they create. This is language becoming part of the form it creates in its
role of creative information medium leading on from the creative information of
genes that created the linguistic information medium in the first place to serve just this
biological role in the evolution of the mammalian superorganism we call human.
Some philosophers, notably Berkeley, have been able to sow confusion based
on this point by asserting that things only exist when people are conscious of their
existence. Putting this gross nonsense aside, by recognising the catalytic properties of
language, we can know conceptually that reality is a state of unity, but we still
recognise within unified reality an infinite series of disunities of varying grades, the
primary grade being the one created by the evolution of language itself, by language
that is, which transforms unity into the duality which leads to the creation of
mythology giving rise to theocracies by means of a process of knowledge formation
such as that exemplified in Darwin's account of evolution where he splits form from
the information which creates it and focuses solely on the artificially created partition
of form, while disregarding the partition of information which created the forms he
was interested in. The latter partition being covered by the religious mythology of his
world, in this case by the mythology of the Jewish theocracy which ruled his world,
and which rules our world. The purpose of the likes of Berkeley was of course to
defend the idiocy of religion with more idiocy, but all the while conforming to the
same pattern of duplicity.
So when we speak of ‘the artificially created partition of form’ we should
really replace the word ‘artificially’ with the word ‘linguistically’ created partition.
Language creates a partition because it is a distinct creative medium of information
that generates material forms, but there remains a seamless continuation between the
genetically induced partition of reality and the linguistically induced partition of
reality. Just as there is a seamless continuation of creative information, and therefore
a seamless flow of energy likewise, between the nuclear partition of reality and the
genetic partition of reality. Which is why organic fabric is composed of inorganic
material organized by the creative information medium of the genetic code instead of
the atomic code of none living structure revealed in the periodic table of elements. As
we watch the new Pope giving his inaugural speech at this moment, 24/04/05

173
10:51:26, in which he denies that we are the products of evolution and, raising a cheer
from the moronic slaves before him, claims each of us is a direct product of an
individual thought of God, he is using language to create and sustain social form in
the name of his Jewish masters according to a tried and tested formula; although of
course is utterly oblivious of this fact. All that he does is a robotic response to his
linguistic programming of no more significance than the actions of an ant out hunting
for leaves to bring back to the nest to feed the fungi on which the superorganism
feeds. A poor, sad, pathetic example of a human being, if ever there was one, is this
pontiff. One robot out, one robot in.
It should be clear that there has to be some self-driving force underlying the
order in our complex society, it is obvious enough that no person or group of people
could orchestrate the order our massive societies display. In their purposeful
activities humans have to be tapping into some kind of system that exists quite
independently of themselves. This echoes the words of Kidd in the opening quote
when he says people must obey natural laws in the expression of their reason. People
in other words do not simply create things on a whim, objects are not idols cast in a
form which then has life breathed into it. The artifacts that people make are more
akin to discoveries drawn from the potential offered by nature. And it is an
accumulating release of potential, as people discover one thing so this thing opens the
way to a further release of potential. And in this regard we can remind ourselves that
these discoveries obey the law of evolutionary energy which causes forms to evolve
that we discussed earlier, where an item like an engine is slowly discovered as
information accumulates into a focal point of energy that creates an incipient build up
of the energy of evolution appearing in the emerging form of an engine, which, once
perfected, rapidly releases the resulting energy potential locked up in the linguistic
code, that brought the engine into being, as it descends the energy gradient of the
environment that surrounds it, the energy potential of which has been lowered by
virtue of the engine’s own ascendance of an energy gradient in the act of formation
through the fabrication of linguistic information concerning the organization of matter
into a complex form. Thus to the engine the surrounding environment is now a latent
zone of energy potential which it can enter and become part of by means of the
linguistic information structure it contains within itself. Language then has ‘cut’ the
physical material of the superorganism’s exoskeleton to form a pattern in the shape of
an organ called an ‘engine’ that language is then itself part of, because without the
preservation of the linguistic code that produced the initial pattern, in its essential
features, no more engines can be produced. So, from the elaboration of one
discovery, in the descent of the environmental energy gradient through the dispersal
of the new fragment of linguistic code in the form of an engine, a host of further
elaborations on the initial pattern soon emerge. In this manner the evolution of the
exoskeleton can be visualised as being identical in its nature and form to the evolution
of the living organic tissue of our individual bodies. Always being dependant upon
patterns of form being created via an information medium drawn toward zones of
latent energy potential, where the information medium knits into codes delivering
material form that utilizes latent energy by releasing it through the key of the newly
evolved form through an ecological gateway into the surrounding environment. The
focused energy potential built up in this process in the act of accreting complexity
through an information medium appropriate to the material context is therefore made
into a new means of exploiting general, or environmental energy potential, via the
information medium that traces patterns of energy use in the environment and
generates codes that deliver new material constituents of the same environment. The

174
only difference being that it is language that acts as the primary information medium
of exoskeletal evolution and growth. In this process a linguistic store of information
is accumulated, a process of accumulation of potential we find repeatedly referred to
in Lilienfeld's account of the social organism.
If energy and information are one and the same thing then coded energy must
equate to the purest form of living matter. Hence a genome or a store of knowledge is
like a nuclear reactor forever able to generate vast amounts of energy realised in the
shape of a life form. And we must suspect that this observation is key to
understanding the energy source of Judaism that creates our superorganism’s being
that we have just seen the new Pope emitting toward the second tier of the
superorganic structure from his seat in Rome, where this second tier had its point of
origin, created under the executive authority of Roman military power acting in
obedience to its Jewish master’s dictates. The Bible, all social law and the
technological know how of our society constitute the nuclear core fuelling the Jewish
identity which give it such longevity by delivering the energy potential of the entire
human biomass according to the organic process we have just been seeking to make
conceptually comprehensible in the above passage on the law of evolutionary energy.
While reading The Failure of Biologic Sociology I came upon a note attributed
to Shaler “Nature and Man in America” p. 27, referring to the role of mountain
systems in generating evolutionary diversity, it follows the logic Darwin used in
relation to the isolation of species in the Galapagos. This made me think of my own
attempt to elucidate an idea of a social energy field forming a socially geographical
terrain composed of identities associated with physical resources unevenly dispersed.
From mountains causing diversity the logic of isolation in society by means of
identity parameters should have the same impact of inducing evolutionary diversity
which is then released as I have discussed in terms of localised cultural responses to
zones of latent energy potential inducing new organic forms such as engines to evolve
that then disperse themselves along the lowered identity gradients inducing an
extension of superorganic physiology along with elements of identity derived from
the point of origin within the organism.

In a continent such as Europe, where a great diversity in the mountain

systems favors the localization of life and the development of peculiar forms,
the tendency is to develop in separate mountain strongholds particular species,
and to evolve their militant peculiarities until the forms are fitted to enter into
a larger contention with their kindred species in less localized assemblages of
life.
(The Failure of Biologic Sociology, S. N. Patten, page 81, Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, March 1894)

If we take a dynamic aspect of our modern world we can further extend our
reasoning about the manner in which this growth dynamic operates, last week, today
being Monday 25th October 2004, the success of the supermarket Tesco was making
news alongside the loss of performance by other players in this sector of the economy.
There was talk of the dynamic, aggressive and single-minded character of Tesco's
leading figure, and there was the example of the shift of this food store into clothing,
where jeans were shown on sale for a mere £4! Which is incredible. But irrespective
of the prowess of any individual we have a huge dynamic system here and the person
cannot impose their will upon this system, they must discover the best means of

175
tapping into the combination of forces that are open to them in the present situation
they find themselves in. What is notable here is that this food store was poaching the
market of clothing stores, and it is in truth always this predatory activity that leads to
significant success in such areas of social evolution, exactly as it does in any aspect of
organic evolution where life always feeds off life and thus voracious forms ascend the
food chain. To a food store clothing is a zone of latent energy potential toward which
the linguistic information that gives the food store its structural form will be induced
to gravitate in search of a formula that will allow it to incorporate structural
extensions into its form to accommodate this none food facet of the retail environment
that it is part of, as it responds to the impulse to grow according to the organic laws of
evolutionary energy that drive the evolution of the superorganic form that a
supermarket is part of. Tesco had the space, the customer base, it was simply a matter
of finding how to use established structural patterns to encroach on the structural
capacity of a competing form and thereby steal their access to the basic energy source
of the system, the system being the flow of money that is itself rooted in the highly
elaborate structure of the state. What we are talking about here is the flow of energy,
revealed in the flow of information and the active response of people within the
structures which we are considering at this moment in time. Tesco is a particular kind
of animal, it could not be used in just any old fashion, and when we have a correct
impression of the true nature of society we can see that a huge structure like a
supermarket chain is in fact not an animal in its own right, it does have its own
distinct nature, as a retailer, but it is, as such, an organ, a true organ, within the animal
which is the society denominated by the Jewish identity that is associated with the
laws that create the animal this organ belongs to. Such a structure is a major element
of the exoskeleton. This organism is global in scale and it embraces all places where
the Jewish identity exists in any form, including Christian and Moslem sub-forms.
This Jewish organism is striving to take over the world as per its organic
programme. There was a nice example of this process in action in a programme on
Channel Four last week about the suppression of the Christian religion in Vietnam.
The Americans funded Christians to work in areas where Christians traditionally find
a foothold in society, as in this case, by helping people terminally ill with AIDS. The
invasive process of Judification is ceaseless, and has been for thousands of years,
since even before the Jews existed as a distinct identity. The thread of Jewish nature
runs into the past beyond the coming of Judaism as Judaism, just as the thread of
human nature runs way back into the distant evolutionary past of the prehuman forms
that led from the true ape to ourselves, the ultimate superorganic mammalian species.
This at first sight seems a ludicrous remark because our consciousness of form is
fixated by our linguistic implant that gives us our state of self-consciousness fixed
upon our personal self which we know, recognise and distinguish from categories of
none self by means of nomenclature like Jew, Moslem, hero, terrorist, boy, girl, black,
white, English, French and so on ad infinitum. Seeing those Palestinian youths
speaking of how Arafat was the symbol of their Palestinian identities today as his
death began to be mourned invoked a sense of utter idiocy, but, however this strikes
me, it is how we are supposed to see ourselves. Over time the Jews will establish a
Palestinian slave-state as they are creating an Iraqi slave state. The pattern is obvious,
Israel is just a beginning. Over the course of the coming centuries the whole of the
Middle East will evolve as Europe has evolved, through the catalyst of the social
growth process of war, aided by trade, until there is one regional collection of states,
and the centre of these states will be; Well, what do you think? So, the logic is the
same as we used earlier when we recognised that once you have identified human

176
nature you could not only use it to discern the common thread running through all
human societies throughout all time, you could also use it to discern human nature
extant in prehuman hominids from millions of years prior to human existence. The
same thing applies to the evolution of the Jewish organism which can be traced back
directly to the origin of civilisation in the Middle East which we associate with the
Sumerian culture. And the key feature we are looking for here, that is to say the
nature of Judaism proper, that is specifically Jewish aside from their subidentity
structures that we call Christian and Muslim, is the priest. The nature of the Jew is
that of the priest. As the priest figure evolved within civilised society it eventually
gave rise to a cultural identity after its own nature. This is why the priest in the form
of the Jews became the people of the book, why Jews prize learning, and above all
else, within this department of human corporate behaviour, they prize law. Wherever
Jews go, so it appears, they take their own legal system with them. I consider this to
be one of the most remarkable facts I have ever come across, because it applies in
Britain today and I only became aware of it recently, and it is of such profound
significance, it is so unique, absolutely amazing. We can trace this development and
see how the scribe became a natural repository of social power of just the kind we are
interested in, so that while they served an overt master, a monarch, they could not
help but know that they were the repository of power upon which regal power rested.
And thus it was inevitable that this social group would evolve ways to keep its unique
power invested in itself, and this means evolving an identity appropriate to the task.

When we speak in the above manner about the activity involved in purchasing
goods from a shop we are not thinking in terms of the actions of individuals that we
are all familiar with. The particulate action of a person entering a store with a friend,
wandering around, coming to the clothes section and selecting a pair of jeans which
they then take to the checkout, pay for, carry home and add to their wardrobe of
clothes for everyday use. This is the fine detail of the process occurring within the
organ of the organism as we have just addressed the matter. But we must pay heed to
the requirement Lilienfeld himself states, and that we have already mentioned, that of
taking a deep view of the situation under inspection. In the case of social behaviour
this means transporting ourselves conceptually to a great distance where these
individual actions blur into a dynamic flow of material and energy through a structure,
this is the exact opposite of the process we seek to engage when we examine our own
individual bodies with the aid of a microscope.
If we speak about a process that is analogical to that of shopping in the above
discussion, occurring via an organ of the body in the form of blood that evolved to
transport oxygen as fuel about the organism, we do not think in terms of the
individual experience of a single red blood cell as it finds itself transported through
the blood vessels to one organ or another in the body. We may wish to know about
the detail, but we must think of the role of this organ, the blood, in the context of the
whole being if we are to understand its function and operation. Furthermore, to use
the terminology of Lilienfeld, we can see that the individual blood cell, like every
other cell within the organism, responds to the overall dynamic the body is
experiencing and in doing so the body exists in a permanent state of an attraction
effect exactly of the kind Lilienfeld says enervates the organism at the social level, an
effect he pins down to the bodily dynamics of the individual person. Thus if the brain
decides upon an action and commands the body to run the whole body must respond
according to this change in the attraction effect. To the individual blood cell this will
mean that it will be subject to a much more rapid turnaround in its normal actions, and

177
the heart, lungs and muscles will all be caught up in this attraction effect. In the
social domain the attack on the Twin Towers in New York can be seen as having
induced an attraction effect throughout the organism leading to new exoskeletal
structure being built, and old behaviours, such as passport checks being boosted, and
stable systems such as those of the military being pumped into action.
This is the meaning of taking a broader perspective of society if we wish to
understand it as a unitary structure. In this picture we see that the individual is
reduced to the significance of an individual blood cell in the process of respiration in
the individual body, no significance at all in other words. And this is why such
functional accounts of the social organism lead irresistibly to the assertion that there is
no such thing as the individual. This is something that is attacked mercilessly by the
establishment because it is anathema to the ideology of the ruling organ of the body.
But this particular consequence of the application of the organic method to society is
critical. By removing the mindset of individuality we are able to evaporate all
emotive meaning applying to whatever we say, and it should be clear from some of
the utterly appalling things the application of science to society has forced me to say
in this introduction to Lilienfeld's Defence of the Organic Method in Sociology, that
the only way these ideas concerning the nature of Jews, Christians, Muslims and
Nazis is bearable is if we recognise that here we are seeking to discern not individual
actions but mass effects corresponding to the attraction effect Lilienfeld continually
refers to in his work.
The historical method, as an attribute of Judaism, continually manipulates the
historical record to give the appropriate impression centred on the individual, but as
we can see this is a fallacious way in which to understand human existence, which
should be understood in terms of this attraction effect which links all actions in
society into a uniform flow exactly as it does in the body. There was a historical
programme on Channel Four a couple of weeks ago, today being 26/10/04, which
looked at the worst century ever, the thirteenth, when Europe was ravaged by plague.
One of the consequences of the plague was an attack upon the Jewish population,
Jews were tortured and burnt to death and in some places officials boasted that they
had exterminated all Jews in their district. The historians naturally gave us the most
terrible impression of such behaviour and accounted for it in purely individual terms,
related in part to the horror of the circumstances but also in part to other far more
telling factors. However the Jewish historians who fabricated this message only told
it the way they wanted to tell it. They said that the terror arose ahead of the plague
and was conducted by the upper echelons of society who had borrowed money from
the Jews and were seeking to clear their debts by this means.
Now the particularly insidious thing about this historical account is the way in
which it makes perfect sense. It fits the circumstances exactly. This attribute is
something which also applies to Darwin's theory of evolution. The only problem,
which applies equally in both cases, is that these are not scientific interpretations
because while they accurately reflect the individual experience of existence they do
not infuse the behaviour into a unified whole. Why, a reasonable person might ask,
was it that the Jews should of been in such a position, that of money lender, in the first
place? Of course we all know the answer to this question, but this is allocated to
another facet of the historical story, because history deliberately seeks to fragment,
history does not unite. If history united the facts it would evolve into the organic
method of sociology of its own accord, whereas the usual historical method replicates
Keith's psychological dynamic setting itself limits of awareness according standards
of identity already set by cultural factors. Thus as long as history respects such

178
cultural factors it cannot be independent of the social structures that generates them.
Hence, although it is clear that the Christians and Moslems are Jewish in reality,
historians reinforce the idea that these structural denominations are inherently distinct
from one another, hence history is a branch of priestcraft. This is an example of
linguistic information operating in creative mode to produce code that becomes part
of the form it creates, as we discussed above when we spoke of the linguistic code
that brought an engine into being thereby becoming part of the engine it created in the
act of codification. And what is so important to discern here is that the actual social
structures, such as the distinct religious forms and their associated identities, actually
evolve their form specifically in order to give rise to history! So there is an inherent
physiological link between the practice of history and the shape of the social structure
history describes. Which is why history is recognised to of come into being with the
Jewish method of codifying structural form through the recording of events in
association with named personalities, whereby these persons are made the vehicles of
change so that people as individuals and the events they are associated with provide
an historical record, the reporting of which is then claimed to describe independently
an historical process that brought history itself into being. And so theology and
history form a closed information loop revealing that history is the very essence of the
emperor’s invisible suit of clothes, history is self-made absurdity self-made; and in
this story God is the naked emperor who disguises the power of the Jewish identity.
This is all very well in terms of accommodating the natural process of
evolution as it occurs in the human species, but it is not scientifically valid because as
such history becomes part of the product not a product of dispassionate observation
reflecting the sole intention of understanding. In other words the linguistic blade, in
the form of historical priestcraft, becomes part of that into which it cuts. As if a bread
knife dissolved and became bread as it parted the crust and entered the pap. This is
why all history as we know it is ultimately just propaganda, and cannot avoid being
so. No wonder you find so many books seeking to defend the academic practice of
writing history. So a pogrom, which is a perennial occurrence in the Jewish
organism, is an attraction effect arising because of the manner in which the organism
evolves its identity in relation to the structures that creates it. Yes, it is true that
individuals consciously instigated a war of hate against an individual group they held
in subservience, but this situation was one that was produced by the manner in which
the exoskeleton of the human organism had evolved. And the rise of Al Qaeda is
exactly the same kind of phenomenon, it is a product of the rise to global dominance
of the Jewish organism, of which Al Qaeda, like the French nobles of the thirteenth
century who carried out the pogroms under the shadow of the plague, is a fully
integrated part. We may distinguish between foes in war, as we distinguish between
prey and predator in an ecosystem, but Nature makes no such distinction, which
means there is none; only the bias appearance of distinction, which language makes
absolute.
At certain times within the living cycle of growth the Jewish organism
produces the pogrom effect as a facet of the general attraction effect which is part of
the organism's healthy life cycle to do with action and growth. September 11th was
simply another attraction effect just as the burning of Jews was in past times. And of
course the same can be said of the behaviour of the Nazis. It is not that the likes of
Hitler did not become obsessive Jew haters, but that is of no relevance to anything, it
is of no concern to the scientist how an individual thought about anything. The
question is what was the mass effect of these thoughts, in general, in the population,
and what mass effect brought these thoughts into being? The defence against this

179
kind of dispassionate analysis of human affairs is to allow the natural flow of rage to
ensue, and to speak of the six million Jews butchered in the most horrific manner in
the gas chambers of Nazi Germany, and of course this defence is no mean thing. It is
certainly something, something I do not fear as I write these most dangerous words,
but I most certainly do fear whenever I try to communicate this science to others as
part of the process of communication which must be the end product of these efforts; I
am fighting for the love of science, for my freedom, freedom I have inherited, and so,
for the freedom of others, and therefore doing my bit for the freedom of humanity.
Religion is the antithesis of freedom, the ultimate expression of fascism, it wears a
friendly mask as long as it has what it wants, deny it, then see the real face of this
monster.

So this consideration of the Jew, and the elements of the Jew we call
Christianity and Islam, is not really about anything akin to the natural sense in which
we discuss these things from a political perspective. This is about the organic nature
of the superorganism that we are. Needless to say this is fatal to the authority of the
Jews and this scientific appraisal cannot be allowed to stand, but that is only to be
expected, and is of no concern to us, except in so far as this places us in danger from
the backlash that must follow this kind of revelation. But we will disregard this
problem, and continue to try and elucidate the application of the organic method in
sociology as it can be used at this time.
An historical overview of human society readily reveals a triadic structure,
much could be said about this but this is not the place for an elaboration of the
evidence. The general triadic pattern was normally represented in terms of a priestly,
or sovereign order which was highly exclusive, closely allied with an aristocratic
order with a military constitution, also amounting to a narrow band of the population,
these two, being put together, are placed at the head of the masses. Naturally there
are many possible permutations on this theme, but we can readily see in the theocratic
organism we live within that the Jewish identity subdivided into its Christian and
Moslem subidentities, conforms to the standard macro structure of a superorganic
being such as we always find in humans societies.
The message beamed out by the theocracy does not simply consist of
wavelengths transmitting identity, that is to say consisting of purely religious
information. It also consists of 'science', as we have seen, in the form of Darwinism
or Ptolemaicism in the case of the subversion of astronomy in an earlier phase of the
organism's growth. And we have mentioned that the exoskeleton is so evolved as to
make the priestly nature of the core leadership obscure, and to this end a political
message has evolved to caress the minds of individuals with the comforting notion of
freedom under the title of democracy. The illusion has to be paid its due or it will not
work, so we do have a large measure of freedom relative to some social authority
structures operating under this system of covert theocracy. But now we come again to
another major theme of the message central to Judaism, reflected throughout the
Bible, the theme we call history. This too is personalised and made to focus upon the
individual form, disregarding the nature of actions, exactly as we saw operating in the
case of Darwin's pseudo scientific treatise which evolved to protect the Jewish
theocracy. So the basic method is always the same, necessarily so, as we can see
from the root mechanism, which is language, which functions as we have seen by
splitting unity into two along this line of recognition which can be distinguished
between the immediate sensing of the physical world, and the accumulating
interpretation of information derived from the same world. Language is the

180
accumulating interpretation, and it leads to a creation all of its own where language
creates that which it is associated with in precisely the same way genetic structures
create that which they are associated with. Hence every cell within our bodies
contains the full package of the genome that is us, which is why the authorities can
use it to identify us from the slightest trace shed from our bodies.
The most interesting historic interval to consider in our attempt to indicate the
true nature of Judaism, and its subidentities, comes from the period of European
expansion beginning about five centuries ago, specifically focusing upon the ingress
of the Jewish organism into the American continent. This is of most interest because
of the rise of the North American continent in world affairs since that time. In this
case, addressed from the perspective of Jews, we can see that we had a whole
continent populated with an elaborate human fauna, but one that had evolved entirely
separately from the Jewish organism, despite the galling subversion of history in this
department by the Jewish identity programme specially formulated for the North
Americans in the early nineteenth century called Mormonism, which spread the
deranged idea that the indigenous people were the lost tribes of Israel. But what is not
deranged about Judaic mythology? it scarcely bares thinking about.
The common impression we have of the indigenous Americans is of a stone
age culture of hunter gatherers, it is rather more complicated than this, but for our
purposes this is close enough to the truth. This population were found to be no use to
the Jewish organism, they were therefore exterminated. But no one speaks about the
Jews carrying out this work, this was done by people entirely independent of the Jews,
the Christians. This is how Jewish historical method, focusing only on form, and
disregarding nature, relates the tale. But we know by virtue of our organic method
that there is no difference between a Jew and Christian, anymore than, in terms of
who they are, there is a difference between our feet and our hands. And so the
Christian structure advanced into the newly accessed territory of the planet, it acted in
this way like a political executive, or a military arm of a state. It took over the
continent and exterminated the indigenous people and made the land Jewish. Then
the Jews came in, and farmed what was in effect a domesticated population that had
already been pre-implanted with a Judophilic identity implant that was not only
supportive of Jews as a living people, but which created a social structure, an
exoskeletal form that Jews keyed into spontaneously. The result is that we see
America has become in every sense of the word, a Jewish slave state, as indeed
Britain has been for a long time, and of course all Christian countries are.
Some very curious items of scientific knowledge arise from this strictly
biological account of human evolution and growth. We may contrast North America
with South America. Here the indigenous population have survived more completely
and fused their culture with the Jewish slave implant. This can be accounted for by
virtue of the advanced state of domestication that these populations had already been
subject to under the aggressive priestly caste of the Aztec and Inca cultures, thus these
populations were to some degree preadapted to the advance of the Jewish identity and
they have produced a curious mix of their own native slave identity and that drawn
from the Sumerian roots of the Jews to which we are subject ourselves.
Other more startling facts impress themselves upon us as we realise the
Romans must also of been slaves of the Jews just as the British were when they were
the dominant power on earth, and as the Americans are today. And the most
dangerous piece of knowledge, which we have already touched upon is the essentially
Jewish nature of the Nazis; you have to have a death wish to start revealing this kind
of knowledge, or else an uncontrollable urge to tell the truth and an immense love of

181
freedom driven by this urge. As someone once said 'The truth shall set you free'. And
so its shall. But then again, do you want to be free, or are you perfectly happy being
Jewish, and ignorant of the fact?

182
 Tools

What makes a material form constitute a tool? This question is akin to the one
we asked concerning the use of a computer to perform the translation presented here,
except now the mode of expression used is intended to drive the idea of the tool
further toward a more universal concept by generalising the attributes of a tool.
We already laid the foundation for this line of reasoning when we stated that
the computer was a mind tool and a car a leg tool, in contrast to the more familiar idea
of a mallet and a chisel which are hand tools. But in the spirit of the organic method
that we are seeking to re-present to the world on the back of a defence written over a
century ago by the greatest advocate of this scientific idea we must recognise that if
the social domain is a living form then tools are the interface between that which is
commonly accepted as living, and that which is supposed to be none living because it
is an artificial creation, a product, so we are told, of human purpose and ingenuity.
And so, if our challenge is to reassert the organic method we must find a
common denominator between the tool, as artificial thing, and the mechanisms of the
living body. To do this we must ask again what a tool is, but at a more searching
level of universal dynamics. In Lilienfeld's day despite the immense strides science
had made it lacked the key ingredients of knowledge about the organic world to make
this kind of detailed, in depth comparison between the structure of the social domain
and that of the living body. This is not the case today, where the means of extending
our mental vision into the fabric of matter is as well developed as the extension in the
opposite direction so famously started by Galileo and his telescope.
In the case of solid matter we cannot speak of an ocular extension in respect to
the examination of the kind of structural detail we are interested in here because the
ability of light to be of use in this respect fades away long before the detail we are
looking for, that we know is there, is perceived. There is the electron microscope, and
this is ultimately ocular as it reveals images, but I used the term mental vision because
it is the genius of people that delivers the goods in this case. The story of the
discovery of the double-helix of DNA which was key to understanding the replicating
structure of the chromosome speaks of this matter, for it was a case of applying
theoretical knowledge to the inner world of living structure that provided the inner
vision of this form. The spiral shape was not seen through any kind of tool, it was
seen through the application of a mental tool, it was a case of a direct hands-on
approach from the brain. But in this case the brain did need to be equipped with a
means to do the work, it had to be given information pertaining to the real forms
involved in the structure of interest. Thus in this case discrete items of information
constituted the tools with which the brain worked, and yet we would not think of
discrete items of information as tools, we might speak more properly of broad subject
areas such as physics, maths and chemistry as the tools with which the brain works in
this context.
In making out this argument on the back of Lilienfeld's Defence we are in
effect seeking to provide a more modern interpretation of the relationship of the living
tissue to that of the none living material composing the social whole. In order to do
this we must shift onto a level of existence common to both areas of interest, and this
means we must shift onto a platform of dynamics. We must discuss the living body
and the artificial product of that living body according to one common mode of
description, according to dynamics. The language of dynamics is the language of

183
energy and information, for these are the terms we apply to the dynamic attributes of
the universe, and everything within it. Thus we want to find an everyday mode of
expression covering both the living biomass and the inert structures it gives rise to
that constitute the substance of social form.
The fact is that Lilienfeld already does this, only being deprived of the kind of
factual insight he requires to make out his case beyond simple refutation he can only
give an intuitive account of the dynamic process that he rightly perceives must be at
work if his convictions, which are the product of pure logic based on natural history,
along with its fellow subject of biology, mathematics, and such like, tell him must be
correct.

The Battle for Sociology

Information is the key to our argument. It is information that we must make

the common medium of creative form operating in living tissue and the inanimate
extensions of material forms that human animals produce. Both the living tissue and
the artificial fabric will then be seen to be produced by one continuous process of
information flow, exactly as Lilienfeld sort to represent the subject of social being in
his brilliant analysis of the subject. We might say that herein lies the battle for the
possession of God, summed up alternatively as the Battle for Sociology. A heading
prompted by a piece of theistic propaganda called The Battle for God:
Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, by Karen Armstrong, Harper
Collins, 2000, because while these three tiers of Judaism may mimic the act of
warfare in their joint effort to impose Judaism on all of humanity, the real battle is
between these confederates in disguise and the freedom of knowledge as represented
by real science, a battle that is best summed up as the Battle for Human Nature, but
which is equally well expressed within the compartment of sociology as indicated just
now.

What makes a tool a tool? Information makes a tool a tool. Our personal
involvement in the act of tool making and tool use, and especially the specialisation of
the act of making tools by some, to be used by others, means that the process of tool
manufacture blurs a series of discrete actions by makers into an impression of
uniformly purposeful action by users. In the process two primary divisions of
toolishness are defined, that of the maker and that of the user. This bifurcation of
uniform organic structure aids the impression of individual involvement and makes it
near impossible to see the organic continuity that is the real constitution of the process
in which the two individualised divisions act as subservient structures from which a
greater ‘social’ whole emerges, which is the being of the superorganism. Toolishness
we must suspect is therefore an inherent attribute of life forms at all levels of life of
all kinds. What we want to do therefore is to streamline the process and break it down
into an identifiable series of actions that we recognise as a seamless process of
creation in which individuals are but units of delivery. To do this we must identify
the flow of information through the tool forming process, as represented by the tools,
their manufacture, and their use. We can do this by identifying each point at which a
definite material change takes place, either in a tool, or the products of tool use.
I do not propose to attempt this analysis in any actual case, I am seeking here
to determine the procedure. This is philosophy, the search for, and application of
sound logic. From such logic comes a theory, or, from a theory comes the logic, on
the basis of theory the practice of science that engages with the material world can

184
commence. Darwinism is science commenced on the theory that gives us our current
model of divine human status, this is why it is so good, and yet so not science. Our
objective is to apply the same methodical method to the creation of tools as we apply
in discovering the creation of organic forms. The procedure we have just outlined
meets our requirements, for if we think about the complex process of photosynthesis
whereby plant tissue absorbs light energy allowing the plant to make its own body
tissue then we will find this process of recognising the stages in the flow of energy
through a series of biochemical forms traces the means by which this organic tool
making process takes place at the behest of the flow of energy directed by an organic
structure which encodes for that energy flow in a form of information we call genetic.
Information then is an encoded physical pattern which channels a flow of energy.
This definition is equally applicable to genetic information as utilised in the plant, and
linguistic information as used in ants or humans. Linguistic information is simply
social information that generates structure. There is no reason to suggest that human
language is unique since it clearly is just an encoded information medium that
evolved to generate structure like any other such information medium. The notion of
meaning is a figment of human immersion in the medium which directs the
individual’s robotic responses by virtue of that attribute of human language that we
call ‘meaning’. Meaning is necessary to make individuals robotic, without the
meaning attribute of language that focuses the significance of messages upon the
individual language would not perform the function it evolved to perform. Here then,
albeit somewhat casually, we have intimated the general manner in which the creation
of living tissue and human artificial products may be reduced to a common mode of
creation, a natural mode of creation, as scientific logic insists they must be.
In performing this task we may appear to be making it impossible for language
to perform its function, however this is not necessarily so. It is clear from the
persistence of religion that humans are robotic, otherwise why would religion
continue to be essential to obtain obedience to a corporate elite? However with the
evolution of complex exoskeletal structure of a secular kind, and with a new language
of precision able to describe organic functions in precise terms, it is conceivable that
we could become aware through the medium of scientific language of appropriate
ways in which to behave socially, in a Spock like fashion of comprehension, that
would do away with the need for meaning that relies upon emotional triggers
connected to ‘meaningful’ linguistic routines. But, would this mean we would all
evolve pointy ears, and if so, would it be worth the price of leaving our animal phase
behind us?
Tools are not to be thought of as part of an historical process, but rather as part
of a biological process. This idea is so obvious that books applying evolutionary
reasoning in connection with technology are readily available. A notable nineteenth
century author, Samuel Butler, who had initially been quite keen on Darwin’s ideas
wrote an essay entitled “Darwin among the Machines”, 1863, in which he suggested
the biological nature of machines. Two modern books broaching this subject are The
Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress by Joel Mokyr
1990, and The Evolution of Technology by George Basalla 1988. It is nice to find
books dealing with exoskeletal fabric from an evolutionary perspective, rather than
that of the historico-Biblical that science routinely adopts. This scientific approach is,
oddly enough, only to be found amongst the humanities where historians, economists
or sociologists extend themselves beyond their legitimate realms of concern, where
they can then speak of analogies and such like ruses being adopted to aid their
reasoning. As none scientists they can take a scientific approach under the guise of

185
seeking to draw on the success of science to aid their futile attempts at understanding
humans, something which no academics have any ability to do because if they did this
would preclude alternative ideas about humanity such as theologians come out with,
and set the theocracy’s academic structure at odds with the theocracy’s authority
structure; an inconceivable proposition. Scientists are obviously forbidden from
applying scientific models to human social phenomenon because that would mean
adopting the Organicist model, and so lead inevitably to the definite and absolute
destruction of Judaism.
Needless to say therefore the authors of these two works are keen to deny any
reality in the idea of evolution being applied to humans, and to ensure we are fixated
on analogical meanings only. Basalla says in his final chapter Conclusion: Evolution
and Progress that no one had ever “used the available historical data and scholarship
to work out the full implications of the evolutionary analogy. That enterprise,
neglected for so long, is central to this book.” (Page 208) So we know from his use of
the word ‘analogy’ that his efforts are just more theistic propaganda, determined to
shield the Biblical account of creation by thwarting science, even if Basalla was
oblivious of this primary aspect of his robotic activity. Meanwhile Mokyr also has a
nice closing chapter entitled Evolution and the Dynamics of Technological Change.
In chapter seven Understanding Technological Progress Mokyr has a subheading
Religion which is nice to see, under which he makes a feeble attempt to relate religion
to technological progress and says no one has had any luck with this problem. We
have of course stated precisely what the solution to this problem is because
Organicism allows all questions pertaining to human existence to be explained exactly
and in a manner beyond question. Thus religion is the identity of the organism which
relies upon technology to create its exoskeletal fabric. Where we see the use of stone
tools we know hominoids were producing an exoskeleton, and when we come to
modern civilization we know that Christianity allowed the free play of technological
ideas driving technology while simultaneously thwarting philosophical ideas drawn
from science because of the slave status of the Christian identity. Thus the growth of
the exoskeleton was facilitated while the alien master identity of Judaism was
preserved. It being the alienation of the master identity that programmed Christianity
to seek knowledge without fear of destruction because Christianity never was an
independent master identity existing in its own right that had to guard its status with
extreme jealousy, as befits a true priesthood, as applies to the Jewish priesthood
indeed that really rules our society.
Matter is organized energy, information is the pattern of organization; and
where language is the information medium humans are the matter that is organized. It
is a tricky business trying to examine the energy matrix in which you are immersed
when that matrix is blind to you such that you are as much a part of it as you not a
part of it. In other words we must imagine that a person in an ordinary state of
awareness is like a person immersed within a linguistic matrix where they are
themselves composed purely of linguistic information, as if they were a fish
composed purely of water, swimming in water. How would such a fish see
themselves and recognise they were distinct from that which was not them? They
would have no means of doing so. This conceptual approach to our problem of how it
is that highly educated intellectuals working in elite institutions where knowledge is
the be all and end all of their reason for being fail utterly to comprehend reality, is an
excellent means for us to gain a tangible insight into just what the situation is with
regard to the formation of knowledge and the structure of the social organism. It is
because, in so far as they have an intellectual awareness of existence, these academics

186
are immersed in the information flux from which that awareness is drawn and they
simply do not see that the flux is a linguistic construct that allows them to take shape
as individuals in their own estimation. While reality is a state of universal energy
which, if truly comprehended intellectually, would alter entirely the impression they
would have of reality and hence of themselves as experts on its nature and with
respect to their fictional status as entities existing independently of reality. The
artificial flux of academia sets people aside and makes them opaque so that the
individual appears solid, real and distinct. But a true impression of reality would
make the individual transparent and cause them to disappear into the matrix of the
universe along with all other aspects of reality, this is bound to be so in so far as all
things are part of the universal flux and cannot not be a part of that flux in any sense
whatever from a scientific point of view. The scientific point of view being the only
possible true point of view. Language and artifacts go together as oxygen and fire, or
water and ice go together, but who would be able to say this without the interrogative
insight of scientific investigation revealing the fact? Mokyr is getting there, but not
much, he is like a blind man trying to drive from London to Paris who has found the
handle on the boot of the car and is about to climb in and set off on his triumphant
journey

The idea or conceptualization of how to produce a commodity may be

thought of as the genotype, whereas the actual technique utilized by the firm
producing the commodity may be thought of as the phenotype of the member
of a species.
(Page 275)

Yes, very good, but wholly inadequate. If we begin from the premise that humans are
superorganisms and language evolved to extend the reach of genes into the exogenous
space between the individuals whose form is created directly by genes then we
naturally look for the evidence of language generating all social form, exactly as we
do in this work. Then the little fragments of the story that these academics struggle
with in isolation appear in their true shape as pieces of a jigsaw that readily builds
itself before our eyes, if we are willing to let it do so.
The problem that thinkers such as Mokyr and Basalla have then is that they are
simply oblivious of the role of language as an autonomous information medium
driving the evolution of technology because they are themselves, as academics,
linguistic constructs immersed in the linguistic medium. To ask for things to be
otherwise is like asking ourselves to be aware, in a very real sense, of the air through
which we walk, as if that air were something alien in which we did not belong. How
can we act in this life as if the very language that we use to think is not of our being
but of some alien being? It is like imagining that fish might likewise be aware of the
water in which they swim as something quite distinct from themselves, something in
which somehow they did not belong. But we have just noted that we might evolve a
Spock like language imparting a different sense of awareness based on our scientific
knowledge, and thus, while we would still be immersed in the linguistic information
flux that gives us our being, the consistency of the flux will of changed from a
theological wavelength to a scientific wavelength. These two wavelengths would
contain different amounts of information and generate different types of exoskeleton
as a consequence. Just as analogue or digital, or laser light and normal light influence
outcomes in terms of information content and relative structural forms associated with
the different information systems. Which means that academia is the product of a

187
theistic information flux, and we seek to change that flux to one of a scientific kind in
which all opaque theistic forms are dissolved and an entirely new, secular, egalitarian,
democratic and entirely more idealistic form, comes into being, more like the utopian
social forms we often seem to be so ambitious of for ourselves.

Flow and Accumulation

The process of creative information flow is not only one of replication, it is

also one of accumulation. Information flows, and accumulates. But both aspects of
this information-energy dynamic are punctuated by material forms, hence the
transitory and evolving nature of material forms within the domain of life. What
makes a tool a tool then? We must keep refreshing our focus on this question because
that is the conceptual tool we are seeking to use to discern the link between the living
tissue of the individual and the inert fabric of social structure that we want to unite
into one system of organic being. Information makes a tool, and, to repeat myself, it
does so by flowing dynamically, but also by accumulating, and this creative process
of information-energy flow is punctuated by material forms. But, and this is most
important, we cannot simply say that this i-e flow is punctuated by tools. And the
reason is exactly the same as we find applies when we break down the complex
process whereby sunlight is captured and transformed into plant material such as
starches and sugars. Once a creative process becomes as complex as a life form it is
punctuated not by discrete forms, but by a series of intermediate forms, not discrete in
themselves in the form of finished articles, but only serving as vehicles embodying
the information that carries the energy from its raw source, the sun, toward its finished
form, the plant. The punctuated form in this pattern of creation is then, by definition,
a tool. Any punctuated form ready for use by the living entity that has given rise to a
punctuated form as part of its structure is a tool. Punctuated meaning the end product
of a process bringing together a series of sub-forms Thus a hammer handle, or a
hammer head, is not a tool, they are components, put the two together and the result is
a hammer, able to do work, and this is a tool. A hammer is a punctuated form
because it is the end product of a process that brings a number of processes and parts
together, and from that point of punctuation in the creative process a new proliferation
of forms can arise as the punctuated form is put to work in a manner that sets the
creative process in motion again, this time on a new level of creativity. In a plant
therefore despite all the minute detail contributing to the punctuated product the
chloroplast that captures photons of light is the only final form that does the work that
makes it constitute a tool in relation to the working life of such a plant.
In this case we can say therefore that sugar and starch are tools created by
plants for their own use. Animals can then capture the tools of the plant world to
make the animal world. The plant as a generic form then itself becomes a tool in the
most magnificent sense. And so we begin to see the power of our reasoning as we
have made a logical case for extending the concept of the tool to the entire biomass of
the planet so that even a plant can be seen to make tools, artificial forms that isand
can even become a tool in another's hand. Tools do not occur in nature without the
constructive intervention of the entity that uses them to serve the purpose of their own
existence; although we must now recognise, from what our logic has just told us, that
once a tool has been made it can be misappropriated by the creative i-e process itself
in the production of still further forms acting on a new level of organization. And
from this we can see the logic of evolutionary advance that we call progress and

188
account for the hierarchical nature of that process, since it is on the back of the tools
of others that superior tool users come to be tooled. Plus we see how it might be that
we as individual mammals might come to be tools in a process creating a super-
mammal. If we ask ourselves the abstract question of whether it seems likely that
evolution would produce a superorganic equivalent of the ants using the mammalian
body plan, then I think we would all easily agree, if we were not ourselves in line for
the award, that this seemed eminently likely. And if we were honest we would have
to say that if nature were to excel herself in the mammalian department this is
precisely what she would do. So if we are not the ultimate expression of nature
excelling herself in mammalian guise, because we are all individuals, then we must
assume nature has yet to produce the finest of all mammalian forms that will indeed
be a mammalian superorganism. And therefore on the basis of this argument we
cannot be the superior organisms we think we are unless we are that ideal natural
product, the superorganism, which of course, our priests insist we are not. And in
terms of what we believe we are in the hands of our priests.
The language of human uniqueness is deeply ingrained and all pervasive, it
derives from an assumed perspective of uniqueness, the divine perspective. Words
are generated that imbue individuals with a consciousness of their uniqueness, and yet
when we try to discern the true nature of our position we find that the words we apply
to ourselves as unique beings can be applied to any species if we simply make our self
centred perspective the perspective of whatever species we have in mind at the time.
It is not our shift to the perspective of the none human species that is a trick we need
to perfect, the trick is the generation of linguistic formulas creating a consciousness of
uniqueness that has to be decoded. Language really is the heart of this issue, and that
makes sense, for language is the driving force of information in the creation of the
superorganic form that is the human being. Language is the flux that delivers
superorganic form and causes us to become as watery forms living in a watery world,
like water in water, blind to the code that creates the being that we are, blind to the
form of the being in which we live. The function of language then is to make us
opaque within our fluid, to give structure to the fluid-being made by the fluid-genetic
linguistic medium of superorganic form. Identity is that opacity, opacity once
provided by genetically programmed racial physiology, now provided by
linguistically programmed religious identity implant. And since we know that race
worked by countering the genetic tendency to vary with a psychological resistance to
variation, as indicated by Keith, and we know that in ourselves psychological
phenomenon are synonymous with language, then we can see the route evolution took
in its generation of linguistic capacity in humans, and why evolution followed that
course in obedience to the dictates of human corporate nature seeking to generate the
ultimate superorganic mammalian form, and therefore why language makes such
fools of us, and why only by being fools can we be happy and successful little robots.
This evolutionary route toward abstract speech is made plain to us because in
recognising the psychological link between racial form and linguistic capacity we also
identify the link between information laden genes and information laden language and
therefore see that the domain of social awareness created by human psychological
capacity constitutes a dynamic environment supporting a feedback loop between the
two kinds of information medium such that genes have a driving mechanism causing
them to develop linguistic acuity in response to the latent energy potential of the
social domain existing between individuals that are the product of a corporate nature
directing their individual form toward the evolution of a superorganic being. This
model of the process of linguistic evolution conforms to our understanding of the law

189
of evolutionary energy as discussed above, that tells us the form of organic entities are
draw toward zones of latent energy via a process that knits creative information into
codified patterns that deliver a finite series of material steps interspersed with
punctuated forms we have chosen to call tools because of their functional role in the
creation of the finished forms we see about us during the course of everyday
experience. One of which finished forms humans are, although as individuals we
qualify only as tools in this scientific analysis of the evolutionary process, the
superorganism being the only finished form in which human beings exist.
I use the word ‘psychological’ in the preceding passage because this is the
word Keith used when stating what race was as a biological attribute of human
beings. The psychological is the domain of mental activity, and could be said to be
the domain of the mind. Therefore a psychological link denotes responses subject to
states of awareness, this includes unwitting responses to stimulus, responses that are
automatic and not thought out in words. The human psychological capacity includes
linguistically constituted thoughts that are the personification of mind, but
psychological responses operate at a pre-linguistic level too, which is why we can
propose a pre-linguistic drive toward corporate unity based on race that evolved into a
linguistic drive toward corporate unity superimposed upon race. When I think of this
kind of dynamic I tend to think directly in terms of language so that I do not use the
term psychological in this context, a term which adds an unnecessary and imprecise
layer of complication to the subject of biological dynamics, giving more space to the
priest to develop a specialised kind of knowledge which experts can use to defend the
theocracy and subvert science.
Without language what kind of mind can exist? Clearly none at all, it is the
ability to generate a linguistic symbol for our thoughts that we call ‘mind’ that brings
mind into being. Therefore when we use the word psychological we mean linguistic,
and when we use the words linguistic or language we mean psychological, and in all
cases this gives us what we call mind. I say this notwithstanding that there is a
sublingual mental domain because without language we could not be aware of this
mental element in any meaningful sense either, that is in any sense that we could
reflect upon. Therefore language generates psychological forces that create the mind
which is the pool of information arising from the biological attributes of speech.
Mind is therefore the sum of information making up the superorganic being within
which we individuals are parts connected by language.
Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity, by Roy A. Rappaport, 2001,
first published 1999, arrived from America this morning, Friday, 29 April 2005. It
has an expressly religious agenda, but in seeking to assert that science and religion
should be accommodated to one another the author develops a delightful theme that I
am most keen on, and that I have never seen tackled before outside any work of mine,
that is, the role of religion in human evolution. Glancing at this book I hit upon
this:

To note that physical acts and material objects and substances are
components of virtually all human rituals is hardly to account for such a fact.
Physical display in ritual may, of course, be archaic. In their use of posture
and movement the rituals of humans come closest to those of the speechless
beasts, and it may be that the material aspect of human ritual survives from a
time when our forebears were without language. But to suggest that
something is a survival is not to account for why it should have survived.
Even if the antiquity of ritual postures and gestures were to be demonstrated

190
 we would not thereby know why this peculiar mode of non-verbal
communication should have persisted many thousands or even hundreds of
thousands of years into the time of language. If it is objected, as well it should
be, that ritual display is not to be construed a priori to be a manifestation of
continuity with the pre-linguistic past of the species a related, but more fruitful
question may be asked. Why is it that humans, who can communicate with
ease, efficiency and subtlety through language should also employ such an
awkward, limited and expensive mode of communication as physical display?
(Page 139-140)

Rappaport is clearly asking for an answer to the question we have just

answered. Ritual forms of all kinds form the skin of the exoskeleton that is the
physical being of the superorganism, and as human corporate nature must of existed
for millions of years before humans it is not surprising that linguistic fluency should
merely add colour to the underlying substance of corporate being as it extends itself,
aiding the established underlying patterns of superorganic being in their role of
identity display expressed in the rituals and forms such as prayer, dance, and costume
that so fascinated this priest Rappaport; and we must include the substantial extension
of these material forms such church buildings of all denominations.
There is a fascinating snippet in the Forward to this book written by Keith
Hart, indicating a point of central concern in our thesis, that academia is a skeletal
structure within which individuals merely live out their lives according to the dictates
of the information patterns that built the portion of the superorganism’s skeleton
within which they are ensconced.

Rappaport’s vision of the human universals appropriate to our day

invites us to rethink the modernist movement which launched our century and
has sustained the universities as a privileged enclave within it. In particular he
insists that we find ways of reconciling science and religion, since their mutual
antagonism is ruinous and their false synthesis, as in the latterday astrology,
economics, is potentially even more so. The vast majority of his professional
colleagues will probably be unmoved by his arguments, since they have long
been committed to other ways of thinking and have too much at stake in the
existing institutions.
(Page xix)

Of course Rappaport can only get away with being a priest because he is
devoted to the role that universities exist to guarantee, the suppression of science in
the name of religion. Hart indicates that Rappaport thinks of the science of
economics as a modern form of state fortune telling, for reasons that may appear in
the book, but we have seen that economics is a facet of Judaism since society is a
living organism defined by a religious identity under whose authority all other forms
of knowledge subsist and serve. And so once again we see how the division of social
structure in the academic domain allows one unified authority to rule society as each
of the various branches of the priesthood disperse into their corner and turn to face the
other in the league table of intellectual competition in which all contest for the one
cup, given by the theocracy that rules all social structure. This forward only goes to
show how deviant and perverse the intellectual element of society is, compared to a
rational account such as an amateur might produce in total isolation from the
oppression of the system the likes of Rappaport and Hart and all their colleagues have

191
served, whether they know it or not. Only a loose canon, not fixed to the planks the
priests walk, can emit the truth from its barrel. Darwin was battened down to the
Beagle and sent off by the theocracy to come back with a defence to protect religion
and he did his duty when he wrote The Origin of Species. What authority did this
man have until he was sent on this mission? He was no loose cannon. What authority
does an amateur have? None, they are free to speak the truth, but they have no voice.
Rappaport was no such person, we can see that he was nailed to the decks so hard he
was part of the planking. We see this method used time and time again where priests
devoted to the church are sent off to do the work that ought to mean the death of
religion, as in the case of the Leakey dynasty searching for fossil man and Goodall,
another amateur until they were chosen, appointed by a higher authority to determine
what our closest relative could tell us about our animal selves. Corrupt to the eyeballs
academia is, and it even goes to the trouble of having academics complain about it!

I obtained a collection of works from the American Academy of Political and

Social Science, sent from the British library yesterday, 28/04/05, in which there is an
essay by the sociologist Lester F. Ward entitled Psychologic Basis of Social
Economics which I would love to delve into here at length but which I must refrain
from doing for the sake of the wider objective of this work. I will snatch something
however. I obtained this book in order to get an essay by S. N. Patten called The
Failure of Biologic Sociology which is predominantly a response to Ward’s work.
Ward therefore seems to be classified as an organicist, although I certainly did not
think of him as such from his Outlines of Sociology, 1897, the only book of his that I
have; although Patten focuses on The Psychic Factors of Civilization. Ward uses the
idea of a psychological domain to separate humanity from nature by saying that since
humans are unique in being rational there is a biological economics and a
psychological economics, the one abiding by the mechanistic dictates of Darwinian
evolution and the other operating according to the rational determination of human
will.
The first thing to be clear about is that humans are no more rational than any
other organism. Humans no more choose to build cities, for example, than trees
choose to build forests. I cannot think of any sense in which humans can be said to be
rational, none whatsoever, and Ward does not justify his claim as he takes human
rationality to be a given, and something beyond question. All organic structure is
rational in that it is functional. Ward however does not broach such subtleties, and
although he states that humans when all is said and done are animals, he escapes the
rational implications of this statement by use of psychological reasons. This is how
Ward seeks to make the distinction between the law of the universe and the law of
man :

Over against this method of nature or biological economy, let us now

set the method of rational man, or psychological economy. The most patent
distinction which at once strikes the mind is that the latter is teleological
instead of genetic, and deals with final instead of efficient causes. This means
that while organic forms are merely pushed into existence by the pelting of
atoms from behind, and thus become fortuitous or literally chance products,
human creations are conceived in advance by the rational and foreseeing mind,
designed with skill for definite ends and wrought with the aid of a variety of
mechanical principles by which the energy expended is out of all proportion
to, and always less then, the result accomplished. It is in rational man,

192
 therefore, that the first application of anything worthy of the name economy is
made. Nature has no economy. Only through foresight can anything be done
economically. If nature produces nothing that may not possibly prove useful,
man produces nothing that will not probably be useful.
(Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol.
III July, 1892June, 1893. Kraus Reprint Corporation, 1968. Page 471-2)

That is enough of this nonsense, all we have here is a play on words where the
word economy is reduced by rhetorical definition to the human act of being
economical, even though the essay is supposed to concern the generic nature of a
material economy. This is too idiotic for words. But this is a good example of how
sociology was forged by the theocracy in the nineteenth century. In the criticism of
Ward produced by the economist Patten we find the same process of knowledge
control conducted by the priests in the nineteenth century as we see performed by
priests today when the likes of Dawkins take up the stance of an atheist in defence of
theocracy and then another academic like Lewontin attacks Dawkins for being an
unwarranted reductionist. So the debate is always between two pseudo scientists
dedicated to the defence of theocracy while no real scientist committed to the
destruction of religion as a necessary precondition to the advancement of scientific
ideas gets a look in.
I was looking forward to The Failure of Biologic Sociology because of the
pertinence of its title to my area of interest, and I did not expect to get it. Naturally I
was bound to be disappointed because we live in an absolute theocracy where no
works of a real scientific kind are tolerated, but after Patten stops engaging in the
futile act of slagging Ward off he begins to give us his version of reality as it applies
to human society. Of course, adhering strictly to Biblical convention, he begins by
defining an erroneous duality, that of the local and general social environment that he
terms objective and subjective; equating to Ward’s biologic versus psychological or
the currently more familiar physical and cultural.

Desire is the force back of the biologic development pushing the

organism into an intense local environment.
(Page 83)

Then .....

The adjustment to the general environment is secured through another

force. It is impulse and conviction that leads the members of a society to act
together and thus increase the utilization of the general environment.
(Page 84)

None of which is at all interesting. But three paragraphs on pages eighty six and
seven are interesting, where he discusses the manner in which impulse and conviction
act like forces driving social development and leading to irrational intellectual
outcomes which then induce a reaction from sceptics which leads to a toing and froing
between the two camps of the objective and subjective conceptual domains.

Later, the individualist, or better named the social nihilist, attacks the
customs, habits and institutions of society with the same method, and, at least
to his own satisfaction, destroys them utterly. [could that be me!] The whole

193
 subjective environment now seems wiped out and proved to be a myth and a
snare. Next, the idealist undermines the objective environment with the same
methods and shows that the external world is after all only a subjective train of
thoughts. Finally, the thorough-going sceptic like Hume assumes that causal
relations are similar in their nature to the habits and customs of the social
world, and have no other validity than have these fictions of society.
(Page 86)

Then .......

No wonder when the intellectual activities are confined to so barren and

negative a field that a school of positivists has arisen which excludes all
theology and metaphysics from the realm of science. But the very fact of
scepticism proves that there are intellectual forces creating conviction and
forming a subjective environment of instincts, ideas, axioms and institutions.
A weeding process presupposes a force that makes weeds grow. It is the
existence of a subjective environment and not the truth of its inferences that
demands attention. Theology, metaphysics and social institutions could not of
arisen if there were not some force in the intellect creating the fancies and
delusions out of which they spring. A theory of conviction must precede a
theory of knowledge.
(Page 87)

Yes! Superb. I love this final statement, its demand is the motive force
behind this work. As I love to say, because religion is so powerful, essential and
irrepressible, while being utterly idiotic, contemptible and vile, “Religion is not true,
so what is it?” It is exactly this question that we answer in this work. I am no social
nihilist. I am a passionate atheist living in an absolute theocracy, that is the source of
my intractable antagonism for all that my society is composed of. My stance is no
more nihilistic than the impulse of suffragettes to resist chauvinistic laws making
women second class citizens in their own land, or the struggles of black people in
South Africa to overthrow a white regime that makes them outcasts in their own land.
I am an outcast in my own land. Of course I am a social nihilist if wanting to destroy
the priesthood that rules your world and makes you a slave to their idiocy is the
correct definition of a nihilist. But obviously this is only the definition given to
freethinkers by the priests who have no morality, no conscience, nothing about them
except an unbounded sense of arrogance, greed and self lovesee Tony Blair ; or that
would be the case if they were anything but robots.
We should note that Patten in saying the above, of which I so heartily approve,
was not intending to promote the response I offer. On the contrary, like his
descendant in the role of priest, Rappaport, discussed above, he was intending to
excuse the idiocy of religion no matter what, and to say it is of value no matter how
we think it may not be. What gets me about these people is that while I see endless
pieces of work in this vein, defending religion from the onslaught of attacks from
atheists, for the life of me, I can never find a single item of information written down
that constitutes a work of an atheist kind dedicated to the annihilation of religion,
unless that is it is written by yours truly.

Putting the Pieces Together

194
 Having found a way to discern a common physical process underlying the
creation of all form, whether we term it natural or artificial, by means of reducing the
process of information flow and creative production to a common dynamic, we now
need to reverse the process from the newly acquired perspective and indicate not how
information flows through all things, but how all forms arise from that i-e flow.
In this case then we are not seeking to discern micro features of the process,
the punctuations in the i-e flow that we have called tools, and their associated
intermediate forms, we are seeking to visualise the whole being as a fluid entity in
which the entire process of information flow interspersed with material structures
proceeds ceaselessly even in the case of the most solid looking forms.
To do this we must first visualise the human body as a fluid form. As I wrote
this last sentence the image of a piece of speeded up film showing the decay of a
mouse in the leaf litter, being consumed by maggots, came to mind. It is something
of this order of mental image that we need to have present in our imagination for the
next stage in our attempt to apply the organic method to society. The central feature
of our knowledge of our own biology feeding this image is the fact that the body
regenerates its cellular substance on a continuous basis. Thus if we imagine being
able to see every cell, perhaps as a light impulse, one photon emitted, but one we can
see consciously, each time a cell is replicated, in place of the individual squirming
maggot that darts hither and thither over the rodents body as its form disintegrates and
vanishes before our eyes, we might see the equivalent movie of our own body
shimmering as if it were on fire, every waking moment of our lives. This image
would give us a sense of the fluid nature of our form, and it would show up
interesting detail by revealing the differential rates of regeneration which must be part
of the package. What underlies this fluid nature, because it underlies the replication
of cells, is the continuous flow of information from the genome that exists within the
nucleus of every cell in our body, telling the cell to make substances, intermediate
forms that is that eventually lead to end products, tools as we have determined they
should be called, tools that are the cells themselves. Thus cells in our body are tools
created by the whole being of the individual in order to serve the purpose of its own
existence. And these tools appear to make themselves, but of course they do not, and
we would never suppose that they do.
Are you beginning to get the picture? Do you see how we are working our
way towards the conception of the social form as a living being in which the
individual is a cell that produces intermediate forms, like coal, iron, steel works, that
produce punctuated forms, tools, like hammers, nails, engines and so on? And that
this whole process taking place in the social domain is identical to the one taking
place in the organic domain of the flesh in so far as it comes down to a relentless flow
of information which is really identical to energy because information traces the flow
of energy. Thus in the domain of life a flow of information occurs from which there
is a constant process of deposition, consumption or decay, causing a continual
shimmering of the living form that occurs beyond our ability to see directly because
of the time lapses involved, being too slow on the macro scale and too fast on micro
scale, and only amenable to our sense organ of information that is capable of
capturing information and freezing it in time through a process of codification of
information, accumulating it, and putting the accumulated product together by means
of a tool we call language that creates a collective being. Therefore according to this
reasoning knowledge is frozen information in a pure form, as DNA is frozen
information in a pure form; these two information modes being of the same ideal
nature, but of a different material, that is to say none ideal, kind. This time sensing

195
organ is of course our brain, it creates time by freezing information, but in truth there
is really no such thing as time, only the ceaseless flow of information, which if we did
not freeze it, would not stop flowing. All matter is frozen information, as we have
tried to conceive of it here, that is as an idea seeking to give an impression of the
nature of matter as a universal phenomenon. We find ourselves driven toward this
kind of ambitious conception by virtue of the effort we are engaged in whereby we
are seeking to make society one with the organic world, as we know it must be. And
now we can run the image of a mouse decaying along side that of a busy
superhighway at night, with its multicoloured streaks of light shifting, and know that
both images are of the same thing, the ceaseless flow of energy, nothing more,
nothing less.

Identity - Last but by no Means Least

So far this attempt to create a uniform conception of the process whereby both
the organic and inorganic substance of the social structure are seen to be the product
of one uniform process has resulted in a description of matter as a kind of river of
forms, seen as forms when the current is more sedate and turning ever more into a
blur of information as the current turns into a torrent. This suits our scientific
approach in which we have utilised energy models such as that of social gravity
creating social structure based on patterns of identity distribution.
We can sense that there is some connection here between the nature of life and
none life, but this is not the direction we want to go in, we want to go not from life
toward none living substance from which we know life arose, but rather from life, that
we know we are, toward the none living toward which we have become. We want to
make the social form become part of our understanding of the living process. And we
have laid out our case for this by taking a familiar facet of the social domain, the inert
tool, that is the extension of our bodily organs, and we have shown that by making the
generation of tools an end product of an informational process we can reverse the
usual logic behind the idea of a tool as an artificial product of human conscious
endeavour and show that any living process involves the flow of information which
leads to end products that have a definite function and that these end products are, as
such, true tools, relative to the structural form of the being whose form creates them.
But now it is time to refer back to the object of this exercise, that being the
resurrection of an old defence of scientific method that had formerly been well and
truly defeated by the social forces it hoped to comprehend, and thus to decode. This
act of resurrection therefore cannot be about the act of discovering new knowledge
that needs to be introduced to the academic world of the establishment, such as the
discovery of DNA, or the idea of plate tectonics revealing how the earth's surface has
shifted over immense periods of time. The organic method reigned supreme in the
early days of biological science as it turned toward the study of human society, but
like the ideas of the ancients who would take the earth from the centre of the heavens,
this piece of information could not be absorbed without a clash of an intolerable kind
taking place.
In order to understand this situation we must look more closely at the nature of
life as opposed to none life, and the process we have outlined above, of information
flow punctuated with a fixed sequence of intermediate and finished forms, that
gradually become transformed over time in a process we call evolution. This focus on
the detail brings us to the subject of identity, and it is at this point, the point at which
science discovers identity, that an intolerable clash of information flows occurs. The

196
point about life as opposed to none life is that while in none living forms energy is
just energy, in life energy is information. And what transforms energy into
information in life forms is the fact that life forms have the ability to store energy in a
specific form that is itself information, indeed life is the ability to accumulate energy
as information. Life is information. So how did this new mode of energy dynamics
come into being as life? By means of identity. Thus as life is information, it is, even
more specifically, the information of identity. But it should be clear that if a living
form is the result of storing energy according to a series of discrete encoded patterns
of information united into one, and yet this act of accumulation of discrete patterns is
only possible because of the information of identity that defines structure, then the
transformation of energy into a living form requires the dualistic process of creating
material form imbued with identity, and thus no living form can ever exist without
being imbued with identity. And this is of course self evident since all a species is, is
a form of life that can distinguish itself from any other form of life, and this is why we
can recognise life forms according to their species category, each in its own right.
And it is clear that the incestuous self consuming biomass of the planet uses this
central feature to distribute the energy of life throughout itself as organic forms come
into being to exploit one another within the context of the biosphere created by the
utilisation of the ultimate source of energy in this system, the sun. It also appears that
in this analysis we find the foundation for our all pervading dualistic outlook.
What follows from all this is that the function of all tools is to create a single
unified form which alone possess a real identity. A tool, in so far as it has an identity,
serves to create something else with an identity. A real identity is the only defining
feature of a none functional entity, because a real identity exists in its own right,
hence the supreme irrationality of religion. Religion exists to perform the function of
creating a superorganic form, but this is a self fulfilling function, it is aimed at no
higher object, it creates no material thing beyond itself, it is the end of the pecking
order of functional identities. If anything can be said to be self made then, it is the
unifying form resulting from real identity, it is, in other words, what we call God. If
we think of Durkheim’s definition of God as society, unwittingly named such by
humans, we see immediately that if God is self made and God is society then society
is self made, and not made by man. This indicates the presence of the usual flaw
indicating the motives of a priest in Durkheim’s work. The so called founder of
modern sociology was just the usual run of the mill theist subverting science to adhere
to the Biblical account of human divinity and uniqueness. He failed to make society
self-making like any other organic entity, even when he made the idea that there is no
such thing as an individual his own and stated that society is the object of reality we
call God. No, the superorganism is the object of reality we call God. There is a huge
difference between these two realizations of what God is in reality. If society then we
can still make human individuals the active principle in the making of society and
God, if the superorganism then individuals do not exist in any meaningful sense from
a scientific perspective because organisms are made by nature. Durkheim’s work
took the essence of Organicism and subverted it by insinuating it into the usual
theistic model of human divinity. He made humanity self making, whereas as we
have seen it is only facets of priestcraft that are self made such as history. And these
self-made facets of human activity are attributes of superorganic form dictated by the
operation of human corporate nature driving toward the latent energy potential
inherent in an ever greater superorganic being.
By making these observations we hit precisely upon the reason why
information is everything to such a real identity form that relies for its material

197
existence upon the series of pseudo identity forms that consist of tools that the real
identity that is self serving unites into one real form, the superorganism in the case of
human beings. And in our superorganism Judaism is the real identity uniting all other
human identities, hence we all exist to serve Judaism. Coming from the other end, all
beings are the end point of a system of functional mechanisms that have the attributes
of a tool. All real beings are synonymous with a real identity that makes itself, a
being that is self fulfilling, in that it serves no further extension of identity beyond
itself. There can only ever be one identity embracing one organism, any other identity
is a pseudo identity and as such is in reality a tool. And from this we have a logical
exposition of the assertion that even things as contrary to the core identity of Judaism
as Darwinism, science, fascism and so on come to be subservient to this unifying
identity under the umbrella term tool. Judaism is a core identity fracturing into a
multiplicity of social structures within the social domain of the human biomass, just
as mammalian physiology is a core identity fracturing into a multiplicity of forms in
the physical domain of the planet; Judaism could only evolve to be such a form in the
biomass of the human species because the human species is the expression of
mammalian form adapted to exploit the domain of mammalian physiology itself. This
inner domain of mammalian physiology is by definition, when exploited by
mammalian physiology, social, and also therefore, inevitably, superorganic in its
nature. Real identities evolve in the same manner as all other forms, by ascending an
energy gradient by evolving an information routine, and as such they must start out as
novel forms that have the attributes of a tool able to do work. The process of
selection will cause some tools to possess a critical form acting as a pattern for a
whole series of further elaborations on a theme to evolve in which the original critical
form retains its status as the core identity. This must be a feature of real identities that
are self generating and only serve themselves, and this is how Judaism came to evolve
subservient forms of identity that extended Judaism’s domain rather simply
generating a host of competing kinds because in the case of a real human identities
they evolve within the environment composed exclusively of the human species.
Coming back to the matter in hand then, it follows that the human species
must posses an identity appropriate to its form also. And so we must think about the
means by which information flows and how organic forms condense from that flow of
information. And how there are imbued into these organic forms relevant indicators
of identity. We may remind ourselves at this point of the idea we are endeavouring to
obtain a clear picture of as we engage in these ruminations, that of the clash between
scientific knowledge of our true form, and the facet of the true form we call identity
that is central to the ability of that form to exist. The argument we are concerned with
presenting is that the human species is a superorganism and the human animal comes
into being as an individual only at the level of social organisation. Hence society is
an organic being, it must be produced by way of the condensation of form from the
flow of information as described above, and imbued into that condensed material
form must be an identity. And the information of identity must be part of the
information message that lays down the physical deposit that is the body of the
organism. So the actual laying down of the social structure which is the body of the
living creature, the exoskeleton we can say, must occur in accordance with an
identity, or it cannot retain its coherence and it must die and either become extinct, or
be replaced by another being formed according to an alternative identity routine. We
actually see this attribute of social form referred to in an appropriate context in
Lilienfeld's Defence when he says that it is not just the ideology of Christian theology
which imparts the social structure, but the actual material structure of the church

198
expresses this ideology of identity. In actual fact this is an excellent opportunity to
note the precise nature of his failure to grasp the meaning of the idea he was so
devoted to, for this interpretation of the situation is completely mistaken. He simply
does not see the meaning of his own ideas, he just does not see that if society is a
living organism then it is a living organism, and the body of the church is not
inducing the social being, it is the living tissue of the organism, it is an exoskeleton.
Lilienfeld just cannot see this, and this is linked to his complete failure to grasp the
central issue of identity. All human societies are superorganisms composed of
exoskeletal fabric, and the presence of a Christian church reveals the Jewish identity
of the superorganism, the church building is not communicating identity, it is identity.
Had he of grasped this simple idea he would of made atheism the foundation stone of
his argument and shown the physiological relationship between Judaism-Christianity-
Islam, and concluded this point by noting that we thereby prove God does not exist by
showing what God is, the superorganism, or, as he might of preferred to call it, the
social organism. And we can refer back to the previous chapter for thoughts on the
way the structure developed by theology creates history such that we have an example
of the point we are making here when we say the information laying down material
form also lays down the identity, history being an extended part of the information of
identity united with the rest of the theological identity package we call religion.
History just describes the growth of the organism that bears the identity that history
serves.
How he could of been so blind it is difficult to say, indeed so difficult to say
that we are bound to start getting that sense of the conspiratorial that arises so often in
the investigation of this subject because of the fact that our central problem is not the
introduction of new scientific knowledge but the challenge we are making to the
identity that gives form to the organism. But it is because the information is imbued
into the organic form that this conspiratorial response seeps out of every orifice of the
social being, where the defenders of the traditional message of religious identity are
the cells exuding the hormones of defence, and the various structures like the
churches and the seats of academic knowledge are the organs of hormonal excretion
from which the cells pump their message of corporate identity, thereby preserving the
integrity of the superorganism rotating about is Jewish core.

Race and Religion

The best way to think about this question in relation to humans is in terms of
racial identity, and especially in terms of the skin. We can assume that humans are
naked mammals because of their special status as a superorganism, where the
individual organism ceased to exist as an organism in their own right and became a
cell within the true organism forming at the social level of organisation. As a result
the individual unit lost one of the foremost traits of mammals, a hairy coat. This was
a sign of their loss of individual status for this special protective layer which evolved
to aid the insulation of the warm-blooded mammalian form became irrelevant as the
outer skin of the organism shifted away from the surface of the individual toward the
exogenous structure of the exoskeleton that the collection of units fabricated in the
form of architecture via the use of tools and the language that made tools possible.
Thus architecture is, as a tool, an extension of the skin, a skin tool, originally
composed of simple elements formed into a group compound and hut. Perhaps,
initially, this tool of containment was little more than a loosely woven nest providing
shared sleeping quarters where close proximity between one another kept the

199
individual warm and already made the individual a physical dependant of the sum of
individuals in the amniotic zone of the nest where the genesis of the human
superorganism began with a small conglomeration of undifferentiated cells, the first
hominoids.
Today this skin tool has evolved into the most astounding superorganic forms
which truly deserve the agnomen exoskeleton. With the loss of the need for
protection from the environment organised on the basis of the individual solid body,
the skin could lose its substantial physical properties of protection and lean toward
emphasising its additional attributes as a primary medium of identity, as the outer
visual surface of the life form. So identity became the primary attribute of the skin
from a superorganic perspective, delivering the means by which the individual knew,
subconsciously, to which human organism it belonged. And hence the importance of
race in our species when it comes to our sense of self and none self. Sweating
something only humans docan be accounted for in this context as a sensual means
of making intimate contact in close confines socially stimulating in animals where a
sense of touch was coming to the fore. So the skin of individuals became a major
source of sensory information, a sensory organ in its own right, one especially attuned
to social information, both in reception (touch-private) and transmission mode (sight-
public). In making the distinction in modes of social receptivity focused on one
sensory organ of social perception, the skin, we see that we have already identified a
natural means of defining the individual and the group at a pre-linguistic level of
communication, touch defines the individual socially and sight defines the group
socially on the same physiological basis of the skin. This allows us to make sense of
the central importance of a sense of self in the operation of superorganic physiology
which causes each individual to play their part by being able to sense the bond
between themselves and the organism they are part of. Today we continue to make
use of this physically defined social sensitivity in an inverted mode by making sweat
and the smells that go with it abhorrent, thus rejecting the animal sweat and using a
manufactured substitute to communicate our intimate presence to one another in close
quarters. It is as if we have even managed to take this highly physical trait of
corporate identity associated with racial physiology and under the influence of the
linguistic creative information medium generated a linguistic substitute, an artificial
sweat. This linguistically induced form of sweat, or perfume, has a rigorously
enforced gender slant to its communicative function, which might tell us something
about the early function of this particular communication device as an attribute of the
naked skin that evolved to induct the first undifferentiated hominoid cells into the
nascent form of the superorganism they were part of.
We raise the subject of race at this moment in order to grasp the manner in
which a physical form, in this case skin, operates as an organ of the body while
carrying an additional attribute, in this case colour, which does not add to or detract
from the functional attributes of the organ as it exists in relation to the physical
environment. We can see how, because of the exceptional nature of the human
animal, skin has taken on the psychological significance it has because of the related
dynamics of superorganic form making the requirement of its protective function less
robust while making the requirements of the corporate organism's need for a common
sense of identity ever more predominant. So there is a link between the form of the
outer surface and the role of identity, but relative to our own individual selves this
shift of emphasis is not balanced, it is weighted heavily toward the role of identity, the
skin becomes to our subconscious way of understanding an organ of identity. Yet,
disregarding for the moment the evolutionary history of the skin, we can see that as

200
things stand at this moment in time the skin serves its current physiological function,
however much that is related to the superorganic form, additionally, by way of sense
attributes, through sweat production and such like physically communicative devices,
so the aspects of identity we are aware of are infused into the material form of the
skin. The best way to grasp the point we are seeking to make here is to understand
that skin is skin whether it is black or white. But the colour is all important, or
certainly use to be; but then language came along, and so linguistic colour came to
take the place of epidermal colour. Hence culture became the epidermal layer of the
linguistically empowered superorganism, overlying the exoskeletal form which also
took on a new mode of expression due to the information medium of speech. As a
result caves were painted, mammoth tusks became structural building elements,
stones became ceremonial centres, pyramids were built, and the rest is history. From
all this we can see that if language weaves the skin of the exoskeleton why the idea
expressed in the centuries old story of The Emperor’s New Clothes, popularised for us
by Hans Christian Andersen, should be so telling in our discussion. Elias Bredsdorff,
in a biography of Andersen, says the origin of this story is Spanish and attributable to
Infante don Juan Manuel (1282c.1349) who wrote a book of tales based on Jewish
and Arabic literature. (See page 312) What this ancient story is really about is not
personal vanity, but the organic nature of language. Language is the loom upon
which ideas are woven by priests who produce an ‘invisible’ cloth with which to dress
the living being, the social organism. A cloth we do not see via the medium of light,
but rather, via the linguistic medium of our mind’s eye that is composed of our organs
of linguistic communication. Our perception of the verbose cloth that obscures our
view of reality offered by a scientific mode of investigation that uncovers underlying
structure in the physical domain. The Bible is the most overt example of a suit of
clothing woven to dress the superorganism, as such it is not surprising that this
brilliant story also has deep roots in Jewish culture. The Origin of Species is a piece
of fabric woven on the loom of language to suit the new fashion for scientific modes
of dress, and immensely popular it has proved to be with the priesthood of our time
who flounce around in this garb from morning to night and wallow in its nice silky
touch, silky because it keeps power pouring into their coffers.
And so now we are in a position to shift our attention away from the physical
body of the individual and its unification, through racial identity, into a homogenous
whole ensconced in a territory where the superorganism that arises as a result of this
homogeneous form resides in a local patch centred on a exogenous construction
which is the residence of its being. We can move onto the form our society takes
today where race has given way to religion as physiology has given way to language,
and tribal camps have given way to superorganic encrustations on a continental scale.
It is in this setting that the relevance of Lilienfeld's remark about the structure
of the church imparting the message becomes so important. But more than that, and
something we do not get from this monograph, whether it is in his original work I
cannot say at present, but the focus upon language is here, and it is here that we want
to find imbued into the linguistic message the colour of identity. And this takes a
rather more deep comprehension of the issue than might at first be apparent, although
we have already sort to sow the seed of that greater perceptual depth in the above
remarks concerning the manner in which the very language that we speak is so
constructed as to work outwards from a central perspective, in this case the
presupposition as made in a certain religious mythology to the effect that humans are
unique. This presupposition informs all the meaning carried by words, hence we
come to have words like natural juxtaposed with artificial which are specific to our

201
own species, even though we have already seen that this is completely nonsensical. It
is however the way nature has evolved our language in order to create the global
superorganic form that we are today that is capable of creating exoskeletal structures
on a continental scale, such as cityscapes interconnected by transport and
communication links.
All this discussion has been intended to open the way to elucidating the clash
between science and religion which we broached earlier as we began to try and tease
out the reason why Lilienfeld's unassailable scientific logic was worthless against the
barrage of tradition with which it sort to compete on equal terms. The point being
that language, that is infused into all individuals, including all Organicists, no matter
how passionate they are about their subject, and which gives rise to the superorganic
being itself, delivers this most necessary bias toward asserting the uniqueness of
human beings. And as we have just indicated, taking up a remark within Lilienfeld's
text, certain primary structures of the exoskeleton are concerned especially with the
preservation of identity and can be considered as organs of unification where the
message of identity is focused and preserved, and from whence it is emitted. These
structures are most notably centres of religious worship, but in fact any centre of
information is bound to be closely affiliated to such structures and indeed is liable to
supersede the role of such structures in the delivery of identity messages if the balance
in favour of the theological identity colour is not forcefully preserved by the organic
units committed to these structure's defence and promotion. And in saying this we
can see we find ourselves once again revealing the close relationship between science
and religion since academic institutions are essentially religious institutions, no matter
how much they seek to disguise the fact for reasons to do with preserving the distinct
role religion has in preserving organic identity and hence authority over the organism.
The distinction between organs in an organism is a self evident requirement, it is
clearly necessary for the brain as a centre of command to be distinct from the muscles
as organs of executive action, as much as it is necessary for the two to be intimately
integrated via a sense of unified identity and a means of communication.

Real Atheism

Real Science

202
 Where does all this leave us?

An esoteric author writing between the world wars, just at the time the
superorganic idea of human society was breathing its last breath, produced a
fascinating commentary upon the subject, in an indirect manner, as befits such an
author. His name was Ouspensky. The relevant work is A New Model of the
Universe: Principles of the Psychological Method in its Application to Problems of
Science, Religion and Art, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., 1931. In it he
spoke of ants as people who forgot who they were, and described how ants will of had
their last freethinkers crying out in a lonesome plea for their kind to recognise where
they were headed before they were reduced to the status of robots. This he speculates
might happen to humans as we continue our descent into the same social condition as
the ants display, of mass conformity to one corporate identity.
I cannot resist giving you a taste of this delightfully deranged author:

Passing to facts, we must admit that insects are in no way a stage

preparatory to the formation of man. Nor could they be regarded as the by-
product of human evolution. On the contrary, insects reveal, in their structure
and in the structure of their separate parts and organs, forms which are often
more perfect than those of man or animals. And we cannot help seeing that for
certain forms of insect life which we observe there is no explanation without
very complicated hypotheses, which necessitate the recognition of a very rich
past behind them and compel us to regard the present forms we observe as
degenerated forms.
This last consideration relates mainly to the organised communities of
ants and bees. It is impossible to become acquainted with their life without
giving oneself up to emotional impressions of astonishment and bewilderment.
Ants and bees alike both call for our admiration by the wonderful
completeness of their organisation, and at the same time repel and frighten us,
and provoke a feeling of undefinable aversion by the invariably cold reasoning
which dominates their life and by the absolute impossibility for an individual
to escape from the wheel of life of the ant-hill or the beehive. We are terrified
at the thought that we may resemble them.
Indeed what place do the communities of ants and bees occupy in the
general scheme of things on our earth? How could they come into being such
as we observe them? All observations of their life and their organisation
inevitably lead us to one conclusion. The original organisation of the
"beehive" and the "ant-hill" in the remote past undoubtedly required reasoning
and logical intelligence of great power, although at the same time the further
existence of both the beehive and the ant-hill did not require any intelligence
or reasoning at all.
How could this have happened ?
It could only have happened in one way. If ants or bees, or both, of
course at different periods, had been intelligent and evolving beings and then
lost their intelligence and their ability to evolve, this could have happened
only because their "intelligence " went against their "evolution", in other
words, because in thinking that they were helping their evolution they
managed somehow to arrest it.

203
 One may suppose that both ants and bees came from the Great
Laboratory and were sent to earth with the privilege and the possibility of
evolving. But after a long period of struggle and efforts both the one and the
other renounced their privilege and ceased to evolve, or, to be more exact,
ceased to send forth an evolving current. After this Nature had to take her own
measures and, after isolating them in a certain way, to begin a new
experiment.
(Ouspensky, page 60)

You would think the man was telling us a fairy tale, he makes Lewis Carroll's
world look positively normal.
It just goes to show how flexible I am that it pleases me to call upon the work
of an esotericist to support the rigidly scientific tone of my argument, but it is only to
echo this tone that I call upon this most bizarre of authors. We can easily prove that
God does not exist by showing what God is, but all this kind of atheistic talk is
irrelevant once we have made our point in respect to religion and science and we
come to focus on the science alone. We are where we are because we evolved to be
where we are. And where we are is domesticated, in the fullest sense of the word, just
as much as any species of animal can be said to be domesticated. You cannot ask a
farmer's livestock if they want to be free, they are what they are, if you open the gates
they will just go feral and effectively no longer exist as they were before the gates
were opened. If we were set free from the priestcraft of the Jews we would likewise
just degenerate toward a feral state and, we might imagine, return to the hunter gather
stage of society. But the gates that keep us in place, the gates of Keith's psychological
factor that keep us focused on our slave identity, are part of our inner being. There is
no one to open the gates, if a set of conditions matching this outcome arose it would
not rewind evolution, it would mean our extinction was nigh; evolution cannot be run
in reverse like a movie on the TV screen. I often use to think that the people who
would not eat meat back in the hippy fraternities of the 70's in which milieu I spent
part of my youth, were sentencing the animals they refused to eat to the most
appalling fate any species could ever face, extinction. Domesticated animals evolved
to be eaten by humans, and in doing so they became the most successful species of
their kind. Where are the wild goat and sheep in these islands? In so far as there are
any they are pushed to the most remote corners where, if they stray into our space and
start committing minor offences such as eating the flowers off gravestones, they are
liable to be exterminated on mass. The same fate awaits any class of human who
thinks they can live beyond the Jewish priest’s reach, the gypsy may be able to skirt
the fringes, but it is a bedraggled kind of freedom. The hippy, when young, drawing
their benefit, can escape after a fashion, but this is of no consequence.
Going all the way back to Rousseau we have infantile notions of a noble,
primitive state of innocence, to which we can return if we wish to, a state of
innocence we lost due to moral depravity; a theme that exudes from the Bible's
Garden of Eden like the trickle of slavish nonsense it is. We were never innocent, we
did not arise from innocence, we are not depraved, we never have been, and we
cannot therefore be saved from our depravity or cured of it, we are just organic
entities like any other. There is no such thing as 'good' and 'evil', there never has
been, there never will be. To speak of humans in these terms you might as well do as
Basil Fawlty did and beat the hell out of your naughty car for refusing to start. The
idea of a humanity responsible for itself is sheer insanity, when considered from a true

204
perspective. We are of course speaking as scientists when we say this, as sociologists,
as Organicists.
Domestication, slavery, this is the perfection of the human form. This is
nature, this is how Nature works. Human nature is corporate, this is the eternal ideal;
slavery and domestication are merely none ideal crystallisations of the ideal appearing
along the thread of human corporate nature spun out through time. Each expression
of our dependant nature is perfect in its representation of the ideal, although not ideal
in itself. We cannot rid ourselves of Judaism, no matter how much I might wish we
could, we are stuck with it. Theoretically we could, but we are not in charge of the
show, and to act in such a theoretical manner we would have to have a leadership that
wanted to take us in that direction. This cannot happen, this is precisely why the Jews
are our leaders, because they have evolved the notion of being chosen and being
destined to rule the universe in accordance with the dictates of human corporate
nature. Thus they always seek to draw the threads of social organisation together, to
where they are, toward themselves, making themselves into the knot of humanity
upon which the gravitational force of human nature focuses itself. To farm human
society in other words, this is why the Jewish organism has given rise to global
capitalism with its ever engrossing corporations seeking to streamline all the worlds
services into one cultural form with the profit focused upon the master, upon the Jews.
This is how corporate nature works, we can do nothing about it.

Being severely provoked by the news this last couple of days I wish to include
a piece of venom I concocted this morning.

Sikh Fascists

On the news a couple of days ago, on the 20th December, there was an
item about a play in Birmingham that was under threat of closure due to the
extreme violence of the Sikh community on the preceding Saturday. The
news said that police were in discussions with the theatre and the Sikhs, and
something would have to give if the play was to go ahead. It was called
Dishonour and set in a Sikh temple, where it dealt with rape and murder. The
objection was to the play being set in a temple.
The next day the news informed us that, happily, something had given,
violence and fascism had ruled the day, and everyone that mattered, the police,
the fascists, the government, were very happy with the outcome. The actors,
the writer, the theatre and the pathetic individuals who love free speech were a
bit miffed, but they evidently were not very vocal in their miffedness. Who
gives a shit about free speech anymore? The police said the decision was the
right one based on safety grounds, and the relevant government minister
echoed the theme these vindicators of fascism had decided to use in their
public statements approving of this religious fascism.
I thought of the scenes in London last month when the English people
trying to stop the destruction of their culture were beaten near to death by the
police when they launched peaceful protests against the urban fascist’s ban on
fox hunting. But of cause the Jews would not do that to an important phalange
of their newly recruited front guard. The poison is in our system, how on
earth can we eradicate our society of the Sikhs now? We cannot, we have no
society, it is theirs, as it always has been, society as we know it belongs to the
religious fascist, it always has, they make it what it is, disgusting.

205
 Hark back to Kidd's words, the Jews already have worked out the laws of
nature that create institutions, intuitively, that is why we are where we are. These
laws can be worked out scientifically, but who is going to do it; and then what? But
we can also do nothing about the fact that the sun will die in about five million years
time, and long before then this planet that we are part of will of ceased to support life
of any kind, we can do nothing about that, but that does not stop us figuring out the
scenario. Hell, we've got nothing better to do while we wait.
For me, a lover of knowledge, one who adores science, it is just about honour,
about showing the world that we had the ability to know, and we dared to know. Yes
we are simply organic entities, we are powerless, and as individuals we are slaves of
these cultural forces. But isn't it one of the most satisfying things about the Ancient
Greeks that although they ultimately displayed the same abysmal ignorance and
animal lethargy about life that all people do, including ourselves, as we have seen
demonstrated here in our criticism of our society's establishment, at least we know
that there were free spirits who did seek and did find the truth, the one truth, and who
said it, and left a trace of their achievement. This is all I want to show that while I
live in an appalling pit of ignorance, in a society so debased by vile ignorance, even in
this nightmare, intelligence could shine through. I want to leave a spark from the
dying embers of the people who made Englishness what it was, before, having served
their purpose, their masters put their fire out and extinguished their light forever.

Of course the Jews are just as much slaves of Judaism as anyone else. You
only have to look at the people in Israel today, 26/10/04, who live in the Jewish
settlements in Gaza being faced with eviction, saying they will never leave because
God gave them the land, and so it is theirs. Honestly, who do these people think they
are? God, who the, what the, hell is God! Well, God is, as I have revealed, the
organism, and it is indeed the central place of the identity in the organism to which we
all belong that has been implanted into these people with the Jewish master-slave
implant that has given these people of Gaza this arrogant sense of self that they have,
that has placed them in the territory stolen less than fifty years ago on the basis of this
myth they say gives them the right to rule the earth. But all this is really biology, not
politics, nor even religion, just biology.
Because of the core status of Jews we can speak of them perfectly accurately
as the masters relative to the Christians and Moslems who are therefore their slaves,
because while the Jews are slaves to Judaism in the same way a millionaire factory
owner is a slave to capitalism just as much as the factory workers employed on the
slave wage recently introduced as the 'minimum wage', it is clear enough that the
status of these two contrasting denominations of the capitalist structure are distinct
from one another despite their common state of dependency. This distinction is
hierarchical, and that is the nature of the Jew relative to the rest of us, which is why
the special attributes of Jews, that separates them from the rest of us, is a common
experience of us all that we are aware of from time to time even if we are not Jews of
the core ourselves.
Today we are trained to revile slavery, and the behaviour of the whites toward
the blacks is used as a moral stick to beat us with in this respect, just as the Nazis are
used in the same way whenever we say anything that can be construed as being
against the political interests of the Jews. But the fact is that humans evolved to be
slaves, to be domesticated, to be attached to an authority. This is our natural, healthy
state of being. There is an inherent contradiction in this from the point of view of the

206
Jewish slave identity, Christianity, which teaches us that we are all equal in God's
eyes, but this is only meant to be a facet of the slave's implant, this linguistic device
maximises compliance. Clearly it is the opposite in the master's implant, where the
Jews are raised to think of themselves as relatively superior, the chosen. But despite
our implant teaching us to hate slavery, when real slavery has exited it has been
enjoyed by the slaves, in the late Roman empire there were rich slaves that wrote
eulogies to the joys of slavery. Herbert Spencer in one of his works, Social Statics,
mentions the recollection of a traveller in the Americas to the effect that negro slaves
taunted those who were freed because they had no white master to look after them.
When I spent a nightmarish four weeks working in a local mill for a pittance last year,
despite expressing hatred for the work one of the regular girls indirectly asserted her
higher status then me because she had always been employed! If we ponder on how
the flower of the bronze age existence came to be produced, bronze in other words, or
the megaliths that preceded them, then we cannot escape the idea that the same
obedience to mindless toil as directed by a supreme master is always a feature of the
mass of society. The pyramid builders of Egypt were assumed to be slaves, but we
now believe this was not so, they were peasant farmers who contributed to the
communal effort. But although there are shades of interpretation coming into these
thoughts about the conscious involvement of the workers, the fact is that while we do
not like to be brutalised, we do like to be servile, up to a point.
Lilienfeld talks of the Organicists trying to rid their account of controversial
language, but this achieves nothing. The enemy of science has to be seen for what
they are, and addressed accordingly, no one who is not an atheist can be accepted as
being a scientist, anymore than anyone who is not law abiding can be accepted as a
police officer. This has to be the ideal of science and part of the conditions defining
the proper application of the scientific method. The fact that the scientific
establishment is replete with theists does not mean there are scientists who believe in
God, it just means the scientific establishment is corrupt. By failing to make these
overtly anti-theistic arguments Lilienfeld does not realise the perfection of his own
argument’s potential, and the nature of the conflict this argument sets up with
religion. Consequently he fails to perceive that his protagonists in the field of
sociology, that he calls sociologists, instead of priests or theists or some such
agnomen, are no more sociologists than he is a duck.
War is no place for being squeamish, and whenever anyone seeks to engage in
science they are carrying out an act of war against the theocracy that rules the state,
this cannot be avoided. The priests who rule the state and pervert science to their own
ends are certainly not squeamish, and those who would be scientists cannot afford to
be either, all the more so since they are the underdogs fighting to break free, not of
ignorance, but of oppression. If you want to rise from the tomb where the Jews have
placed you then you must be prepared to fight for access to knowledge. We cannot
have religion and science. Technology and religion, yes, no problem, this we have.
Technology is just part of the tissue of the exoskeleton and this never conflicts with
the identity the exoskeleton carries infused into its form. Just as you cannot have
justice and corruption, of whatever kind. In so far as justice is synonymous with a
social structure consisting of uniforms, courts, prisons, yes, the trappings of justice
can be had side by side with corruption, no problem. Justice and corruption go
together just fine if all you mean by justice is the trappings of justice.
While we do not shy away from being provocative, as necessity dictates, we
must recall that when we use the term Jew in a general sense we are using it in its
scientific sense, to describe the animal to which we all belong at this time. We must

207
not let the Jews possess us, we must possess the Jews; the term 'Jews' as used here
may be taken to be a suitable catchall for any religious denomination whatever, albeit
the Jews themselves deserve to be singled out for an invocation of this demand that
we do not want to be possessed by any religious class of elite, for the Jewish identity
is the heart of the problem we face today in our eternal struggle to be free of the grip
of priests who use all their wiles and tricks to keep us enslaved to their economic
incantations designed to bring about the Zionist goal of one authority ruling the
universe under one denomination.

208
 Conclusion

From a scientific point of view, what is information? Energy only and always
exists in a state relative to systems. Systems are material structures. Hence we have
chemical energy within chemical systems, such as car batteries. In a more difficult
sense to envisage, but one that logic obliges us to acknowledge, we have linguistic
energy within linguistic systems, which are always social structures, such as ant
colonies, and indeed any living system since life implies communication since we
have said the transition from none living to living is defined by the shift of energy per
se to the newly extant, or emergent status of information, which is energy as
experienced by the entities it defines. But it is in the superorganism where the
phenomenon of linguistic energy comes into its own. The point about energy is that it
is what drives all systems. Ant language is chemical, bio-chemical, based on
pheromones. Human language is electro-magnetic, using sound and light waves to
communicate socially significant messages in the form of speech and body posture
signals, especially facial masks and their nuances. This difference between the energy
mediums giving rise to the ant and human superorganism is the key distinguishing
factor between these two life forms, this is what makes humans different from their
insect cousins with whom they share a common nature. The difference in the energy
potentials of these respective energy forms, chemical and electro-magnetic, is
immense and any organism evolved to have a constitution created by electro-magnetic
energy is bound to be a supremely powerful organic entity, and humans are just that,
and for just that reason. The electro-magnetic spectrum is a very rich information
medium, it is the medium of light, and a such the precise modality of energy that is
emitted by our star that gives rise to life on this planet, which is why a life form could
evolve adapted to this energy medium in the first place.
It follows from the above that mechanical machines are a natural extension of
the organic world since we have made energy and information one, and although
machines do not recognise information they do depend upon a supply of energy
delivered to them courtesy of the information built into their structure by the life
forms that created them. So we have a bi-polar conception of universal dynamics in
respect to the none living versus the living world, whereby energy is the ever present
medium that flows eternally, and matter can flip in and out of the two possible states
of being relative to this universal medium of material form. Meaning that entities can
be either living or none living, and their status is reflected accordingly in the state of
their polarity relative to the universal medium of energy, as defined by their
relationship to energy in terms of energy as energy, or energy as information. It
would appear then that when creating machines life forms act as a material lens
through which energy passes in the form of information to re-emerge as energy once
againas seen from the perspective of the machine, only this time transposed onto a
new level of inanimate organisation. From this it can be seen that we have the
makings of a true model of a none living 'life form' such as a sci-fi writer might wish
to conjure up. Except that as long as there are living organisms associated with
machines then the machines can only be extensions of the organisms that created
them, part of an exoskeleton in other words. But if the umbilical cord of information
connecting the machine to the creator organism can be severed so that machines exist
as independently, self-creating entities, then in effect a form of none living life has
evolved. And yet as long as we think strictly in terms of machines this cannot be,

209
because we have determined that it is the awareness of energy as information that
defines life, so there never can be a pseudo life form existing that is independent of
the ability to sense information. Life, in other words, either is life, or it is not, there
are no intermediate stages, it is all or nothing. However while this idea is inclined
toward a fundamental level of application when making this assertion the real
objective is to think about the macro structure of life. Defining the physicist's domain
is beyond the reach of this work, other than as an act of general speculation derived
from an attempt to accommodate the evolution of human society within a scientific
model of the universe. With the computer to inspire us we can conceive of the
potential to sense information existing in a mechanical form, so if we include the
computer in our idea of a machine then it is only a matter of giving the sensory device
a purpose, and then it is on its way toward becoming potentially self replicating. A
purpose, as we have seen, means a self serving identity such as Judaism is. Could we
infuse such an identity into a machine? I do not see why not, after all, what are
human beings but organic machines; this is why Judaism works. This is what we
need to terra-form Mars, living machines with a sense of purpose that serves our
purpose, we could call them Christians.
A purpose is a foundation, a base line upon which to make decisions, and it is
the existence of such a point of decision that turns energy into information because
instead of the flow of energy through matter being mechanistically determined
according to the fixed laws of matter it becomes subject to a real time decision
determined by the structure of the material through which energy flows, in a manner
contrary to the general laws of physics. This can only be achieved if the matter in
question has become a reservoir of energy segregated from the universal laws of
matter by virtue of the structure those same laws have given rise to under those
special conditions in which life can come into being. So a life form is a reservoir of
energy. A captured drop of energy becomes an energy potential that can be released
in a manner that is not fixed directly by the laws of matter applying beyond the
reservoir of life. Energy within the reservoir is subject to a special case arising from
the structural interface of which the reservoir is composed that allows the flow of
energy to be controlled. And life evolves, we may suppose, as the reservoir fills. Life
is, according to this conception, a dam wall, behind which energy is trapped. Energy
within such a reservoir is necessarily distinct from energy beyond the reservoir, it is
subject to alternative laws that include a time dimension, in that the ability of the
structure to determine some aspects of the flow of energy involves the switching on
and off of the energy flow, which amounts to the introduction of a comparatively
indeterminate time factor not present in relation to the flow of energy in the world
beyond the reservoir. It is in this context that the universal phenomenon we call
energy acquires the attributes that make it information, because it becomes subject to
a relay process determined by the structure that captures it, to fill the reservoir.
Evidently it is the living tissue that constitutes the structure of the energy dam,
and the inbuilt sluice-gates and generators of that structure are the switches that
control the flow of captive energy according to the overall directive of the structure’s
form. This conception of a life form translates readily into the realms beyond that of
the organic tissue of a living body, allowing us to include the exoskeletal material
produced by a body within the one conceptual scheme, because it utilises the language
of structural engineering to describe living processes. To be specific then, we can say
that in the modern societies in which we live, where the whole mass of artificial
structures constitutes a huge dam behind which energy is captured and released in a
controlled manner, we can focus on one important detail to help us comprehend this

210
organic picture of modern society. That of the expert that has caught our attention
before.
In the field of social dynamics the structure of the state is based upon energy
in the form of authority. The structure of the state retains a head of social energy by,
on the one hand, defining everyone as an individual in relation to itself, and thereby
making each person nominally equally impotent in terms of social authority. This
universal energy state of equality, equivalent to the state of universal energy in the
inanimate universe beyond life, is then pooled behind the dam of human energy so
that, as far as possible, all human energy, that is all energy vested in the planet’s
human biomass, is trapped by the evolved structure of the state. The state is always a
theocracy of course, I do not want anyone to run away with the idiotic notions of the
nineteenth century intellectuals who saw the state, as in the politically defined nation,
as the end point in this process. Clearly there is a two part process operating here
consisting of the homogenisation of particles followed by their organisation into a
state of complexity. This dualism is the fundamental mechanism of evolution that
allows life to pull itself up by its own bootstraps by building a platform from uniform
elements, then evolving a new structural element which acts as the model for a new
form upon which a further level of unification takes effect, leading to the formation of
a new platform of uniformity upon which a new level of units can be built based upon
a new unitary model capable of embracing ever more human energy behind the
consequently rising walls of humanity’s exoskeletal structure. Earlier on we
identified a potentially protoplasmic stage in this process where the first hominoid
individuals were visualised as passing their nights in one sweat-ball of social bliss
within the exoskeletal womb of a nest fashioned by manipulating the first stone
implements to create a corporate skin making up for the loss of body hair. Wherein
the dualistic mechanism came into being by defining self awareness by touch and
corporate awareness by sight, the latter state of awareness being the incipient sense of
God.
If we wanted to model this process symbolically we might choose a three
dimensional pyramid as a symbol of life’s evolution according to this dualistic
mechanism. In making this observation we might feel inclined to imagine the Ancient
Egyptian priests knew about biological evolution as we understand the concept.
However, as titillating as this thought is, to hold onto it would be puerile. What the
Ancient Egyptian priests had possession of was the accumulated knowledge involved
in the creation of social structure that captured human energy, thereby delivering
authority to an elite body in charge of the sluice gates. They knew about social
authority courtesy of the action of biological evolution that brought them into being,
and that is all they knew. Like those who rule us today, by virtue of the very same
force of biological evolution, the Ancient Egyptians knew nothing of reality as we
may understand reality now, courtesy of real science.
The pyramid is a useful visual aid to understanding the operation of evolution
as experienced by humans in the supermassive colonies we call civilised societies,
because of the manner in which pyramids are built up in a series of levels toward a
pinnacle, thus forming one integral mass. But if we try to benefit from this
visualisation by using it to understand the evolutionary process as it is expressed in
modern human societies then we need to recognise that the evolutionary process
works differently to that in which the architectural effort of building a pyramid works,
whereby a plan is conceived and then carried out. In nature the pyramid is built from
the top down. That is to say, when a new form evolves that is suited to the
elaboration of a new form of human society the new form initiates the process by

211
virtue of its status as a valid core body, that is an elite political and religious body
with a distinct identity and structure that becomes the basis of each new platform
building up the social structure. Thus the original elite social pattern in this human
context acts as a seed about which a human biomass can grow. Each succeeding
platform then corresponds to a distinct new identity, and so the pyramid begins to
grow, like a tree, from a small beginning to a large end. Each new platform has a
distinct identity but one formed according to the structural model of the original, and
so the platforms appear beneath the original representation of the new form, and so
the original form rises until its kind has proliferated as far as possible, and then the
living pyramid is complete and the original form exists at its peak. This is how we
come to live in a global community in which most people belong to a corporate
identity programme that follows the Judaic model of worshiping one God through the
medium of a written text in which prophets deliver the commandments to obey the
law, and so on and so forth. The result is a pyramid of human life formed according
to the Jewish model, with the Jewish culture itself resting supreme upon the highest
point of the edifice created by organic evolution acting on the dualistic principle of
create and extend, create and extend. The pyramid model is a model of the macro
evolution of life and it can be applied to any broad aspect of life. We have just
applied it to the evolution of human superorganisms, but it obviously applies just as
well to the form of a new kind of life such as the mammal, whereby a mammalian
physiology evolves, and once perfected, bursts forth to cover the planet, it does this
by generating a host of different mammalian forms, but all these new mammalian
identities retain the seed of their advantage, their initial mammalian body plan. And
so while they may be rats, dogs, cats, bats, cows and so on, they all remain mammals,
just as while they may be Christians, Moslems, Sikhs, Hindus, Mormons, Catholics,
Nazis, Protestants, French, American, Japanese, Communists, Capitalists and so on,
they all remain Jews.
We are basing our reasoning on a biological model of society that constitutes a
three dimensional world, not an historical model which defines a two dimensional
social space in which temporal sequences define a hierarchical relationship. If
Hinduism had become the core of a global organism then all other peripheral identity
cores that survived the process of Hinduism’s expansion would of been drawn into
orbit about the Hindu core and become Hindu themselves. Thus Judaism would of
become a facet of Hinduism or else it would of been exterminated by Hinduism, just
as Hinduism can only be thought of as a facet of Judaism because there is only the
Jewish identity remaining in prime position on this planet at this time. Temporal pre-
eminence is not the key to understanding biological relationships, although it is
relevant and Judaism as it happens is an ancient core, albeit one that has reinvented
itself over the course of its evolution.
George K. Zipf is an author I am just getting to appreciate, in a book called
The Psych-Biology of Language he makes the following remark under a subheading
The Stream of Speech as a Conversion of Spatial Arrangement into Linguistic
Arrangement : 

The stream of speech represents purely sequential arrangement, that is,

a continuous linear arrangement in the stream of time; there is a before and an
after in speech arrangements but no above or below. A striking difference
then between the arrangements of experiential data and those of speech is that
the former may and frequently do include spatial arrangements which are not
found in the latter.

212
 (Page 265)

Given that I had written the comment above about the two dimensional nature of the
historical perception of the social as compared to the three dimensional reality of all
physical being, just prior to reading this remark, I was prompted to make the
following explorative statement. The linearity of speech that gives us our two
dimensional histories based on a time line strung with events and personalities is an
inherent attribute of symbolic communication. We may suppose therefore that insects
like ants and termites also have a sense of history just like ours, except one that is
relative to their own social environment, and this allows them to construct the
exoskeleton of their nest, which composes the fabric of their superorganism, on the
basis of an instinctively programmed model. Exactly as we build our social structures
according to a programme dictated to us by information emitted from the fabric of
superorganic structure itself via a feedback loop existing between the organism and its
cells. Termite structures are architectural works and there must be a plan existing
somewhere within the totality of termite existence for these edifices to come into
being. Conversely we may think we know how to build our domiciliary spaces but
the knowledge is accumulated over vast lengths of time and this knowledge would
disappear in a flash if the continuity of information maintained via the linguistic
mechanism did not sustain the link; as we can readily see from the playful antics of
reconstructive archaeologists that are so popular on television currently. So the two
dimensional description we have of history is not a flaw in the attribute of linguistic
communication, on the contrary, it is this constraint that brings into being the rarefied
domain of social space in which our detached notions of reality have such force. As
we have said language did not evolve to give us an abstract view of reality, it evolved
to serve a biological function, that of generating the superorganic form. This
circumscribed social space generated by speech defines the extent of the living being.
By constraining consciousness of the external world in a time bound fashion wrapped
in images composed of linguistic threads of reasoning, firstly we get our sense of
time, and secondly we establish the ‘artificial’ boundary of social space giving us our
own spatial canvas upon which to construct our cultural form, that is the fabric of the
social organism. This living fabric is of course three dimensional like any other facet
of reality, but because it is created via the medium of language acting through us we
do not see it as such. Hence the notions of uniqueness we have of ourselves,
expressed in all manner of ways when we talk of our own behaviour and existence. In
stating this we indicate the psychological connection between the evolution of
language as the fluid-genetic medium of the superorganism that, by its very symbolic
nature, defines social, that is, superorganic space, and then proceeds to flesh this
space out by filling it with time bound forms that we call artifacts and elements of
culture. So, by making what Zipf calls a perceptual adjustment in terms of spatial
arrangements, we get an artificial space, an organic space in fact, exclusive to the
mind, a space which the mind itself only exists within, in the same sense that life only
exists within the body that it creates when a life form comes into being. Except, when
a life form comes into being it does so at the behest of genetic information, whereas,
when a social form comes into being which unites life forms into a greater unity, it
does so at the behest of linguistic information, thus mind space, as we might call it, is
therefore created by virtue of the power of speech. And from this we can see that
mind, and social space, and all that this space is composed of, are one and the same
thing, just as life, and the living body, are one and the same thing. Social being then,

213
from a scientific point of view is mind. All these thoughts connect with the assertion
that language creates the superorganic being.
Through the medium of the exoskeletal structure which gives the body of the
dam its form, the process of utilising the human energy trapped thereby proceeds by
investing energy potential in individuals associated with the exoskeletal structures of
authority. Individuals thereby acquire the energy of authority, they become super
charged relative to the modular individual of universal individuality. Thus specialised
individualsthe expertsevolve, who have the power to determine the extended
structure of the social biomass beyond the immediate confines of the state-cum-
theocratic structure with which the experts are specifically associated. The experts
therefore define the flow of energy that has been pooled, by determining and
administrating the state’s definition of the categories of social behaviour in terms of
individual definitions. Thus from a uniform state of individuality, via the control
mechanisms of the exoskeletal structure of the state, all individuals are redefined
according to the energy of authority. Relative to the modulated flow of energy
managed by the structure of authority each individual will carry a more or less
positive, or negative charge. Thus we have people labelled good, bad, useful,
indolent, honoured, criminal, perverse, moral and so on ad infinitum, according to the
determination of the structure of the state. The experts control the flow of human
energy by identifying those individuals in harmony with the flow of energy released
through the sluice-gates of authority, and conversely, by also identifying those
causing eddies or obstructions to the smooth flow of energy. In this way social order
evolves on a huge scale and, ultimately, all because of the evolved predisposition of
the units to accommodate the self-effacing unification of themselves into a living
organism that leads to the fulfilment of their individual form by association with those
of their own kind similarly formed. Which, when all is said and done, is not one jot
different in principle from the behaviour of our erstwhile protoplasmic sweat-lovers
huddled up in a jungle nest half a dozen million years ago, except in their case the
love of sweat was the master, their god, awaiting transformation via the benefit of a
priesthood into the Lord we worship today.
And from this reasoning we can see why there is a persistent element of
confusion in philosophy about the determinism of inert matter as contrasted with the
freedom of living matter. What underlies this confusion, what we really have, is the
determinism of none living matter, as contrasted with the determinism of living
matter. This results in two states of determinism dependant upon one set of universal
laws, made distinct by the intervention, within the realms of matter, of a form of
matter that segregates energy from the universal energy pool and then releases it
according to its own structural determinations. This model may be compared to the
natural water cycle on earth, as contrasted with the intervention made by humans
when they build water dams and release the water according to a time scale, and via a
structure of their own making, but still in conformity to the universal laws of physics.
The decision making framework of living structures determines the outcome of the
flow of energy in terms of material deposition in a life form, or, if we are to include
mechanical life in the scenario then we can say material deposition in the machine
endowed with a decision making substrate. The necessity of including the term 'real
time decision' in this sentence arises because this refers to the fact that energy does
not know where it will go when it meets the decision point in real time, at each such
moment there are a number of possibilities before it, albeit the variety of options is
always constrained by the decisions previously taken. It is the balance struck between
the rigour set by decisions made and the fluidity of decisions yet to be taken that

214
causes evolution to flow unpredictably in a definite direction. Finally we must note
that in this philosophical model of the energy-mass dynamics of the universe we have
recognised a particular form of matter that constitutes a decision making substrate
through which energy is relayed, a material form that is distinct from all the other
matter it is related to that constitutes the material from which the energy dam is
formed; leading to a kind of energy-lens existing within the dam structure therefore.
The genome of a life form is such a decision making substrate, and the linguistic store
of information is another such substrate, that is a lens through which the passage of
energy is transposed into an indeterminately definite, but a deterministically regulated
form. The special attribute of a lens is that it is transparent to a limited facet of
reality, the selected facet is the medium of the lens. A lens will be neutral in relation
to its medium, any image of the medium will pass through the lens. In life forms the
information mediums are lenses through which living images pass to appear in the
material world. But here the lens and the image are united in such a way that we get a
sense of dynamic passage and fixed form that leads to a controlled evolutionary
process. Information is imbued into the form just as energy is imbued into matter. As
we have seen, energy and information are one and the same thing defined according
to an abstract idea of their role in existence.

An interesting adjunct to this reasoning, concerning the transformation of

energy into information via the intervention of a structural form, is to be found later
on in this chapter in respect to the statements made concerning the way we do not
really possess science versus pseudo science, but rather establishment pseudo-science
in contrast to regular pseudo-science. Of course knowledge is information, and so it
is a facet of the dynamic of information control that leads to the evolution of form that
we see reflected in this convoluted effect in respect to the capture of energy within the
social structure, whereby the way we interpret the energy we sense as information
alters according to the nature of the structure that contains it. So we do not have
determinism versus freedom, and we do not have science versus pseudo-science. We
have one mode of determinism versus another mode of determinism delineated by
different structural terrains, and we have one modality of pseudo-science versus
another modality of pseudo-science delineated by different structural layers of one
organic being that accumulates a pattern of linguistic stratification in the course of
evolving its superorganic physiology. All of which dynamics, whether inanimate or
social, come under the regulation of the universal laws of energy, exclusively in the
former case, and additionally, in the latter case, subject to the confined laws of
information determining organic structure; laws of information that must exist, but are
yet to be discovered by ourselves in relation to our own superorganic form because as
yet we do not recognise that this is our form.

If the genome is one lens then the sum of information carried via the brain is
another, so that in the linguistic domain we have to think of a collective mind as the
equivalent to the genome of a species that exists at the genetic level of material form.
Which means the human superorganism has two primary energy lenses acting as the
mediators of energy that together create its living form, the genome and the mind.
Using the word mind here risks causing confusion since while these two energy lenses
must be material forms and the genome, albeit diffusely distributed throughout the
living population of a species is nonetheless a material form, the mind most definitely
is not conceived of as a material form. However I find the word mind most
appropriate in this context, although I guess I must define it since clearly it must be a

215
material thing. The problem here, that leads me to use the word mind to provide a
label for the material lens created by the sum of all linguistically generated
information is that I want to include all information of any kind that is still active in
the domain of the human species. In effect this is what a genome is, but this
summation of active genetic information is stored in the DNA of the species. The
summation of all sensually and linguistically created information is not so easily
located in one distinct material form, but it has to exist as a material form or else it
could not exist at all. This kind of information then is imbued into language itself,
into all cultural expression, and so exists imbued into the material form of society,
into the exoskeleton, the exogenous form of the human being. Thus, in terms of
information the material of human existence that I call the exoskeleton becomes,
literally, the mind of the living superorganism. Which is akin to saying all of the
human biomass is a brain, which contains such a mind.
Therefore, seeking to extrapolate from this idea, the two energy lenses of
human form are the genome and the exoskeleton. Giving us two material substrates
that exist as mediums through which all energy transformed into the substance of the
living human organism must pass. It is a small step from this conception of the
human superorganic form to the description of a focal point within this material mind
which conforms to our general conception of a superorganic structure centred upon a
core authority. This leads us toward an organic conception of the evolution of Jewish
identity encompassing the decision making substrate within its cultural form which
consists of the living tissue of the people who call themselves Jews, but is dispersed
throughout the medium of the extended superorganism that is Jewish by virtue of its
derived motivation, because its extended exoskeletal form is diffusely permeated with
the consequences of this decision making body's founding sense of purpose. And thus
we see that it is not the exoskeleton in its entirety that constitutes the lenticular
substrate focusing the delivery of energy that creates the superorganic form, but that it
is a cultural entity with a specific linguistic identity that constitutes the substrate, the
lens through which all energy must pass in order to deliver living form to the
organism. A distinct cultural entity that constitutes the brain, and is therefore the
repository of the collective mind, as expressed through its self centred sense of
purpose that invigorates all that we can call the Jewish superorganism. And thus we
have rendered the Jewish core of authority into a dynamic model of superorganic
being, a model that seeks to make sense of the relationship between the information
that Judaism is composed of and the material form of the superorganism whose
coming into being has been mediated by Judaism.
But all of this is simply to transpose the model of inorganic life into the
domain of the superorganism. Does this mean, therefore, that the superorganism is a
machine in waiting, and we are therefore able to say that we are to this mechanical
life form of the future in prospect, as the Australopithecine ape was to the hominid of
the present that we are? If so, then we have seen the future, and in it our own
extinction. However this prospect of extinction is as good as it gets, so enjoy it,
because the alternative is that something else gets us first and extinction by stealth, as
routinely imposed by Judaism on all cultural forms other than that specifically of
itself, will be exchanged for extinction, full stop. So we do not have the prospect of
extinction versus existence, we have the prospect of one mode of extinction versus
another mode of extinction; and so the relentless logic of the universe runs on, and on,
and on ..............
So the difference between ants and ourselves lies in the physical realm, not in
our nature, our natures, that is the nature of superorganic animals, is identical.

216
Humans are not divine, we do not have any moral attributes or any higher levels of
perfection such as those discussed in ethical terms by theists and philosophers,
including Lilienfeld. It is undoubtedly this primitive mode of intellectual reasoning
that led to this German philosopher's total failure to approach the goal that his life's
work was apparently directed toward, namely a true account of human society, and
therefore of human nature. He blurred his own vision with intent, something no
scientist can ever afford to do, which is why atheism must go hand in hand with
science, science that concerns itself with human nature, a true science of humanity
that is. Atheism is reason without intent; obviously if there was a God then this
would not be true, but if there was a God then it would not be possible to be an atheist
since it would be impossible not to believe in it.
Put simply, or it might be preferable to say succinctly, ants operate at the level
of chemical energy, humans operate at the level of light energy. Ants are chemical
robots, humans are electrical robots.

One might say, with considerable justification, that the primary objective of
science is, and always has been, the destruction of religion along with its concomitant
belief in God. You may say that the primary objective of science is the advancement
of knowledge, but, this is tantamount to the same thing as we have just said. The real
difficulty for science is, and always has been, not so much the discovery of new
knowledge, as challenging as this endeavour is, but rather, a far harder challenge, is to
get this new knowledge out into the light of day against the intractable and utterly
unforgiving pressure to keep true knowledge under cover and ignorance reigning
supreme in the name of the theocracy that rules, and has always ruled society. The
latest technique of the priests has become so enfolded upon itself that we have an
elaborate structure proclaiming an alternative truth to religious accounts, fiercely
opposed by the theocracy, and an 'impartial' structure declaring how different it all is
today in our free world. Meanwhile there is not one single reason to think things are
at all different today than at any other time in the past, religion rules, theocracy rules,
and all is as it ever was.

Kettle Calls the Pot Black

If realising, and stating in a manner that others can comprehend easily, what
the true nature of human nature is is a philosophical act, then, if it is done correctly, it
is an act that annihilates philosophy because this revelation by a philosopher, drawn
from the work of scientists, unites philosophy inescapably and foreveras long as the
resulting knowledge is commonly knownwith the experimental activity we call
science. Philosophy itself then becomes a department of science under the embrace of
biology like any other department studying life forms, all politics, art, aesthetics,
morality, law and ethics and so on is just biology, and nothing else. Beyond knowing
what human nature really is there is no question that belongs to philosophy, beyond
humanity the only real knowledge is scientific knowledge.
This brings us to a fine turn around in the usual state of affairs in academia.
But given the endless process of inversion that has been taking place throughout this
work, as we continuously find we need to refer to the usual way of describing human
affairs as being arse about face so that, for example, we said farming gave rise to
civilisation, whereas the true representation of the relationship between social

217
structure and the evolution of agricultural behaviour would mean that we should say
that hierarchical social structure induced domestication throughout the domain of
human influence.
And so where we are use to the scientific community frowning upon the
philosophical community for being all puff and wind, and unsubstantiated nonsense,
suddenly we find ourselves in precisely the reverse position where it is the logic of a
philosophical insight and analysis which reveals the circuitous and futile performance
of the academic technician who operates in an airless space, as if shouting in a
vacuum, as Lilienfeld said himself of those people who presumed to call themselves
sociologists but who denied biology. In this vacuum where so called science exists
and performs its technical work, when it does presume to produce popular works
espousing the findings of science, the result is all obscurantist drivel bereft of
scientific logic and it tells us nothing. If an editor of a tabloid press rag ever deemed
philosophy a fit subject to juxtapose alongside a bare breasted beauty at the breakfast
table they might well plaster the headline beneath their masthead KETTLE CALLS
POT BLACK.
It is a surprising and somewhat peculiar position for me to find myself in. I
have always said I had no time for philosophy, science was the knowledge that filled
me with passion. Philosophy is invariably like religion in being antithetical to
science. This has confounded my sense of how to define myself in terms of the ideas
I produce. I have adapted to calling myself a philosopher as one might reluctantly
come to terms with calling themselves disabled. But I have always thought of myself
as indulging my passion for science and I never thought I would ever attempt to make
any contribution to the subject because I am as far from being a scientist as it is
possible to get. The difficulty of course arises, as ever, because of the manner in
which the organ of linguistic communication which is synonymous with the
establishment, has sort to divorce the two divisions of the process of knowledge
acquisition and knowledge formation, so that knowledge could conform to the
requirements imposed by biological evolution that demands that a command structure
must oversee a body. Thus the act of discovering information and putting it to use
gives rise to two distinct structures in life forms, hence organs of sensation, and an
organ of sensibility. If we lived in a free society where scientists had freedom of
expression then science would do its own work. As it is we live in an absolute
theocracy where scientists are priests and the only way for science to make progress
in these circumstances, beyond the advancement of technical know how, is through
the medium of philosophical expression. And this is why one such as myself has
emerged from the fabric of social being in the form of an antithetical agent of control
that is acting as an agent of sympathetic liberation. All part of social physiology I
guess.
So am I a scientist or a philosopher? I definitely fit into the class of
philosopher, but the product of my efforts reaches the most supreme height of
scientific endeavour that any human being could ever hope to attain, so I am clearly
some kind of scientist. The fact is that my approach accords with the definition of old
whereby science was known as natural philosophy. This category of philosophy gave
way to the arrival of the highly specialised practical investigations of the scientist,
which meant there arose the investigator of truth based upon experimentation and
technical expertise rooted in such intellectual arts as mathematics. The scientist was
thereby transformed into a technician, leaving the speculative role of the seeker after
knowledge of the real world cut off from reality, and left wandering around in a
vacuous space where there were no meaningful points of reference. The cycle of

218
knowledge turns, and in turning, turns full circle. The phrase natural philosophy
really signifies the unification of science and philosophy, it is time we started using it
again, and applying its ideals properly. So perhaps the best I can do is to tell myself I
am what I sometimes call a true philosopher, having the manner of thought of the
Ancients in my mind when I say this, but what this means is that what I do is simply
best known under the heading of Natural Philosophy.

Consider again the original purpose of introducing discussion of the

nature of science into basic science education. The aim, according to Miller,
is to assist non-scientists to distinguish between science and pseudo-science.
Unfortunately, however, most pseudo-scientists appear only too familiar with
the standard account of the nature of science; and the first thing they do is to
make quite sure that they and their work conform to it. Which examples shall
we take - so called 'creation science', with its 'young earth model' of historical
geology? 'Complementary medicine', with its reflexological diagnosis and
homeopathic remedies? 'New Age Science', with its (allegedly testable)
theory of morphic resonance? 'Parapsychology', with its statistical analysis of
clairvoyance and its controlled observations of 'spoon-bending'?
The world of pseudo-science is full of people who insist that they
admire 'the scientific attitude' and that their work is carried out according to
the strictest canons of the 'scientific method'. If these are the only criteria we
have to go on, we are likely to have the greatest difficulty in drawing the
boundary between science and pseudo-science.

(What is Scientific Literacy?, John Durant, in Science and Culture in

Europe, Science Museum, 1993. Page 134.)

And what does this tell you? It tells you there is something missing in the
scientific method as commonly understood, or else there is no such thing as science.
Lets ask ourselves what it is that makes science science. I would say that stating that
the world is round is science; stating that the earth goes about the sun, is science;
stating that human nature is corporate, is science.
Why, why do I select these examples in order to indicate what science is? I
am adopting the same position that one adopts when one uses the term atheism, I am
contrasting science with that which already exists that is none science, just as the
word atheist is a rejection of something that already exists, namely belief in God.
This stance is an inevitable consequence of the predominant significance of none
scientific knowledge in human society. And the same can be said of the reason for
calling oneself an atheist. If we refer to the opening quote from Kidd at the beginning
of this introduction to Lilienfeld's Defence, we find some hint as to the irrelevance of
rationality in human existence when all is said and done. This indicates that the
function of irrational knowledge is paramount to our well being, but this peculiar fact
can only be comprehended from the strictly scientific perspective that recognises that
there is no such thing as an individual, and therefore no such thing as rationality or
irrationality as absolute attributes of knowledge. When people are purposefully
irrational it is because it is biologically functional to be so, and as such it can be said
to be rational to be irrational, and therefore the idea of irrationality is cancelled out by
the reality of irrationality's rational product. This only makes sense in the context of

219
recognising that human nature is corporate, and the human organism takes shape at
the level of social organization where the function of all knowledge is tested by purely
organic determinants of functionality that individuals, acting as the units driven by an
average summation of all behaviour, have to comply with.
Hence what is missing in the presentation of science in modern culture quoted
above is the recognition that pseudo-science is only possible because the social
authorities have so constrained the establishment in which science is done as to ensure
that all science is ultimately pseudo-science, exactly as we have been saying all along
simply because of this eternal pressure to conform to the requirements of social
authority as we have been discussing here. What then is real science: the prefix real
being used to make the distinction between science that is valid, as contrasted with the
two kinds of pseudo science we have in our society today, which are establishment
science, or orthodox science, or as I like to call it, theistic science, and its cousin, as
referred to in the quote above, officially known, by the theocracy, as pseudo-science?
In our society today we have theistic-science and pseudo-science; and this work you
are reading now is the first work of real-science ever written because it is the first
work ever to state plainly, in scientific language, the true nature of human nature, and
to explain the consequences of this revelation in real terms without leaving any way
out, any possible route toward denial or contradiction, aside from the sheer force of
authority which can always overrule anything, and frequently does.
Science is simply stating what is, nothing more, nothing less. You state the
earth is round and you make a scientific statement; you state the earth travels around
the sun, and you make a scientific statement; you state human society is a true living
organism, and you make a scientific statement. Science is making scientific
statements, not following scientific routines that would, in the ordinary course of
human life, be characterised as paying lip service to the practice that is being
emulated in order to acquire the benefits of the practice without paying the price.
Scientific method as defined by the scientific establishment is simply one form of
fraudulent behaviour, such fakery being a ubiquitous strategy of life found throughout
the organic world. Knowledge has to be made to serve the organism, otherwise what
does it exist for? It is no wonder the establishment has this problem of competing
with fraudsters, the establishment is the source of the fraud! The others that the
spokespersons for the establishment condemn are fringe elements who contribute to
the core authority's defence of its mythology by adding layers of obscurity that
provide the requisite reinforcement of the unwitting stupidity of those who are granted
the label 'expert' by the theocratic authorities that really rule our world; thus giving
stooges like Richard Dawkins or Susan Greenfield an artificial surface to react
against. This is a basic mechanism of superorganic physiology that we have noted
sets up extreme polar opposites obedient to the theocratic model and thereby excludes
all alternatives. Hence we have virulent anti-Semitism defending abject Judaism from
criticism, and lunatic Creationism ensuring no established scientist will seek to
remove Darwinism from its pedestal for fear they will be labelled a fringe element
and thereby forfeit their social status and livelihood. After all it is clear that you
could not have a rational alternative model to that authorised by the state since this
would have to be recognised as a valid alternative, and one therefore authorised, or
else to be adopted. The state can only have one authorised model of existence and
that has to be theistic, or else theism dies; hence we have Darwinism.
Anyone can say anything, but it is saying things that are true that constitutes
making a scientific statement, and thus we do science when we produce the truth. Is it
scientific to admit that we stole the money from Mummy's purse? No, because it does

220
not involve the practice of investigation that leads to those results we call science.
Science does have a procedure, that is why it can be subverted, as Darwin, Spencer,
Dawkins, Greenfield and Goodall and all other establishment scientists have
subverted the scientific method by misusing its proper application to provide a
position of authority for themselves from which they can preach the theocracy's anti-
scientific, pro-theistic conclusions. They do the routine, then they spurt out the
formulaic conclusions according to the mantra they are given by the theocracy that
controls the establishment upon whose support their professional standing ultimately
relies. Nature made it this way, it will stay this way.
Science then must involve the discernment of otherwise inscrutable knowledge
about the material world, the real world. And it must reach conclusions that cannot be
disputed. No one can dispute that the earth is a globe, it travels about the sun, and
human nature is corporate. The fact that people have in the past very much disputed
that the earth is round, and that it travels about the sun is significant. And the fact that
today it is almost the worst act of vile ignorance anyone can perform if they claim that
human nature is corporate, especially as far as the 'scientific' fraternity is concerned,
as represented by the pseudo-scientists who occupy all the universities and other
academic institutions, who write all the books and do all the television documentaries,
is also significant. But nature made it this way, and this is the way it will stay. If you
know how to change this state of affairs, share, I for one would love to know.

A Working Tool

Whatever philosophy might be considered to be, even justifiably, by those

who have a practical bent, this piece of work before you now is one intended to do
work in the real world. Lilienfeld produced his main work in five volumes between
1873-81 under the main heading of Thoughts Concerning the Social Science of the
Future. With such a title we may say his work, if effective, offered a tool with which
to look through time, into the future, a perfectly common kind of tool, but one
applicable to society. Biblical philosophy constitutes exactly this kind of tool, this
can be seen in the predictions it made, a familiar one being the idea that the meek
shall inherit the earth, this is an observation on the future of society, it referred to the
state of domestication, as an organicist would have it, concerning the unwitting
submission to slavery in the form of worshipping the Jewish God. The dynamic was
obvious then, it is obvious now. But where the Bible is intuitive, secretive and
authoritarian. Lilienfeld is scientific, egalitarian and humane.
This work before you makes no attempt to be exhaustive, it is a call for
attention to be drawn to a once well established idea, not an attempt to reformulate a
system. This work is meant to be a tool, an eyeglass for peering through time. It uses
a lens fashioned by a nineteenth century philosopher in conjunction with a crude
eyepiece intended to capture its light in our own time, so that we can glimpse the
forgotten knowledge this lens saw. The space between these two lenses is made up of
twentieth century history, and as such we can ask ourselves how the world might of
looked through this period had truth triumphed instead of nature, had the likes of

221
Lilienfeld done the impossible, had he won the argument, and people let religion go.
And if we ask ourselves this question we would do well to ask if we could of faired
any worse than we did. Some, like me, may say no. But some, I cannot imagine who,
might say yes, "Oh yes, we have never had it so good, Oh yes indeed!!"
On a mid-day politics show on BBC 2 yesterday, 29-04-05, after the leaking
of the legal advice given to the government in the run up to war the minister John
Reid was asked who he thought was responsible for the leak. He said he did not
know, but the usual solution on such occasions was to ask “Who benefits?” Quite,
how astute these ordinarily arid fools can be when it suits them. Who benefited from
the destruction of Organicism? And who benefited likewise from the two world wars
that trashed the societies within which this scientific knowledge had emerged, and
from where it threatened to end the power of the age old theocracy? There was only
one beneficiary of these events. The theocracy which survived that final solution of
the old philosophical question “What is human nature?” by destroying the structure
that provided the answer, and then went on to set itself up in a new home it calls
Israel. Meanwhile the rest of humanity lost everything they previously had in terms
of independence, identity and freedom of thought. Who benefits from the war
carrying on in Iraq as we speak, a religious war if ever there was one? Same answer.
And what trigger preset the conditions making the war in Iraq possible, allowing our
government to decide to go to war long before we ever knew anything about it? 9/11.
Who benefited then from 9/11? Same answer. Who benefits from Bali, from
Madrid? Al Qaeda, Mr Bin Laden, the Moslem fraternity as a bloc? I do not think so.
The game goes on, and on, and on, the growth of the superorganism driven by
the forces of nature, and our eternal battle to free ourselves from the grip of the shape-
shifting priest who makes that organism their own, likewise continues as it has done
since the beginning of time. Making the above connections between these events and
the beneficiaries when we ask “Who benefits?” is impossible as long as the person is
the sacred individual, because this makes the causal factor in human affairs the motive
drives of the instigator of the act, a link that cannot be extended beyond the terrorist
organization on these terms. The undeniable cultural link between the ideology of
Islam and Judaism is too tenuous to be meaningful in terms of the politico-historical
accounts written by the priest-historians and promoted by the politician-priests. And
this is just what a priest like John Reid would argue when dismissing the claims made
here if confronted with this scientific logic. And academia would support him, not us,
which is why academia is a facet of the theocracy, not an independent authority. And
so we have the stance taken in Jewish priestcraft, and hence the clash between
Organicism and Judaism which meant only one of the two could persist, either science
or religion. Which indicates why the subversion of science proceeded as we have
been recounting via the establishment of sociology upon the false foundation of
individual being that is made possible by the division of creation into the organic and
the inorganic as established by Darwin.
But in this work we have shown that by recognising the true nature of human
nature, as Lilienfeld did when he recognised the living nature of the social fabric and
the true status of the living element of that fabric that is humanity, the living tissue
that he calls the ‘social nervous system’ of the social organism, we are enabled to see
the direct connection between terrorism and religion expressed in the forces of
reflection and attraction that communicate throughout the nervous system as
Lilienfeld sort to describe it. Once we have used the intellectual tool Lilienfeld made,
to look back upon a forgotten past and to interpret the intervening period, if we learn

222
from its use, we can turn our time tool in the opposite direction and use it as Lilienfeld
intended, to aid our thoughts concerning the social life of the future.

REAL SCIENCE REAL ATHEISM

223
 Freedom

We want to see a world free of any religious identities, where there are no
people who any longer identify themselves by any religious identity of any kind. The
most overt manner in which we can emphasise this point is by saying that we want to
see a world in which there are no longer any Jews, of any kind, Christian Jews,
Moslem Jews or just plain Jews, or Hindu Jews or Sikh Jews or any other kind of
Nazis-by-another-name. But the one thing we do not want is confrontation, because
war, revolution and mayhem is the key to the fascist power base that allows terror to
cause people to seek safety in affiliation to a power block capable of causing mayhem
better than anyone else, which is always the Jewish confederation; they start the
trouble and they end it.
The weapon of choice in our fight for freedom from slavery to Judaism
therefore lies here, in the generation of knowledge that counters the basis of the
mythology that enslaves us. This free knowledge needs to be developed and made
freely accessible. By this means we make the affiliation of people to religion
untenable by making it contemptible to believe in God. But we must have peace. The
theocracy knows that it can control populations and keep them enslaved to Judaism by
creating mayhem and then fabricating stability in its own interest. By this means it
manipulates the identity imprinted upon populations, central to this process of social
management is the knowledge that populations can be controlled by thinking in terms
of generational change. Thus Europe is being transformed into a Muslim slave
confederation by allowing the present generations to grow old and die back as
Moslems are imported. This is how nature works. If we want to take control of this
situation then we must make it impossible for Jews of any kind to come into being,
and so in time the generations will grow old and die away, and eventually a free
Europe will emerge released from captivity to the Jews at last. Ending a dominion of
the most abysmal kind that has lasted thousands of years and wreaked havoc with
humanity. But we do want to take with us the good that has emerged from this
process of superorganic growth. We want to move toward a society that is informed
in its structure, at all levels, by the new found scientific knowledge that lets us know
who exactly we are, and what exactly we are doing. No mythology, no master, just
freedom in honour of mother nature that made us.
Think long term, no one thinks long term like the Jews, if we want to break
free from the interminable tyranny of Jewish ignorance we too mustthinklong
term. No one has the right to their religious identity, religious identity is not a
personal possession, it is more like being possessed. The application of the organic
method provides a true science of society revealing that the insistence upon the right
to freedom of religious expression is simply the way the priest turns their act of
possession around to make it the right of the possessed to be possessed! This simply
amounts to the focus of human social power upon a priesthood through a medium of
organic knowledge delivering social identity to the individual, thereby providing a
licence to a theocracy to own the superorganic being that we all are in the interests of
their own narrow conception of themselves.

The End

224
 THE

TRANSLATION

225
 In Support of the

Organic Method

in the

Sociology

of

Paul v. Lilienfeld.

Berlin,

Printing and Publishing House of Georg Reimer.

1898.

226
 Preface,

Formulating the method of teaching sociology was the main objective of the
deliberations of the Third International Sociological Congress, that met the previous
year in Paris, that I had the honour to preside over. The work of the Congress
appeared in the fourth volume of the Annals of the International Institute of Sociology
which were recently published in Paris.  Concerning the method of teaching itself
the Congress represented different, opposing views. Comparing the organic,
psychological, historic, statistical, the anthropological and ethnographic methods,
each found its defender. At the same time few were concerned with the type and
manner of the action under investigation in a social event, but rather to be more
precise therefore, whether sociology should be joined as a positive science to biology
or if it was supposed to be acknowledged as one discipline separated by the nature of
its subject.
The importance of this question moved me to publish the existing writing. I
make the latest results from physiology and positive psychology the starting point of
my reasoning; I was however only fleetingly able to consider my philosophical views
in this work and must forgo so many propositions that have not previously been
drawn from me, and have yet to emerge. For the same reason, I was often obliged
during the progress of my discussions to base their establishment upon my chief
work: "thoughts over the social science of the future" as well as to call on my more
recently appeared monograph.
The interest, evoked by sociology in Germany recently, will hopefully not be
lacking, and will focus fresh powers upon the area of this science and with their aid
the important question about the sociological method will be brought to a conclusion.

St. Petersburg, March 1898.

The author.

227
 Since people evolved from the animal state, into that of the human being, they
have always lived as an association of equals. Human associations acquired their
unique gifts and psychic energies, only by means of interaction between individuals.
Only through the social life, does the prehuman become the primitive human, and so
on to the cultured human. Along with the emergence of the individual therefore, the
human company also emerged. In the needs, and strivings of intellectual beings, the
ancient human was the higher animal species, and they occupied a closer relationship
to the natural environment than their successors, but they already obeyed the same
social regulations as the cultured person of today. For this reason human society, as it
came into being, followed the same constitutional laws, giving it the same essential
appearances as the developments of the most refined country of modern times.
During all the historical phases ordering the development of humanity, the conscious
elements of the individual interactions, occurring between single members of society,
remained valid, continued to constitute its internal construct, continued to order the
relations with the outside world according to that consciousness. The transition from
a low stage of development to a higher proceeded through imperceptible gradations
such that they scarcely bore notice. External conflict between groups led to conquest
and political upheavals, certainly, and led to the extermination of entire peoples and
races, so how could just a few collisions between individuals contradict this
impression. The victor represents for its part, a capital historically acquired only
gradually by personal physical and psychic energies. It concerned therefore, always,
only an external displacement and annihilation of the weaker, underdeveloped
elements, through the quantitatively or qualitatively stronger or higher elements. But
the latter, being also subject to divine determinants and other physical and social
influences, only gradually emerged. The place of the weaker and lower elements, are
also determined only through social evolution. As one pursues the origin and the
developmental properties of the stronger and higher social elements in their causal
connections, one convinces oneself that the transitions from the low to the higher
were always only gradual. 
In what ratio are the laws now placed, through which the development of the
human group stand, in relation to the general laws, of the inorganic and organic
energies that are determined by nature?
First of all it must be decided whether it is logically possible, as a general
principle, to acknowledge the existence, side by side, of two systems absolutely
divided by their own distinct set of laws, through which the causal connection of what
appears is determined. If established, the appearance of the world must be split into
two absolutely different halves. However, the material world represents an eternal
flowing of energies, at some boundary of the collective current a temporary balance
occurs, an apparent hardening of the forces, delivering the solid form of physical
bodies, yet always there is the fluidness of the collective division, and how is the
origin of both derived from one and the same collective current. The same applies to
the present condition of the uniquely human attribute, in certain respects, that of
becoming a self-developing living being. Collective descent from a common origin
of life, up to the boundary of inorganic nature, with which life's descent flows
together, can be followed. The metaphysical knife is hardly designed in order to split
the world of appearances at a point, this is not the object of the operation of
perception, observation flows together with the other elements of a situation. One
naturally attempts to divide the Subject and Object, of the internal and external world.

228
But the person is at the same time Subject and Object. The world of appearance can
only be divided through the avoidance of subjective reflection, but the senses
themselves form divisions of the human body, and this again is only a divide of the
world of appearances. Therefore it is impossible, either from the subjective or from
the objective standpoint, to fathom, what natural feelings and ideas are for
themselves. We know how only Göthe correctly stated, that a legitimate Subject is a
somewhat, what corresponds to legitimate in an Object is a something. The
uniformity is therefore the one collective and the entirety of the newer philosophy,
both the idealistic and the materialistic, has set itself the task of understanding this
sole unit of legitimate being, coming from whatever different means.
There is no absolute Subject and no absolute Object, and also no absolutely
subjective, hypothetical and deductive, in contrast to one absolutely inductive method
given to objective observing. In establishing the regularity of appearances, it can
therefore always only be a matter of more or less from both methods. This balance
applies pressure aiding the development of the methods. The natural method is
predominantly of an inductive character, which gives enormous success. In sociology
however, the one method most advanced until now has been the hypothetical, the
deductive. There is complete confusion caused by this in sociological terms, where
no social laws are discovered. For what some economist, statistician, ethnographer,
historian and also sociologist issue as social laws, can only be traced back via a
chance causal connection concerning individual relations between persons or events.
That under certain circumstances the coincidence of the increase in bread prices with
the rate of increase in suicides and crimes collapses, such an accidental factor
occurring in a large number of parallel rises, is not yet a necessary law. The
regularity is even less in sociological terms of average numbers of amounts, emerging
from a long series of data and figures. All so-called laws set up after the statistical
method belong to this category. The same applies to the historical method. One also
likes to investigate exactly the causal connection between an entire sequence of events
and relations, but such a procedure cannot lead to the establishing of a law because
the connection is still only determined by coincidence. This also moved Treitschke to
admit before his death that he was unable to perceive any order in history. The
statistical and historical methods have been, moreover, completely developed without
discovering any regular connection between social events, and any original fixed
event that is derived from nature. Human society and Nature are fixed as two entirely
different spheres of existence, that meet one another, at most, only at some external
point of contact. 
The followers of the organic method in sociological areas, or the Organicer, as
they are now called by some sociologists, have now set themselves the task of
discovering the connection between the product of nature and the social sciences, to
prove the universal order of nature and human society. From an explanation of the
simple, the many aspects of science become complex, and the organicist had to
attempt to construct a scientific system based upon firm reasoning beginning with the
fundamental areas of biology and positive psychology. The foundations of
physiology, based upon chemistry, are constructed upon the basis of mechanics,
which delivers the biology and the positive psychology, forming the foundations for
the construction of sociology. The inductive method should provide a clue to the
comparison between the social and the natural organism. The famous physiologist
Johannes Müller set up the sentence:
Psychologus nemo nisi Physiologus. The organicist translates this statement
into the sentence: Sociologus nemo, nisi biologus.

229
 The organicist acknowledges the existence of the authority derived from the
statistical, historic, and the purely deductive methods, but sees all of these methods as
only auxiliary to the areas sociology concentrates on. Sociology requires the organic
method to investigate the order of social phenomenon, and serves, for its part, as an
auxiliary science to the cultural and philosophical accounts. A mutually beneficial
arrangement emerges, but this is only possible if each science adheres to its own
special area of expertise by applying those methods developed accordingly, and does
not transgress upon unfamiliar areas where to do so would only cause confusion. The
sociologist required the historic method, and so became the cultural historian,
required the statistical method, and so became an economist, and when immersing
themselves into general theories derived from hypothetical accounts, this is
metaphysics.
With all these distinctions however, the researcher focuses on the sociological
but loses the sociology itself to each discrete authority. It is due to the anti-organicist
therefore that sociology owes the challenge to its scientific character so that it is
looked upon as a barren area of general investigation, drawn from the ideas, concepts
and research results of other specialists. Only the use of the organic method can raise
sociology to the level of an independent science. Only by a firm connection with
natural entities, can it achieve the objective of each specialist subject: the
establishment of the order of reality.
We now seek, firstly, to determine the point of demarcation through which the
connection between that which is supposed to be the sociological domain, and the
natural entity, may be found. 
The Professor Max Verworn defined in his pioneering work: General
Physiology the biological concept of the individual in the following manner:
"An organic individual is a uniform mass of living substance, which under
certain external life conditions is capable of displaying a uniform orientation."
This definition of M. Verworn turns first of all upon all single free living
organisms in the form in which they appear in nature. "However", it adds, "the
definition applies to more than organisms that are only spatially related; it comprises
allied groups of single organisms, each one of which certainly can be spatially
separated, but nonetheless all together form a unit." As an example of this the main
author on the life of ants, shows the undivided form indicates how members of an
organism uniformly cooperate. The entire distinction between a coral cane and an ant
pile, after Verworn, consists only in that the individuals of a low order are bound by a
substantial degree, in contrast to the spatial separation by which they are separated in
an ant society.
The in depth view of all scientists will doubtless agree with this definition of
the individual, and the connection between sociology and biology is also found here.
The individual ant society consists of cellular elements, that can already be
designated as persons. But it represents forever a collective group being, that is fixed
at a very low developmental stage, and seemingly to be so for all time. The persons
forming the ant society are fixed by certain instinctively determined standards.
Which organic developments come to fruition with the next animal form? 
The societies formed by persons, owe their superiority over the animal form to a
capacity for gradual progressive development. Physiological necessity creating the
cell in the single organism, has instinct stamped upon it in the animal society, and has
raised itself more recently in human society causing the persons forming society to
become self aware. As between a person and an animal there exists only a gradual
distinction, we can see also that between a human and an animal society there is only

230
a graduated difference. It is now proven that the animal society represents an
individual, and the individual society must also be an individual, or, what amounts to
the same thing when understood as a real organism.  Whether the single societies
will unite themselves into a yet superior whole organism, that will contain all
humanity, is for the future to reveal. In the present cultural stage, the nation is the
highest unit of cooperative potential between individuals. Everything we say in
respect to the state in our discussions, applies to less rigid social associations in just as
real, if also more restricted senses.
Max Verworn distinguishes in the organism's form, along with several other
scientists, five different orders of personality: these consist of the cells as elementary
organisms; the tissues that are composed of the cells; the organs that are formed by
the tissues; the persons who represent a union of organs; and finally the societies,
arising from the association of persons. Each higher order of individual incorporates
at the same time all lower orders within itself to form a hierarchy. Therefore the
person's location is formed within one society, there is no simple arrangement side by
side, otherwise individuals would become the trees of a forest, the blades of a field,
accidentally merging the animals of the herd, so that no higher personality, no
organism could form. Uniform cooperation is realised in society as the individual
dedicates and subordinates their actions to collective purposes. Such harmonisation
can only be produced through the hierarchical potential of the different elements of
which society is composed being placed above one another to bring society into
being. In ant and bee society, this occurs in the grouping and differentiating of the
social builders above one another into elements working, not working, or only
engaging in special work, expressed as ruling and serving classes. In bee society,
harmonisation is achieved through a central individual, as demonstrated by the king
bee, held in supreme regard. In human society, individuals are similarly united first
of all in simpler associations, like family, and clan. These grow together into
complex developments, as tribes, peoples, and different economic partnerships.
Finally out of this, the higher classes, ruling in a similar manner by means of
individuals develops into a central organ which represents society. In human society
therefore the same hierarchical system, through which the lower orders of the
organism's personality are produced, repeats itself: the individual corresponds to the
cells, the simpler social associations are the tissues, the complex are the organs, and
the social forces accrue to the central organ. In individuals of the vegetable and
animal kingdom, direct contact between cells forming tissues and organs is only
apparent. No absolutely impenetrable bodies exist in nature, therefore there is no
direct combination of elements even in the hardest of bodies. In this respect there can
only be a matter of more or less space. Gaseous bodies consist of molecules distanced
from one another to a greater degree than applies in the formation of fluid substances;
and in their turn these are formed from molecules that are more distant from one
another than those of firm bodies, but in all cases there is always only a body.
In just the same way that each society locates individuals as we find in bee and
ant society, so we find an individual in a society of cells although the spatial ratios in
which the state of harmony arises are very different. In the individual organism, the
differentiated cell is probably tied more firmly to certain tissues and organs, than the
individual in society. A cell cannot wander from the skeleton into the muscle tissue
or into the nervous system, its distinction is specific, and strictly defined. In
individuals however it also provides the cell walls, of the red blood corpuscles, the
leukocytes, and the spermatozoa. Most kinds of cell walls define individuals that
form one society, but they are also at the same time psychologically more or less

231
different cells and therefore also the cells of certain families, classes and orders of the
social bond. In the contained and slave state, this association is firmer, in a free state
it is looser. It gives absolute freedom however in the one, just like in the other, to
few.
Distinctions are caused between different orders of personality therefore, not
determined according to form, by space time ratios, but rather by inequalities between
energy potentials. Cooperation between cells in individual organisms is determined
solely by mechanical, chemical and physiological forces; in animal society these
forces are known as instincts; in human society the potential of instinct itself
gradually develops into a semiconscious state and finally an awareness of living
together, leading to a joining together of parts, to think and to want as one.
Every human person, wants apart from their purely physical body, another
being of the ancient person stored in the social life, an inheritance of the ancestors
capital of psycho-physiological energy joining the social parts together and enabling
them to be an equal with the ancestor. This capital is already fixed as an inheritance
to the same purely physical units, and therefore to each person by their descent
through a certain family, race, nation. The inherited psycho-physiological capital is
however at the same time derived from an earlier generation making for discrepancies
between the accumulated capital of social life regarding certain intellectual, ethical,
aesthetic units, capacities and developmental stages. Through upbringing the cultural
capital is further developed and varied, but even so each upbringing always only has
available to it material from latent psychic forces. A domestic animal can only be
raised to a very low degree of intelligence and thus raised can only offer a very
narrow circle of performance; likewise the representative of a low race. Therefore in
addition each individual is not tied solely by its descent to certain associations, but
rather it is also subject to the influence of inherited cultural values expressed by the
way its upbringing and performance is directed in society. Through descent,
transmission and upbringing contingent on one another as the basis of each society, as
well as the cultural forms.
On the highest level of culture, the psychic, is found however next to the
higher, also the lower: the mechanical, chemical, physiological, instinctive forces that
are effective both in society, and in the life of the individual. As an inhabitant of the
earth the person will never be able to free himself of his origin derived out of
inorganic material and organic matter. He will always have to provide his physical
needs through material means of satisfaction. An inevitable increase in performance
will occur, after the standard of cultural development, impacting upon the
environment (machines, transport, culinary art etc.) but the end of more mechanical,
chemical and physiological personal work and that of material cultural value, will not
come. The highly developed civilisation will also always be dependant upon material
means for its existence and development. 
The dependence of the person upon material matter is not manifested in the
satisfaction of physical needs, but rather in the development of the intellectual
attributes and abilities. The capitalising and realisation of psychic energies is always
accompanied by mechanical, chemical, and physiological processes in the individual's
nervous system, whose molecular components are changed and remodelled at the
same time. New tissues and organs, from the lower to the higher form themselves in a
progressive development; the higher atrophy themselves to the lower in a regressive
movement. With the entire progress of humanity following along these lines, the
higher nervous organs are centred in the brain and the individual's concentration
gradually instructs itself from generation to generation by gradually growing into a

232
higher memory derived from latent psychic energies accumulated from the passage of
descent. These higher nerve organs, the material carriers of the intellectual, ethical
and aesthetic elements and capacities of the human individual, are a product of society
and give society its form, they are the living source of feedback for each individual
cooperating in the making of society.
We now seek to provide ourselves with a more detailed account, by what ways
and means the accumulation and realisation of the psychic forces come to form the
pinnacle of the social effort.
Apart from the actual womb, the necessary bodily care in earliest childhood
and of some purely conventional uses, like handshake, kiss, etc., a cultured person can
spend decades in society, without coming into physical contact with his equal, only to
find himself accidentally in the same place. And nevertheless this exhibits a more
definite and lively interaction than with other members of society. The interaction of
the will expressed in this workplace can be summarised mainly under three
categories: word, writing, art work, the latter in its most comprehensive meaning.
Through the expression of language and art, like for instance music, mediated by the
excited oscillation of the air molecules to the hearing nerves; by the character and
product of the plastic arts: excitement mediated to our sense of sight via the
oscillation of the ether in response to monument, statue, or painting. Regarding our
higher external senses: the physical medium surrounding us effects a certain attraction
upon the ear and the eye. In biology the concept of the attraction is more extensive.
Each effect of an external factor upon an organism can certainly be considered as
something sensed as an attraction.
However wherein does the effect of attraction now exist?
Each living substance possesses the capacity to react against external
attractions whereby a transformation and an interference in the molecular and
dynamic balance of its internally established components would take priority. Also
the excitements produced by word, writing, artwork and achievements of our external
senses evoke such an effect of attraction in our higher internal nerve organs. A later
reaction on their part occurs against the external attractions in that they release the
latent energies accumulated in them and transfer their molecular components.
There does not however exist in inorganic nature or the organism's world, any
fixed ratio between the quality and intensity of the attraction and the attractive effect.
A soft mechanical push can produce an enormous chemical effect, as we find for
instance in all explosive materials and in exactly the opposite manner where strong
external stimulants of the attractive effect are resisted, as in the approach of a magnet
to a piece of wood etc.
In the psycho-physiological interaction between people in society the
disproportion between the attractive force and the attractive effect becomes even more
sharply pronounced. If a crowd gathered in a closed room hears the word fire!, it
forces itself into masses at the exists, where a fight for life and death emerges. The
fright paralyses the people as one and freezes the blood in the veins, as an effort to act
through screams and raging results from the exceptional muscle power it produces.
The word fire! only, has produced an effect on this meeting as large as an ignited
match on a powder magazine, through whose explosion an entire city's population
might be destroyed. There sufficed an easy contraction of the neck muscles and the
tongue to produce here a soft movement resulting in the grip of these effects. When
all the areas of the world through telegrams and newspapers receive messages
describing a war between two great powers the mind of numerous populations are
sent into a state of excitement; trade comes to a standstill, a vigorous deployment of

233
military measures is activated and so on, and such only in consequence of a
momentary oscillation of the ether impinging upon the sense of sight. Such an effect
of attraction can only be explained by the magnificent capital of psycho-physical
energies, that are stored in each individual and in each society as a collective
individual. Triggering such latent psycho-physical energies can cause a reduction of
the capital, but also an enlargement of the same as a consequence of a simultaneous or
ensuing transformation of the molecules in the higher nerve centres. I read a well
constructed book, a clearly reasoned philosophical work, I listen to a pretty melody, I
observe a work of art harmoniously carried out, and the experience is accompanied by
the effect of attraction due to the triggering of psycho-physical energies, but with the
simultaneous sequence of events causing the dynamically enriched reshaping of my
higher nerve centres I myself become affected and feel uplifted. An opposite result
would be delivered by the lesson of immoral literature, a confused philosophical
system, hearing discordant music, or observing a tasteless work of art.
If we presume however that the way the word fire is to be conceived, or how
the message of war expressed in language, cannot be understood by anyone. Then the
effect of attraction falls away completely. A speech that no one listens to, a
manuscript or a book that no one read, an art exhibition without things, a painting that
no one regarded, would therefore be as a stimulant only dead matter, their
achievements pointless, it is then that one brings useful power in the practice of
production into the effort.
From the preceding it follows that a culture exists only to the extent that it
actually has an essential value, when the human individual, who as a living element
forms all social tissues, organs and the society through which culture develops
intellectually, is aesthetically uplifted, morally invigorated, and becomes physically
healthier.
Through one unlimited internal process with its accumulation of material
wealth, only the long term cultural purposes are important, there not being attained is
nominally represented by the irregular and disorderly distribution between the
individuals and classes of society. In our Social Pathology* we established more
exactly and explained in more detail, that the circulation of social wealth could be
divided into positive, negative and neutral categories of utility. We assert that our
standpoint completely accords with the basis of Christianity, which mainly applies
itself to the task of improving the personality, and it is worthless to seek to explain the
difference between our account and the heart of the belief in the sacrament**.
In places a comparison exists between the interaction of individuals in the
social organism and the processes through which our body is animated, first of all
there is the interaction of the cells in the nervous system and especially in the higher
organs of the same, that is itself analogous to the material carriers of individual
feeling, thinking and desire. The nerve cells also mutually excite themselves through
attraction, mutually differentiating and stimulating themselves relative to specific
tissues and organs, accumulating psycho-physical energies and at the same time
releasing that which had already been accumulated previously. Each cell of the
individual nervous system has itself gradually, biogenetically, through an immense
sequence of cellular partnerships always itself been mutually differentiated and
stimulated, through conformity to the internal, organic medium, through a fight for its
existence, selection and transmission, in response to a steady mutual effect of
attraction, to which it is raised by functional forces and the histological developments
of specific nervous tissue and organs to which it belongs. So also the primitive
human becomes with the division of the real undivided whole, whereby the cellular

234
elements of the social system are always being remodelled, according to the same
historical manner, by way of an immense sequence of more united feeling, thinking,
and desiring generations of the cultured persons.

*) Social Pathology, Book II of the International Library of Sociology.

**) See our thoughts on the Social Science of the Future, Book V: attempt at a
natural theology S. 65 and ff.

The excitement evoked between the cells, tissues and organs of the body by
the attraction between the nerves is designated in biology and psychology as a
reflection. According to their position each person in the social association living
together causes the effect of a steady state of reflection to exist. In psychology it is
the automatically occurring effects of attraction between the individual nerves of the
system which are probably first understood under the term reflection, before the self
generative effects of attraction. But between the automatic, semiconscious and
conscious effects a greater fluency is distinguished. Therefore by the newer
psychologists, the concept of reflection has been extended to each interaction between
the tissues and organs due to the effect of attraction between the nerves. But
association in the social organism, in consequence of the greater mobility and
autonomy of the single cell elements, while subject to the direct reflection mediated
through the individual nervous system by a nervous connection, is yet subject to
indirect, mediated reflections, through writing, art work etc. It follows that the effects
of indirect reflection according to its nature are identical with the direct, irrespective
of above considerations, because they are clearly transferred mutually between one
another, without the effect acquiring any variation. News of the death of a relative or
a friend causes an equal disturbance, whether it arrives directly, orally, from person to
person or mediated by a letter or telegram, so that it is received through indirect
reflection. And the energy change of the ganglion cells of our brain, the state of the
cells at first being normal for the social organism, likewise indicates an internalising
mode, marking the transition process from direct to indirect reflection. It was recently
observed, the joining between the dendrite (branching of the ganglion cells) of the
ganglion cells with the nerve fibres (sending) of one another on which they exercised
an attraction was not substantial, but rather that between them another intervening
object is located. The energy change between ganglion cells does not quite occur
therefore in this case, although there is a direct exchange of substance, but rather there
is only a contact between dendrite and nerve fibres through the avoidance of the
intervening objects.
For a complete so-called reflective action, a central interconnection must exist
between the interacting elements of perception and attraction. The reflective action in
its totality appears in society, if we consider for instance an attraction to the central
agencies, that deliver government, and that reaction follows from that through
different measures, commands etc. The attractions retain single affiliates but also
retain character by reflection in the interaction of the social groups with one another
in that it is also with them that the most important events in the processes take place:
receiving of an attraction through sensual perception, reaction against that realised
through psycho-physical energies, development of new molecular orders, fixing of
new dynamic elements.  Around designations and words much argument centres.
Of great importance for sociology however would be the determination and

235
acceptance of a terminology, that would already indicate according to its wording the
connection between sociology and general biology, as well as positive psychology.
We made an attempt at such a terminology in our preceding works. A science that
controls no certain terminology can never create for itself a definitive structure and
will also never be acknowledged as an independent science. Each researcher that
becomes established on the basis of subjective views contributes to the treasury of
words forming the deposit constituting the zone to be investigated, giving rise to
endless word disputes. Also a classification corresponding to the nature, the objects,
the research and the subjects is not possible without a firm terminology. Each
researcher also creates a new classification with its own treasury of words
contributing to the scientific depository. In all branches the natural entity is defined
by its connection with the terminology of the forms to be investigated, and the
relationship between the adjacent areas of knowledge to which we have referred. We
believe this rule is justified in that we designated the interaction of the individual in
social life as a reflection effect.
For the same reason, we also designated the social organism as a nervous
system. Between the words system and the body in biology there is no distinction to
be made. Our body's form consists of different systems of cells, tissues and organs,
the skeleton, muscle, the motor vascular, the nervous system and in everyone the body
is the same. The word system could be preferred to the label social organism to this
extent when it refers to the looser mechanical connection of the single elements
relative to one another. So the world bodies that circle around the sun form likewise a
system. That which is distinguished however we have already indicated above, is no
more essential, but rather only more relative. Our sun's system would become an
observer, who would be located in the reaches of the Milky Way, with more possible
variations on how these systems appear, than a single gaseous or illuminating body.
We have the social nervous system, in analogy to that in the body of available
but not yet assimilated nutritious materials and protective devices and the substances
already eliminated by the cells, tissues and organs, set against the intercellular social
substance. In a further sense to this, all useful goods belong: ground, waters, the
atmosphere, generally the physical medium in which the single elements of the social
organism are imbedded and move. In the narrower sense of the intercellular social
substance, all valuables circulating in society, that are consumed by the individual in
the act of satisfying its needs, immediately constitute in themselves the circulating sap
in which, in animals like plants, the nourishment is assimilated.
The opponents of the organic method always confuse the intercellular
substance that includes only lifeless substances, therefore matter, in itself, with the
living elements of the social organism, that only come to be represented because of
persons out of which the social nervous system is formed. Therefore the anti-
organicist sets down a completely confused picture of the social organism and extracts
from the confusion the views characteristic of their refutation. They maintain namely,
that, for the organicist the characteristics of the social organism means that telegraph
wires should be identified with the nerves, and railroad stations just as much with the
heart. Telegraph wires and the railroads with all their structural framework are
incorporated material, they exist only as utilities serving different purposes in the
social nervous system, where they form, however inadequately, a living substance.
Orchestrating the intercellular social substance itself and the stimulus to action in the
individual and the society, and equally so for the plant and the animal, the food
subjects them to commandments and restraints first mechanically, both morphological
and physiological, before they consume or assimilate the same. So each accumulation

236
of capital from the valuables is always rendered dead until the energy contained is
assimilated by persons. The dead capital, when a portion of the intercellular
substance, only represents an extension of the psycho-physiological energies
accumulated in persons. The refutations of the anti-organicist are therefore to be
looked at in this regard only as ripples in the water.

Each realisation of mechanical, chemical and psycho-physiological energies

prefaces a prior superior memory of the same. We saw, over what a magnificent
resource of latent psychic energies each person was possessed, this however is
especially so of the cultured person. By what process was this capital resource
accumulated?
Primitive humans controlled only a semi-articulated expression of thoughts
and feelings; they made use of traditional elements in order to indicate the will
through external signs; they knew only the first numbers and reckoned with the digits
of the hands and feet; their weapons were crude stones and wooden clubs; the art of
sound existed only in a desolate noise making, the art of dance in a jumping and going
to the beat; serving almost exclusively only to satisfy the most urgent physical needs.
But it was already implicit at that time that these original reflection effects were a
stimulus to social action, through which the members of primitive society were
gradually encouraged to higher thinking, feeling and desires; already at that time
reason was applied to the development of nervous organs, from which the later
cultural capacity of the person developed itself. Each generation of the upwardly
striving elements of the primitive populations that achieved one step forwards towards
the more intensive reflection effect bequeathed the increased cultural capacity in the
form of more highly developed nerve agencies in the next branch of their descendants.
Accordingly not only more and more through new hierarchies of latent psycho-
physical energies, those energies that one can designate as social, grew because they
were a product of the social life, but rather they developed in each earlier generation
around the preceding new hierarchy's time and space. On this gradual process of
hierarchical development and the condensation of higher agencies, that are preferably
united in the human brain, the law of ever more concentrated replication in the
individual of the entire cultural account of humanity rests. This law, that we indicated
as the central socio-embryological law, itself corresponds completely with the general
embryological law, which is known to apply throughout the entire world of
organisms. The psycho-physiological developmental properties of every single
human individual therefore puts into the hand of the cultural historian the thread
required in order to investigate the entire story of humanity. The socio-embryological
law of development would have to serve as a base for each cultural account. But it
stands in the boundary zone between biology and the political sciences in its present
stage of development. Therefore this constitutional law of sociology is almost
completely surveyed. The biologists are not sociologists and the economists, lawyers
and politicians are not biologists. Only a few outstanding intellects in Germany,
including Roscher, Hellwald, and Schäffle have proclaimed this law according to its
full scientific value.
The child of today, in accordance with the socio-embryological law just
presented in its real form, through which the building of its brain proceeded,
represents the developmental stage upon which humanity was located in its earliest
youth. The higher social nerve agencies are so far advanced in their development that
the child of today in the first years of its life already controls, in an organism as yet

237
incompletely developed physically, the intellectual and ethical energy that was only
attained in the primitive human in full maturity.
The child interprets the external impressions unconsciously or
semiconsciously; it does not tend to try and imitate; it is independent of the causes
external attractions are having upon it. In the ears and eyes of the child, outgoing
reflections spread themselves at once over the entire nervous system and set almost all
muscles of the body in movement. The child is not in control of herself in the
immediate situation; she gives herself away at once, entirely and completely, to the
first great impression. Brightly illuminating bodies, harsh colours, loudly blaring
sounds especially captivate its attention. Involuntary movement and unrestrained
perceptions, i. e. the passions are much stronger in the child than in the adult, at the
same time however they are much more fleeting in that the child is subject to a more
direct influence arising from changing external impressions and appearances. The
human brain is an apparatus that processes the reflections coming from without and
fixes them. With extended training of this apparatus, the person no longer gives
himself away involuntarily and immediately to the external impression, the irresolute
perception, the blind drive. It acts according to the standard of its social development
and is always more subjectively aware and more objectively independent.
We look at ourselves in the wild state, and we find that the domain over which
the psychic energies preside, are homogenous with those of most children. Therefore
today the will's position in regard to the education of its social nerve organs, is
perhaps only a few steps higher than in the primitive human. The wild descendants
that yet continue to exist today therefore represent remaining branches of a collective
tribe's social development, from which the cultured human has come into being
following an upward trend through a series of higher stages. The intermediate stages
are represented through the living descendants that correspond to the mythological
and heroic age in the story. These historical epochs correspond to the youthful
essence of the modern cultured human. Therefore three sequences of psychological
events stand before us: the psycho-physiological development of the individual in the
form of the modern cultured human, from the child to maturity; the historical
mechanism operating from the primitive to the cultured person, the progressive
psychological evolution as designated through the wild, half-wild and barbarous
tribes; and finally the development of society into a complex social system. On these
three levels, the individual, historical and social one and the same uninterrupted
developmental process indicates the law of threefold parallelism is in agreement and
this in itself establishes the after, the next to and above one another of social
becoming that corresponds to the general laws of threefold parallelism that are valid
throughout the entire organic world of ontogenetic, phyletic and systematic
development. To which specific stimulus to action this general law leads, the
formations in the economic (physiological), judicial (morphological) and hierarchical-
political (unifying) spheres of the social life, and through which anomaly it is
stipulated, we explained in our earlier works *.

* Thoughts Over the Social Science of the Future: Bk. I The Human Society as Real
Organism; Bk. II The Social Laws; Bk. III The Social Psychophysic; Bk. IV The
Social Physiology; Bk. V Attempt at a Natural Theology.

The entirety of mankind represents a tree, whose roots, composed of the

primitive human tribe, jut into the animal world, that, after spreading apart in all

238
directions, with branches ascending upwards to differing heights came to be
represented today by descendants of races standing upon different cultural platforms.
The leaves of this gigantic tree are not the individuals; but the individuals have, like
the leaves of a plant, held themselves in isolation from one another, only relating
themselves by descent from the general tribe to which they are attached, but rather, by
means of integration of one kind or another, it always conveyed its ongoing
development. The individuals alive now belong to different branches diverted from
one another in earlier periods of the story, but in the past there must always of been
moments and points in time at which they simultaneously converged as a collective
main branch or in the original tribe. On this unity of descent the concern of all people
for the partnership of physical and psychic reason rests. If the single branches and
leaves simply flowed out of one another, they would of differentiated into just such
single species and orders as we see illustrated in plants and in the animal world.
However the single human individual was always united through the mutual reflection
effect into new tissues, organs and units and in this way, independent of its descent,
was raised to higher differentiating developmental platforms. Living humanity is so
differentiated by languages, that the position regarding the connection through
descent only is removed, and so they must be understood as a pure product of the
social life. Only in the lower races are the physical features prominent, like skin
colour, hair growth etc. as a differentiating factor. But also the individual,
descendants and races are only related in the social life before the fight for progress in
the prehistoric millennia and the historical periods, and are only advanced under the
steady influence in conformity to the external physical, and the internal, social
medium, through selection and transmission. I have tried to represent graphically
how this entire process, in agreement with the general world law causes the after, next
to and above one another of all coming into being in time, space and in the imprint of
power, in my study published in French: La method graphique en Sociologie *
Finally it can be emphasised again that all social processes are not of that
simply psychic, superior kind, they like to reach, but rather simultaneously they are
also physical and the person in no matter what higher stage of development cannot
deny the lower stages, therefore descent from the inorganic to the organic cannot be
entirely denied. On just this insoluble connection between the higher and the lower in
the individual and in the social life, the establishment of social regularity in agreement
with the laws of the organic world relies. Sociology is directed in its researches
exactly as in positive psychology and biology, as the latter are in physiology and
chemistry. The sociologist that denies biology, will always construct only voids to
fathom instead of firm laws. 
However the sociologist who does not assert that the connection between
sociology and biology should be denied, may establish their sociological views on the
opposite of this connection but nonetheless obtain a position only half way toward
this direction. To these sociologists Spencer, with his entire supplement, belongs.
Spencer does not interpret society as a concrete individual, but rather as a discrete
collection like the trees of a forest, the blades of a field, the accidentally converged
animals of a herd. Therefore through this partial view of social life Spencer arrived at
entirely one-sided conclusions ending in the misjudgement of social appearances. He
surveyed almost the entirety of social life's unifying factors and considered only the
autonomy of the individual. In his final works, as for instance concerning "justice"
the firm biological ground has been entirely discarded as he only makes use of the
hypothetical method in sociological subjects. 

239
* In volumes III and IV of the Annals of the International Institute of Sociology.

Some sociologists appear as an opponent of the organic method due to a

sequence of misunderstandings in their view of this method, its limits and the
purposes of its use. Recently a short work by Professor Ludwig Stein appeared,
dedicated to the criticism of the organic method in sociology. * For the most part we
agree unanimously with the propositions, according to the nature, of this outstanding
thinker. He himself cannot speak of anything as separate, and declares that social life
in its entire circumference is mechanical (S. 15). It must not be acknowledged that
when traced backwards this is completely correct when all things are considered, and
even the most biological and physiological appearances result from the effect of
purely mechanical factors. But one does not forget at the same time that each higher
sphere of appearances always embraces within itself all lower necessities. So it is that
the social organism comes into being and is formed out of mechanical, chemical,
physiological, psychological and social energies and elements. There are therefore
also mechanical necessities in social life. Upon the attainment of the highest cultural
level the person must still do mechanical work, even if to a slightly lesser degree than
in earlier phases. In other words, it will also be so for all time, irrespective of
whatever form society may take, there will always be classes that will have to perform
mechanical work in spite of all conceivable perfection of machines that might come
into being. All modes of movement through space in whatever way they are
overcome will, for all time, only be mechanical. On chemical and physiological
necessities the person is already dependant, therefore he always will be as he will
never be able to dispose of his own physical organism and the insoluble material
needs connected with it. The individual brings with them into the social life all these
necessities and she is always forced to adapt to this same condition. There also
follows however the precise observation that society itself is a personality, a real
organism that therefore cannot develop any differently than by acting in accordance
with generally valid biological laws, that are also based upon biological necessities
and social necessities that rest upon that. Like all natural organisms it is
physiological, morphological and must uniformly actuate itself, as well as each social
association, economical, judicial and hierarchical-political. The amount of work, the
concurrence, the ratio between demand and supply, the population law of Malthus, the
law of land values of Ricardo, the embryological law assessed by us, are all based
upon biological necessities. No individual, no society can withdraw herself from
them. Exactly as the psycho-physical reflection effect between individuals is based
on social tissues and organs, that realisation and higher memory of the nerve energies
in the social nervous system, that projection of the individual and the social psycho-
physiological energies in the surrounding physical medium, that capitalising of the
valuables is based likewise upon necessary psychological laws, that can for their part
be traced back to the interaction of the cells in the individual nervous system. Finally,
social life is subject to the general law of agreement to the after, next to and above
one another in time, space and power. Therefore at its peak each society records
within itself its development, even at the pinnacle of culture all the lower elements
and energies remain within, in every story and even the associations of today standing
next to each other do so upon the lowest developmental platform that still exists.

* Ludwig Stein: The Nature and Task of Sociology

240
 Hr. L. Stein says that the principle of necessities that appears to predominate
in social life is that of expediency. We have never denied the predominant value of
the principle of expediency in society. However we always represented both
principles as a reflection of realities, being united in our representation, in which no
absolutely unilateral bias asserts itself, but rather where both always act
simultaneously, only in different ratios. The construction of endlessly increasing
increments is stipulated in the succession from the simple to the multifaceted, by the
connection of this principle from the inorganic foundation to the animal, human and
social life in unequal ratios. We have even tried to express these increasing
increments by means of a mathematical formula whose first limb consists of an
endlessly large material measure next to one endlessly smaller that is the intellectual
nominal, and the last limb as yet unknown to us must consist of one endlessly small
material measure in addition to one intellectually nominal that is endlessly larger.
The average units of this formula gradually divide into one another with the reduction
of the measure and the increase of the denominators.* The social life of the person
now appears different according to this increment, the level of development already
attained reaches the cultural platform without reaching the absolutely highest step, on
which the rate dwindles as a measure of necessity to zero. This step belongs to the
divinity, to the absolutely free being.
Now however the addition of science is especially called for to fathom the
causal connections that necessarily exist between the forms observed. Each should
rely on the ability of the other. The concept of expediency therefore belongs to the
zone of art in the most comprehensive sense of the word. In that science possesses
the ability to fathom the necessary laws of existence, it delivers the possibility of
grasping certain purposes. Therein the task of sociology also exists, when the science
of society should have the same ability. Social craftsmanship arises out of the
principle of expediency, just as the practical technical sciences pursue economic
purposes, having for example industrial ability as their objective. But as with the
latter results derived from the natural object must be self supporting, and must be
grasped by the social craftsman in the act of conducting sociological investigations.
Throwing together the zones of science and art in the sociological zones has until now
only caused confusion and given occasion for endless disputes over words.

*) Thoughts Over the Social Science of the Future, Bk. II, S. 48.

The ten commandments and the sermon on the mountain should contain the
same meaning for each Christian. But how can this requirement be realised in social
life? In addition the necessities through which each society's life is defined must be
recognised. The statesman will see that his priority immediately after assessing and
establishing these necessities, is to obtain the position realised by the Christian.
L. Stein says when considering the search for necessary laws, that only laws of
nature are universally valid. (S. 15) He doubts that it is possible that sociology could
ever succeed in fathoming such laws. Social necessities have already been assessed,
the reckoning already conducted, could such a doubt be lifted. But this author bases
the natural regularity of one event upon the regularity of another event side by side,
that of statistical numbers, on certain periodicities of social events, relying upon self-
repeating rhythms in social development. Personalities rely solely on a certain
sequence of events and the conditions concerning their causal connections, as they are
traced back however they form the object of the story and this is especially so of the

241
culture, and the philosophy of the story. Sociology would investigate the same causal
connections, but its zone within the discipline would collapse and the account of Paul
Barth would be completely correct in equating its "philosophy of the story as
sociology" with sociology and the history of philosophy. The justification for the
existence of sociology as an independent science establishes itself on just this point
that it has the investigation of the necessary laws of social events as its object. This
can be reached however only by use of the organic method. The presence of
sociology as an independent science stands or falls with this method, because it is the
only method that has as a postulate of human society recognised it as an individual
living being, coalesced as a real organism. 
The boundary which has to define the form sociology takes is prescribed by
biology. The biologists for their part are also forced to restrict themselves to the
investigation of general laws. Explanation on the basis of the causal connections
between single events and events in general must be renounced. We can imagine the
case of an eagle of unusual size with a powerful beak and enormous claws being born
in the Corsican mountains. No biologist would adopt a position based on the
convolutions of the factors that would of cooperated at one and the same time to
explain such an event. This eagle flies to France, to Egypt, Italy, Germany and then
Russia and causes enormous desolation in the bird world, and this could also not be
explained by a biologist on the basis of the general laws investigated by them. Just as
few will be able to deliver to sociology an explanation whereby Napoleon being born
on the island of Corsica, selected his eagle-flight according to a preference hither and
whither and so on. And this is valid in regard to the appearance of all unusual
personalities and events where chance is a major factor. Chance however often plays
a decisive role in the story. The description of the incidents relating to such
personalities and events provides the account informing the sciences, that is then
looked at therefore unwisely as an art. Also every accidental event comes to be
evoked by certain causes, by a will like that of each individual determined by external
influences and internal motives. The convolutions and complications of the causal
factors operating at the same time is so great however that they can be scientifically
investigated only in the most exceptional, and in a very restricted, sense. With regard
to social events, it is pragmatic historical research that has to solve this task. The
summarizing of events and conditions under more general viewpoints belongs to
cultural history and the history of philosophy. Sociology on the other hand is directed
according to the only free zone toward establishing the necessary natural laws of
social events. She exceeds the boundary of this zone, expanding herself into a
universal social science, with the bias to include all remaining social disciplines
within: economic, jurisprudence, politics, linguistics, religion, ethics, aesthetics,
anthropology, ethnography, history etc. Instead of performing something positive by
means of this expansion, sociology only becomes the collective playground for
accidental and loosely ordered excursions out of the adjoining zones. Exactly the
same applies therefore to the economist, or jurist. Designate the specialised
researches of the anthropologist, ethnographer and historian as sociological, and they
are restricted in that their presentations simply become expressions: to add to
evolution, social progress, regulation, process etc. At the same time however these
academics are the outspoken opponents of the organic method in sociology, because
just that zone which must serve as the basis of sociology, namely biology, is almost
completely unknown to them and consequently their entire view of the nature of
social events is not scientific, but rather either pragmatic or hypothetical. 

242
 What further increases the confusion now ruling in the field of sociology, is
that which was introduced by Auguste Comte, and adopted by Spencer and his school
and carried further by most of the American sociologist, the arrangement of sociology
into statics and dynamics.
There can only be statics in physics because only here are mechanical forces
producing balanced end products with fixed properties subject to investigation
accordingly. The organic world represents a steady transforming and remodelling of
forces and formations. A balanced and stable condition with regard to living beings
can only be considered in relation to those moments that can be identified as those
through which the transitions from one state of being into another form occur.
However conditions are always subject to that which the researcher's eye happens to
light upon and the particles of the fluent current found thereby. For the biologist
therefore and all the more so for the sociologist, there can only be dynamics. Those
forms which are indicative of the sociological under the category of static, namely the
existing institutions, correct proportions etc. determine the internal and external
building of a society, and therefore belong to the sphere of social morphology.
However the latter also conforms to the dynamic nature because forms and
proportions change irresistibly. They are located proximately with the living factors
conjointly forming a steady river. Biology therefore also knows only a morphology
and no statics. This concept, with the evasion of biology, is falsely transferred from
mechanics directly into sociology and has thereby sown the seed establishing a
disastrous state of confusion in the sociological zone.

Before we go any further we want to look at just one more thing, to throw
light on the use sociology will make of the organic method in relation to history. The
philosophy of the story can only take its proper form after a philosophically handled
history, and what we claim to be so of this relationship therefore applies to all such
relationships, and so too of the history of philosophy. 
The first task above all for positive sociology is to produce for itself a
framework for history, into which the social events from all spheres must go: the
economic, judicial, political, and likewise the religious, ethical, and aesthetic before
they come into being must conform to the same framework, which social life cannot
exceed under any conditions or proportions, and in which all historical events and
events composed of single moments are made to conform to one and the same force
of evolution.
How this frame should form itself is determined by that which sociology has
already assessed and those necessary laws yet to be assessed that determine how
social events occur. First of all however the acquisitions of sociology will not lack in
regard to credit and the attainment of compartments with the same meaning as history,
which have already been accorded in the case of geology and the evolutionary theory
of natural history.
Because the psyche of the person is a product of social life, expressed in its
person and especially in its intellectual organs capitalising psycho-physiological
energies it must serve as a measuring rod for the individual and for the stage of social
development that has been reached. This capitalisation of personal energies in the
social medium is implicit, especially in prehistoric times, a period almost as lengthy
as the historic, delayed through innumerable anomalies and often subject to regressive
movements staggering the evolution of social power, this is how development,

243
differentiation and individualising of organisms during the foundation of the animal
empire in the middle of the physical medium proceeded of its own accord. One now
considers the historical epochs, and one finds that in their progress the psychic units
of the person raised themselves only by a slight step. In spite of Christ's gospel
coming later we have few indications of regard for personal worth before the old
Romans and Greeks, and even many of their good characteristics were forfeited.
Modern culture is structured more on the basis of outer appearances than on
intellectual values, more on the importance of valuables than on personal worth.
Therefore modern culture is seen to be one-sided, yes, certainly in one sense: it places
the object more highly than the subject, matter more highly than the person. From
this sequence a standstill in the development of the cultured human is revealed, and
this standstill can degenerate easily into an inferior state if soon there is not some help
to recover from the existing anomaly. 
One now observes human culture from a point of stagnation in the
capitalisation of higher personal energy potential, solitary earth-shaking events cause
entire historic periods, yes, to dwindle in their significance into a momentarily passing
episode in the development of humanity and the person. Humanity, in all probability,
will most likely exist for millions of years yet. It will live through yet thousands more
cycles of historical epochs, there will follow yet thousands more earth-shaking events
one after another, the cultural centre will shift itself innumerable times from one point
on our planet to another. Pragmatic history will tell of all these changes, but the
future cultural historian will design for themselves a measuring stick made possible
by the sociology of the personal values of the individual, and show how the progress
and dimensions of the collective whole was reached by this means.
The astronomers and scientists of antiquity accounted for the existence of
inorganic and organic nature in terms of a fixed state because they brought too slight a
time and spatial coefficient into their calculation. Firstly with the invention of the
telescope and the microscope, then with the newer discoveries in geology and the
establishment of the evolutionary theory the horizon of the natural subject expanded
its measure so that a positive natural philosophy could be established on the same
basis. The cultural historian also always committed the mistake of awarding the
measure of the history of humanity too brief a time coefficient, therefore this also
meant that single periods, cultural centres, events and personalities of a moderate
proportion acquired too great a meaning. Also cultural history has turned its attention
until now more towards monuments, artworks etc. than to the person himself. It
considered more the intercellular substance than the living elements of the undivided
social whole. In this sequence these features are also the measure that would have to
serve as a standard for the determination of historical development or regressive
movement, expressly avoiding considering the person himself as a product of the
social life. Now this measure is obtained for cultural history by the determination of
the socio-embryological laws of development. At the same time the horizon of
cultural history has undergone an expansion by way of its reference to sociology with
biology just as the latter has gained in width and depth by way of the evolutionary
theory. 
All that has just been said has relevance to the general history of culture, that
itself begins with the history of philosophy. The specialist branches of cultural
history on the other hand, that have individual countries and epochs as their subject,
have a telling character expressed in an approach which takes after more pragmatic
historical research. This investigates the causal connections of events and classifies

244
epochs after other categories than sociology, this is due to the different starting points
and purposes that each discipline pursues.

Over the philosophical meaning of the theory of the social organism, different
declarations result, seemingly opposed to one another we must admit. The followers
of historic materialism hold that the organicer is an idealist, the followers of the
idealistic world view look at it on the other hand as potentially materialistic in that
they come from the conviction that through the real organic view of society the ideal
principle will emerge out of its last refuge place on earth, that social life, in which the
infinite and unreal zone of matter will be ejected into being. 
We can now see to what extent the real organic view of society unanimously
agrees with both world views, the materialistic, as well as the idealistic, and after
being taken in these two directions it is placed thereby in a state of contradiction. 
The materialists fixed their theories upon the irreducible solidarity of the
intellect and material in the individual: no intellectual motion without corresponding
material turnover in the nerve organs, no feeling, thinking and wanting without
corresponding release of mechanical, chemical, and physiological energies.
According to the physical being the idealists agree therewith unanimously in that they
must admit that for a thinking brain, and for feeling and desire, a nervous system is
necessary. Nevertheless the idealists always raise an objection, as soon as science
gets somewhat closer to the original fixed point of the material processes that go with
thinking, feeling and desiring in the human body, and especially when located
simultaneously in the nervous system.
However for their part the materialists themselves forget, only too often, that
the intellect has the nature of a power and that between power and material, although
the one is not conceivable without the other, that nevertheless a contrast exists, yes,
that in a definite regard is mutually negated. We can neither see nor touch a power
without material, to be sure material also cannot exist without power; but power
nevertheless is the ideal principle, this applies to knowing ourselves that in the
material state I exist; therefore the idealists are also right in that the intellect is power.
But then they prove the issue again by further executions based on incomplete
consequences. In that they admit that the intellect is a power, they attach its
concessionary clause thereto, this being that the intellect's nature is absolutely
different to any other powers that are known in nature. Now it would justify them
accordingly whether the proof to deliver or to indicate at least, in which moment and
under which ratios this absolutely new power of the human body is associated with.
They have however remained as yet in default of this proof, in contrast to which the
progressive investigation of the natural subject according to the mechanical, chemical
and physiological energies found in the organic world and in the person was gradually
increasing and was able to perceive no moment that could be acknowledged as a sign
of delineation between this and the psychic energies.
What is the Organicist to do now? They seek themselves to deliver the proof
that in social life the ratio between power and material is the same, as well as between
intellect and matter in our body, that however in the social organism the intellectual
power is yet more potent than individual potential, this applies in that these are social
psychic energies. Accordingly the material in the social body also forms and forms
itself in a manifold manner and in freer forms than in the individual organism. Now
on each higher step of coming into being in the physical world, in the unification of
power and material the psychic principle is more and more dominant over the

245
physical, a performance acknowledged by the Organicist of the ideal world view, but
an essential unfortunately as yet not of service until they deliver the proof, that in the
social organism power in relation to the material reaches yet higher intellectual
potential, such as the case is in the individual. In the fifth volume of our "Thoughts
Over the Social Science of the Future: Attempt at a Natural Theology", we proved,
that in Christian theology the church could be seen as an expansion of Christ's body,
and is therefore a real organism, and the ratio between the visible and the invisible
church is indicated by the Christian dogma's theory, and is just like the ratio between
the body and the soul in the person. Until now the intervening parts which could
connect the concept of the individual with that of the substantial church was missing.
This zone was only discovered by the Organicist, and was investigated. The
operation of the zone was seen by them to be enriched by the Christian church's
theory which conceived of the solidarity of the individual in social life. Organic
sociology accordingly offers the point of union between idealism and materialism,
between the church's theory and the organic theory.

Does one want to raise again on this occasion the eternally old and always new
question of the possible manner: in which division of the body the soul is located and
remains during the life time of the person and where it goes after the dissolution of the
body?  Sociology is, when scientific research, not obligated to deliver an answer
on these questions. However organic sociology applies to individual consciousness
and that of any collectives, and so to social consciousness also, and we want to
illuminate these questions from the sociological standpoint arising out of the use of
the organic method.
The social consciousness, arising out of the joining together of parts, directs
the thoughts and desires that follow in the persons forming the partnership and
stipulates the uniformity of the social and national life, it is a collective
consciousness. This consciousness is always available throughout the entire social
organism and in each of its divisions. But all divisions are not to be found expressing
the same degree of consciousness and allowed to lead themselves according to its
highest attainment. Most cellular elements of society behave according to an entirely
instinctive or semiconscious programme. Even in the higher cultural state, it is
always only a vanishingly small minority that is completely aware of the
harmonisation of the living whole. Actually, in the normal state of existence the
government must, as the central organ of the social nervous system, include this
minority within itself. This however is not always the case because social life is
impeded by innumerable anomalies. Government agencies are often not developed
uniformly, but rather, quite idiotic elements gain access. Then the higher units of
consciousness in the other divisions and circles of society find refuge elsewhere:
amongst the philosophers, scholars, artists, in the church, the army etc. Such mobility
amongst the higher elements is therefore enabled in the social organism because the
elements forming the social nervous system are composed of persons that are not
attached mechanically to one another, but rather are mostly even wall cells and can in
a uniquely human manner react against the social influences reaching them.
The human body also represents a collective of single cells. Therefore the
individual consciousness is also always a collective consciousness and to give the
correct statement: the soul is entirely in the entire body and entirely in each of its
divisions. But as in the social, not all divisions in the individual organism react
uniformly against the unifying attractions. The attraction effect and the reaction to the
attractions impacts only on higher elements, just in the nervous system and in its

246
highest power in the human brain. Now however because the elements forming the
individual nervous system do not consist of wall cells, but rather form firm divisions
of single nerve tissues and organs, individual consciousness is drawn, alongside the
social, with greater continuity and continuation there from. Abnormality can occur,
as for instance in the hysterical, hypnotic etc., where reception can be split so the
individual consciousness can also have the character of a mobile consciousness; it
divides into two or several centres of consciousness, as for instance the case is with
the oscillations of self-confidence in hysterical persons. Therefore comparing
individual consciousness with the social throws light on the developmental processes
applying to both. What however the soul consists of the sociologist can explain as the
feeling of willpower, in a similar manner as others, like for the scientist the existence
of power and the philosopher the existence of thought.
Where does social consciousness exist after the dissolution of the social
association, where is the soul of the individual after the destruction of the body?
Would these questions be equivalent to the scientist asking the question: what
happens to the energy of light and warmth self-dispersing in the world? The
hypothesis set up by us of an intellectual ether fulfilling the role of an analogy to the
light ether in the universe is to be considered as an attempt to offer a solution to these
questions. We therefore refer the reader who is so inclined to the tenth section of our
"Attempt at a Natural Theology", which considers the theory of immortality. *

*) Thoughts Over the Social Science of the Future, Bk. V, S. 404,

In what ratio does the theory of the Organicist now stand to the newly
emerged theory of historical materialism?
The latter is restricted by the proof it can deliver of its itself, how it is that
society, and also the individual, is forced to provide itself first of all with satisfying
the most urgent physical needs so that next the psychic energies can be effective, one
must admit, the followers of this theory are busy supplementing themselves with the
wisdom of Athens, it is generally acknowledged that they want one truth more than
any new discovery. The same also applies to the thesis that the person and society
have their material existence and developmental properties stipulated by the
surrounding physical medium, the atmosphere, the terrain, the climate etc. Already
however in regard to the plant and animal species science is not to be investigated
solely by factors of location that co-operated in the development of the same, and so
much more difficult it is in regard to the different human races and the whole
collective. Already the materialistic rule is acknowledged to be incorrect: that the
person becomes what he eats in conformity to the social life: society has eaten what
eats it, in the progress of history. The followers of historical materialism do not even
have a sharply defined rule they can be sure of attaching to their theory; one considers
however that they look at the entire developmental history of humanity as the result of
the effect of economic factors, yet the plan they prefer is that only the satisfaction of
individual physical needs is relevant, and that one is justified in asserting that all
researches are equalised that trace all thoughts, feelings and wilful actions of the
person back to the assimilation of certain nutrient.
The world is not ruled solely through hunger that is the outflow of the ego, but
rather also by love. In social association, love through sympathy expands itself.
Sympathy however is a product of the social reflection effect. The follower of
historical materialism does not consider that the person, and especially the cultured

247
person, is preferably thought of as a social product of the sympathetic life processes,
and that the psychological capital which he commands is the result of innumerable
reflection effects, that possibly existed in primitive society in a more narrowly
confined manner in connection with the economic modes and that later however
became independent of that which had preceded them. The North American Indian
appeared to know and lead a hunting life and America was partitioned according to no
other economical modes until the first European settlers. These changes were entailed
through the descent of a higher racial inheritance developed through upbringing in a
higher social medium ordered by the magnificent capital of personal psycho-
physiological energies which completely reshaped the economical modes of the
country while set in the middle of the same physical medium. The accumulation of
this personal capital took place however during immeasurable prehistoric and historic
epochs, and was the result of uniquely human conformities to the different climatic
and terrestrial conditions in which the ancestors of the settlers were located during
their earlier phases of descent, and the result of the fight for existence of entire
peoples and races, the products of selection becoming more innumerable generation
by generation. The superior quality of this accumulating capital was not simply due
to the interplay of economics, but rather more religious, ethical, intellectual and
aesthetic factors occurring through the reflection effect. We emphasize only one of
these factors, the religious. The origin of the piety that the first European settlers in
North America revered is derived from Christianity, which arose from Mosaic roots,
the source of the latter perhaps lying in the esoteric theory of the religious system of
the Ancient Egyptians. Is it now possible the genesis, the distribution and later
reshaping of the religious ideas that produced that piety, might be traced back to
economic factors? Do we now surmise that if North America had been populated by
such settlers as would, by way of religious convictions and dogmas, of been forbidden
to utilize meat for nourishment, to have no cotton clothing, not to use metals; the
economic modes of the country would not be entirely other than at the present?
Therefore ideas and economic modes are the means by which the world is
ruled, but the Organicist adds not only this: not individual, but social ideas. The
isolated thought of the individual has neither social nor yet historical value, it receives
this value only to the extent that it is transmitted in the words, writing, and artwork
proclaimed by other people, by this means it acquires flesh and blood, due to the
reflection effect it is taken into the nervous systems of other individuals and in this
way becomes the common property of the social nervous system of a nationality, a
religious partnership, or the whole of humanity. The ten commandments would have
received neither a national value for the Jewish people, nor that of a universal value
for humanity, had Moses let the stone tablets lie in Sinai leaving the people without
their contents to proclaim. If Christ had remained in the desert and his ideas not of
been dispersed and gone forth with his disciples, the establishment of Christianity
would of failed for the same reason. The comprehensive unification of Christianity
was always only the further extension of the circle of thoughts and desires lending to
the people of Christianity the meaning of a world religion.
Just as we find behaviour during the heroic age when we look at Carlyle, the
chief exponent of this period. Innumerable exploits go unrecorded in the story, died
away without a trace, innumerable joys, anonymous heroes on the battlefields without
glory, innumerable thinkers, technicians and artists are overcome by the exertions and
internal fights. Those personalities found in the historic rise of the heroic age owe it
to circumstances that placed them in the centre of the increased psycho-physiological
reflection effect of their contemporaries. Alexander of Macedonia, Peter the Great,

248
Frederick the Great, and Napoleon appear in history as outstanding focal points of
cultural activity because of the higher social power they lived with and had command
over. Personalities represent cellular elements in the relevant social nervous systems,
around which new tissues and organs formed themselves, in addition to which the
predecessors had contributed to their dissolution and reshaping. However this mainly
happened only by way of the social reflection effect. Historic heroism we can see
now is not founded exclusively on the internal ethical values of the personality as in
regard to the manner of establishment in the case of Christianity, but rather mostly it
can be traced back to external modes and circumstances, the heroic culture as
understood by Carlyle is a moral absurdity. It is equivalent to idolizing the fait
accompli, not that which is rare through its chance of reaching success. Outstanding
thinkers, technicians and artists cannot therefore for their part count as a cultural
value, because it is always only the most special part of one-sided potent psychic
energies that is represented. Only the highest of all persons can serve as an object of
culture, and such Christ was.
Language must be acknowledged as the original and primary means of each
social reflection effect; character, as well as artwork, can only be looked at in the
same manner as an aid serving the accomplishment of the same purpose. Therefore
the Organicist could of become a follower of the theory of historic materialism, while
humanity remained the same, opposing the rule it consumed: humanity became what
it spoke. The word is always the carrier of intellectual, religious, ethical, aesthetic,
also the economic, legal and hierarchical-political reflection effects already in the
primitive partnership of people; being gradually included in the progress of history:
through the education of the higher social nerve organs in the person and in society,
by always accumulating higher psychic energies in the individual and the social
nervous systems they become flesh. In the superior being of Christ the transformation
of the word into flesh reached such a height that it was raised to the point where it was
interpreted as the word of God by the theory of Christian dogma.
We are not driven by a desire to express these ideas, but rather only to indicate
that the organic method is far removed from that of the materialistic world view,
leading in the opposite direction by offering the means to theology to bring the results
of the natural subject into harmony with the religious strivings and commands.

Finally we only want to emphasize the contrast between the economically-

materialistic and the psycho-organic views of social events from the standpoint of
manifest progress. Economic progress always resides in a more comprehensive
division of labour, in an economic concurrence that is always more intensive; in an
ever greater increase of capital wealth, and always in a complex economy based on
money. When general means of exchange and price are standardized money
represents a quantitative size and applies pressure to the economic sphere in all
aspects of its performance building up the necessary formation of a mechanical
character. Economic progress therefore leads to the conveyance of selfish drives in
social life becoming a mechanism acting increasingly on its behalf. On the other hand
from the standpoint of the organic view of social events progress consists of an
increasing predominance of the psychological over the mechanistic, the altruistic
drives preside over the selfish. The unification caused by the organic reflex process,
induced thoughts and desires to share and discover, due to the psychic expression of
sympathy an inclination was established in the individual prompting the intention to
accord fellow men what they required without equivalent return services of a like
kind; the law of supply and demand established economic trade in valuables and

249
services for the opposite foreign currency: give less and you will receive more, sell
more expensive and buy cheaper. The reflex process orchestrates the exchange and
distribution of ideas, as well as the accumulation of psychic energies with a higher
potential in the individual and the social nervous system; the economic process on the
other hand addresses the purposes of ownership and the exchange of goods, as well as
the aggregation of valuables. Between the idea and the valuable object prevails the
same contrast as between power and matter, and the more superior the idea the more
prominent this contrast becomes.
This may suffice in order to designate the idealistic bias of the organic
method. But the Organicist when a scientific researcher is obligated to fathom the
process through which the genesis, the exchange, that stipulates the distribution and
capitalising of ideas occurs, and this process is not primarily purely psychic, but
rather a psycho-physiological facet of society, as it is also within the individual. And
being psycho-physiological, this process can then again be acknowledged only if
society itself is interpreted as a living individual, i.e. as a real organism. He who
denies the reality of the social organism, withdraws the object of research itself from
the reach of science. Then the use of real comparisons and the inductive method in
the scientific sense is impossible, and the researcher is forced to make use of the
hypothetical method that has proved until now to be completely unfruitful in the area
of the social sciences. The results of comparison between different social formations
however, according to the performance of the proven established method, could not
itself possibly lead to the discovery or determination of any necessary laws of social
events, because by this means it was always only the results of accidental historical
events that could be compared with one another. Therefore the majority of those
following the determination of any necessary laws which apply to social events are
led by the method of historical comparison towards the sceptics that maintain there
are no general laws in the scientific sense that can be given for society coming into
being. This statement, that must immediately be acknowledged as logically
untenable, was already factually refuted on behalf of the Organicist by the
determination of an entire series of positive laws that are jointly applicable to social
life and all living nature. The achievements of sociology in this direction, the anti-
Organicist for their part, because the scientific view of social events is completely
strange to them, and due also to their lack of the necessary knowledge of biology,
have not yet learnt to praise the deeper sense, and the range and philosophical value of
the acquisitions of positive sociology. For what one has no understanding of and can
make no sense of, one becomes an enemy of. That is unfortunately also a law of
social events.

As yet we have touched in the briefest manner, the totality of objections that
have been proposed against the use of the organic method in sociology. With this
method recognising human society as an individual living being, and giving the
impression of a real organism, the Anti-organicist becomes studious first of all to
negate the real character of social events.
1. The individual social groups and the countries forming political units do
not exist as firmly joined tissues and organs, is the first assertion, like those organisms
of the vegetable and animal kingdoms, but rather consist of persons, who move freely
in space and arrive in conjunction with one another only exceptionally and only
accidentally come into direct and substantial contact, while they arbitrarily leave any

250
associations that they belong to and enter into other associations, and yes, they can
belong to several partnerships at the same time.
We have already refuted all objections that are traced back to space and time
ratios by our preceding discussions. How about the consequences of the behaviour of
following after each other however, or the simultaneous membership of the same
individual to different partnerships?
We designated the social associations as nerve systems. Between the concept
of body and system in regard to the natural subject, there is nothing more essential to
distinguish than the original fixture of their relationship. All systems of firm bodies
represent the movement of atoms and molecules gripped together, just as our sun's
system consists of a group of planetary bodies. In both cases the movements are
subject to the same mechanical laws. Exactly as the social was itself developed out of
the existing nervous systems of the individual after the same laws as apply to
multicellular organisms, and especially as apply to the nervous systems of the
individual arising out of the neurones. As in the social, so it is in the adjoining cells
of the vegetable and animal kingdoms, although it is to a lesser degree that the tissues
and organs are bound together in the former. From this it now clearly follows how
the same person can belong to one after another, or simultaneously to two or several
associations. In that in each case it happens in the same manner, like the wayward
journey of a comet travelling out of one world system into another. However if a
celestial body the size of our sun should now approach us, the attractive force
exercised by such a body would produce an interference in the balance of our sun's
system. Planets lying closer to the newly appeared celestial body would be attracted
by it more powerfully than the others. A battle between two centres of attraction
would emerge and in the progress of this battle part of the planets would be
influenced and would belong at the same time to the force of attraction of each centre;
therefore they would belong to both systems at the same time. Such an interference in
the pivotal ratios of West European countries exercised the papal force in the Middle
Ages. The mind gravitates towards two opposing centres of attraction in Germany, to
the monarchy of the imperialistic force, and to the papacy. The people who felt their
mind was torn in two directions belonged simultaneously to two different social
nervous systems, whose activities did not occupy a position of unanimous agreement
and where there was also temporarily a state of open warfare between the two. Do
not forget however that the solidarity of the individual in social situations is not
determined by mechanical, but rather by psycho-physiological forces. The psycho-
physiological affinity is the intensity of attachment that people have for each other in
society and this also can only be understood by means of psycho-physiological
dissimilation. In the social organism the focal points of intellectual and ethical energy
themselves correspond to the gravitational centres of attraction, that through reflection
are made known as social energy changing mechanical movement in space. There
however the spiral, after which the energies raise themselves to higher potentialities,
one can be sure they are gradually climbing, but yet always passing through the same
recurring parallel points of orbit that are always to be found in the higher spheres of
developmental accretion that are analogous with the lower spheres of unanimous
agreement. Such an analogy represents for us, apart from the level of the energy
potentials, the social and the mechanical system. As far-reaching as this analogy
appears to be, nevertheless it throws a clear light on events occurring in space and in
social life.
In its ascent of the spiral route toward the upper limits of the developmental
stages of the social organism, in regard to the organic world it is also brought into

251
positions of perihelion and aphelion, that bring it closer to the lower organisms than
the higher orders of living beings. So the social nervous system, in regard to the
mobility of individual elements and the changeableness of its structure, shows so
many analogies with the lower species of life in the animal kingdom. This justifies
the comparison between social dynamics and the process of coming into being
throughout the entire organic world. At the same time the differences between the
energy potentials must also always be extolled and emphasised properly. And this
was also always observed by the Organicist. The reproach was therefore wrongly
made against them that due to them the social organism would become identified with
the natural world. The assembly of an analogy is implicit and yet not identical, but
rather it shows only that there are certain commonalities between the evolution of
social dynamics and coming into existence in nature.
2. The social organism is not as one maintains it is, immediately comparable
to the individual organism, neither is it born nor subject to death.
All social associations, all countries, emerged originally through the division
of those already in existence. This also happens still in the current day in each new
colonisation that leads to one more or less independent living whole of the subsidiary.
All natural organisms are themselves also originally increased through division; only
by modification of the original increase is development sensed, the sexual method of
fertilization being the medium of division.
One will probably reciprocate that most countries have been established by
conquest.  It is now implicit however that the nature of each conquest takes after
that of a fertilization process. One observes, like the numerous assemblies of
spermatozoa swarming about the feminine cell violently attempting the same
intrusion, one has a picture coddled together of a battle between an enterprising, more
mobile, active population and a passive one. Firstly the victor subdues the population
they have overcome, subjecting them to the active masculine power, which subjugates
the passive feminine element. Gradually however the two become united, fusing into
one another, and a new, transformed organism comes into being, as a unit develops
from the duality. In such a transformation and harmonisation of elements however
the being exists in a like manner to each naturally occurring fertilization process.
When assembling these analogies we did not draw on a consideration of the ethical
factor, although we completely acknowledge its value. In the convolutions of each
social dynamic it is impossible to itemize all factors in every new discussion.
Death comes to social associations, yes entire countries, just as it does in
individual organisms. Extermination through war leads to the disappearance of entire
populations that fall from the surface of the earth in a sequence of terrestrial
cataclysms, together with the death of the whole collective they had formed. But also
the gradual solution of a society through illness, disorganisation, exhaustion, paralysis
of the living core, failure of the life source, is possible and, although these conditions
do not pass in so short a time and due to such incidental symptoms, how such with the
individual is the case. We described these conditions, their origin and sequences in
detail in our Social Pathology. * A population that completely lost a conscious sense
of its unified status would no longer have an organic form, but rather only exist as a
contiguous form, exactly like the trees of a forest and the grass blades of a meadow.
Such a society has ceased to exist as a concrete organism; it has decomposed into its
individual components; it forms only a discrete collection. Spencer and his followers
for their part however even deliberately hold that associations of living countries are
discrete collections. We have already indicated earlier on the one-sidedness to which
such a view leads.

252
 *) The Social Pathology, Bk. 11 of The International Library of Sociology.

3. Spencer raised the objection that organisms are constructed, those that
belong nominally to the highest orders are symmetrical, in contrast to which the social
organism represents the negation of each symmetry.
However the independent central organ of each social organism maintains
control about itself according to the manner in which the different classes of the
population are layered, with the higher more closely, and the lower stored more
remotely. Each country represents a hierarchy of cells, tissues and organs, and the
arrangement of the associations is delineated second, third and so on. Categories
among one another and in regard to the central forces, manifest themselves in the
symmetrical building of each country. The arrangement and symmetry in the social
organism obviously does not simply arise as a result of mechanical and chemical
factors, which are the causes operating according to the nature of organisms, but
rather they are also distinguished through psychic forces; which prevail however in
regard to symmetry, and also in all dynamics, only always more graduated and less
absolute according to whether acting between the social or the individual organism.
 In our work: The Graphic Method in Sociology * we graphically represented the
concentric hierarchies of the different social elements and therefore proved the role of
symmetry in the building of social associations according to a geometric fashion.

*) in volumes III and IV of The Annals of the International Institute of

Sociology.

4. Society, one finally objects, controls no joint self-awareness; its form

represents no self-conscious I, like each individual; it is only a collection of feelings -
a condition of consciousness.
Positive psychology and nominal psychiatry have arrived at the result that
individual self-awareness, and consciousness likewise, are only collectives, in that
they must be looked at as the result of the co-operation and life of all cellular elements
forming the organism. Accordingly the extent of individual consciousness is always
fluctuating; each ensuing moment follows on from the one preceding it; it is subject to
the interruptions of sleep for instance; it is periodical in that it always sways between
increasing tensions and a state of balance; it is moreover wandering in that it is
transported by external attractions, memories, and internal tensions arising from latent
energies out of one division of the central organ into another where it remains
temporarily fastened. Also the different feelings and state of social consciousness
corresponds to all this. They also represent things collectively accrued, being subject
to interruptions, and periodical variations, arising through manifold interconnections.
Regarding social unification, the form and location of ideas and desires is not simply
a summation of the individual conditions that are present, but is rather the result of a
harmonisation attained by organic means, and is also the same as that regarding the
case of individual consciousness. Social consciousness is not simply analogous to
that of the individual, but rather at the same time homologous to it in that it represents
an organic potential of the psycho-physiological energies. There must be an
acknowledgement that first of all the results of psychology and psychiatry must be

253
refuted; until this happens the sociologist is justified in relying upon this, and in
constructing the social psychology on the basis of the individual. 

All this protest does not spring from a collective source, namely the
circumstances pertaining to social bodies, or around our terminology, to the observer
the social nervous system is like plastic, through certain restricted forms and
formations it represents itself as being like an individual organism, instead of as one
discrete collection existing in space and time. We saw how unfounded and
unscientific such a view is. Every limb of an undivided society can communicate
with the entire being through its senses, just as some interpret how a cell acts toward
the entity to which it belongs. The tissues, organs and the whole organism certainly
project the single cell as a confusion of apparently loosely ordered movements, its
functions being attended to only as a result of unconscious and instinctive
participation. Although the person is now more aware of himself and his position in
the social association where there is the higher psycho-physiological potential of their
being, nevertheless the connection between the laws of regulation and social
dynamics escapes them just as well as in the case of the individual cell, and it may
serve as a proof that even now there is the outspoken conviction on the part of
outstanding intellects that there would be no general regularity in social development
otherwise. Concerning the development of the plastic form of the social body, and
being in a position to judge it, the person would have to be gifted with other organs
than those over which he has control now. For the same reason he can also form for
himself no picture of the psycho-physiological harmonisation of social consciousness.
He interprets only the movements and functions of the individual factors that lead to
the manufacture of the same. He feels, thinks and wants to feel, thinks and desires
only as an individual; he contributes to the entirety of an unknown size, although it is
instinctive, semiconscious and only exceptionally is the entirety manufactured
deliberately through this cause, as also applies to the cell in the cell's territory.
But as the oneness of global systems can only be perceived from an enormous
distance, likewise can social consciousness be brought into harmony with the
individual if one observes it from the height of the religious view. Christianity
teaches: I would not feel, nor think and desire for myself, but would rather be aware
of a higher power in me; in God is life, woven into us. Just as one does not feel, think
and desire, if one places himself upon the Christian religious standpoint, the
individual unit and humanity as each complete in themselves, but rather that God
prevails in each human living together, as well as in the entire story of humanity. In
addition this outlook may contribute in evoking the conviction that the organic
method in sociology, correctly used and understood, does not lead to a materialistic,
but rather, to an idealistic world view.

Although the preceding protests must now be acknowledged as unfounded,

they nevertheless carry about them a scientific character. This belongs to another
category of protest entirely, that comes from a complete ignorance of the
accomplishments of current biology and positive psychology, as well as from an
incorrect and superficial view of the organic method itself.
Let us follow for ourselves the questions the Anti-organicist asks:
What can there be in common between an elephant and a monarchy, between a
whale and a republic?

254
 Could this question be answered, just as when the question is directed at a
geologist or an astronomer: what can there be in common between a grain of sand and
the planet Jupiter, between a stone pebble and the shining star?
The answer is only too clear: the dissimilarities are based upon space, time and
energy ratios, not a common regularity between the comparisons.
Another demand of the Anti-organicist is that they would like the location of
the hands, the feet, the nose, the eyes and ears and the remaining members of the
social organism to be shown.
Because each social association consists of individuals, it also encloses within
itself all forces through which individual life is stipulated. It is not simply psychic
forces that reign in the social organism, but rather also chemical and mechanical
energies, consequently acting in another arrangement corresponding to the social
purposes and composition. The social organism has no hands and feet, but the
psycho-physiological energies upon whose interaction the unified social life rests,
applies itself in the final act exactly as it does with the individual organism, through
mechanical work, as we have already explained. So it also has developed for itself no
social eyes, but specific energies, organs that in the individual differentiate into ears,
increased learning in social life occurs through the unified cause of a greater or lesser
number of individuals that jointly develop and instruct its specialist aptitudes and
talents. In this sense an academy of the arts is a social organ which corresponds in the
plastic arts to vision, as does music regarding the ear.
A French pseudo sociologist even inquires after a full apprehension of where
the secretions of the social organism are stored, and where the channels of excretion
are located.  Such an Anti-organicist does not simply want to see the social
organism, but rather also to be yet smelling and feeling it.

Those critics of the organic method in sociology who choose to interpret,

instead of adopting the same approach, content themselves with forming an entirely
special category therewith to emphasize, under possibly hundreds of failed analogies,
a difference between the dynamics of social life and those of the living world, simply
in order to attack the method itself in this way. Such a procedure does not prove itself
any more readily than the views of the Organicist, all of whom, after looking at social
dynamics from all directions are unanimous in their agreement. One also admits now
that some Organicist's individual analogies have been superficial and interpreted
hastily, and when proposed these can become just as good a proof against the organic
method in sociology as those inexact observations drawn from an individual scientist's
experiments for demonstrating the uselessness of the inductive method in the study of
the natural subject. The public at large, that does not read the majority of the very
extensive works of the Organicists, accordingly judges the value of the organic
method from individual examples extracted out of context from the entire system.
The means by which newly established philosophical, and scientific systems, reach
everyone, makes them both subject to this fate. The same procedure was brought into
use against Darwin's theory of evolution. An illustrated newspaper produced a
sequence of figures: the first represented a mollusc, a snake followed, a crocodile, a
goose, a giraffe, a donkey, an ape and finally a modern dandy in an overcoat with a
top hat on the head, a monocle in the eye and a cigar in the mouth. This caricature
was equipped with the weighty inscription: Darwin's evolutionary theory. A scientific
system cannot be refuted through the application of such a procedure, and, not least,
this is so of the organic theory in sociology because it is established on already proven
acquisitions in biology and positive psychology. In order to shake that sociological

255
system, these acquisitions must first of all be acknowledged as unfounded. However
the Anti-organicist carefully skirts around this page of the entire system in order to
attack only some advanced points of the same. Under the name of the latter, the
primary objective now is also to prove this to be weakly established, yet the citadel
remains standing in which the main force of the entire system is concentrated, namely
the insoluble connection between all events occurring in human society with the
process of coming into being in nature.
The founding thesis of the Organicist: nihil est in societate quod non prius
fuerit in natura, holds conviction as strongly as the idealistic, and the materialistic
standpoint. For the idealists would have to reach a point beyond this thesis at the end
of which God would appear in nature to prevail in the manner of the known laws of
nature. The idealists could therefore complete the thesis through the addition nisi
Deus, likening the spiritualistic to the sensualistic thesis: the nisi intellectus added to
nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu. In so far as the materialists
acknowledge the rule of the higher intellectual powers, they are for their part forced to
make reference to the same thesis. Neither one nor the other of these standpoints can
therefore undermine the bases of the organic theory.

It was rightly emphasised that sociology has to do battle with the prejudices
against its alien ideas.  The prejudices of modern society do not escape the long
period necessary to overcome the superstition of the evil view of the witch and the
devil; nowadays it is nourished by incorrect scientific views, partly intellectual and
political passions, which is how religion during the Middle Ages grew into a state of
fanaticism. Sociology established on a scientific basis now has as part of its task to
engage all such prejudices, wherefrom all the reasons become clear why it becomes
engaged with so many passionate and inconsiderate ideologies and becomes an enemy
of them.

Before we go any further we want to focus attentively upon the meaning that
the use of the organic method in sociology could also have for biology and nominally
for physiology.
Human society is a real organism, all events occurring within the living
substance must be subject to three standards, namely the change in matter, form and
energy. Verworn designates the reason underlying the principle of energy change to a
continually active process storing the potential of chemical energy, and the transferral
of that energy into other forms of energy. * The potential of the psychic energies in
the social organism itself arose from a specific original chemical-mechanical energy,
and the energy change receives the character of a psychic energy change in that
process of change. What is more, for its part the latter is also always accompanied by
a corresponding change in material and form, as we have demonstrated in the
preceding statements. Events occurring in the social organism are therefore exactly in
keeping with the principles applying throughout the entire living world. At the
present time however energetics belongs to the darkest and least explored zone of
physiology; the conversion of energies from one form into the other are as yet a long
way from being explained, and yes, the concepts of individual energy forms have as
yet not been determined. **

*) Max Verworn: General Physiology, S. 558

**) ibid. S. 556.

256
 Is it now asked: in respect of higher potentials and on a wider basis, if a
comparison can be made between self-regulating social energy changes, and the ways
in which events occurring in the individual organism can shed light on the latter
regarding a few things? Proceeding with the statement of Johannes Müller:
physiology can only be attached to definitive results by means of comparison, and
this can only be implemented in the most comprehensive sense by consulting the
social organism and bringing it into the circle of physiological investigation.
Embryology represents just as dark a zone as energetics. One probably knows
that the simple cell increases itself through division and the same process that had
taken place in the mother cell before, repeats itself in the daughter cells. But
according to what means in the multicellular organism the single cell arrives after
being expelled out of it as a germ cell, repeatedly, in addition to the evolution of the
entire organism, has not as yet been made clear. In Germany the compartment of
embryological attributes divides itself into two repositories: the Preformationists, His,
Roux and Weismam, which represents the theory of organ forming germ locations,
and on the other hand the Epigenesists: Pflüger, Hertwig, Driesch and Häckel,
asserting that the external factors have the decisive effect in the embryological
reshaping of the cell. In England, Darwin set up for his part a theory of Pangenesis.
The simplest cellular element in the social organism is the person. The higher
nervous organs, that distinguish the person from the animals, are the product of the
ancient people composing society during the entire progress of prehistoric and
historical development, before the individual undergoes any psycho-physiological
energy change. As a child every single individual joins a sequence of increasingly
higher social associations where increments of ancestral inheritance are already
available. The same happens likewise with each simple cell that is born in the
confines of a multicellular organism. Both must bring themselves into adaptation
with the incremental inheritance if there is an imbalance of accumulated energy; both,
after their birth into the organic medium to which they belong, must come into step
with it in their interactions; through the attraction effects of the whole organism the
individual is moulded to the higher potential and differentiates in a uniquely human
manner. In both cases of descent this process is to be designated according to its
being a process of upbringing. Now in society however this process, by occupying an
extended section of time and more expansive modes of space, goes before itself, that
is to say it exists before each act of implementation. Therefore a comparison of the
embryological events in the living world with what is understood to take place in the
social world under the designation of upbringing, in the most comprehensive sense of
the word, could also throw light upon the area of the developmental mechanism in
physiology. 

For the same reasons positive psychology's theory of the social organism
could prove to be of service to so many. The change in social energy is itself directly
connected to the results of the enervation occurring in the individual nervous system.
The genesis of feeling, thinking and desiring in the individual comes from thoughts of
unification and the desire to mediate that must be completely homologous in the
social organism, therefore the individual nervous system must be linked by analogy
through direct attraction effects and through indirect reflection to the social nervous
system and its energy change. With the indirect reflection effect the energy change in
the social nervous system is delayed by the interruption of social enervation and split

257
into two special activities, by which means the process of social enervation is
illustrated for the observer with greater clarity and more certainty than is possible in
the individual nervous system, and nominally in the brain, where the situation is one
of a restricted space comprised of millions of cells. We already noted above that the
attraction transmission from one ganglion cell to another in our brain is not of a
substantial kind, just as the situation is between other cells, but that rather the effect is
preceded by indirect contact. This mode of attraction transmission can only be
explained by means of an analogy with the effect of indirect reflection occurring in
the social nervous system. Psychology must therefore also include the theory of the
social organism within the circumference of its induction in order to obtain a wider
basis than is possible simply by means of comparative science.
It is to the slight advantage of the organic method that its view of society is not
that of a state of cells, in the manner that sociology takes the meaning of a cellular
sociology. An emerging cellular physiology and a cellular psychology are yet to be
grasped. The sociologist begins their endeavours from a point therefore where the
object is to attain these sciences only. Now the sociologist as a scientist with the
accomplishment of their observed goal could ease the task of the psychologist in that
they attach the results of sociology to those of biology.  For our part we also
interpreted social pathology as a cellular pathology after the manner of Virchow's
exposition.
The discovery of purely economical laws already prove the value of biology.
In the domain of economics Adam Smith assessed the laws concerning the division of
labour and the physiologist has recognised that the principle has the same meaning for
all living beings, and attentively made the point. Darwin attested to the fact that he
received his first stimulus toward the idea of a theory of selection from the work of
Malthus concerning the law of populations. Therefore it is to be expected that by the
definitive constitution of sociology the results of sociological researches will acquire
an as yet unsuspected meaning for the natural subject, and especially for biology and
positive psychology, that must be looked on as a part of biology.
Finally, by way of an expansion of the natural view generally, in its entire
circumference by way of its reference to sociology, it can become attentive of the
natural subject. The naturalistic view will not succeed simply through extension, but
rather also through depth. And each gain in depth in the naturalistic view is at the
same time a gain for a more ideal world view. We repeatedly referred to the meaning
of the organic method in relation to this direction in our earlier work and here we can
only refer the reader to the same statements.

In that the organic method summarizes the events occurring in society and in
nature under one nominal collective, it is not simply a supplement to clarification, but
rather thereby also to the simplification of many views within both departments. Here
we offer only an example. Natural ideas are as yet without a valid philosophy for any
of their foundations. There is a bottomless abyss to bridge that divides the natural
subject that has, except until now, been securely fixed in position. That sociology
now escapes thanks to the use of the organic method that delivers the proof that the
right way to form the final image of life toward which the state drives in society,
shows that the morphological energies in individual organisms are simply analogous
to, but rather also are not homologous to, it establishes not simply the entire zone of
jurisprudence in a simplified manner based on the firm foundation of the natural
subject, but rather also through this gives access to this zone that as yet rests upon the
more intricate and artificially itemized building of more logical, ethical and

258
metaphysical postulates. We have explained that the anomalies that come to the fore
in the correct sphere have a unifying effect, as we have explained in detail *, by
analogy, with regard to the condition of histological illness in individual organisms,
likewise also the economical, physiological and the political drives and biases in
individual organisms are to be accounted for. Of this subject an, as yet, extensive
field of sociological researches opens itself up before us. 

* The Social Pathology Chapter IV, V and VI.

In Germany, we admit as much, the organic method in sociology is brought

into being and put to use only by Schäffle, although subject to many reservations. *
René Worms must be acknowledged as the outstanding representative of this method
in France. ** In England, Spencer and his school is, as we have seen, stuck in a
midway position. In Italy, the organic method finds only little accord.
Of further examples of historical literature, in respect to the framework we
have already drawn in this study, we must deny the possibility of there being any
more to emerge.

*) The Building and Life of the Social Body.

**) Rene Worms: Organisme et Sociéte.

In the presentation of our views, we deliberately sort to remove every

contentious word out of the way. The well known saying: where the idea is missing,
in time a word adjusts itself to the need, could be expressed in the usage of critics of
all times as follows: where the proofs are absent, in time a word comes to stand in
opposition in their place. Now, however they like words nominally to belong to the
zone of science, still they can be without substance, and yet always cause so much
confusion, that we cannot withdraw ourselves from the task of defending the place of
the organic method in sociology. 

A violent contention over the burning question in sociology, as to whether the

social association would have to be interpreted as a natural organism or as a
superorganism, is in its final phase.
However the word superorganism has now become associated with a double
meaning.  One may interpret society as a superorganism in the sense that social
dynamics only represent a higher power of the same kind of energies which are
known to be active throughout the entire living world, this designation would give
forth nothing from the standpoint of the organic method to raise any objection. One
could contrast with just as much right the super organization in a higher animal
species relative to that of the low animal species and the plant world, in that the
nervous system represents a super-organization as compared to the designated bone
and muscle systems. One does not however conceive of this designation in relative
terms, but rather in a superior absolute sense that attributes to social dynamics in the
organic world a position that is regulated on an absolutely different basis, splitting the
unified appearance of the world into two halves that have relative to one another
nothing in common. Then sociology has the firm foundation of the natural subject
withdrawn from it, and must renounce its application to a positive science. At the
present time however the position of the Superorganicists is deprived of any proofs of

259
an absolute distinction between natural and supersocial dynamics, its contrast with the
organic theory degenerates into so many disputes over words, that prove its nature to
take after that of infinity, with every motion being like that within an empty void. 
According to the propositions of some sociologists of this category the distinct
forms of behaviour are due to energy potentials, from which social dynamics derive
their dualistic character. And consequently every social association is to be
understood, after the opinion of these sociologists, namely as being the result on the
one hand of natural necessities while they are determined on the other hand by the
freewill of the person. As natural necessities become at the same time the physical
medium that growth designates, the materials of nourishment, the protection devices,
generation and so on. On the other hand social relations (gathering together the
various social forms after the terminology of the French and English sociologists) by
corresponding actuation of the individualistic free wills become determined more by
all members of the social association. The entire theory of the social contract was
made to rest upon this view, when its chief representative J. J. Rousseau was obliged
to consider willpower. If a republican is introduced into a country where there is a
government supporting monarchy, by means of a liberal law determined by the vote
of people meeting, or in effect a parliament, here by the will of the monarch an
ordinance in the conservative sense of a generally binding standard is introduced
according to the conventional method in a sequence leading to more absolutely free
individual and socially wilful actions that restricts by no necessities the physical needs
of the individual, as well as the purely material processes in social life that are
controlled by necessary natural laws.
We now seek to deliver our account of this matter, to what extent the
individual and the collective unit must be recognized as free and to what extent they
are beings bound by necessities. 
By the requirement to breathe the person is placed in the most direct state of
dependence upon the atmosphere surrounding them, they find they can only go
without air for extremely short intervals of time, and for the same need there is also
no substitute. But in regard to the stuff of nourishment, their freedom of choice is
already increased, and the same to a yet greater degree applies to means of protection:
clothing, structures, weapons and so on. The extent of self-determination extends
itself still further for the cultured human in regard to planned change, choice and the
invention of the means of production, exchange and the accumulation of valuables,
form of associations and so on. But also on the highest cultural level human freedom
will not be restricted simply to this extent by natural necessities which are not
confined to the physical, but rather to fulfil the psychic needs of the person material
means are also always necessary .
On the other hand the individual is also bound, as well as society is, in the
choice and the determination of the so-called form of social relations likewise by
necessities. Each association is forced of itself into a hierarchical constitution in order
to arrive at a state of harmonisation in the cooperation of all its divisions; each
society, especially if she commands herself as an independent country, of necessity
for its existence needs a government and therefore a central organ which is the cause
of, and introduces harmonisation. Each organ of government can for its part only
consist of persons, even like society, and these are necessarily tied to the conditions of
existence of each human personality as well as that of the entire country. Wherein
does the freedom of the members of a society exist now in regard to the choice of a
republican or monarchical form of government? It is restricted to the determination
whether the central organ has to consist of a multiplicity of persons or is to be centred

260
on a single person and on the choice of the persons in a republic and the choice of a
monarch. As soon as they come to life the stimulus to action for the central organ is
stipulated on their part again by uniquely human external and internal social
necessities. Each government is forced when devising the measures it takes to
consider the state of the foundations that are encountered in which the unified division
of the social nervous system is imbedded, to consider the units of physical and
psychic inheritance of the population, the formation of the social tissues and organs
are typically already preformed historically, they have already reached a cultural stage
of development, and so on. The same is also fully valid with reference to all the
stimulus to action that occur of their own accord in the confines of society generally.
One could make a cross-section through any social body in any direction one cared to,
and one would come across the presence of both factors, being himself convinced
thereby of the presence of freedom and necessity in all spheres of social life; only the
ratio between freedom and necessity would prove to be variable in the different
spheres. Now it is the straightforward task of sociology when a pure science to
investigate the necessities of social dynamics, in other words the necessity of the
causal connection between social appearances; set against the determination of how
the free will of the person has to operate in the midst of these necessities, how he
exploits the causal connections of social dynamics and should act appropriately
toward them and reach a higher stage of development to which the statesman aspires,
in the most comprehensive sense of the word, the object of the various forms of
statesmanship. 
It is not only appropriate to note here that in most cases of kinship the
individual person makes for himself illusions over the measure of freedom accruing to
him; he feels often the extensive degree to which he is bound by the partnership of
descent through family status, position, occupation, religious orientation and so on.
One does not just forget that each individual is born into an already established
partnership, and that each partnership is the product of historic events which were not
stipulated simply by wilful actions and coincidence, but rather also by an abundance
of necessities occurring in a uniquely human manner.  It could not be explained
how any social necessities would exist, that in a cultural centre separated completely
from the rest of the world, like for example in the case of the Aztec state and the Inca
empire, the same national types applied on the day they appeared exactly as those that
always formed themselves in the old world. The Aztec empire was based on
feudalism with a chosen monarchy as in Poland formerly, and the Inca empire was an
unlimited monarchy constructed on a democratic base as in China of the present day.
There are only two pure types of governmental form: the republic and the monarchy,
that confront us in all forms seen throughout the entire world either viewed as a unit
or as a multiplicity. The developmental stages of the remaining countries present
themselves as only intermediate forms, of which one is more of a republic while the
other approaches more to the monarchic state. The Aztecs and Incas could not act
differently when choosing between the single mode available through which laws of
government prescribed social growth by a process of selection. Likewise the
economic and legal modes in both empires had formed themselves according to their
being after the same standards as the old world had known earlier, and as are yet
realized now in different countries. The Aztecs and Incas were not directed according
to anyone, but rather listened to the unavoidable necessities of social dynamics. Also
all religious partnerships, all economic associations, everyone likewise follows such
necessities according to any joint purposes which societies are pursuing, and so the
forms that arise as a consequence are restless and changeable. And the reason this

261
happens is either because it is grasped even in the germ of what the countries
represent, or forms a fraction of the countries whose internal construction is
encapsulated with all the essential factors of reproduction. * It does not at the same
time oblige each individual, each partnership, as well as causing each country to exert
effort in accordance with an inappropriate purpose; but it becomes the necessary
sequence that can be pursued, that conduct must reach after. In the initial setting the
individual and the partnership will advance in their development, reaching a higher
cultural stage, while in the final setting its movements will necessarily be regressive,
reaching different pathological forms, with ensuing disorganisation, followed finally
by death.

* S. My study: Ya-t-il une loi de l'evolution des formes politiques? in Bk. II

of The Annals of the International Institute of Sociology.

The same unavoidable connection between freedom and necessities are also
known in ant and bee societies, where at the same time they are only directed by a
very much narrower latitude of freedom as a consequence of the low developmental
stage of development of these societies. Ant society must be looked at as a republic,
the bee's society as a monarchy. The bee's king is selected and is raised to the
execution of its function. An unfortunate choice can also be made, as in every choice
of a monarch. Yet however an error can also only exist no matter how it may be
restricted where freedom of action is available. The animal is also an individual,
equally so with the person, in whom choice of its nourishment, its residence, its
females, its defences and means of attack can be made by himself. It therefore
certainly enjoys freedom after this direction although its boundaries are pulled more
narrowly inward than applies to the person, this is especially so however regarding the
cultured human.
From what is predicted it now follows that the stimulus to action of the
individual and the social organism may be distinguished according to two categories,
of which one occurs through necessary laws of nature and the other is determined by
the free will of the person, each is without any real contents; these classifications are
established only on the determinations of words that can lead through this means only
to the occasion of disputes over words. The social contract was a historical
hypothesis, like that of the golden age and other utopian ideals. A positive science
may not establish its researches upon such hypotheses. 
For classifications to be traced back toward word determinations that are
without the substance of generally recognised social forms, all things must be added
to them that fail to correspond to the categories already assessed in biology. Such a
procedure always leads to the separation of sociology from its natural basis, that of
biology and positive psychology. All social energies made subject to the organic
method must be investigated according to their meaning as powers of biological
energies; to make this the subject of another classification could only extend the
confusion in the execution of analogies between social and organic dynamics. For our
part we have summarized social forms and their actuation under three categories: the
economic, judicial and hierarchical-political. These categories correspond on the one
hand to the arrangement of biology in physiology, morphology and Tektologie
(anthropology, zoology, botany), on the other hand to the specialist disciplines which
now already exist that have society as their objective: national economy,
jurisprudence, politics (science of the state in the narrower sense). This classification

262
medium attaches sociology to each corresponding sphere of biological form
appropriate to the discipline, and refers it on the basis of the natural foundations upon
which it has been raised. The confusion that now rules over sociological areas will
only come to an end then if biogenetic classifications proposed on behalf of the
investigation of social dynamics become established. In the opposite setting they will
only lead to endless word disputes that also extends the determination of each word
without substance that is only established after a terminology. 

The newly emerged theory of historical materialism also gives rise to multiple
occasions for word disputes.  The social energy change always comes into being as
we have already proved, by mechanical and chemical realisation and new formations
of material components both in the individual and in the accompanying social nervous
system. There can therefore be an economy of the social nervous system in the sense
of speech, like a physiology of the individual nervous system and especially of the
human brain. The followers of historical materialism do not however interpret the
economy of social dynamics in so comprehensive a sense, for otherwise this theory
faced with that of the Organicist would collapse. Under social economy historical
materialists understand economic life in the narrower sense, namely the annexation,
production, distribution and consumption of goods, that are determined preferably in
addition to the granting of satisfaction to physical needs and that come to be
summarized under the general concept of nutrient and protective devices. Now
however the materials of nourishment and protection devices cannot in the social, as
also in the individual organism, be a direct reflection of production, but rather must be
transformed after they become assimilated by the individual and the individual has
adapted herself to the same, before transforming into psychic energies. How far
however the manner of assimilation of the nutrient is reliant upon the distant
education of the nerve organs that are to be looked at as the material carriers of the
higher psychic energies, follows from the fact that these organs arrive in accordance
with socio-embryological laws in the individual at full maturity only after the
recapitulation of the entire preceding psychic developmental history of their
ancestors. The deeper subjects of the feelings, thoughts and desires of each individual
therefore lie at a more enormous distance than is indicated by what it eats or what its
ancestors ate. Those higher nerve organs are a result of social life, a product of the
reflection effect of the social nervous system. Language, and art, that according to its
being is also nothing other than an illustrated form of speaking, form the means
through which the energy change in the social nervous system operates as a self
driven process. This lives and causes, develops and is encouraged to differentiate of
its own accord only as a consequence of the uninterrupted realisation and new
accumulation of superior energy potentials on the part of the individual and
afterwards, on their part again, by virtue of the social nervous system by self-
generating reflection toward activity. The primary means through which the unified
thoughts and desires of people are caused to come into being, by means of reflection,
is, as we have said, language. Therefore we believe we have been justified in setting
up the thesis: the person became a cultural being by means of what was spoken in the
progress of the history of humanity. Therefore human culture in its entirety can be
acknowledged to have just as little to do with the results of economic dynamics as it
has to do with the higher elements of the individual, than it could be said to be a direct
product of the materials of nourishment. One would have to maintain just the
opposite of the economic life, namely at least, in so far as it concerns the level
through which the individual and the social energy potentials become determined. So

263
long as Australia was only inhabited by Australian negroes the economic life there did
not raise itself above the level of primitive people. It reached the present cultural
stage only as a consequence of the psychic energies over which the European settler
had control. And culture always advances according to the same manner. * 
_____________

* L. Stein, in his criticism of the organic method, when establishing the

standard conditions of social dynamics, repeatedly places mechanical and chemical
necessities in the position of being in the direct service of ethical imperatives.
Between these standards and those of the necessities which control inorganic nature
however, the magnificent zone of biological necessities lies and on this basis acts of
its own accord just in the realms of positive sociology. The latter is far removed from
the desire to explain the entire social dynamics mechanically or chemically because
even the simplest life processes in nature cannot be traced back exclusively to the
effect of mechanical and chemical forces. Now the author says: "The imperatives of
the church have shown a bias toward becoming more and more pale and doubtful,
nationality has also forfeited its earlier consistency, sociology must arrange its
observation in order to become a standard science, it is imperative i.e. to form a
teleological type of subject" (S. 33). The social imperatives are grasped by L. Stein in
his work: The Social Question in the Light of Philosophy (S. 705) finally brought
together in the formula "Would you act so, that in each of your actions you do not
simply separate your characteristics but at the same time you affirm the life of your
fellow men, this applies especially however to how the future sexes should be secured
and raised." Whether this general formula could replace the ten commandments and
the sermon on the mount, is very questionable. But are we first of all concerned here
with the question: determining such standards belongs to the task of sociology and the
place of religious and moral theory is to sit down?  The consequence of this would
be that sociology would design for itself the character of a religious and moral
science. There is now probably a science of religions, some scientific ethics, but
religious or moral sciences would be absurdities. This designation already
encapsulates within itself an internal contradiction. If the deep views of the
Organicist finally arrived at the same imperatives like those of the ten
commandments, in the sermon on the mount, yes, as those contained in the formula of
L. Stein, it happens as such due to biological necessities determined by the research
and not in the execution of an apostle office or a moral sermon.
The necessity of purpose that this author acknowledges as a starting point for
the standard by which the desires and concerns of social science can be known, for
our part we note that not only human societies pursue a purpose, but rather the entire
living world also pursues certain purposes. From what in this account are we to
derive so special a reason that biology should not be directly translated into sociology,
also in the manner of a standard science. It does not simply exist to serve on and for
itself, but rather when put to use in the arts, it also serves a determined purpose
(hygiene, therapy, psychiatry, farming and forestry, poultry and cattle-raising, garden
and fruit-growing etc.) So that before the execution of these arts would be possible,
all the biological laws must first be fathomed and assessed and this is the subject
matter of science. Exactly as it produces statesmanship (finance, a theory of national
economics, Jurisprudence, diplomacy, militarism etc.) and there the principle of
expedience in the social organism brings forward its higher nature with greater force,
to which social ability must also be attached vis-à-vis a freer latitude; but nevertheless
this is linked to biological necessities and this for the reason that human society does

264
not simply represent an ideal organization, but rather is a real organism. Because the
investigation of the necessary regularity of forms is the very nature of all science, it is
the direct task of sociology to fathom and to assess the biological necessities of social
dynamics. In so far as sociology selects the measure of social purposes as the object
of its researches it thereby loses its purely scientific character, and changes itself into
a theory of statesmanship. As such then it also makes to replace moralistic claims and
those of religion, as was the case with St. Simon and Aug. Comte. The Organicist
does not seek on their own behalf to make any claim to be a statesman. They restrict
themselves to the investigation of the regularity of social dynamics. Then
statesmanship may use the results of their researches to aid its previously established
purpose.
_____________

Finally the following could yet be emphasized:

The organic method in sociology is no new invention. The establishment of
the Christian religion brought it into use already in the same manner in its lovely
parables. In that Jesus clarified his social forms ideally through examples from the
living world, he gave reason to positive sociology. The same parable would only
represent allegory and rhetorical figures, its effects would not have been able to be so
gripping and penetrating. Jesus did not regard the physical world as an enthusiastic
admirer of natural beauties, but rather to provide himself with a deep view through
which to recognise that all natural forms made known their regularity and its
unavoidable connection with social dynamics. This was originally intuitively
recognised and Christian theology further carried out the idea in that the church was
interpreted as the expanded body of Christ, an individual possessed of higher organs
and gifts, where the gift of psychic energies with the greatest potential animated the
real organism. We made an attempt in our "natural theology" to illuminate the
parallelism between the Christian theory and the results of positive sociology along
the lines discussed here. We ventured to undertake such a task from the conviction
that the Christian theory can only be grasped in its full meaning and depth if it also
becomes acknowledged as a representation of truth in the field of science.

We emphasized the pedagogic and educational value of the organic method in

detail in our social pathology *, as well as in our graphic method in sociology **.
Everyone that arrives through their schooling and upbringing at a clear consciousness
of human society as a living individual will perceive and exercise their duties that tie
them to the partnership more deeply, genuinely and more comprehensively, than
when they perceive the state with its hierarchical organization only represents an
allegorical figure as a unit without any real inner being. Anybody that interprets
social dynamics as a unified living process is bound to have a clearer presentation of
what social phenomenon should be and what ability they should attain, than when
they have applied themselves only to a fragmentary knowledge of sociological
subjects or arrived at only one-sided views, economical, judicial or political. Also,
only that statesman can be entrusted to handle the community creatively, that does not
see it as an abstract concept, but rather as a real organism animated by psycho-
physiological forces that cause law to come into being.

265
 * S. 298 and so forth.
** Bk. III The Annals of the International Institute of Sociology, S. 86.

We just conducted an examination showing theologically that the Christian

church is interpreted as an expanded body of Christ and therefore as a unified
organism permeated by a real living being, therefore then members of the partnership
of constituent churches are more strongly joined and uniform, like the Catholic and
the Greek, and are themselves more firmly and more clearly aware of their solidarity
with the undivided whole than is the case with members of loosely constructed
religious partnerships and members of such a state. Not just the ideal character of the
Christian theory, but rather the real construction of the Christian churches also leads
to this result. An idea then only receives a social value of its own accord if it delivers
in itself the flesh and blood of a certain number of individuals, if it becomes
incarnated in the form of the social nervous system. Each ideology must stamp itself
upon higher individual energy potentials and in higher forms of social life in order to
be acknowledged as a social form. Each nation for its part also pursues ideal
purposes, but at the same time it represents a body, a system of mechanical, chemical,
physiological and psycho-physical causal forces, and the investigation of these
dynamics constitutes precisely the objective of positive sociology whereby the
organic method should serve as its reliable insight into the endlessly devouring ways
of social becoming. To prove positive sociology is scientifically designed and to
impress the intellectuals through scholarship and theory, the Christian theory has
already been acknowledged as a truth.
The most brilliant legislators and leaders of people of all times: Lycurgus,
Solon, Numa, Karl and Alfred, Peter and Frederick as the centre of energy of the
whole living collective being felt themselves called upon to reshape it according to a
newly organised organically constituted form. They were therefore everyone, the
organisers, with their nature defined according to their activity. They were the only
economists, lawyers or politicians there had been, so they would be allowed to make
advances unilaterally as a special cause with no statesmanlike claim to ingenuity.
They had only considered the causes of the present moment and not interpreted the
entire preceding evolution of the undivided whole as a real personality, as well as also
the future prospects of its organic developmental properties, and so would of evoked
the creation of nothing viable, but rather only fleeting events or ephemeral changes.
Sociology invokes the reality of social dynamics in the clear consciousness of how
since time immemorial the outstanding intellects were always set afloat unconsciously
or semiconsciously. Only natural history can investigate what the material world
offers you and that has served as an object while always recognizing what creates the
individual. The teachers of organization are the present Organicists, just as the
leading statesmen of all times were practical organisers.
A positive science without an objective is an absurdity. Sociology should
investigate human society as an undivided whole, it must acknowledge above all the
real character of the undivided whole. Sociology could be arranged as an independent
science correctly, if it had not been missing the actual objective of its research for so
long. Thanks to the organic method this objective, the real personality of the
individual nation, is in its consciousness even if also there is only a slight number of
researches applying it. With the denial of this objective sociology denies itself the
status of an independent science. It can then not give us sociologists, but rather only
anthropologists, ethnographers, economists, teachers of law, and cultural historians.

266
Because however it may be that according to this state of affairs some want to devote
themselves thoroughly to being a sociologist, in latter times such hybrid sciences as
Social Anthropology, Social Ethnography, Sociology of Law, Economic Sociology,
Social Philosophy of History etc. have emerged. So that such intermediate disciplines
are allowed to lay claim to an authorized existence, however it is the existence of a
sociology with a recognition of its objectives concerned with the nation as an
individual, that is above all most necessary. Those semi-sociologists however award
the human state no personality, but rather grant this only to the individuals out of
whom it comes to exist, and not in any case is this yet granted to the human species.
At the same time they have forgotten however that each person is only a collective
being that consists of cells, and that the cells for their part arise out of molecules and
these out of atoms, whose constituents no scientist until now has yet been able to
reveal the existence of. With just as much right as applies to the personality of the
nation, one could therefore also describe the personality of the single person, even
down to the negation of each cell and molecule. The denial of personality belonging
to the nation as a person, has as a consequence meant that all social dynamics are
interpreted only as a definition and that the sociological terminology and
classifications of social forms are traced back only to concepts. These concepts are
finally acknowledged as realities and acquire the significance of idols, that Bacon
designated as those impediments that block the way to every objective of research. A
polemic conducted between an Organicist and such a subjective sociologist, is just as
fruitless as the like kind would be between a scientist and a metaphysician. The
former occupies firm ground and investigates the existence of forms relating to the
simple advancing toward the convoluted. The subjective sociologist and the
metaphysician float in a vacuous space on the wings of abstract concepts. The poet
and the artist probably need such wings; the researcher however must therefore
always be studious not to lose the firm ground from under their feet. And for the
sociologist, this firm ground is natural history. Therefore we close with the sentence,
that we had conducted already at the beginning of this study: Sociologus nemo nisi
biologus.

_______________

267
 THE

GERMAN

ORIGINAL

268
 Zur Vertheidigung
der

Organischen Methode
in der

Sociologie
von

Paul v. Lilienfeld.

Berlin
Druck und Verlag von Georg Reimer.

1898.

269
 Vorwort,

Die Methodenlehre der Sociologie bildete den Hauptgegenstand der

Berathungen des dritten internationalen sociologischen Congresses, der im vorigen
Jahre in Paris getagt hat, und den zu präsidiren ich die Ehre hatte. Die Arbeiten des
Congresses sind in dem kürzlich in Paris erschienenen vierten Bande der Annales de
1'Institut international de Sociologie veröffentlicht worden.  Ueber die
Methodenlehre selbst wurden auf dem Congresse verschiedene, ja entgegengesetzte
Ansichten vertreten. Die organische, psychologische, historische, statistische, die
anthropologische und ethnographische vergleichende Methoden fanden ihre
Vertheidiger. Es handelte sich dabei nicht blos um die Art und Weise des Vorgehens
bei Erforschung des socialen Geschehens, sondern vielmehr darum, ob die Sociologie
als positive Wissenschaft sich der Biologie anschliessen oder als eine von der
Naturkunde losgetrennte Disciplin anerkannt werden soll.
Die Wichtigkeit dieser Frage hat mich bewogen, die vorliegende Schrift zu
veröffentlichen. Meinem Ausgangspunkte habe ich die neuesten Ergebnisse der
Physiologie und positiven Psychologie zu Grunde gelegt; die philosophische Seite der
von mir vertretenen Anschauung habe ich jedoch in dieser Schrift nur flüchtig streifen
können und auf so manche Ausführungen verzichten müssen, um nicht aus dem mir
vorgezeichneten Rahmen hinauszutreten. Aus demselben Grunde war ich auch öfters
gezwungen im Verlaufe meiner Erörterungen zu ihrer Begründung mich auf mein
Hauptwerk: „Gedanken über die Socialwissenschaft der Zukunft", sowie auf meine
später erschienenen Monographieen zu berufen.
Das Interesse, das die Sociologie in der letzten Zeit auch in Deutschland
hervorgerufen hat, wird hoffentlich nicht ermangeln, frische Kräfte in den Bereich
dieser Wissenschaft hineinzuziehen und mit ihrer Hilfe die wichtige Frage über die
Methode in der Sociologie zur Entscheidung bringen.

St. Petersburg, März 1898.

Der Verfasser.

270
 Seitdem der Mensch dem thierischen Zustande entwachsen ist, hat er stets im
gesellschaftlichen Verbande mit Seinesgleichen gelebt. Die rein menschlichen
Anlagen, Gaben und psychischen Euergieen hat er nur im Verkehr mit anderen
Menschen erworben. Nur durch das sociale Leben ist der Vormensch zum
Urmenschen und dieser zum Culturmenschen allmählig geworden. Mit dem
Menschen entstand somit auch die menschliche Gesellschaft. In seinen Bedürfnissen,
Strebungen und geistigen Anlagen stand wohl der Urmensch der höheren
Thierspecies, von welcher er abstammte, näher, er befand sich in engerer
Abhängigkeit von dem ihn umgebenden physischen Medium, als seine Nachfolger,
aber er fühlte, dachte und wirkte schon ursprünglich nach denselben Gesetzen wie
heutigen Tages der Culturmensch. Desgleichen und aus denselben Gründen folgte die
menschliche Gesellschaft bereits von ihrem Urzustande an denselben Grundgesetzen
und bot dieselben wesentlichen Erscheinungen dar, wie auch die modernen
höchstentwickelten Staatsbildungen. Auf allen Stufen des historischen
Entwickelungsprocesses der Menschheit verblieben die Grundelemente der socialen
Wechselwirkung zwischen den einzelnen Gliedern der Gesellschaft, blieb ihr innerer
Aufbau, blieben die Beziehungen zur Aussenwelt dem Wesen nach dieselben. Die
Uebergänge von einem niederen Entwickelungsstadium zu einem höheren wurden nur
Schritt vor Schritt bewerkstelligt und durch allmählige und meistentheils kaum
merkbare Umgestaltungen und Veränderungen gekennzeichnet. Die äusseren
Conflicte zwischen einzelnen Gesellschaftsgruppen, die zu Eroberungen, politischen
Umwälzungen,, ja, zur Ausrottung ganzer Völkerschaften und Racen geführt haben,
widersprechen dieser Anschauung ebenso wenig, wie solches der Zusammenstoss
zwischen einzelnen Individuen thun könnte. Der Sieger stellt seinerseits gleichfalls
ein nur allmählig historisch erworbenes Capital von persönlichen physischen und
psychischen Energieen dar. Es handelte sich also dabei immer nur um eine äussere
Verdrängung und Vernichtung der schwächeren, unentwickelteren Elemente durch
quantitativ oder qualitativ stärkere oder höhere. Aber letztere sind, wie gesagt, auch,
wenn auch unter anderen Himmelsstrichen und anderen physischen und socialen
Beeinflussungen, nur allmählig entstanden. Sie stellen, gleich den schwächeren und
niederen Elementen, auch nur Etwas durch sociale Evolution Gewordenes dar.
Verfolgt man die Entstehung und den Entwickelungsgang der stärkeren und höheren
socialen Elemente in ihrem kausalen Zusammenhange, so überzeugt man sich, dass
auch in Betreff letzterer die Uebergänge vom Niederen zum Höheren stets nur all-
mählige waren. 
In welchem Verhältnisse stehen nun die Gesetze, durch welche die
Entwickelung der menschlichen Gesellschaft bedingt wird, zu denjenigen allgemeinen
Gesetzen, nach welchen die anorganischen und organischen Energieen in der Natur
wirken?
Zuvörderst muss entschieden werden, ob es überhaupt logisch möglich ist, die
Existenz von zwei getrennten, absolut von einander verschiedenen Systemen von
Gesetzen, durch welche der Kausalzusammenhang der Erscheinungen bestimmt wird,
anzuerkennen. Wird solches zugestanden, so muss die Erscheinungswelt selbst in
zwei absolut von einander verschiedene Hälften gespalten werden. Nun stellt aber die

271
Erscheinungswelt ein ewiges Fliessen von Energieen dar, und wenn auch an einigen
Theilen des gemeinschaftlichen Stromes ein zeitweiliges Gleichgewicht, ein
scheinbares Erstarren der Kräfte eingetreten ist, wie solches bei der Bildung der festen
Körper der Fall ist, so liefern letztere doch immer noch Zeugnisse ihrer
gemeinschaftlichen Abzweigung und Herkunft aus einem und demselben
gemeinschaftlichen Strome. Dasselbe gilt auch von den jetzt existirenden so
mannichfach differencirten und in so bestimmten Formen sich entwickelnden
Lebewesen. Ihre gemeinschaftliche Abkunft aus einer und derselben ursprünglichen
Lebensquelle kann bis an die Grenzen der anorganischen Natur, mit der sie
zusammenfliesst, verfolgt werden. Kaum wird das metaphysische Secirmesser behufs
Spaltung der Erscheinungswelt an einem Punkte angelegt, so entzieht sich das Object
einer solchen Operation der Wahrnehmung des Beobachters, indem es mit den
verwandten, in Zeit, Raum oder Potenz nächstliegenden Erscheinungen
zusammenfliesst. Man hat wohl Versuche angestellt, Subject von Object, die innere
Welt von der äusseren, zu theilen. Aber der Mensch ist zugleich Subject und Object.
Er kann über die Erscheinungswelt nur durch Vermittelung von Sinnesperceptionen
subjectiv urtheilen, aber die Sinne selbst bilden nur Theile des menschlichen Körpers
und dieser bildet wiederum nur einen Theil der Erscheinungswelt. Daher ist es
unmöglich, weder vom subjectiven noch vom objectiven Standpunkte aus, zu
ergründen, was die Naturkräfte, die Gefühle, die Ideen an und für sich sind. Wir
wissen nur, wie Göthe richtig ausgesprochen hat, dass im Subject ein gesetzmässiges
Etwas ist, was dem gesetzmässigen Etwas im Object entspricht. Die Gesetzmässigkeit
ist also das Eine gemeinschaftliche und die ganze neuere Philosophie, sowohl die
idealistische als auch die materialistische, hat sich gerade zur Aufgabe gestellt diese
Einheit alles gesetzmässigen Werdens auf verschiedenen Wegen zu ergründen.
Wie es kein absolutes Subject und kein absolutes Object giebt, so kann es auch
keine absolut subjective, aprioristische und deduetive im Gegensatz zu einer absolut
objectiven, beobachtenden und inductiven Methode geben. Bei Ergründung der
Gesetzmässigkeit der Erscheinungen kann es sich daher immer nur um ein Mehr oder
Weniger der beiden Methoden handeln. Dieses Mehr oder Weniger drückt aber gerade
der Methodenlehre ihren eigentlichen Charakter auf. Die Naturkunde bedient sich
einer Methode überwiegend inductiven Charakters und verdankt der Anwendung
derselben ihre ungeheuren Erfolge. In der Sociologie ist man aber bis jetzt
vorzugsweise aprioristisch, deduktiv vorgegangen. Die Resultate dieses Vorgehens
sind bis jetzt nur negative gewesen. Man hat einen vollständigen Wirrwarr auf
sociologischem Gebiete dadurch verursacht ohne irgend ein sociales Gesetz zu
entdecken. Denn das, was einige Oekonomisten, Statistiker, Ethnographen, Historiker
und auch Sociologen als sociale Gesetze ausgeben, kann nur auf einen züfälligen
Kausalzusammenhang zwischen einzelnen Beziehungen, Personen oder
Begebenheiten zurückgeführt werden. Dass unter gewissen Verhältnissen die
Erhöhung der Brodpreise mit einer Vermehrung der Verbrechen und der Selbstmorde
zusammenfällt, ein solcher aus einer grossen Zahl zufälliger Factoren bestimmter
Parallelismus entspringt noch nicht einem nothwendigen Gesetze. Noch weniger kann
die Gesetzmässigkeit auf socialem Gebiete von mittleren Zahlen oder Grössen, aus
einer noch so langen Reihe von Daten und Ziffern abgeleitet werden. Alle nach der
statistischen Methode aufgestellten sogenannten Gesetze gehören zu dieser Kategorie.
Dasselbe gilt auch von der historischen Methode, in dem Sinne, wie sie noch bis jetzt
zur Anwendung gelangt. Man mag auch noch so genau den Kausalzusammenhang
zwischen einer ganzen Reihe von Begebenheiten und Beziehungen erforschen, zu der
Ergründung eines Gesetzes kann solches Verfahren nicht führen, weil der

272
Zusammenhang selbst nur durch zufällige Factoren bestimmt wird. Das hat ja auch
Treitschke bewogen, noch vor seinem Tode zu gestehen, dass er keine Gesetz-
mässigkeit in der Geschichte hat wahrnehmen können. Die statistische und die
historische Methoden sind ausserdem vollständig ausser Stande irgend einen
Zusammenhang der Gesetzmässigkeit des soeialen Geschehens mit derjenigen, die
sich in der Natur kund thut, zu statuiren. Die menschliche Gesellschaft und die Natur
stellen sich ihnen als zwei ganz verschiedene Sphären dar, die unter einander sich
höchstens nur äusserlich berühren. 
Die Anhänger der organischen Methode auf sociologischem Gebiete oder die
Organiker, wie sie jetzt von einigen Sociologen benannt werden, haben es sich nun
zur Aufgabe gestellt, den Zusammenhang zwischen der Naturkunde und den
Socialwissenschaften herzustellen, so wie die Einheitlichkeit der Gesetzmässigkeit in
der Natur und der menschlichen Gesellschaft zu beweisen. Da in jeder. Wissenschaft
das Mannichfachere und Complicirtere aus dem Einfacheren erklärt wird, so mussten
auch die Organiker den festen Grund zum Auf bau ihres wissenschaftlichen Systems
in den zunächst liegenden Gebieten der Biologie und der positiven Psychologie
suchen. Wie letztere auf Grundlage der Physiologie, diese auf dem Boden der
Chemie, letztere auf der Mechanik aufgebaut worden sind, so mussten auch die
Biologie und die positive Psychologie den Untergrund für den Aufbau der Sociologie
liefern. Die inductive Methode sollte als Leitfaden zum Vergleich der Ge-
sellschaftsorganismen mit den natürlichen dienen. Der berühmte Physiologe Johannes
Müller stellte den Satz auf:
Psychologus nemo nisi Physiologus. Die Organiker setzen diesen Ausspruch in
den Satz um: Sociologus nemo, nisi biologus.
Die Organiker läugnen nicht die Existenzberechtigung der statistischen,
historischen, ja der rein deductiven Methoden, sie sehen aber alle diese Methoden nur
als Hilfsmethoden auf dem: Gebiete der Sociologie an. Die Sociologie, indem sie die
organische Methode gebraucht und die Gesetzmässigkeit der socialen Erscheinungen
erforscht, dient ihrerseits gleichfalls als Hilfswissenschaft der Culturgeschichte und
Philosophie der Geschichte. Es entsteht eine gegenseitige Hilfsleistung, aber diese ist
nur möglich, wenn eine jede Wissenschaft ihr eigenes Gebiet mit den ihr zustehenden
Mitteln bearbeitet und sich nicht auf fremden Boden begiebt, wo sie nur Verwirrung
anrichten kann. Gebraucht der Sociologe die historische Methode, so wird er zum
Culturhistoriker, gebraucht er die statistische, so wird er zum Oekonomisten, versenkt
er sich in aprioristisch zusammengestellte allgemeine Anschauungen, so ist er
Metaphysiker.
In allen diesen Fällen hört aber der Forscher auf Sociolog zu sein und verliert
die Sociologie selbst jegliche Existenzberechtigung. Den Antiorganikern hat es daher
die Sociologie zu verdanken, dass ihr wissenschaftlicher Charakter bis jetzt noch
bestritten wird und sie als wüster Tummelplatz für allgemeine, aus anderen Gebieten
herausgerissene Ideen, Begriffe und Forschungsresultate angesehen wird. Nur die
Anwendung der organischen Methode kann die Sociologie zur Würde einer
selbstständigenWissenschaft erheben. Nur durch den festen Anschluss an die
Naturkunde kann sie den Zweck j eglichenWissens erreichen: die Begründung der
Gesetzmässigkeit der Erscheinungen.
Suchen wir nun zuvörderst die Grenzlinie zu bestimmen, durch welche der
Anschluss des Gebietes der Sociologie an das der Naturkunde bezeichnet werden soll.


273
 Der Hr. Professor Max Verworn definirt in seinem bahnbrechenden Werke:
Allgemeine Physiologie*) den biologischen Begriff des Individuums auf folgende
Weise:
„Ein organisches Individuum ist eine einheitliche Masse lebendiger Substanz,
welche unter bestimmten äusseren Lebensbedingungen selbsterhaltungsfähig ist."
Diese Definition wendet nun Hr. M. Verworn zunächst auf alle einzelne
freilebende Organismen in der Form, wie sie in der Natur vorkommen, an. „Aber",
fügt er hinzu, „die Definition umfasst noch mehr als nur räumlich zusammenhängende
Organismen; sie umfasst zusammengehörige Gruppen von einzelnen Organismen,
deren jeder von anderen zwar räumlich getrennt sein kann, die aber alle zusammen
eine Einheit bilden." Als Beispiel dafür führt der Hr. Verfasser den Ameisenstaat an,
in dem die einzelnen Theile, wie die Glieder eines Organismus, einheitlich
zusammenwirken. Der ganze Unterschied zwischen einem Korallenstock und einem
Ameisenhaufen besteht, nach Hrn. Verworn, nur darin, dass im ersteren die
Individuen niederer Ordnung substantiell zusammenhängen, wogegen sie im
Ameisenstaate räumlich getrennt sind.
Dieser Definition des Individuums wird zweifelsohne ein jeder tieferblickende
Naturforscher beistimmen und hier findet sich auch der Anschluss der Sociologie an
die Ergebnisse der Biologie.
Das Individuum Ameisenstaat besteht aus solchen Zellenelementen, die bereits
als Personen bezeichnet werden können. Aber es stellt doch immer noch ein
Collectivlebewesen dar, das auf sehr niedriger Entwickelungsstufe stehen geblieben
ist und solches scheinbar für alle Zukunft. Die den Ameisenstaat bildenden Personen
wirken nur nach bestimmten instinctmässigen Normen, die sie zu überschreiten nicht
im Stande sind.
Welche organischen Bildungen schliessen sich nun am nächsten den
Thierstaaten? - Das sind die von Menschen gebildeten Staaten, welche ihre Erhebung
über das Niveau der Thierstaaten der ihnen innewohnenden Fähigkeit zu einer
allmählig fortschreitender Entwickelung zu verdanken haben. Wie die physiologische
Nothwendigkeit, nach welcher die Zelle im Einzelorganismus wirkt, sich im
Thierstaat zum Instinkt ausgeprägt hat, so hat sich letzterer in der menschlichen
Gesellschaft zum bewussten Wirken der den Staat bildenden Personen erhoben. Aber
wie zwischen Mensch und Thier nur ein gradueller Unterschied vorliegt, so kann es
auch zwischen einem Menschen- und Thierstaat auch nur eine graduelle Differenz
geben. Ist es nun bewiesen, dass der Thierstaat ein Individuum darstellt, so muss auch
der Menschenstaat als Individuum, oder, was dasselbe bedeutet, als ein realer
Organismus aufgefasst werden.  Ob die einzelnen Staaten sich noch zu einem
höheren Gesammtorganismus, der die ganze Menschheit umschliessen wird,
vereinigen werden, bleibt der Zukunft vorbehalten. Bei dem jetzigen Stadium der
Cultur stellt der Staat noch die höchst potencirte Einheit in dem Zusammenwirken der
Menschen dar. Aber Alles, was wir auf den Staat in unseren Auseinandersetzungen
beziehen, findet seine Anwendung auch auf losere sociale Verbände in ebenso realem,
wenn auch beschränkterem Sinne.
Herr Max Verworn unterscheidet in der Organismenwelt, gleich mehreren
anderen Naturforschern, fünf verschiedene Individualitätsordnungen: die Zellen als
Elementarorganismen; die Gewebe, die aus Zellen bestehen; die Organe, die von
Geweben gebildet werden; die Personen, die eine Vereinigung von Organen
darstellen; endlich die Staaten, die aus Verbänden von Personen bestehen*). Jede
höhere Ordnung von Individuen schliesst dabei hierarchisch alle niedere Ordnungen
in sich. Daher stellen auch die Personen die einen Staat bilden, nicht ein einfaches

274
Nebeneinander dar, denn sonst würden sie, gleich den Bäumen eines Waldes, den
Halmen eines Feldes, den zufällig zusammgelaufenen Thieren einer Heerde, keine
höhere Individualität, keinen Organismus bilden. Das einheitliche Zusammenwirken
wird im Staate dadurch erreicht, dass die einzelnen Personen ihre Thätigkeit
gemeinschaftlichen Zwecken widmen und unterordnen. Eine solche Vereinheitlichung
im Wirken kann nur durch ein hierarchisch potencirtes und differencirtes
Uebereinander der den Staat bildenden Elemente erreicht werden. Im Ameisen- und
Bienenstaat findet dieses Uebereinander in der Gruppirung und Differencirung der
staatsbildenden Personenelemente in arbeitende, nicht arbeitende oder nur specielle
Arbeiten verrichtende, in herrschende und dienende Klassen seinen Ausdruck. Im
Bienenstaat wird die Vereinheitlichung sogar durch eine Centralperson, die
Bienenkönigin, in gewiser Hinsicht veranschaulicht.Im Menschenstaate vereinigen
sich die einzelnen Personen gleichfalls zunächst zu einfacheren Verbänden, wie
Familie, Clan. Diese wachsen zu complicirteren Bildungen zusammen, wie Tribe,
Völkerschaft, verschiedenartige wirthschaftliche Gemeinschaften. Endlich entwickeln
sich aus denselben die gleichfalls aus Personen bestehenden höheren, herrschenden
Klassen so wie die Centralorgane, durch welche die Staatseinheit repräsentirt wird. Im
Menschenstaate wiederholt sich also derselbe hierarchische Aufbau, durch welchen
auch in den niederen Ordnungen der Organismen die Individualität hergestellt wird:
die Personen entsprechen den Zellen, die einfacheren socialen Verbände den
Geweben, die complicirteren den Organen, die Staatsgewalten den Centralorganen. In
den pflanzlichen und thierischen Einzelorganismen ist die unmittelbare Berührung der
die Gewebe und Organe bildenden Zellen nur eine scheinbare. Es existirt in der Natur
kein absolut undurchdringlicher Körper, daher auch keine unmittelbare Zusammen-
fügung von Elementen sogar in den härtesten Körpern. Es kann sich in dieser Hinsicht
immer nur um ein Mehr oder Weniger von Raumverhältnissen handeln. Die
gasförmigen Körper bestehen aus Molekülen, die von einander weiter abstehen als
diejenigen, durch welche flüssige Substanzen gebildet werden; diese bestehen wie-
derum aus Molekülen, die in grösserer Entfernung auf einander wirken als diejenigen
der festen Körper, aber alle bilden sie doch immer nur Körper.
Ganz ebenso stellt ein jeder Menschenstaat ein Individuum dar gleich einem
Bienen- und Ameisenstaat, und letzterer ein Individuum gleich einem Zellenstaate,
obgleich die Raumverhältnisse, in denen die Vereinheitlichung bewirkt wird, sehr
verschiedene sind. Im Einzelorganismus ist die bereits differencirte Zelle wohl fester
an bestimmte Gewebe und Organe gebunden, als die Personen im Staate. Eine Zelle
kann nicht aus dem Knochengerüste in's Muskelgewebe oder in's Nervensystem
hinüberwandern; ihre Differencirung ist eine einseitige, definitiv abgeschlossene. Es
giebt jedoch auch in den Einzelorganismen Wanderzellen, wie die rothen Blutkörper-
chen, die Leukocyten, die Spermatozoen. Die einen Staat bildenden Personen sind
meistentheils Wanderzellen, aber sie sind auch zugleich psychologisch mehr oder
weniger differencirte Zellen und daher auch gleich den Zellen an bestimmte Familien,
Klassen und Ordnungen im Staate gebunden. In dem Kasten- und Sclavenstaate ist
dieser Verband ein festerer, in dem freien Staate ein loserer. Absolute Freiheit giebt es
aber in dem einen ebenso wenig wie in dem anderen.
Der Unterschied zwischen den verschiedenen Ordnungen von Individualitäten
wird also, dem Wesen nach, nicht durch Raumoder Zeitverhältnisse bestimmt,
sondern durch ungleiche Potencirungen von Energieen bewirkt. Das
Zusammenwirken der Zellen in den Einzelorganismen wird lediglich durch
mechanische, chemische und physiologische Energieen bedingt; im Thierstaate thun
sich diese Energieen als Instinkt kund; im Menschenstaate potencirt sich der Instinkt

275
allmählig zu einem halbbewussten und schliesslich zu einem bewussten
Zusammenleben, zu einem Zusammenfühlen, -denken und -wollen.
Ein jedes menschliche Individuum stellt, abgesehen von seinem rein physischen
Organismus, noch ein vom Urmenschen an im socialen Leben aufgespeichertes und
von den Vorfahren ererbtes Kapital von psychophysischen Energieen dar, das ihn zum
Zusammenfühlen, -denken und -wollen mit Seinesgleichen befähigt. Dieses Kapital
ist gleich seinen rein physischen Anlagen eine Erbschaft, daher ist jeder Mensch
schon durch seine Abstammung an eine bestimmte Familie, Race, Nationalität
gebunden. Das ererbte psychophysische Capital ist aber zugleich auch ein durch das
sociale Leben früherer Generationen differencirtes Capital von bestimmten geistigen,
ethischen, ästhetischen Anlagen, Fähigkeiten und Entwickelungsstufen. Durch die
Erziehung kann wohl das ererbte Capital weiter entwickelt und anders differencirt
werden, aber eine jede Erziehung bearbeitet doch immer nur bereits vorhandenes
Material an latenten psychischen Energieen. Ein Hausthier kann nur zu einer sehr
niedrigen Stufe von Intelligenz erhoben und nur zu einem sehr engen Kreise von
Verrichtungen erzogen werden; desgleichen der Repräsentant einer niederen Race.
Daher ist auch ein jedes Individuum nicht blos durch seine Abstammung an
bestimmte Verbände gebunden, sondern es ist auch durch seine ererbten psychischen
Anlagen, so wie durch seine Erziehung auf bestimmte Verrichtungen im socialen
Leben angewiesen. Dieses durch Abstammung, Vererbung und Erziehung bedingte
Uebereinander bildet gerade die Grundlage jeglichen Staatslebens, des Ursowie des
Culturstaates.
Auch auf den höchsten Stufen der Cultur werden aber stets neben den höheren,
psychischen, auch die niederen: die mechanischen, chemischen, physiologischen,
instinctiven Energieen sowohl im Staate, als auch im Leben des Individuums wirksam
sein. Der Mensch wird sich als Erdenbewohner nie seiner Herkunft aus an-
organischem Stoff und organischer Materie entäussern können. Er wird stets seinen
physischen Bedürfnissen durch materielle Mittel Befriedigung verschaffen müssen.
Die dazu nöthige Arbeitsleistung kann er freilich, nach Massgabe seiner culturellen
Entwickelung, auf das umgebende Medium hinüberwälzen (Maschinen, Transport-
mittel, Culinarkunst etc.), aber zum Nullpunkt mechanischer, chemischer und
physiologischer persönlicher Arbeit und materiellen Werthverbrauchs wird er es nicht
bringen. So wird auch der höchst entwickelte Culturstaat stets von materiellen Mitteln
in seiner Existenz und Entwickelung abhängig sein. 
Die Abhängigkeit des Menschen von der Materie bekundet sich nicht blos in
Hinsicht auf die Befriedigung seiner physischen Bedürfnisse, sondern gleichfalls bei
der Entwickelung der psychischen Anlagen und Fähigkeiten. Die Capitalisirung und
Auslösung der psychischen Energieen wird stets von mechanischen, chemischen,
physiologischen Processen in dem individuellen Nervensystem begleitet, dessen
Molekularbestandtheile dabei verändert und umgeformt werden. Es bilden sich neue
Gewebe und Organe, niedere zu höheren bei fortschreitender Entwickelung; höhere
atrophiren sich zu niederen bei rückschreitender Bewegung. Im Verlaufe der ganzen
Geschichte der Menschheit haben sich auf diesem Wege die vorzugsweise im Gehirn
des Menschen concentrirten höheren Nervenorgane allmählig ausgebildet und sind
von Generation zu Generation durch allmählig wachsende Aufspeicherung von
latenten psychischen Energieen der späteren Nachkommenschaft überliefert worden.
Diese höheren Nervenorgane, die materiellen Träger der geistigen, ethischen und
ästhetischen Anlagen und Fähigkeiten des menschlichen Individuums, sind ein
Product des socialen Lebens und bilden ihrerseits auch die Lebensquelle auf die
jegliches Zusammenwirken in der Gesellschaft zurückzuführen ist.

276
 Suchen wir uns nun nähere Rechenschaft darüber abzugeben, durch welche
Mittel und Wege die Capitalisirung und Auslösung der psychischen Energieen im
Schoosse der Gesellschaft bewerkstelligt werden.
Abgesehen von dem eigentlichen Geburtsact, von der in der frühesten Kindheit
nothwendigen Körperpflege und von einigen rein conventionellen Gebräuchen, wie
Händedruck, Kuss und dergleichen, kann der Culturmenseh Jahrzehnte sich in der
Gesellschaft bewegen, ohne in mechanische Berührung mit Seinesgleichen, es sei
denn nur zufällig, zu gerathen. Und dennoch steht er in beständiger reger
Wechselwirkung mit den anderen Gliedern der Gesellschaft. Die Mittel, durch welche
diese Wechselwirkung bewerkstelligt wird, können hauptsächlich unter drei
Kategorieen zusammengefasst werden: Wort, Schrift, Kunstproduct, letzteres in
seiner umfassendsten Bedeutung. Durch die Sprache und einige Kunstleistungen, wie
z. B. die Musik, werden vermittelst Schwingungen der Luftmoleküle unsere
Hörnerven erregt; durch Schriftzeichen und die Producte der plastischen Künste:
Bauten, Monumente, Statuen, Gemälde werden unsere Sehnerven vermittelst
Schwingungen des Aethers in Erregung gesetzt. Auf unsere höheren äusseren Sinne:
das Ohr und das Auge übt das uns umgebende physische Medium einen bestimmten
Reiz. Der Begriff des Reizes ist in der Biologie ein weitgehender. Jede Einwirkung
äusserer Factoren auf einen Organismus kann in einem gewisse Sinne als Reiz
angesehen werden.
Worin besteht nun aber die Reizwirkung?
Jede lebendige Substanz besitzt die Fähigkeit gegen äussere Reize zu reagiren,
wobei ein Umsatz und eine Störung im molekularen und dynamischen Gleichgewicht
ihrer inneren Bestandtheile vor sich gehen. Eine solche Reizwirkung rufen auch die
durch Wort, Schrift, Kunstproduct und -leistuug hervorgebrachten Erregungen unserer
äusseren Sinne, in unseren inneren höheren Nervenorganen hervor. Letztere reagiren
ihrerseits gegen die äusseren Reize, indem sie die in ihnen angehäuften latenten
Energieen auslösen und ihre Molekularbestandtheile umsetzen.
Nun existirt aber sowohl in der anorganischen Natur als auch in der
Organismenwelt kein bestimmtes Verhältniss zwischen der Qualität und Intensität des
Reizes und der Reizwirkung. Ein leiser mechanischer Stoss kann eine ungeheure
chemische Reizwirkung hervorbringen, wie solches z. B. bei allen Sprengstoffen der
Fall ist und umgekehrt bei starken äusserlichen Reizmitteln kann die Reizwirkung
ganz ausbleiben, wie z. B. bei Annäherung eines Magnets an ein Stück Holz etc.
Bei der psychophysischen Wechselwirkung zwischen den Menschen in der
Gesellschaft tritt dieses Missverhältniss zwischen Reiz und Reizwirkung noch greller
hervor. Wenn ein in einem geschlossenen Raume versammeltes Publicum das Wort
Feuer! ausstossen hört, so drängt es sich massenweise zu den Ausgängen, bei denen
ein Kampf um Leben und Tod entsteht. Dem Einen lähmt der Schreck die Glieder und
macht das Blut in den Adern stocken, die Anderen suchen sich durch Schreien und
Toben Luft zu machen, indem sie eine ungewöhnliche Muskelkraft entwickeln. Das
einzige Wort Feuer! hat auf diese Versammlung eine ebenso grosse Wirkung
hervorgebracht, wie ein angezündetes Streichhölzchen auf ein Pulvermagazin, durch
dessen Explosion eine ganze volkreiche Stadt zerstört worden ist. Dort genügte eine
leichte Contraction der Muskelfasern des Halses und der Zunge, hier eine leise
Bewegung der Hand um die Wirkungen hervorzubringen. Die nach allen
Weltgegenden durch Telegramme und Zeitungen versandte Nachricht über die
Kriegserklärung zwischen zwei Grossmächten setzt die Gemüther zahlreicher
Bevölkerungen in Erregung; der Handel stockt, es entsteht eine rege Dislocation
ungeheurer Truppenmassen u. s. w. und solches nur in Folge momentaner

277
Schwingungen des Aethers auf die Sehnerven. Eine solche Reizwirkung lässt sich nur
durch das grossartige Capital psychophysischer Energieen erklären, die in jedem
Individuum und in jeder Gesellschaft als Collectivindividuum aufgespeichert sind.
Das Auslösen solcher latenter psychophysischer Energieen kann eine Verminderung
des Capitals, aber auch eine Vergrösserung desselben durch einen gleichzeitigen oder
nachfolgenden Umsatz der Moleküle in den höheren Nervenorganen zur Folge haben.
Lese ich ein erbauliches Buch, ein klar durchdachtes philosophisches Werk, höre ich
eine schöne Melodie an, betrachte ich ein harmonisch durchgeführtes Kunstwerk, so
wird die Reizwirkung in mir auch durch Auslösen psychophysischer Energieen
begleitet, aber in Folge der gleichzeitig verursachten dynamisch werthvolleren
Umbildung meiner höheren Nervenorgane werde ich mich zugleich gekräftigt und
gehoben fühlen. Ein entgegengesetztes Resultat würde die Lectüre einer
unmoralischen Schrift, eines verworrenen philosophischen Systems, das Hören einer
disharmonischen Musik, das Betrachten eines geschmacklosen Kunstworks abgeben.
Setzen wir nun aber voraus, dass das Wort Feuer, so wie die Nachricht wegen
der Kriegserklärung in einer Sprache abgefasst sind, die Niemand verstehen kann.
Dann fällt die Reizwirkung ganz weg. Eine Rede die Niemand anhört, ein Manuscript
oder ein Buch, die Niemand gelesen hat, eine Kunstverrichtung ohne Zeugen, ein
Gemälde das Niemand betrachtet hat, stellen daher als Reizmittel betrachtet nur todte
Materie, zwecklose Leistungen dar, es sei denn, dass man sie als nützliche
Kraftübungen des Producenten selbst in Anschlag bringt.
Aus dem Vorhergehenden folgt, dass eine Cultur nur insofern von wirklichem
und wesentlichem Werth ist, als das menschliche Individuum, das als lebendes
Element alle socialen Gewebe, Organe und den Staat bildet, durch die Cultur geistig
entwickelt, moralisch ,gebessert, ästhetisch gehoben, physisch gesunder gemacht
wird.
Durch eine in's Grenzenlose gehende Production und Anhäufung von
Werthgegenständen, die nur Sachen darstellen, namentlich bei einer unregelmässigen
und ungeordneten Vertheilung derselben zwischen den Mitgliedern und Klassen der
Gesellschaft, werden die Culturzwecke lange noch nicht erreicht. Das haben wir in
unserer „Socialen Pathologie"*) näher begründet und ausführlicher
auseinandergesetzt, indem wir die in der Gesellschaft circulirenden Güter in positive,
negative und neutrale Gebrauchswerthe eintheilten. Setzen wir nun noch hinzu, dass
dieser unser Standpunkt vollständig mit den Grundlagen des Christenthums
übereinstimmt, welches hauptsächlich die Besserung der Persönlichkeit sich zur
Aufgabe stellt, und das Wort, das nicht zum Herzen geht, das Sacrament das mit
Gleichgültigkeit entgegengenommen wird, den Glauben, der nicht lebendig macht, für
werthlos erklärt**).
Stellt man einen Vergleich an zwischen der Wechselwirkung der Personen im
socialen Organismus und den Processen, durch welche unser Körper belebt wird, so
wird man finden, dass jene zunächst der Wechselwirkung der Zellen im
Nervensystem und speciell in den höheren Organen desselben, die als materielle
Träger des individuellen Fühlens, Denkens und Wollens sich kund thun, analog ist.
Die Nervenzellen erregen sich auch gegenseitig durch Reize, differenciren sich und
potenciren sich gegenseitig zu specifischen Geweben und Organen, häufen dabei
psychophysische Euergieen an und lösen bereits früher capitalisirte aus. Eine jede
Zelle des individuellen Nervensystems hat sich stufenweise, biogenetisch, durch eine
unermessliche Reihe sich stets gegenseitig differencirender und potencirender
Zellengemeinschaften, durch Anpassung an das innere, organische Medium, durch
Kampf um's Dasein, Selection und Vererbung, in Folge einer beständigen

278
gegenseitigen Reizwir- kung, zu den functionellen Fähigkeiten und histologischen
Bildungen des specifischen Nervengewebes und Organes, zu dem sie gehört, erhoben.
So ist auch der Urmensch, als Theil realer Gesammtheiten, als Zellenelement sich
stets umformender socialer Systeme, auf demselben Wege historisch, durch eine
unermessliche Reihe zusammenfühlender, -denkender und -wollender Generationen
zum Culturmenschen geworden.

*) La Pathologie Sociale, Bd. II der Bibliotheque sociologique internationale.

**) Siehe unsere Gedanken über die Socialwissenschaft der Zukunft, Bd. V:
Versuch einer natürlichen Theologie S. 65 u. ff.

Die zwischen den Zellen, Geweben und Organen des Körpers durch Nervenreiz
hervorgerufene Erregung wird in der Biologie und Psychologie als Reflex bezeichnet.
Seinem Wesen nach besteht auch jegliches Zusammenleben und -wirken der
Menschen im gesellschaftlichen Verbande in beständigen Reflexwirkungen. In der
Psychologie werden wohl zunächst die automatisch vor sich gehenden Reizwirkungen
im individuellen Nervensystem unter dem Begriffe Reflex verstanden. Aber der
Unterschied zwischen automatischen, halbbewussten und bewussten Wirkungen ist
ein fliessender. Daher wird von den neueren Psychologen der Begriff des Reflexes auf
jegliche Wechselwirkung der Gewebe und Organe durch Nervenreiz ausgedehnt.
Aber im socialen Organismus gesellen sich, in Folge der grösseren Beweglichkeit und
Autonomie der einzelnen Zellenelemente, zu den im individuellen Nervensysteme
durch Nervenfasern vermittelten directen Reflexe, noch indirecte, durch Schrift,
Kunstproduction etc. vermittelte Reflexe. Dass die Wirkungen der indirecten Reflexe
ihrem Wesen nach identisch sind mit denen der directen, geht, unabhängig von dem
bereits oben Angeführten, noch daraus klar hervor, dass sie gegenseitig in einander
umgesetzt werden können, ohne dass das Resultat der Wirkung eine Aenderung
erfährt. Die Nachricht über den Tod eines Verwandten oder Freundes wirkt gleich
erschütternd, ob man sie durch directe Zeichen, mündlich, von Person zu Person oder
vermittelst eines Briefes oder Telegramms, also durch indirecte Reflexe, erhalten hat.
Und der Energiewechsel der Ganglienzellen unseres Gehirns, des dem socialen
Organismus zunächst stehenden natürlichen Zellenstaates, bietet gleichfalls einen
Innervationsmodus dar, der den Uebergangsprocess vom directen zum indirecten
Reflex kennzeichnet. Es ist nämlich neuerdings beobachtet worden, dass die
Dendriten (Verzweigungen der Ganglienzellen) einer Ganglienzelle mit den
Nervenfasern (Fortsätzen) der anderen, auf die sie einen Reiz ausübten, nicht
substantiell zusammenhängen, sondern dass zwischen ihnen noch ein Spaltstück sich
befindet. Der Energiewechsel zwischen den Ganglienzellen geht also in diesem Falle
vor sich, obgleich ein unmittelbarer Austausch von Substanz gar nicht stattfindet,
sondern nur eine Berührung zwischen den Dendriten und Nervenfasern durch
Vermittelung eines Spaltstückes.
Zu einem vollständigen sogenannten Reflexbogen gehört ein centrales
Verbindungsstück zwischen dein percipirenden und auf den Reiz reagirenden
Elemente. Der Reflexbogen in seiner Vollständigkeit erscheint im Staate, wenn z. B.
ein Reiz bis zu den centralen Organen, die Regierung, gelangt und eine Reaction von
derselben durch verschiedene Massnahmen, Befehle etc. erfolgt. Aber auch bei der
Wechselwirkung einzelner Glieder und Gruppen der Gesellschaft unter einander
behalten die Reize den Charakter von Reflexen, indem auch bei ihnen die
Hauptmomente des Processes: Empfangen eines Reizes durch sinnliche
Wahrnehmung, Reagiren gegen denselben durch Auslösung psychophysischer Ener-

279
gieen, Bildung neuer Molekulordnungen, Bindung neuer dynamischer Elemente,
stattfindet. - Um Benennungen und Worte lässt sich viel streiten. Von grosser
Wichtigkeit für die Sociologie wäre jedoch die Feststellung und Annahme einer
Terminologie, die bereits ihrem Wortlaute nach auf den Zusammenhang zwischen der
Sociologie und der allgemeinen Biologie, sowie der positiven Psychologie hindeuten
würde. Den Versuch zu einer solchen Terminologie haben wir in unseren
vorhergehenden Werken gemacht. Eine Wissenschaft, die über keine bestimmte
Terminologie verfügt, wird sich nie definitiv construiren können und wird auch nie
als selbstständige Wissenschaft anerkannt werden. Ein jeder Forscher wird seinen, auf
subjectiven Anschauungen begründeten Wortschatz in das zu erforschende Gebiet
hineintragen und zu endlosen Wörtstreitigkeiten Veranlassung geben. Auch eine dem
Wesen des Objects der Forschung entsprechende Classification der Erscheinungen ist
ohne feste Terminologie nicht möglich. Ein jeder Forscher wird mit seinem
Wortschatze auch eine neue Classification in die Wissenschaft hineintragen. In allen
Zweigen der Naturkunde wird bereits durch die Terminologie der zu erforschenden
Erscheinungen auf ihren Zusammenhang mit denjenigen, die zn den nächsten und
namentlich den niederen und einfacheren Wissensgebieten gehören, hingewiesen.
Dieser Regel glauben wir gerecht geworden zu sein, indem wir die Wechselwirkung
der Individuen im socialen Leben als Reflexwirkung bezeichnet haben.
Aus demselben Grunde haben wir auch den socialen Organismus als ein
Nervensystem bezeichnet. Zwischen den Worten System und Körper wird in der
Biologie kein Unterschied gemacht. Unser Körper besteht aus verschiedenen
Systemen von Zellen, Geweben und Organen, dem Knochengerüste, dem Muskel-,
dem vasomotorischen, dem Nervensysteme, und sie alle bilden denselben Körper. Das
Wort System wäre zur Bezeichnung des socialen Organismus insofern vorzuziehen,
als es auf den loseren mechanischen Zusammenhang der einzelnen Elemente unter
einander hinweist. So bilden die Weltkörper, die um die Sonne kreisen, gleichfalls ein
System. Der Unterschied ist jedoch, wie wir bereits oben angedeutet haben, kein
wesentlicher, sondern nur ein relativer. Unser Sonnensystem würde einem
Beobachter, der sich in der Ferne der Milchstrasse befinden würde, möglicher Weise,
wie diese, als ein einzelner gasförmiger oder leuchtender Körper erscheinen.
Dem socialen Nervensystem haben wir, in Analogie der im Körper vorhandenen
noch nicht assimilirten Nahrungsstoffe und Schutzvorrichtungen und der bereits von
den Zellen, Geweben und Organen ausgeschiedenen Substanzen, die sociale
Zwischenzellensubstanz gegenübergestellt. Im weiteren Sinne gehören zu dieser alle
nutzbaren Güter: Boden, Gewässer, die Atmosphäre, überhaupt das physische
Medium, in welchem die einzelnen Elemente des socialen Organismus eingebettet
sind und sich bewegen. Im engeren Sinne gehören zur socialen
Zwischenzellensubstanz alle in der Gesellschaft circulirenden Werthgegenstände, die
von den Individuen behufs Befriedigung ihrer Bedürfnisse verbraucht werden, gleich
wie die Pflanzen die in ihnen circulirenden Säfte und die Thiere ihre Nahrung
assimiliren.
Die Gegner der organischen Methode verwechseln stets die
Zwischenzellsubstanz, die nur leblose Substanzen, also Sachen, in sich schliesst, mit
den lebendigen Elementen des socialen Organismus, die nur durch Personen
repräsentirt werden und aus denen das sociale Nervensystem gebildet wird. Daher
setzen sich die Antiorganiker ein vollständig verworrenes Bild vom socialen Or-
ganismus zusammen und schöpfen aus dem Wirrwarr ihrer eigenen Anschauungen
ihre Widerlegungen. Sie behaupten nämlich, das., die Organiker die
Telegraphendrähte mit den Nerven, die Eisenbahnstationen mit ebenso viel Herzen,

280
die dem socialen Organismus eigen sein sollen, identificiren. Die Telegraphendrähte,
die Eisenbahnen mit allen ihren Baulichkeiten sind Sachen, sie können nur als
Gebrauchswerthe von dem socialen Nervensysteme zu verschiedenen Zwecken
benutzt werden, sie sind aber unfähig selbst eine lebende Substanz zu bilden. Auf der
socialen Zwischenzellensubstanz projectiren sich die Thätigkeitsäusserungen des
Individuums und der Gesellschaft, gleichwie auch die Pflanze und das Thier die ihnen
zu Gebote stehenden Nahrungs- und Schutzmittel erst mechanisch, morphologisch
und physiologisch bearbeiten ehe sie dieselben assimiliren oder verbrauchen. So ist
denn auch jedes aus Werthgegenständen bestehende angehäufte Capital immer nur ein
todtes bis die in demselben enthaltenen Energieen von den Personen assimilirt
werden. Das todte Kapital, als Theil der Zwischenzellensubstanz, stellt nur eine
Projection der in den Personen angehäuften psychophysischen Energieen dar. Die
Widerlegungen der Antiorganiker sind also in dieser Hinsicht nur als Schläge in's
Wasser anzusehen.

Eine jede Auslösung von mechanischen, chemischen und psychophysischen

Energieen setzt eine vorhergegangene Aufspeicherung derselben voraus. Wir haben
gesehen, über welch' ein grossartiges Capital von latenten psychischen Energieen ein
jeder Mensch, besonders aber der Culturmensch, verfügt. Durch welchen Process ist
dieses Capital angehäuft worden?
Der Urmensch verfügte nur über einige halbarticulirte Laute um seinen
Gefühlen und Gedanken Ausdruck zu verleihen; er bediente sich seiner eigenen
Glieder, um durch äussere Zeichen seinen Willen zu kennzeichnen; er kannte nur die
ersten Zahlen und rechnete mit den Fingern der Hände und Füsse; seine Waffen
waren ungeschliffene Steine und Holzkeulen; die Tonkunst bestand in einem wüsten
Lärmmachen, die Tanzkunst in einem Springen und Gehen im Tact; alle übrigen
Künste dienten fast ausschliesslich nur zur Befriedigung der dringendsten physischen
Bedürfnisse. Aber schon damals implicirten diese ursprünglichen Thätigkeits-
äusserungen sociale Reflexwirkungen, durch welche die Glieder der Urgesellschaft
allmählig zu höherem Denken, Fühlen und Wollen angeregt wurden; schon damals
wurde der Grund zur Bildung derjenigen Nervenorgane gelegt, aus denen die spätere
Culturfähigkeit des Menschen sich entwickelte. Eine jede Generation der auf-
strebenden Elemente der Urbevölkerungen that in der Richtung der intensiveren
Reflexwirkung einen Schritt vorwärts und vererbte die erhöhte Culturfähigkeit in der
Form höher entwickelter Nervenorgane der nächsten Nachkommenschaft.
Dementsprechend wuchsen nicht nur immer mehr durch neue Aufschichtungen von
latenten psychophysischen Energieen diejenigen Organe, die man als die socialen
bezeichnen kann, weil sie ein Product des socialen Lebens sind, sondern sie
entwickelten sich auch mit jeder Generation früher als in der vorhergehenden um
einer neuen Aufschichtung Zeit und Raum zu gewähren. Auf diesem Process der
allmähligen Aufschichtung und Verdichtung der höheren Organe, die vorzugsweise
im menschlichen Gehirn vereinigt sind, beruht das Gesetz der abgekürzten
Wiederholung im Individuum der ganzen Culturgeschichte der Menschheit. Dieses
Gesetz, das wir als das centrale socialembryologische Gesetz gekennzeichnet haben,
entspricht vollständig dem allgemeinen embryologischen Gesetze, welches sich in der
ganzen Organismenwelt kund thut. Der psychophysische Entwickelungsgang eines
jeden einzelnen menschlichen Individuums giebt somit dem Culturhistoriker den
Faden in die Hand, um die ganze Geschichte der Menschheit zu erforschen. Das
socialembryologische Entwickelungsgesetz müsste als Grundlage für jegliche
Culturgeschichte dienen. Aber es steht auf der Grenzscheide zwischen der Biologie

281
und den politischen Wissenschaften in ihrem jetzigen Entwickelungsstadium. Daher
wird dieses sociologische Grundgesetz fast vollständig übersehen. Die Biologen sind
keine Sociologen und die Oekonomisten, Juristen und Politiker keine Biologen. Nur
einige hervorragende Geister in Deutschland, wie Roscher, Hellwald, Schäffle haben
dieses Gesetz nach seinem vollen wissenschaftlichen Werthe gewürdigt.
Das Kind von heute stellt dem eben angeführten socialembryologischen Gesetze
gemäss in realer Form, durch den Bau seines Gehirns, die Entwickelungsstufe dar, auf
welcher die Menschheit sich in ihrer frühesten Jugend befand. Die höheren, socialen
Nervenorgane sind in ihrer Entwickelung so weit vorausgeeilt, dass das Kind von
heute, bei völlig noch unentwickeltem physischen Organismus bereits in den ersten
Jahren seines Lebens über diejenige geistige und ethische Energieen verfügt, die der
Urmensch nur bei voller Reife erlangte.
Das Kind fasst die äusseren Eindrücke unbewusst oder halbbewusst auf; es neigt
zur Nachahmung; es bearbeitet nicht selbstständig die von aussen auf ihn wirkenden
Reize. Im Kinde verbreiten sich vom Ohr und Auge ausgehende Reflexe sogleich
über das ganze Nervensystem und setzen fast alle Muskeln des Körpers in Bewegung.
Das Kind ist nicht im Stande sich dabei zu beherrschen; es giebt sich sogleich, ganz
und gar, dem ersten stärkeren Eindruck hin. Hell leuchtende Körper, grelle Farben,
lautschmetternde Töne ziehen vorzüglich seine Aufmerksamkeit an. Unwillkürliche
Bewegungen und unbezwungene Empfindungen, d. h. die Leidenschaftlichkeit ist im
Kinde viel stärker, als im Erwachsenen, zugleich aber auch viel flüchtiger, indem das
Kind unmittelbarer unter dem Einflusse der wechselnden äusseren Eindrücke und
Erscheinungen steht. Das menschliche Gehirn ist ein Apparat, der die von aussen
kommenden Reflexe fixirt und verarbeitet. Bei grösserer Ausbildung dieses Apparats
giebt sich der Mensch nicht mehr unwillkürlich und unverzüglich dem äusseren
Eindruck, der willenlosen Empfindung, dem blinden Triebe hin. Er handelt nach
Massgabe seiner socialen Entwickelung immer subjectiv bewusster und objectiv
selbstständiger.
Sehen wir uns den jetzigen Wilden an, so finden wir, dass die psychischen
Energieen, über die er verfügt, gleichartige mit denen des Kindes der höheren Raten
sind. Der Wille steht also heute noch in Hinsicht auf die Ausbildung seiner socialen
Nervenorgane, vielleicht nur wenige Stufen höher als der Urmensch. Die heute noch
existirenden wilden Völkerschaften stellen also in ihrer socialen Entwickelung
zurückgebliebene Zweige eines gemeinschaftlichen Stammes dar, von welchem aus
auch der Culturmensch sich zu höheren Stufen emporgeschwungen hat. Die
Zwischenstufen werden durch die noch jetzt lebenden Völkerschaften, die dem
mythologischen und heroischen Zeitalter in der Geschichte entsprechen, repräsentirt.
Diese geschichtlichen Epochen entsprechen dem Jünglingsalter des modernen
Culturmenschen. Es stehen also drei Reihenfolgen psychologischen Geschehens vor
uns: die psychophysische individuelle Entwickelung des modernen Culturmenschen
vom Kinde bis zum reifen Alter; der geschichtliche Entwickelungsgang vom
Urmenschen bis zum Culturmenschen, mit den noch jetzt durch die wilden,
halbwilden und barbarischen Volksstämme bezeichneten Stufen dieser
psychologischen Evolution; endlich die Entwickelung der Gesellschaft als ein
Complex socialen Systeme. Auf diesen drei Reihen eines und desselben
ununterbrochenen Entwickelungsprocesses des individuellen, geschichtlichen und
socialen gründet sich nun das Gesetz des dreifachen Parallelismus und der
Uebereinstimmung des Nach-, Neben- und Uebereinander des socialen Werdens, das
dem allgemeinen in der ganzen Organismenwelt gültigen Gesetze des dreifachen
Parallelismus der ontogenetischen philetischen und systematischen Entwickelung

282
entspricht. Zu welchen, specifischen Thätigkeitsäusserungen und Gestaltungen in der
ökonomischen (physiologischen), juridischen (morphologischen) und hierarchisch-
politischen (vereinheitlichenden) Sphäre des socialen Lebens dieses allgemeine
Gesetz führt und durch welche Anomalieen es bedingt wird, haben wir in unseren
früheren Werken auseinandergesetzt*).

*) Gedanken über die Socialwissenschaft der Zukunft: Bd. 1 Die Menschliche

Gesellschaft als realer Organismus; Bd. II Die socialen Gesetze; Bd. 111 Die sociale
Psychophysik; Bd. IV Die sociale Physiologie; Bd. V Versuch einer natürlichen
Theologie.

Das ganze Menschengeschlecht stellt einen Baum dar, dessen Wurzel in die
Thierwelt ragen, dessen Stamm der Urmensch gebildet hat und dessen nach allen
Richtungen auseinandergehenden und zu verschiedenen Höhen hinaufgeschossenen
Zweige noch heute durch die auf verschiedenen Culturstufen stehenden
Völkerschaften und Racen repräsentirt werden. Die Blätter dieses riesigen Baumes
sind die Individuen; aber die menschlichen Individuen haben sich nicht, wie die
Blätter einer Pflanze, isolirt von einander gehalten, nur durch Abstammung sich an
den allgemeinen Stamm knüpfend, sondern sie sind unter einander stets in
Wechselwirkung getreten und haben dadurch ihre weitere Entwickelung befördert.
Die jetzt lebenden Individuen gehören zu verschiedenen in früheren Perioden der
Geschichte aus einander gegangenen Zweigen, aber in der Vergangenheit müssen
stets Zeitmomente und Punkte gewesen sein, an welchen sie an einen
gemeinschaftlichen Hauptzweig oder an dem ursprünglichen Stamm gleichzeitig
zusammenliefen. Auf dieser Einheit der Abstammung beruht die
Gemeinschaftlichkeit der physischen und psychischen Grundanlagen aller Menschen.
Aber würden die einzelnen Zweige und Blätter einfach aus einander gelaufen
sein, so würden sie sich in eben solche einzelne Gattungen und Ordnungen
differencirt haben, wie solches in der Pflanzen- und Thierwelt veranschaulicht wird.
Die einzelnen menschlichen Individuen haben sich aber stets durch gegenseitige
Reflexwirkung zu neuen Geweben, Organen und Einheiten verbunden und auf diesem
Wege, unabhängig von ihrer Abstammung, zu höheren Entwickelungsstufen
differencirt und erhoben. So differencirt sich die jetzt lebende Menschheit nach den
Sprachen, die mit der Abstammung nur in ganz entferntem Connex stehen und als ein
reines Product des socialen Lebens aufgefasst werden müssen. Nur in den niederen
Racen treten noch die physischen Merkmale, wie Hautfarbe, Haarwuchs etc. als
differencirender Factor hervor. Aber auch im socialen Leben sind die Individuen,
Völkerschaften und Racen nur Schritt vor Schritt, im Verlaufe tausendjähriger vor-
historischer und geschichtlicher Perioden, unter beständigen Kämpfen um's Dasein,
unter Anpassung an das äussere, physische und das innere, sociale Medium, durch
Selection und Vererbung, vorgeschritten. Diesen ganzen Process, der auf dem
allgemeinen Weltgesetz der Uebereinstimmung des Nach-, Neben- und
Uebereinander alles Werden in Zeit, Raum und Potenz fusst, habe ich graphisch in
meiner in französischer Sprache erschienenen Studie: La methode graphique en
Sociologie*) darzustellen versucht.
Schliesslich sei nur wiederum hervorgehoben, dass alle socialen Processe,
welche Höhe sie auch erreichen mögen, nicht blos psychische, sondern gleichzeitig
auch physische sind und dass der Mensch in keinem höheren Stadium seiner
Entwickelung die niederen, also seine Abstammung von der anorganischen und

283
organischen Natur, ganz verläugnen kann. Auf dieser unlösbaren Verknüpfung des
höheren mit dem niederen im individuellen und socialen Leben beruht gerade die
Begründung der socialen Gesetzmässigkeit in Uebereinstimmung mit den Gesetzen
der Organismenwelt. Die Sociologie ist in ihren Forschungen ebenso auf die positive
Psychologie und die Biologie angewiesen, wie letztere auf die Physiologie und die
Chemie. Der Sociolog, der die Biologie verläugnet, wird stets nur Luftschlösser bauen
statt feste Gesetze zu ergründen. 
Es giebt aber Sociologen, die den Zusammenhang zwischen Sociologie und
Biologie nicht verläugnen, die im Gegentheil auf diesen Zusammenhang ihre
sociologischen Anschauungen begründen, die aber in dieser Richtung auf halbem
Wege stehen bleiben. Zu diesen Sociologen gehört auch Spencer mit seinem ganzen
Anhang. Spencer fasst die Gesellschaft nicht als ein concretes Individuum, sondern
als eine discrete Collectivität gleich den Bäumen eines Waldes, den Halmen eines
Feldes, den zufällig zusammengelaufenen Thieren einer Heerde auf. Durch diese
Halbheit in der Auffassung des socialen Lebens ist daher Spencer auch zu ganz
einseitigen Folgerungen und Schlüssen in der Beurtheilung der socialen Erschei-
nungen gelangt. Er hat die vereinheitlichenden Factoren des socialen Lebens fast ganz
übersehen und nur die Autonomie des Individuums berücksichtigt. In seinen letzten
Werken, wie z. B. über die „Gerechtigkeit" hat er den festen biologischen Boden
sogar ganz verlassen und sich der aprioristischen Methode auf sociologischem
Gebiete bedient. 

*) In den Bänden III und IV der Annales de l'Institut international de Sociologie.

Einige Sociologen treten als Gegner der organischen Methode nur in Folge von
Missverständnissen in der Auffassung dieser Methode, der Grenzen und der Zwecke
ihrer Anwendung auf. Vor Kurzem ist eine Schrift des Herrn Professors Ludwig Stein
erschienen, die einer Kritik der organischen Methode in der Sociologie gewidmet
ist*). Mit den Ausführungen dieses hervorragenden Denkers stimmen wir, dem
Wesen nach, meistentheils überein. Er spricht unter Anderem sich dahin aus, dass das
sociale Leben in seinem ganzen Umfange nicht mechanisch erklärt werden kann (S.
15). Solches muss um so mehr als vollständig richtig anerkannt werden, als auch
sogar die meisten biologischen und physiologischen Erscheinungen nicht auf die
Wirkung rein mechanischer Factoren zurückgeführt werden können. Aber man
vergesse dabei nicht, dass eine jede höhere Erscheinungssphäre stets alle niederen
nothwendig in sich schliesst. So wird auch der sociale Organismus aus mechanischen,
chemischen, physiologischen, psychologischen und socialen Energieen und Elemente
gebildet. Es giebt daher auch im socialen Leben mechanische Nothwendigkeiten. Der
Mensch wird auch bei Erreichung der höchsten Culturstufe immer noch, wenn auch in
geringerem Verhältnisse wie früher, mechanisch arbeiten müssen. Mit anderen
Worten, es wird auch in aller Zukunft, welche Form die Gesellschaft auch annehmen
möge, stets Klassen geben, die mechanische Arbeit werden leisten müssen, trotz aller
noch denkbaren Vervollkommnungen des Maschinenwesens. Alle Raumverhältnisse,
in denen sich der Mensch bewegt, werden immer für alle Zukunft nur auf
mechanischem Wege überwunden werden können. Von chemischen und
physiologischen Nothwendigkeiten wird der Mensch schon deshalb stets abhängig
sein, weil er sich nie seines physischen Organismus und der unlösbar mit ihm
verbundenen materiellen Bedürfnisse wird entäussern können. Alle diese
Nothwendigkeiten trägt das Individuum in das sociale Leben hinein und wird stets

284
gezwungen sein sich denselben anzupassen. Es giebt aber auch rein sociale
Nothwendigkeiten, die darauf beruhen, dass die Gesellschaft selbst eine Individualität,
ein realer Organismus ist und sich daher nicht anders entwickeln kann, als nach
allgemein gültigen biologischen Gesetzen, die auch auf biologischen
Nothwendigkeiten beruhen. Wie ein jeder Naturorganismus sich physiologisch,
morphologisch und einheitlich bethätigen muss, so auch jeder gesellschaftliche
Verband ökonomisch, juridisch und hierarchisch-politisch. Die Theilung der Arbeit,
die Concurrenz, das Verhältniss zwischen Nachfrage und Angebot, das
Bevölkerungsgesetz von Malthus, das Gesetz der Bodenrente von Ricardo, das von
uns festgestellte embryologische Gesetz, beruhen alle auf biologischen
Nothwendigkeiten. Kein Individuum, keine Gesellschaft kann sich ihnen entziehen.
Ganz ebenso beruht die psychophysische Reflexwirkung zwischen den Individuen,
den socialen Geweben und Organen, die Auslösung und Aufspeicherung der
Nervenenergieen im socialen Nervensystem, die Projection der individuellen und
socialen psychophysischen Energieen in dem umgebenden physischen Medium, die
Capitalisirung der Werthgegenstände gleichfalls auf nothwendigen psychologischen
Gesetzen, die ihrerseits auf die Wechselwirkung der Zellen im individuellen
Nervensystem zurückgeführt werden können. Endlich unterliegt das sociale Leben
dem allgemeinen Gesetz der Uebereinstimmung des Nach-, Neben- und
Uebereinander alles Werdens in Zeit, Raum und Potenz. Daher birgt in ihrem
Schoosse auch eine jede Gesellschaft, sogar auf der Höhe der Cultur, alle niederen
Elemente und Energieen in sich, die im Nacheinander der Geschichte sich entwickelt
haben und noch heute im Nebeneinander der auf niederen Entwickelungsstufen
stehenden Verbände existiren.
*) Ludwig Stein: Wesen und Aufgabe der Sociologie.

Hr. L. Stein stellt dem Princip der Nothwendigkeit das der Zweckmässigkeit,
das im socialen Leben sich als überwiegend zeigt, das Sollen dem Müssen gegenüber.
Wir haben nie das überwiegende Walten des Princips der Zweckmässigkeit in der Ge-
sellschaft geläugnet. Wir haben aber beide Principien stets als Abspiegelungen von
Realitäten dargestellt, in denen keine sich absolut einseitig ausprägt, sondern stets
beide gleichzeitig nur in verschiedenen Verhältnissen sich vereinigen und darstellen.
Durch die Verknüpfung dieser Principien in ungleichen Verhältnissen wird der
Aufbau der unendlichen Stufenleiter vom Einfachen zum Mannichfaltigen, vom
Anorganischen zum Pflanzen-, Thier-, Menschen- und Gesellschaftsleben bedingt.
Diese Stufenleiter haben wir sogar durch eine mathematische Formel auszudrücken
versucht, deren erstes Glied aus einem unendlich grossen materiellen Zähler neben
einem unendlich kleinen geistigen Nenner besteht und das letzte, uns noch
unbekannte Glied aus einem unendlich kleinenmateriellen Zähler nebst einem
unendlich grossen geistigen Nenner bestehen muss. Die Mittelglieder dieser Formel
gehen allmählig in einander über durch Verringerung des Zählers und Potencirung des
Nenners*). Das sociale Leben des Menschen nimmt nun auf dieser Leiter
verschiedene, je nach der Höhe der bereits erreichten Entwickelung, Culturstufen ein
ohne die absolut höchste Stufe, auf welcher der Zähler als Maass der Nothwendigkeit
zu Null zusammenschrumpft, erreichen zu können. Diese Stufe gehört dem absolut
freien Wesen, der Gottheit, an.
Nun ist aber die Wissenschaft speciell dazu berufen, den nothwendigen
Kausalzusammenhang der Erscheinungen, also das Müssen zu ergründen. Jegliches
Sollen hängt dagegen vom Können ab. Der Zweckmässigkeitsbegriff gehört daher
zum Gebiete der Kunst im umfassendsten Sinne dieses Wortes. Indem die

285
Wissenschaft die nothwendigen Gesetze des Werdens ergründet, liefert sie die
Möglichkeit, bestimmte Zwecke zu erreichen, erleichtert sie das Können. Darin
besteht auch die Aufgabe der Sociologie, als Wissenschaft, dem socialen Sollen und
Können gegenüber. Die Socialkunstlehre geht von dem Principe der Zweckmässigkeit
aus, ebenso wie die angewandten technischen Wissenschaften wirthschaftliche
Zwecke verfolgen, d. h. das industrielle Können zu ihrem Gegenstande haben. Aber
so wie letztere sich auf die Ergebnisse der Naturkunde stützen, muss die
Socialkunstlehre ihrerseits auf den Erforschungen der Sociologie fussen. Ein
Zusammenwerfen der Gebiete der Wissenschaft und Kunst hat auf sociologischem
Gebiete bis jetzt nur Verwirrung verursacht und zu endlosen Wortstreitigkeiten
Veranlassung gegeben.

*) Gedanken über die Socialwissenschaft der Zukunft, Bd. 11, S. 48.

Die Zehn Gebote und die Bergpredigt enthalten ein Sollen für jeden Christen.
Aber wie kann dieses Sollen im Staatsleben verwirklicht werden? Dazu müssen die
Nothwendigkeiten erkannt werden, durch die jegliches Staatsleben bedingt wird. Erst
nach Ergründung und Würdigung dieser Nothwendigkeiten wird der Staatsmann sich
veranlasst sehen und auch im Stande sein das christliche Sollen zu realisiren.
Hr. L. Stein giebt seinerseits zu, dass nur Naturgesetze als allgemein giltige,
nothwendige Gesetze angesehen werden müssen (S. 15). Er zweifelt nur daran, dass
es der Sociologie je gelingen könnte solche Gesetze zu ergründen. Die Aufzählung
der obenangeführten bereits festgestellten socialen Nothwendigkeiten könnte einen
solchen Zweifel heben. Aber der Hr. Verfasser stellt der natürlichen Gesetzmässigkeit
noch eine Ereignissgesetzmässigkeit gegenüber, die auf statistische Zahlen, auf
bestimmte Periodicitäten des socialen Geschehens, auf regelmässig sich
wiederholende Rhytmen in der socialen Entwickelung, sich gründet. Der auf das
Wirken einzelner Persönlichkeiten, auf bestimmte Reihenfolge von Begebenheiten
und Zustände zurückzuführende Kausalzusammenhang bildet aber den Gegenstand
der Geschichte und speciell der Cultur- und der Philosophie der Geschichte. Würde
die Sociologie denselben Kausalzusammenhang erforschen, so würde ihr Gebiet mit
diesen Disciplinen zusammenfallen und Hr. Paul Barth wäre vollständig im Recht,
indem er in seiner „Philosophie der Geschichte als Sociologie" die Sociologie und
Geschichtsphilosophie gleichsetzt. Die Existenzberechtigung der Sociologie als
selbstständige Wissenschaft gründet sich gerade darauf, dass sie die Erforschung der
nothwendigen Gesetze des socialen Geschehens zum Gegenstand hat. Dieses kann
aber nur durch Anwendung der organischen Methode erreicht werden. Die Sociologie,
als selbstständige Wissenschaft, steht und fällt mit dieser Methode, da sie die einzige
ist, die als Postulat die Anerkennung der menschlichen Gesellschaft als lebendes
Wesen, als Individuum, als einen realen Organismus setzt. 
Die Grenzen, welche die Sociologie einzuhalten hat, werden ihr von der
Biologie vorgeschrieben. Die Biologie ist auch ihrerseits gezwungen sich auf die
Erforschung allgemeiner Gesetze zu beschränken. Auf die Erklärung des
Kausalzusammenhanges zwischen einzelnen Ereignissen und Geschehnissen muss sie
verzichten. Nehmen wir den Fall an, dass auf irgend einem Gipfel des Corsicanischen
Gebirges ein Adler von ungewöhnlicher Grösse mit einem mächtigen Schnabel und
ungeheuren Krallen geboren wäre. Kein Biologe würde im Stande sein, wegen der
Mannichfaltigkeit der Factoren, die dabei mitgewirkt hätten, ein solches Ereigniss zu
erklären. Nimmt dieser Adler seinen Flug nach Frankreich, dann nach Aegypten,

286
Italien, Deutschland und Russland und richtet ungeheure Verwüstungen unter der
Geflügelwelt an, so würde auch dieses von einem Biologen auf Grundlage der von
ihm erforschten allgemeinen Gesetze nicht erklärt werden können. Ebenso wenig wird
ein Sociologe eine Erklärung liefern können, woher Napoleon gerade auf der Insel
Corsica geboren worden ist, woher er seinen Adlerflug vorzugsweise nach einer
Richtung hin und nicht nach einer anderen gewählt hat u. s. w. Und das hat seine
Giltigkeit in Hinsicht auf die Erscheinung aller ungewöhnlichen Persönlichkeiten und
auf diejenigen Begebenheiten, wo der Zufall als Hauptfactor eintritt. Der Zufall hat
aber in der Geschichte eine oft ausschlaggebende Rolle gespielt. Die Beschreibung
des Lebenslaufes solcher Persönlichkeiten und solcher Begebenheiten liegt der
Geschichte als erzählenden Wissenschaft ob, die daher auch mit Recht theilweise als
eine Kunst angesehen wird. Auch ein jedes zufällige Ereigniss wird durch bestimmte
Ursachen hervorgerufen, so wie auch der Wille eines jeden Individuums durch
äussere Einflüsse und innere Motive determinirt. Die Mannichfaltigkeit und
Complicirtheit der dabei wirkenden Factoren ist aber eine so grosse, dass sie nur
ausnahmsweise und in sehr beschränktem Maasse wissenschaftlich erforscht und
begründet werden können. In Hinsicht auf das sociale Geschehen ist es die
pragmatische Geschichtschreibung, die diese Aufgabe zu lösen hat. Das
Zusammenfassen der Begebenheiten und Zustände unter allgemeinere Gesichtspunkte
gehört der Culturgeschichte und der Geschichtsphilosophie an. Die Sociologie ist
dagegen auf das einzige noch freie Gebiet der Ergründung der nothwendigen
Naturgesetze im socialen Geschehen angewiesen. Ueberschreitet sie die Grenzen
dieses Gebiets, so erweitert sie sich zur Universalsocialwissenschaft, mit der Tendenz,
alle übrigen socialen Disciplinen in sich aufzunehmen: Oekonomik, Jurisprudenz,
Politik, Sprachkunde, Religion, Ethik, Aesthetik, Anthropologie, Ethnographie,
Geschichte etc. Statt etwas positives zu leisten, wird die Sociologie durch eine solche
Erweiterung nur zum gemeinschaftlichen Tummelplatz für zufällige und ordnungslose
Ausflüge aus den benachbarten Gebieten. Daher geschieht es auch, dass
Oekonomisten, Rechtsgelehrte. Anthropologen, Ethnographen und Geschichtschreiber
ihre speciellen Forschungen als sociologische bezeichnen, indem sie sich darauf
beschränken ihren Darstellungen einfach die Ausdrücke: Evolution, socialen Progress,
Regress, Process etc. hinzuzufügen. Dabei sind sie aber zugleich ausgesprochene
Gegner der organischen Methode in der Sociologie, weil ihnen gerade dasjenige
Gebiet, welches als Grundlage für die Sociologie dienen muss, nämlich die Biologie,
fast vollständig unbekannt und ihre ganze Auffassungsweise des socialen Geschehens
keine naturwissenschaftliche, sondern entweder eine pragmatische oder eine
aprioristische ist. 

Was den jetzt auf dem Gebiete der Sociologie herrschenden Wirrwarr noch
steigert, das ist die von Auguste Comte eingeführte, von Spencer und seiner Schule
adoptirte und von den meisten amerikanischen Sociologen weiter durchgeführte
Eintheilung der Sociologie in Statik und Dynamik.
Es kann eine Statik nur in der Physik geben, weil nur die mechanischen Kräfte
in's Gleichgewicht gerathen und in diesem Zustande erforscht werden können. Die
Organismenwelt stellt ein beständiges Umwandeln und Umformen der Kräfte und
Gestaltungen dar. Als Gleichgewichtszustände können in Hinsicht auf die Lebewesen
nur diejenigen Momente angesehen werden, durch welche die Uebergänge aus einem
Zustande in den anderen bezeichnet werden. Das sind aber immer nur Zustände, die
dem Forscherauge entschlüpfen wie die einzelnen Tropfen eines dahinfliessenden
Stromes. Für den Biologen und um so mehr für den Sociologen kann es daher nur

287
eine Dynamik geben. Diejenigen Erscheinungen, welche jene Sociologen unter der
Rubrik Statik verzeichnen, nämlich die bestehenden Institutionen,
Rechtsverhältnisse etc. bestimmen den inneren und äusseren Bau einer
Gesellschaft, gehören daher in die Sphäre der socialen Morphologie. Letztere ist
aber auch ihrem Wesen nach eine Dynamik, weil die Formen und Verhältnisse
sich unaufhaltsam verändern. Sie befinden sich gleich den übrigen
Lebensfactoren in einem beständigen Fluss. Die Biologie kennt daher auch nur
eine Morphologie und keine Statik. Dieser Begriff ist, mit Umgehung der
Biologie, direct aus der Mechanik auf die Sociologie fälschlicherweise
übertragen worden und hat daher auf sociologischem Gebiete eine unheilsame
Verwirrung angestiftet.

Bevor wir weiter gehen, suchen wir nur noch einen Blick auf das Verhältniss
zu werfen, in welches die Sociologie bei Anwendung der organischen Methode
zu der Culturgeschichte treten wird. Die Philosophie der Geschichte ist
ihrem Wesen nach nur eine philosophisch behandelte Culturgeschichte, daher
auch Alles, was wir von jenem Verhältniss sagen werden, auch auf die
Geschichtsphilosophie bezogen werden kann. 
Die positive Sociologie wird sich zuvörderst zur Aufgabe stellen müssen, für
die Culturgeschichte denjenigen Rahmen herzustellen, in welchem das sociale
Geschehen in allen Sphären: der ökonomischen, juridischen, politischen, so wie
der religiösen, ethischen und ästhetischen nothwendig vor sich gehen muss, den
Rahmen, welchen das sociale Leben unter keinen Bedingungen und
Verhältnissen überschreiten kann, und welcher alle geschichtlichen
Begebenheiten und Ereignisse als einzelne Momente einer und derselben
Evolution von Energieen umfasst.
Wie dieser Rahmen sich gestalten soll, wird von den durch die Sociologie
bereits festgestellten und noch festzustellenden nothwendigen Gesetzen des
socialen Geschehens bestimmt werden. Zuvörderst werden aber die
Errungenschaften der Sociologie nicht ermangeln in Hinsicht auf Zeit- und
Raumbestimmungen dieselbe Bedeutung für die Culturgeschichte zu gewinnen,
welche die Geologie und die Entwickelungslehre für die Naturgeschichte bereits
erhalten haben.
Da die Psyche des Menschen ein Product des socialen Lebens ist, so müssen die
in seiner Person und speciell in seinen geistigen Organen capitalisirten
psychophysischen Energieen als Maassstab für die von ihm erreichte individuelle
und sociale Entwickelungsstufe dienen. Diese Capitalisation persönlicher Energieen
im socialen Medium implicirte, besonders in vorhistorischer Zeit, eine fast ebenso
langwierige, durch unzählige Anomalien aufgehaltene und oft in rückschreitende
Bewegung versetzte Evolution von Kräften, wie solches in Hinsicht auf die
Entwickelung, Differencirung und Individualirung der Organismen im Pflanzen-
und Thierreich inmitten des physischen Mediums vor sich gegangen war.
Berücksichtigt man nun die geschichtlichen Epochen, so findet man, dass in ihrem
Verlaufe die psychischen Anlagen des Menschen sich nur um eine geringe Stufe
erhöht haben. Trotz des Evangeliums Christi haben wir in Hinsicht auf
Personenwerth wenig vor den alten Römern und Griechen voraus, und haben sogar
viele ihre guten Eigenschaften eingebüsst. Die moderne Cultur ist mehr eine
äusserliche als innerliche, sie ist mehr auf Werthsachen als auf Personenwerthe
gerichtet. Daher ist die moderne Cultur eine einseitige, ja in gewissem Sinne eine

288
verkehrte: sie stellt das Object höher als das Subject, die Sache höher als die Person.
Die Folge davon ist ein Stillstand in der Entwickelung des Culturmenschen, und
dieser Stillstand kann leicht in eine Rückbildung ausarten, wenn nicht bald den jetzt
obwaltenden Anomalien abgeholfen wird. 
Betrachtet man nun die menschliche Cultur von dem Standpunkte der
Capitalisation höherer persönlicher Energiepotenciale aus, so schrumpfen die
einzelnen welterschütternden Begebenheiten, ja ganze historische Perioden zu
momentan vorübergehenden Episoden in der Entwickelung der Menschheit und des
Menschen zusammen. Die Menschheit wird aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach wohl
noch Millionen von Jahren existiren. Sie wird noch tausende von historischen
Epochencyklen durchleben, es werden noch tausende welterschütternde Ereignisse
auf einander folgen, die Culturcentren werden sich unzählige Male von einem
Punkte unseres Planeten auf andere verschieben. Die pragmatische Geschichte wird
alle diese Wandlungen erzählen, aber der künftige Culturhistoriker wird ihnen den
ihm von der Sociologie gebotenen Maassstab des persönlichen Werthes des
Individuums und der Gesammtheiten anlegen und nach demselben den erreichten
Fortschritt bemessen.
Die Astronomen und Naturforscher des Alterthums sind ausser Stande gewesen
das Werden in der anorganischen und organischen Natur zu erklären, weil sie zu
geringe Zeit- und Raumcoefficienten in Rechnung brachten. Erst seit Erfindung des
Teleskops und Mikroskops, seit den neueren Entdeckungen der Geologie und der
Begründung der Entwickelungslehre hat sich der Horizont der Naturkunde in dem
Maasse erweitert, dass eine positive Naturphilosophie auf derselben begründet
werden kann. Nun haben auch die Culturhistoriker stets den Fehler begangen, dass
sie die Geschichte der Menschheit mit zu kleinen Zeitcoefficienten maassen, daher
sie auch einzelnen Perioden, Culturcentren, Begebenheiten und Persönlichkeiten
eine verhältnissmässig zu grosse Bedeutung zuerkannten. Auch hat die
Culturgeschichte bis jetzt ihre Aufmerksamkeit mehr Denkmälern, Kunstproducten
etc. als dem Menschen selbst zugewandt. Sie hat mehr die Zwischenzellensubstanz
als die lebendigen Elemente der socialen Gesammtheiten berücksichtigt. In Folge
dessen entging ihnen auch das einzige Maass, das als Norm für die Bestimmung des
geschichtlichen Werdens in fort- oder rückschreitender Bewegung dienen müsste,
nämlich der Mensch selbst als Product des socialen Lebens. Durch die Feststellung
des socialembryologischen Entwickelungsgesetzes ist nun dieses Maass für die
Culturgeschichte gewonnen. Zugleich wird auch der Horizont der Culturgeschichte
durch Anknüpfung der Sociologie an die Biologie ebenso erweitert wie auch letztere
durch die Entwickelungslehre an Breite und Tiefe gewonnen hat. 
Alles eben Gesagte bezieht sich auf die allgemeine Culturgeschichte, die sich
der Geschichtsphilosophie anknüpft. Die speciellen Zweige der Culturgeschichte
dagegen, die einzelne Länder und Epochen zum Gegenstand haben, nähern sich
ihrem erzählenden Charakter nach mehr der pragmatischen Geschichtschreibung.
Diese erforscht den Kausalzusammenhang der Ereignisse und klassificirt die
Epochen nach anderen Kategorieen, als die Sociologie, weil ihre Ausgangspunkte
und die Zwecke, die eine jede dieser Disciplinen verfolgt, verschieden sind.

Ueber die philosophische Bedeutung der socialorganischen Theorie sind

verschiedene, ja entgegengesetzte Urtheile verlautbart worden. Die Anhänger des
historischen Materialismus halten die Organiker für Idealisten; die Anhänger der
idealistischen Weltanschauung sehen sie dagegen als potencirte Materialisten an,

289
indem sie von der Ueberzeugung ausgehen, dass durch die realorganische
Auffassung der Gesellschaft das ideale Princip aus seinem letzten Zufluchtsort auf
Erden, dem socialen Leben, in das bodenlose und wesenlose Gebiet der Materie
hinausgestossen wird. 
Sehen wir nun, inwiefern die realorganische Auffassung der Gesellschaft mit
einer jeden dieser beiden Weltanschauungen, der materialistischen, sowie der
idealistischen, übereinstimmt und nach welchen Richtungen hin sie mit denselben
sich in Widerspruch befindet. 
Die Materialisten fussen ihre Lehre auf der unlösbaren Zusammengehörigkeit
von Geist und Stoff im menschlichen Individuum: keine geistige Regung ohne
entsprechenden Stoffumsatz in den Nervenorganen, kein Fühlen, Denken und
Wollen ohne entsprechende Auslösung von mechanischen, chemischen, physiologi-
schen Energieen. Dem Wesen nach stimmen die Idealisten damit überein, indem sie
zugeben müssen, dass zum Denken ein Gehirn und zum Fühlen und Wollen ein
Nervensystem nothwendig sind. Nichtsdestoweniger erheben die Idealisten stets
Einwendungen, sobald die Wissenschaft etwas Näheres über die materiellen
Processe statuirt, die mit dem Denken, Fühlen und Wollen im menschlichen Körper
und speciell in seinem Nervensystem gleichzeitig vor sich gehen.
Die Materialisten vergessen aber ihrerseits nur zu oft, dass der Geist seinem
Wesen nach eine Kraft ist und dass zwischen Kraft und Stoff, obgleich die eine ohne
den anderen nicht denkbar ist, dennoch ein Gegensatz obwaltet, ja, dass sie sich in
gewisser Hinsicht gegenseitig negiren. Eine Kraft ohne Stoff können wir weder
sehen noch antasten, freilich auch den Stoff ohne Kraft nicht; aber die Kraft ist
dennoch das ideale Princip, das sich uns im Stoff kund thut; daher auch die
Idealisten mit Recht darauf bestehen, dass der Geist eine Kraft ist. Aber dann
erweisen sie sich wiederum in ihren weiteren Ausführungen als vollständig in-
consequent. Indem sie zugeben, dass der Geist eine Kraft ist, fügen sie ihrem
Zugeständniss die Klausel hinzu, dass der Geist seinem Wesen nach etwas absolut
Verschiedenes ist von den Kräften, die sich in der Natur kund thun. Nun läge es
ihnen demnach ob, den Beweis zu liefern oder wenigstens anzudeuten, in welchem
Moment und unter welchen Verhältnissen diese absolut neue Kraft sich dem
menschlichen Körper zugesellt. Diesen Beweis sind sie aber bis jetzt noch schuldig
geblieben, wogegen die Naturkunde die allmählige Potencirung der mechanischen,
chemischen und physiologischen Energieen Schritt vor Schritt in der
Organismenwelt und im Menschen erforscht hat und kein Moment hat wahrnehmen
können, das als Abgrenzungszeichen zwischen diesen und den psychischen
Energieen anerkannt werden könnte.
Was thun nun die Organiker? Sie suchen den Beweis zu liefern, dass im
socialen Leben das Verhältniss zwischen Kraft und Stoff dasselbe ist, wie zwischen
Geist und Materie in unserem Körper, dass aber im socialen Organismus die geistige
Kraft sich noch höher als im Individuum potencirt, indem sie sich als sociale
psychische Energieen kund thut. Dementsprechend bildet und gestaltet sich auch der
Stoff im socialen Körper auf mannichfachere Weise und in freieren Formen als im
individuellen Organismus. Da nun auf jeder höheren Stufe des Werdens in der Er-
scheinungswelt, beim Zusammengehen von Kraft und Stoff das psychische Princip
immer mehr die Oberhand über das physische gewinnt, so leisten die Organiker der
idealen Weltanschauung einen wesentlichen leider bis jetzt noch nicht anerkannten
Dienst, indem sie den Beweis liefern, dass im socialen Organismus die Kraft im
Verhältniss zum Stoff noch höhere geistige Potenten erreicht, als solches im
Individuum der Fall ist. In dem fünften Bande unserer „Gedanken über die

290
Socialwissenschaft der Zukunft: Versuch einer natürlichen Theologie", haben wir
bewiesen, dass auch die christliche Theologie die Kirche als einen erweiterten Leib
Christi, also als einen realen Organismus auffasst, und dass das Verhältniss
zwischen der sichtbaren und unsichtbaren Kirche seitens der christlichen
Dogmenlehre ebenso gedeutet wird, wie das Verhältniss zwischen Leib und Seele
im Menschen. Bis jetzt fehlte das Zwischengebiet, welches den Begriff des
Individuums mit dem der Kirche substantiell verknüpfen könnte. Dieses Gebiet ist
gerade von den Organikern entdeckt und erforscht worden. Auf dem von ihnen
bearbeitenden Gebiete begegnen sich und reichen sich die Hände die christliche
Kirchenlehre mit der Auffassung der Solidarität der Individuen im socialen Leben.
Die organische Sociologie bietet demgemäss den Vereinigungspunkt zwischen
Idealismus und Materialismus, zwischen Kirchenlehre und Organismenlehre.

Man wird möglicher Weise bei dieser Gelegenheit wiederum die ewig alten und
immer neuen Fragen aufwerfen wollen: In welchem Theile des Körpers befindet
sich die Seele bei Lebzeiten des Menschen und wo bleibt sie nach der Auflösung
des Körpers?  Der Sociologe ist, als wissenschaftlicher Forscher, nicht verpflichtet
auf diese Fragen eine Antwort zu liefern. Da aber die organische Sociologie neben
und über dem individuellen Bewusstsein noch ein collectives, das sociale
Bewusstsein, statuirt, so wollen wir diese Fragen vom sociologischen Standpunkte
aus unter Anwendung der organischen Methode beleuchten.
Das sociale Bewusstsein, das aus dem Zusammenfühlen, -denken und -wollen
der die Gemeinschaft bildenden Personen hervorgeht und die Einheitlichkeit des
gesellschaftlichen und Staatslebens bedingt, ist ein Collectivbewusstsein. Dieses
Bewusstsein ist stets im ganzen socialen Organismus und in jedem seiner Theile
vorhanden. Aber nicht alle Theile sind im Stande dieselbe Höhe des Bewusstseins
zu erreichen und von demselben sich leiten zu lassen. Die meisten Zellenelemente
der Gesellschaft verhalten sich in Hinblick aus das Ganze instinktiv oder
halbbewusst. Sogar in den höheren Culturstaaten ist es immer nur eine
verschwindend kleine Minderheit, die sich der Vereinheitlichung des
Gesammtlebens vollständig bewusst ist. Im normalen Zustande müsste eigentlich
die Regierung, als Centralorgan des socialen Nervensystems, diese Minderheit in
sich schliessen. Das ist jedoch nicht immer der Fall, weil das Gesellschaftsleben
unzähligen Anomalien ausgesetzt ist. Zu den Regierungsorganen gewinnen oft nicht
blos einseitig entwickelte, sondern auch geradezu blödsinnige Elemente Zutritt.
Dann findet das höhere Einheitsbewusstsein in anderen Theilen und Kreisen der
Gesellschaft Zuflucht: bei den Philosophen, Gelehrten, Künstlern, in der Kirche, der
Armee etc. Ein solches Wandern der höheren Bewusstseinselemente wird im
socialen Organismus deshalb ermöglicht, weil die das sociale Nervensystem
bildenden Elemente, die Personen, nicht mechanisch an einander geknüpft sind,
sondern selbst meistentheils Wanderzellen sind und auf die mannichfachste Weise
gegen die sie erreichenden socialen Reize reagiren können.
Der menschliche Körper stellt auch eine Collectivität von Einzelzellen dar.
Daher ist das individuelle Bewusstsein stets auch ein Collectivbewusstsein und
richtig der Ausspruch: die Seele ist ganz im ganzen Körper und ganz in jedem seiner
Theile. Aber wie im socialen, so reagiren auch im individuellen Organismus nicht
alle Theile gleichmässig gegen die vereinheitlichenden Reize. Die Reizwirkung und
die Reaction auf die Reize erfolgt in höherem Grade im Nervensystem und in
höchster Potenz im menschlichen Gehirn. Da nun aber die das individuelle
Nervensystem bildenden Elemente nicht aus Wanderzellen bestehen, sondern feste

291
Theile der einzelnen Nervengewebe und -organe bilden, so zeichnet sich das
individuelle Bewusstsein, dem socialen gegenüber, durch mehr Stetigkeit und
Continuität aus. Bei anormalen Zuständen, wie z. B. bei hysterischen, hypnotischen
etc., erhält jedoch auch das individuelle Bewusstsein den Charakter eines
wandernden Bewusstseins; es kann sich in zwei oder mehrere Bewusstseincentren
spalten, wie solches z. B. beim Dedubliren des Selbstbewusstseins bei hysterischen
Personen der Fall ist. Der Vergleich des individuellen Bewusstseins mit dem
socialen wirft also ein helles Licht auf den Entwickelungsprocess beider. Was
jedoch die Seele an und für sich ist, kann ein Sociolog ebenso wenig erklären, wie
ein Naturforscher das Wesen der Kraft und ein Philosoph das Wesen des
Gedankens, des Gefühls und des Willens.
Wo bleibt das sociale Bewusstsein nach Auflösung des gesellschaftlichen
Verbandes, wo bleibt die Seele des Individuums nach Zerstörung des Körpers?
Diese Fragen wären gleichbedeutend mit der . an den Naturforscher zu stellenden
Frage: was geschieht mit den in den Weltenraum sich zerstreuenden Licht- und
Wärmeenergieen? Die von uns aufgestellte Hypothese eines in Analogie des
Lichtäthers das Weltall erfüllenden geistigen Aethers ist als ein Versuch zur Lösung
jener Fragen anzusehen. Wir verweisen daher den geneigten Leser auf das zehnte
Capitel unseres „Versuches einer natürlichen Theologie", welches über die
Unsterblichkeitslehre handelt*).

*) Gedanken über die Socialwissenschaft der Zukunft, Bd. V, S. 404.

In welchem Verhältnisse steht nun die Lehre der Organiker zu der neu
aufgetauchten Lehre des geschichtlichen Materialismus?
Beschränkt sich letztere darauf den Beweis zu liefern, dass die Gesellschaft, wie
auch das Individuum, gezwungen ist zuvörderst den dringendsten physischen
Bedürfnissen Befriedigung zu verschaffen und dass erst später die psychischen
Energieen wirksam sein können, so muss man gestehen, dass die Anhänger dieser
Lehre sich damit beschäftigen Eulen nach Athen zu tragen, indem sie eine allgemein
anerkannte Wahrheit als eine neue Entdeckung anerkannt wissen wollen. Dasselbe
gilt auch von der Thesis, dass der Mensch und die Gesellschaft in ihrer materiellen
Existenz und in ihrem Entwickelungsgange von dem sie umgebenden physischen
Medium, der Atmosphäre, der Bodenbeschaffenheit, dem Klima etc. bedingt
werden. Schon in Hinsicht auf die Pflanzen- und Thiergattungen ist jedoch die
Wissenschaft bereits nicht im Stande alle Factoren zu erforschen, die zur Bildung
derselben mitgewirkt haben, um so schwieriger ist es in Hinsicht der verschiedenen
Menschenracen und Gesammtheiten. Der bereits als falsch anerkannte ma-
terialistische Satz: der Mensch ist was er isst, würde in seiner Anpassung an das
sociale Leben lauten: die Gesellschaft ist, was sie isst, oder im Verlaufe der
Geschichte gegessen hat. Die Anhänger des geschichtlichen Materialismus haben
selbst ihre Lehre freilich nicht zu einem so scharf lautenden Satz zugespitzt;
erwägt man jedoch, dass sie die ganze Entwickelungsgeschichte der Menschheit
als das Resultat der Wirkung ökonomischer Factoren ansehen, die doch
vorzugsweise nur die Befriedigung der physischen Bedürfnisse des Menschen
bezwecken, so ist man berechtigt sie denjenigen Forschern gleichzustellen, die
alle Gedanken, Gefühle und Willensacte des Menschen auf die Assimilation
bestimmter Nährstoffe zurückführen wollen.

292
 Die Welt wird nicht blos durch den Hunger, dessen Ausfluss der Egoismus
ist, regiert, sondern auch durch die Liebe. Im gesellschaftlichen Verbande
erweitert sich die Liebe zur Sympathie. Die Sympathie aber ist ein Produet der
socialen Reflexwirkung. Die Anhäanger des geschichtlichen Materialismus
berücksichtigen nicht, dass der Mensch als solcher und speciell der
Culturmensch vorzugsweise ein Produet des socialen sympathischen Lebenspro-
cesses ist und dass das psychologische Capital, über welches er verfügt, das
Resultat unzähliger Reflexwirkungen ist, die in der Urgesellschaft möglicher
Weise in engerem Zusammenhange mit den ökonomischen Verhältnissen
standen, die aber später unabhängig von denselben vor sich gegangen sind. Die
nordamerikanischen Indianer führten ein Jägerleben und dieser Theil Amerikas
kannte keine anderen ökonomischen Verhältnisse bis die ersten europäischen
Ansiedler erschienen. Diese brachten ein durch Abstammung von einer höheren
Race ererbtes und durch Erziehung in einem höheren socialen Medium
ausgebildetes grossartiges Capital von persönlichen psychophysischen Energieen
mit sich und gestalteten inmitten desselben physischen Mediums die
ökonomischen Verhältnisse des Landes vollständig um. Die Anhäufung dieses
persönlichen Capitals ist aber während unmessbarer vorhistorischer und
historischer Epochen vor sich gegangen, ist das Resultat mannichfachster
Anpassungen an die verschiedenartigsten klimatischen und tellurischen
Lebensbedingungen, in welchen die Vorfahren der Ansiedler auf ihren früheren
Wanderschaften sich befunden haben, das Resultat des Kampfes um's Dasein
ganzer Völkerschaften und Racen, der Selection unzähliger auf einander folgender
Generationen. Zur Aufspeicherung dieses Capitals haben nicht blos ökonomische,
sondern noch mehr religiöse, ethische, intellectuelle und ästhetische Factoren durch
Reflexwirkung mitgespielt. Heben wir nur einen dieser Factore, den religiösen,
hervor. Der Pietismus, dem die ersten europäischen Ansiedler in Nordamerika
huldigten, stammt aus dem Christenthum, dieses aus dem Mosaismus, die Quellen
des letzteren sind vielleicht in der esoterischen Lehre des religiösen Systems der
alten Aegypter zu suchen. Ist es nun möglich die Genesis, die Verbreitung und die
spätere Umbildung der religiösen Ideen, die den Pietismus hervorbrachten, auf
ökonomische Factoren zurückzuführen? Setzen wir nun voraus, dass Nordamerika
von solchen Ansiedlern bevölkert worden wäre, welche in Folge religiöser
Ueberzeugungen und Dogmen, keine Fleischnahrung, keine Baumwollenkleidung,
keine Metalle gebrauchen dürften; würden die ökonomischen Verhältnisse des
Landes dann nicht ganz andere sein als die gegenwärtigen?
Es sind also vorzugsweise Ideen und nicht ökonomische Verhältnisse, durch
welche die Welt regiert wird, aber der Organiker fügt nur noch hinzu: nicht
individuelle, sondern sociale Ideen. Der vereinzelte Gedanke des Individuums hat
weder einen socialen, noch geschichtlichen Werth; er erhält einen solchen nur
insofern er durch Wort, Schrift, Kunstproduct anderen Menschen mitgetheilt, in's
Fleisch und Blut, durch Reflexwirkung, in andere individuelle Nervensysteme
hinübergetragen wird und auf diesem Wege zum Gemeingut des socialen
Nervensystems einer Nationalität, einer religiösen Gemeinschaft, oder der ganzen
Menschheit wird. Die zehn Gebote hätten weder einen nationalen Werth für das
jüdische Volk, noch einen universellen für die Menschheit erhalten, hätte Moses die
Tafeln auf dem Sinai liegen lassen ohne den Inhalt derselben dem Volke
mitzutheilen. Wäre Christus in der Wüste geblieben und hätte seine Lehre nicht
unter seinen Jüngern verbreitet, so wäre das Christenthum mit dem Stifter desselben
erloschen. Nur das immer weitere Kreise umfassende christliche Zusammenfühlen,

293
-denken und -wollen der Menschen hat dem Christenthum die Bedeutung einer
Weltreligion verliehen.
Ebenso verhält es sich mit dem sogenannten Heroencultus, als dessen
Hauptvertreter Carlyle anzusehen ist. Unzählige Heldenthaten sind in der
Geschichte spurlos verklungen, unzählige, ungenannte Helden sind ruhmlos auf den
Schlachtfeldern gefallen, unzählige Denker, Forscher und Künstler sind ihren
Ueberanstrengungen und inneren Kämpfen erlegen. Diejenigen Persönlichkeiten,
die sich zu geschichtlichen Heroen emporgeschwungen, haben es Umständen zu
verdanken, die sie in's Centrum erhöhter psychophysischer Reflexwirkung der
Zeitgenossen gestellt haben. Alexander von Macedonien, Peter der Grosse,
Friedrich der Grosse, Napoleon erscheinen in der Geschichte als hervorragende
Thätigkeitsund Culturcentren, weil sie in höherer Potenz social gelebt und gewirkt
haben. Ihre Persönlichkeiten stellen solche Zellenelemente in den betreffenden
socialen Nervensystemen dar, um die sich neue Gewebe und Organe gebildet haben
und die dazu beigetragen haben die früheren aufzulösen und umzugestalten. Das ist
aber auch hauptsächlich nur auf dem Wege der socialen Reflexwirkung geschehen.
Da nun das historische Heldenthum nicht ausschliesslich auf den inneren ethischen
Werth der Persönlichkeit, wie solches in Hinsicht auf den Stifter des Christenthums
der Fall ist, sondern meistentheils auf äussere Verhältnisse und Umstände
zurückzuführen ist, so ist ein Heroencultus in dem Sinne, wie ihn Carlyle versteht,
ein moralisches Unding. Er ist gleichbedeutend mit der Vergötterung des nicht
selten durch Zufall erreichten Erfolges, des fait accompli. Hervorragende Denker,
Forscher und Künstler können ihrerseits schon deshalb nicht als cultuswerth gelten,
weil sie immer nur specielle, meistentheils einseitige Potenten psychischer
Energieen repräsentiren. Nur der höhere Allmensch kann als Object des Cultus
dienen, und ein solcher war Christus.
Die Sprache muss als das Ur- und Hauptmittel jeglicher socialen Reflexwirkung
anerkannt werden; Schriftzeichen, sowie Kunstproducte können nur als Hilfsmittel
zu Erreichung desselben Zwecks angesehen werden. Daher könnten die Organiker
der Thesis der Anhänger des historischen Materialismus, die Menschheit sei
nämlich zu dem geworden, was sie gegessen hat, den Satz gegenüberstellen: die
Menschheit ist zu dem geworden, was sie gesprochen hat. Das Wort ist stets der
Träger der intellectuellen, religiösen, ethischen, ästhetischen, auch der
ökonomischen, rechtlichen und hierarchisch-politischen Reflexwirkung bereits in
der Urgemeinschaft der Menschen gewesen; im Verlaufe der Geschichte ist es
allmählich :durch Ausbildung der höheren socialen Nervenorgane im Menschen und
in der Gesellschaft, durch Aufspeicherung stets höherer psychischer Energieen in
den individuellen und socialen Nervensystemen, zu Fleisch geworden. Im
Allmenschen Christus hat die Fleischwerdung des Wortes eine solche Höhe erreicht,
dass das Wort, das ihn zu derselben erhoben hat, als Gottes Wort von der
christlichen Dogmenlehre aufgefasst wird.
Indem wir solches aussprechen, wollen wir nicht Theologie treiben, sondern nur
andeuten, dass die organische Methode, weit entfernt zu einer materialistischen
Weltanschauung zu führen, im Gegentheil die Mittel bietet die Ergebnisse der
Naturkunde mit den religiösen Strebungen und Satzungen in Einklang zu bringen.
Wir wollen schliesslich nur noch den Gegensatz hervorheben, den die
ökonomisch-materialistische und die psychoorganische Auffassungen des socialen
Geschehens vom Standpunkte des Fortschritts bekunden. Der ökonomische
Fortschritt besteht in einer stets umfassenderen Arbeitstheilung, in einer stets
intensiveren wirthschaftlichen Concurrenz; in einer Capitalisirung stets grösserer

294
Werthe, in einer stets complicirteren Geldwirthschaft. Das Geld, als allgemeines
Tauschmittel und Preisnorm stellt eine quantitative Grösse dar und drückt der
ökonomischen Sphäre in allen ihren Verrichtungen und Gestaltungen nothwendig
einen vorzugsweise mechanischen Charakter auf. Der ökonomische Fortschritt führt
also zum steigenden Mechanismus und dieser befördert seinerseits die egoistischen
Triebe im socialen Leben. Vom Standpunkte der organischen Auffassung des
socialen Geschehens besteht dagegen der Fortschritt in einem steigenden
Ueberwiegen des Psychismus über den Mechanismus, der altruistischen Triebe über
die egoistischen. Das durch den organischen Reflexprocess bewirkte
Zusammenfühlen, -denken und -wollen entspringt der auf Sympathie begründeten
Tendenz des Einzelnen seinen psychischen Energieen Ausdruck zu verleihen in der
Absicht Anklang bei seinen Mitmenschen zu finden ohne gleichwerthige
Gegendienste von denselben zu fordern; der auf dem Gesetze der Nachfrage und des
Angebots begründete ökonomische Tauschhandel von Werthgegenständen und
-diensten hat dagegen zu seiner Devise: gieb weniger und erhalte mehr, verkauf
theurer und kauf billiger. Der Reflexprocess bezweckt den Austausch und die
Verbreitung von Ideen, sowie die Aufspeicherung höher potencirter psychischer
Energieen in den Personen und im socialen Nervensystem; der ökonomische Process
hat dagegen zum Zweck die Besitzergreifung und den Austausch von Sachen, sowie
die Ansammlung von Werthgegenständen. Zwischen Idee und Werthobject waltet
derselbe Gegensatz ob, wie zwischen Kraft und Stoff, und je höher die Idee desto
schärfer tritt dieser Gegensatz hervor.
Dieses möge genügen, um die idealistische Tendenz der organischen Methode
zu bezeichnen. Aber der Organiker, als wissenschaftlicher Forscher, ist verpflichtet,
den Process zu ergründen, durch welchen die Genesis, der Austausch, die
Verbreitung und die Capitalisirung der Ideen bedingt wird und dieser Process ist
kein rein psychischer, sondern ein psychophysischer in der Gesellschaft, wie auch
im Individuum. Und als ein psychophysischer kann dieser Process wiederum nur
dann anerkannt werden, wenn die Gesellschaft selbst als ein lebendiges Individuum,
d. h. als ein realer Organismus aufgefasst wird. Wer die Realität des socialen
Organismus leugnet, entzieht der Wissenschaft das Object selbst der Forschung.
Dann ist die Anwendung der realvergleichenden und inductiven Methode im
naturwissenschaftlichen Sinne unmöglich und der Forscher ist gezwungen sich der
aprioristischen Methode zu bedienen, die bis jetzt sich als vollständig unfruchtbar
auf socialwissenschaftlichern Gebiete erwiesen hat. Als ebenso resultatlos hat sich
aber auch die auf den Vergleich verschiedener socialer Gestaltungen und
Verrichtungen begründete Methode erwiesen, weil mit Hilfe derselben immer nur
zufällige historische Ereignisse und Ergebnisse unter einander verglichen werden
konnten, die unmöglich zur Entdeckung oder Feststellung irgend welcher
nothwendigen Gesetze des socialen Geschehens führen konnten. Daher gehört auch
die Mehrzahl der Anhänger der historischvergleichenden Methode zu den
Skeptikern, die da behaupten, dass es überhaupt keine Gesetze im
naturwissenschaftlichen Sinne für das sociale Werden giebt und geben kann. Diese
Behauptung, die schon logisch als unhaltbar anerkannt werden muss, ist seitens der
Organiker bereits auch factisch widerlegt worden durch Feststellung einer ganzen
Reihe positiver Gesetze, die dem socialen Leben gemeinsam sind mit dem Leben in
der Natur. Die Leistungen der Sociologen in dieser Richtung haben bis jetzt seitens
der Antiorganiker keine Würdigung erfahren, weil letzteren die naturwissen-
schaftliche Auffassung des socialen Geschehens vollständig fremd ist, sie auch nicht
über die nothwendigen biologischen Kenntnisse verfügen, um den tieferen Sinn, die

295
Tragweite und den philosophischen Werth der Errungenschaften der positiven
Sociologie zu würdigen. Wofür man kein Verständniss und keinen Sinn hat, das
wird angefeindet. Das ist leider auch ein Gesetz des socialen Geschehens.

Fassen wir noch in aller Kürze die Einwände, die gegen die Anwendung der
organischen Methode in der Sociologie vorgebracht worden sind, zusammen. Da
diese Methode auf der Anerkennung der menschlichen Gesellschaft als eines
individuellen Lebewesens, als eines realen Organismus fusst, so sind die Anti-
organiker beflissen, zuvörderst den realen Charakter des socialen Geschehens zu
negiren.
1. Die einzelnen socialen Gruppen und die Staaten als politische Einheiten
bestehen nicht, erwidert man, aus fest zusammengefügten Geweben und Organen,
wie die pflanzlichen und thierischen Organismen, sondern aus Personen, die sich
frei im Raum bewegen, die unter einander nur ausnahmsweise und zufällig in
unmittelbare substantielle Berührung gelangen, die den Verband, dem sie
angehören, willkürlich verlassen und in andere Verbände treten, ja, die zu mehreren
Gemeinschaften zugleich gehören können.
Alle Einwände, die auf Raum- und Zeitverhältnisse zurückzuführen sind, haben
wir durch die vorhergehenden Auseinandersetzungen bereits widerlegt. Wie verhält
es sich aber mit der nacheinanderfolgenden oder gleichzeitigen Zugehörigkeit
desselben Individuums zu verschiedenen Gemeinschaften?
Die socialen Verbände haben wir als Nervensysteme bezeichnet. Zwischen den
Begriffen von Körper und System wird von der Naturkunde kein wesentlicher
Unterschied statuirt. Ein jeder feste Körper stellt ein System von in Bewegung
begriffener Atome und Moleküle dar, ebenso wie unser Sonnensystem aus
Weltkörpern besteht. In beiden Fällen gehen die Bewegungen nach denselben
mechanischen Gesetzen vor sich. Ganz ebenso entwickelt sich das soeiale aus
Individuen bestehende Nervensystem nach denselben Gesetzen, wie die vielzelligen
Organismen und speciell wie das aus Neuronen bestehende individuelle
Nervensystem. Wie im socialen, so giebt es auch in dem pflanzlichen und
thierischen Organismus Wanderzellen, obgleich in geringerem Verhältniss zu denen,
die in den festen Geweben und Organen gebunden sind. Daraus geht nun klar
hervor, wie derselbe Mensch nach einander oder gar gleichzeitig zu zwei oder
mehreren Verbänden gehören kann. Im Nacheinander geschieht es auf dieselbe
Weise, wie das Hinüberirren der Kometen aus einem Weltsystem in das andere.
Sollte nun aber ein Himmelskörper von der Grösse unserer Sonne sich uns nähern,
so würde die von einem solchen Körper ausgeübte Anziehungskraft eine Störung
des Gleichgewichts in unserem Sonnensystem hervorbringen. Die zum
neuerschienenen Himmelskörper näher gelegenen Planeten würden von ihm stärker
als die übrigen angezogen sein. Es würde ein Kampf zwischen zwei
Anziehungscentren entstehen und im Verlaufe dieses Kampfes würde ein Theil der
Planeten zugleich von beiden Centren in ihren Bahnen beeinflusst werden; sie
würden also zu beiden Systemen zu gleicher Zeit gehören. Eine solche Störung in
den Gleichgewichtsverhältnissen der westeuropäischen Staaten hat im Mittelalter
die Papstgewalt ausgeübt. Die Gemüther gravitirten nach zwei entgegengesetzten
Attractionscentren, zum Königthum, in Deutschland der kaiserlichen Gewalt, und
zum Papstthum. Die Personen, deren Gemüth nach zwei Richtungen hin sich
hingezogen fühlte, gehörten gleichzeitig zu zwei verschiedenen socialen
Nervensystemen, deren Functionen nicht übereinstimmten und die zeitweilig auch

296
im offenen Kampfe unter einander standen. Man vergesse aber nicht, dass die
Zusammengehörigkeit der Individuen im Gesellschaftsverbande nicht durch
mechanische, sondern durch psychophysische Energieen bestimmt wird. Die
psychophysische Affinität ist das Band, das die Menschen aneinander in der
Gesellschaft knüpft und das auch nur durch psychophysische Dissimilation gelöst
werden kann. Im socialen Organismus entsprechen die geistigen und ethischen
Energiebrennpunkte den Anziehungscentren der Schwerkraft, der durch Reflexe
sich kundthuende sociale Energiewechsel der mechanischen Bewegung im
Weltraum. Da aber die Spirale, nach welcher die Energieen sich zu höheren
Potencirungen erheben, eine zwar allmählich aufsteigende, aber doch stets zu
denselben parallelen Punkten wiederkehrende Orbite durchläuft, so finden sich auch
in den höheren Sphären stets Entwickelungszustände, die mit den niederen
übereinstimmen oder ihnen analog sind. Eine derartige Analogie stellen uns,
abgesehen von der Höhe der Energiepotencialen, die socialen und die mechanischen
Systeme dar. So weitgreifend diese Analogie erscheinen mag, so wirft sie dennoch
ein klares Licht auf das Geschehen im Weltraume und im socialen Leben.
In seiner aufsteigenden Bewegung auf der Spiralbahn zu höheren
Entwickelungsstadien geräth der sociale Organismus auch in Hinsicht der
Organismenwelt in perihelische und perigäische Stellungen, die ihn den niederen
Organismen näher bringen, als den höheren Ordnungen der Lebewesen. So zeigt das
sociale Nervensystem in Hinsicht auf die Beweglichkeit der einzelnen Elemente und
die Veränderlichkeit der Structur so manche Analogieen mit den niederen Gattungen
des thierischen Lebens. Das rechtfertigt den Vergleich des socialen Geschehens mit
dem Werden in der ganzen Organismenwelt. Es müssen dabei nur auch stets die
Differenzen in der Potencirung der Energieen gehörig gewürdigt und hervorgehoben
werden. Und solches ist seitens der Organiker auch stets beobachtet worden. Es ist
ihnen daher mit Unrecht der Vorwurf gemacht worden, dass von ihnen der sociale
Organismus mit den natürlichen identificirt werde. Die Aufstellung einer Analogie
implicirt noch keine Identificirung, sondern weist nur auf bestimmte
Annäherungspunkte zwischen der Evolution des socialen Geschehens und dem
Werden in der Natur hin.
2. Die sociale Individualität wird nicht, wie man behauptet, geboren und
unterliegt nicht dem Tode, gleich den Einzelorganismen.
Alle gesellschaftlichen Verbände, alle Staaten, sind ursprünglich durch
Theilung der bereits bestehenden entstanden. Das geschieht auch noch heutigen
Tages bei jeder neuen Colonisation, die zu einem mehr oder weniger selbstständigen
Gesammtleben der Tochtergesellschaft führt. Durch Theilung haben sich auch alle
Naturorganismen ursprünglich vermehrt; die Sporenbildung, die Befruchtung auf
geschlechtlichem Wege sind nur Modificationen der ursprünglichen Vermehrung
durch Theilung.
Man wird wohl erwidern, dass die meisten Staaten durch Eroberung gegründet
worden sind. - Nun implicirt aber eine jede Eroberung ihrem Wesen nach einen
Befruchtungsprocess. Beobachtet man, wie die Spermatozoen in zahlreichen
Schaaren die weibliche Zelle umschwärmen und gewaltsam in dieselbe eindringen,
so hat man ein Bild des Kampfes zwischen einer unternehmenden, beweglicheren,
activen Bevölkerung und einer verweichlichten und passiven. Siegt erstere, so wird
die besiegte Bevölkerung bezwungen, unterworfen, unterjocht, das passive
weibliche Element von dem activen männlichen. Mit der Zeit vereinigen sich aber
beide, verschmelzen in einander, und es entsteht ein neuer, umgewandelter
Organismus, eine Einheit aus der Zweiheit. In einer solchen Umwandlung und

297
Vereinheitlichung zweier Elemente besteht aber dein Wesen nach auch ein jeder
natürliche Befruchtungsprocess. Bei Aufstellung dieser Analogieen haben wir den
ethischen Factor nicht in Berücksichtigung gezogen, obgleich wir dessen Werth
vollständig anerkennen. Bei der Mannichfaltigkeit jedes socialen Geschehens ist es
unmöglich alle Factore bei jeder Auseinandersetzung von Neuem aufzuzählen.
Der Tod ereilt ebenso die socialen Verbände, ja ganze Staaten, wie auch die
Einzelorganismen. Die Ausrottung durch Krieg, das Verschwinden von der
Erdoberfläche in Folge tellurischer Kataklysmen ganzer Bevölkerungen fallen mit
dem Tode der Gesammtheiten, die sie gebildet hatten, zusammen. Aber auch die all-
mählige Auflösung einer Gesellschaft durch Krankheit, Desorganisation,
Erschöpfung, Lähmung der Lebenscentren, Versiegung der Lebensquellen, ist
möglich, obgleich diese Zustände nicht in so kurzer Zeit und unter so auffallenden
Symptomen verlaufen, wie solches mit dem Individuum der Fall ist. Diese Zustände,
ihre Entstehung und ihre Folgen haben wir in unserer Socialen Pathologie
ausführlich beschrieben*). Eine Bevölkerung, die das Bewusstsein ihrer Einheit
vollständig verloren hat, bildet nicht mehr ein organisches Uebereinander, sondern
nur ein Nebeneinander, gleich den Bäumen eines Waldes und den Grashalmen einer
Wiese. Als concreten Organismus hat eine solche Gesellschaft zu existiren
aufgehört; sie ist in ihre einzelnen Bestandtheile zerfallen; sie bildet nur eine
discrete Collectivität. Spencer und seine Anhänger halten aber ihrerseits sogar
bewusst lebende Staatsverbände für discrete Collectivitäten. Zu welchen
Einseitigkeiten eine solche Auffassung führt, haben wir bereits früher angedeutet.

*) La Pathologie Sociale, Bd. II der Bibliotheque sociologique

internationale.

3. Spencer hat die Einwendung erhoben, dass die Organismen, namentlich die
zu den höheren Ordnungen gehörenden, symmetrisch gebaut sind, wogegen der
sociale Organismus die Negation jeglicher Symmetrie darstellt.
Nun verfügt aber ein jeder selbstständige sociale Organismus über
Centralorgane, um welche die verschiedenen Klassen der Bevölkerung sich
schichtenweise, die höheren näher, die niederen entfernter lagern. Ein jeder Staat
stellt eine Hierarchie von Zellen, Geweben und Organen dar, und in der Anordnung
dieser Verbände zweiter, dritter u. s. w. Kategorieen untereinander und in Hinsicht
auf die Centralgewalten, bekundet sich gerade der symmetrische Bau jedes Staates.
Die Anordnung und Symmetrie wird im socialen Organismus selbstverständlich
nicht blos durch mechanische und chemische Factoren, wie in den Naturorganismen,
bewirkt, sondern auch durch psychische; es waltet aber in Hinsicht auf die
Symmetrie, wie auch in allem Geschehen, stets nur ein gradueller und kein absoluter
Unterschied zwischen Gesellschaft und Einzelorganismus ob. - In unserer Schrift:
La Methode graphique en Sociologie*) haben wir die concentrische Aufschichtung
der verschiedenen socialen Elemente graphisch dargestellt und somit auf
geometrischem Wege die Symmetrie in dem Bau der socialen Verbände bewiesen.

*) In den Bänden III und IV der Annales de l'Institut international de

Sociologie .

298
 4. Die Gesellschaft, wendet man schliesslich ein, verfügt über kein
gemeinsames Sensorium; sie bildet kein bewusstes und selbstbewusstes Ich, wie
jedes Individuum; sie stellt nur eine Collectivität von Gefühls- und
Bewusstseinszuständen dar.
Die positive Psychologie und namentlich die Psychiatrie sind zum Ergebniss
gelangt, dass das individuelle Sensorium und Bewusstsein gleichfalls nur ein
collectives ist, indem es als Resultat des Zusammenwirkens und -lebens aller den
Organismus bildenden Zellenelemente angesehen werden muss. Das individuelle
Bewusstsein bildet demgemäss eine sich stets verändernde Grösse; jedes folgende
Moment ist es ein anderes als im vorhergehenden; es unterliegt Unterbrechungen,
wie z. B. durch den Schlaf; es ist ein periodisches, indem es stets zwischen erhöhten
Spannungs- und Gleichgewichtszuständen schwankt; es ist ausserdem ein wandern-
des, indem es durch äussere Reize, Erinnerungen, innere Spannungen latenter
Energieen aus einem Theil der Centralorgane in einen anderen hinübergetragen wird
und zeitweilig an denselben haften bleibt. Allem diesem entsprechen auch die
verschiedenen Gefühls- und Bewusstseinszustände der Gesellschaft. Sie stellen auch
Collectivzustände dar, unterliegen Unterbrechungen, periodischen Schwankungen,
mannichfachen Wandelungen. Denn das sociale Zusammenfühlen, -denken und
-wollen stellt nicht blos eine Summirung der individuellen Zustände dar, sondern
bildet das Resultat einer auf organischem Wege erlangten Vereinheitlichung und
dasselbe ist auch in Hinsicht des individuellen Bewusstseins der Fall. Das sociale
Bewusstsein ist dem-individuellen nicht blos analog, sondern zugleich auch
homolog, indem es eine organische Potencirung der psychophysischen individuellen
Energieen darstellt. Diejenigen, die solches läugnen, müssen zuvörderst die
Ergebnisse der Psychologie und Psychiatrie widerlegen; bis solches nicht geschehen
ist, ist der Sociolog berechtigt sich auf dieselbe zu stützen und die sociale
Psychologie auf Grundlage der individuellen aufzubauen. 

Alle diese Einwendungen entspringen einer gemeinschaftlichen Quelle, nämlich

dem Umstande, dass der sociale Körper oder, um unsere Terminologie
beizubehalten, das sociale Nervensystem sich dem Beobachter nicht als eine
plastische, durch bestimmte Formen begränzte Gestaltung darstellt gleichwie die
Einzelorganismen, sondern als eine in Raum und Zeit discrete Collectivität. Wir
haben gesehen, wie unbegründet und unwissenschaftlich eine solche Anschauung
ist. Ein jedes einzelne Glied einer socialen Gesammtheit kann letztere als Ganzes
durch seine Sinne ebenso wenig auffassen, wie eine Zelle den Zellenstaat, zu dem
sie gehört. Die Gewebe, Organe und der gesammte Organismus stellen sich der
einzelnen Zelle gewiss als ein Wirrsal von scheinbar ordnungslosen Bewegungen
dar, an denen sie nur unbewusst und instinctiv theilnimmt indem sie die ihr
obliegenden Functionen erfüllt. Obgleich nun der Mensch, als psychophysisch höher
potencirtes Wesen, sich seiner Stellung im socialen Verbande mehr bewusst ist, so
entgeht ihm dennoch ebenso die Gesetzmässikeit des socialen Geschehens in seinem
Zusammenhange wie der einzelnen Zelle, und als Beweis dafür möge die noch jetzt
sogar von hervorragenden Geistern ausgesprochene Ueberzeugung dienen, dass es
überhaupt keine Gesetzmässigkeit für das sociale Werden gebe. Um über die
plastischen Formbildungen des socialen Körpers zu urtheileu, müsste der Mensch
mit anderen Organen begabt sein, als über welche er jetzt verfügt. Aus demselben
Grunde kann er sich auch kein Bild von der psychophysischen Vereinheitlichung
des socialen Bewusstseins machen. Er fasst nur die Bewegungen und Functionen der
einzelnen Factoren auf, die zur Herstellung desselben führen. Er fühlt, denkt und

299
will nur als Individuum; wie das Ganze fühlt, denkt und will, ist ihm eine
unbekannte Grösse, obgleich er instinctiv, halbbewusst und nur ausnahmsweise
bewusst zur Herstellung des Ganzen durch sein Wirken beiträgt, wie auch die Zelle
im Zellenstaate.
Aber wie die Einheit der Weltsysteme nur in ungeheuren Entfernungen
wahrnehmbar ist, so lässt sich das sociale Bewusstsein erklären und mit dem
individuellen in Einklang bringen, wenn man es von der Höhe der religiösen
Anschauung betrachtet. Das Christenthum lehrt: nicht ich fühle, denke und will,
sondern eine höhere Macht in mir; in Gott leben, weben und sind wir. Ebenso fühlt,
denkt und will, wenn man sich auf den religiöschristlichen Standpunkt stellt, nicht
die einzelne Gesammtheit und die Menschheit als Ganzes, sondern es waltet Gott in
jedem menschlichen Zusammenleben, sowie in der ganzen Geschichte der
Menschheit. Möge dieser Ausblick dazu beitragen, die Ueberzeugung her-
vorzurufen, dass die organische Methode in der Sociologie nicht zu einer
materialistischen, sondern, wenn richtig verstanden und angewandt, zu einer
idealistischen Weltanschauung führt.
Obgleich nun die vorhergehenden Einwendungen als unbegründet anerkannt
werden müssen, so tragen sie dennoch einen wissenschaftlichen Charakter an sich.
Zu einer ganz anderen Kategorie von Einwendungen gehören diejenigen, die aus
einer vollständigen Unkenntniss der Errungenschaften der heutigen Biologie und
positiven Psychologie, sowie aus einer falschen und oberflächlichen Auffassung der
organischen Methode selbst stammen.
Nur auf diese Weise lassen sich folgende von einigen Antiorganikern
aufgeworfene Fragen erklären:
Was kann es Gemeinsames zwischen einem Elephanten und einer Monarchie,
zwischen einem Wallfisch und einer Republik geben?
Diese Frage wäre ebenso zu beantworten, als die etwa an einen Geologen oder
Astronomen gerichtete Frage: was kann es Gemeinsames zwischen einem Sandkorn
und dem Planeten Jupiter, zwischen einem Kieselstein und dem Polarstern geben?
Die Antwort kann nur lauten: die Verschiedenheiten beruhen auf Raum-, Zeit-
und Potenzverhältnissen, das Gemeinsame ist die Gesetzmässigkeit in dem
Geschehen.
Ein anderer Antiorganiker stellt die Forderung, man möge ihm doch die Hände,
die Füsse, die Nase, die Augen und Ohren und die übrigen Glieder des socialen
Organismus zeigen.
Da jeglicher gesellschaftliche Verband aus Individuen besteht, so schliesst er
auch alle Energieen, durch welche das individuelle Leben bedingt wird, in sich. Im
socialen Organismus walten demzufolge nicht blos psychische, sondern auch
chemische und mechanische Kräfte, aber in einer anderen, den socialen Zwecken
entsprechenden Anordnung und Zusammensetzung. Der sociale Organismus hat
keine Hände und Füsse, aber die psychophysischen Energieen, auf deren
Wechselwirkung das vereinheitlichte sociale Leben beruht, lösen sich wie im
Einzelorganismus, als letztes Resultat, schliesslich auch in mechanischer Arbeit ans,
wie wir solches bereits auseinandergesetzt haben. So giebt es auch keine sociale
Augen und Ohren, aber die specifischen Energieen, die sich in den Individuen zu
diesen Organen differenciren, erfahren eine Steigerung im socialen Leben durch das
vereinheitlichte Wirken einer grösseren oder geringeren Zahl von Individuen, die
gemeinsam ihre speciellen Begabungen und Talente entwickeln und ausbilden. In
diesem Sinne ist eine Akademie der Künste ein socialen Organ, welches in Hinsicht

300
auf die plastischen Künste dem Sehvermögen, in Hinsicht auf die Tonkunst dem
Gehör entspricht.
Ein französischer Pseudosociolog erkundigt sich sogar voller Besorgniss, wo
die Secretionen des socialen Organismus bleiben und wo die Auswurfskanäle sich
befinden.  Solche Antiorganiker wollen den socialen Organismus nicht blos
sehen und betasten, sondern ihn auch noch riechen.
Eine ganz besondere Kategorie bilden diejenigen Kritiker der organischen
Methode in der Sociologie, die, statt das Wesen derselben aufzufassen, sich damit
begnügen, einzelne, möglicherweise unter hunderten von anderen, missglückte
Analogieen zwischen dem Geschehen im socialen Leben und in der Organismenwelt
hervorzuheben, um auf diesem Wege die Methode selbst anzugreifen. Ein solches
Verfahren erweist sich um so leichter, als sogar alle Organiker noch lange nicht
nach allen Richtungen hin in der Auffassung des socialen Geschehens
übereinstimmen. Giebt man nun auch zu, dass von einigen Organikern einzelne
Analogieen voreilig und oberflächlich aufgefasst worden sind, so kann dieses
ebenso wenig als ein Beweis gegen die organische Methode in der Sociologie
dienen als etwa die seitens einzelner Naturforscher gemachten ungenauen
Beobachtungen und Experimente für die Unbrauchbarkeit der inductiven Methode
in der Naturkunde vorgebracht werden könnten. Das grosse Publikum, das die theil-
weise sehr umfangreichen Werke der Organiker nicht liest, urtheilt über den Werth
der organischen Methode nach diesen, aus dem ganzen Zusammenhange des
Systems einzeln herausgerissenen Beispielen. Von diesem Schicksal werden
übrigens alle neu aufgestellte sowohl philosophische, als auch
naturwissenschaftliche Systeme erreicht. Gegen die Evolutionslehre Darwin's ist
dasselbe Verfahren in Anwendung gebracht worden. Eine illustrirte Zeitung
producirte eine Reihenfolge von Figuren: die erste stellte ein Weichthier dar, dann
folgte eine Schlange, ein Krokodil, eine Gans, eine Giraffe, ein Esel, ein Affe und
schliesslich ein moderner Stutzer in einem Paletot mit einem Cylinder auf dem
Kopfe, einem Monocle im Auge und einer Cigarre im Munde. Diese Carricatur war
mit der inhaltsreichen Aufschrift versehen: Die Evolutionstheorie Darwin's. Durch
ein solches Verfahren kann ein wissenschaftliches System nicht widerlegt werden,
am wenigsten die organische Theorie in der Sociologie, da sie auf bereits erwiesene
Errungenschaften der Biologie und der positiven Psychologie gegründet ist. Um
jenes sociologische System zu erschüttern, müssen zuvörderst diese
Errungenschaften als unbegründet anerkannt werden. Die Antiorganiker umgehen
aber sorgfältig diese Seite des ganzen Systems, um nur einige vorgeschobene
Punkte desselben anzugreifen. Mögen nun einzelne unter der Zahl dieser letzteren
sich auch als zu schwach begründet erweisen, so bleibt doch die Citadelle stehen, in
welcher die Hauptmacht des ganzen Systems concentrirt ist, nämlich die
unauflösliche Verknüpfung alles Geschehens in der menschlichen Gesellschaft mit
dem Werden in der Natur.
Die Grundthesis der Organiker: nihil est in societate quod non prius fuerit in
natura kann ebenso wenig vom idealistischen, als auch vom materialistischen
Standpunkte erschüttert werden. Denn die Idealisten müssten aus dieser Thesis zu
dem Schluss gelangen, dass Gott in der Natur, wie auch in der Geschichte nach
denselben Gesetzen waltet und seinen Willen kund thut. Die Idealisten könnten
daher die Thesis durch den Zusatz nisi Deus vervollständigen, gleichwie die
Spiritualisten zu der Thesis der Sensualisten: nihil est in intellectu quod non prius
fuerit in sensu das nisi intellectus hinzufügten. Indem die Materialisten das Walten
höherer geistiger Kräfte läugnen, sind sie ihrerseits gezwungen sich auf dieselbe

301
Thesis zu beziehen. Weder von der einen, noch von der anderen Seite können also
die Grundlagen der organischen Theorie erschüttert werden.

Es ist mit Recht hervorgehoben worden, dass die Sociologie den Kampf mit den
Vorurtheilen zu ihrer Devise hat. - Die Vorurtheile der modernen Gesellschaft
entspringen nicht dem längst überwundenen Aberglauben an den bösen Blick, an
Hexen und Teufel; heutzutage werden sie genährt durch falsche wissenschaftliche
Anschauungen, Parteigeist und politische Leidenschaften, die, wie die religiösen im
Mittelalter, sich bis zum Fanatismus steigern. Die auf naturwissenschaftlicher Basis
gegründete Sociologie hat nun gerade zu ihrer Aufgabe alle derartige Vorurtheile zu
bekämpfen, woraus denn auch die Gründe klar werden, woher sie von so vielen
Seiten mit Leidenschaftlichkeit und Rücksichtslosigkeit bekämpft und angefeindet
wird.

Ehe wir weiter gehen, wollen wir auf die Bedeutung aufmerksam machen,
welche die Anwendung der organischen Methode in der Sociologie auch für die
Biologie und namentlich für die Physiologie haben könnte.
Ist die menschliche Gesellschaft ein realer Organismus, so muss sie den drei
Normen alles Geschehens in der lebendigen Substanz unterworfen sein, nämlich
dem Wechsel des Stoffes, der Form und der Energie. Herr Verworn bezeichnet das
dem Energiewechsel zu Grunde liegende Princip als ein fortwährendes
Aufspeichern potencieller chemischer Energie und ein Ueberführen derselben in an-
dere Energieformen*). Im socialen Organismus potencirt sich die ursprüngliche
chemisch-mechanische Energie zu specifischen psychischen Energieen und der
Energiewechsel erhält in demselben den Charakter eines psychischen
Energiewechsels. Letzterer wird seinerseits auch stets von einem entsprechenden
Stoff- und Formwechsel begleitet, wie wir solches in den vorhergehenden
Darlegungen ausgeführt haben. Das Geschehen im socialen Organismus ist also im
Princip dasselbe wie in der ganzen Organismenwelt. Nun gehört aber die Energetik
zu den dunkelsten und am wenigsten durchforschten Gebieten der Physiologie; die
Umsetzungen der Energieen aus einer Form in die anderen sind noch lange nicht
erklärt, ja, die Begriffe der einzelnen Energieformen sind bis jetzt noch nicht fixirt
worden**).

*) Max Verworn: Allgemeine Physiologie, S. 558

**) Ebendas. S. 556.

Es frägt sich nun: sollte der in höheren Potentialen und auf breiterer Basis vor
sich gehende sociale Energiewechsel, auf dem Wege des Vergleichs mit dem
Geschehen in den Einzelorganismen, nicht einiges Licht auf letzteres werfen
können? Der Ausspruch von Johannes Müller: die Physiologie kaiin nur zu
definitiven Resultaten führen, wenn sie eine vergleichende wird, müsste im um-
fassendsten Sinne durch Hinzuziehung des socialen Organismus in den Kreis des
physiologischen Forschens seine Ausführung finden.
Die Embryologie stellt ein ebenso dunkles Gebiet dar, wie die Energetik. Man
weiss wohl, dass die einfache Zelle sich durch Theilung vermehrt und in den
Tochterzellen sich derselbe Process wiederholt, der in der Mutterzelle vor sich
gegangen war. Aber auf welchem Wege in den vielzelligen Organismen die einzelne

302
Zelle dazu gelangt die Evolution des ganzen Organismus, nachdem sie aus
demselben als Keimzelle ausgeschieden worden ist, zu wiederholen, ist bis jetzt
noch nicht klargelegt worden. In Deutschland theilen sich die Embryologen in zwei
Lager: die Präformisten, His, Roux und Weissmam, welche die Lehre von den
organbildenden Keimbezirken vertreten, und andererseits die Anhänger der
Epigenesislehre: Pflüger, Hertwig, Driesch und Häckel, die den äusseren Factoren
bei der embryologischen Umbildung der Zelle die entscheidende Wirkung
zuschreiben. In England hat Darwin seinerseits eine Pangenesistheorie aufgestellt.
Das einfachste Zellenelement im socialen Organismus ist die Person. Die
höheren Nervenorgane, die den Menschen vom Thiere unterscheiden, sind ein
Product des vom Urmenschen an in der Gesellschaft im Verlaufe der ganzen
vorhistorischen und historischen Entwickelung vor sich gegangenen
psychophysischen Energiewechsels. Jedes einzelne Individuum tritt in Folge dessen
als Kind in einen höheren Gesellschaftsverband mit bereits vorhandenen, von den
Vorfahren angeerbten Anlagen ein. Dasselbe geschieht gleichfalls mit jeder
einfachen Zelle, die im Schoosse eines vielzelligen Organismus geboren wird. Beide
bringen angeerbte Anlagen mit, wenn auch von ungleicher Energieanhäufung; beide
müssen nach ihrer Geburt sich dem organischen Medium, zu dem sie gehören,
anpassen, mit ihm in Wechselwirkung treten; sie werden durch die Reizwirkungen
des Gesammtorganismus und seiner einzelnen Theile höher potencirt und in
mannichfachster Weise differencirt. In beiden Fällen ist dieser Process seinem
Wesen nach als ein Erziehungsprocess zu bezeichnen. Nun geht aber dieser Process
in der Gesellschaft in weiteren Zeitabschnitten und in breiteren Raumverhältnissen
vor sich. Somit könnte auch ein Vergleich des embryologischen Geschehens in der
Organismenwelt mit dem, was in der Gesellschaft unter Erziehung im
umfassendsten Sinne des Wortes verstanden wird, ein helles Licht auf das Gebiet
des Entwickelungsmechanismus in der Physiologie werfen.

Aus denselben Gründen könnte die sociale Organismenlehre auch der positiven
Psychologie so manchen Dienst erweisen. Der sociale Energiewechsel schliesst sich
den Ergebnissen der Innervation im individuellen Nervensystem unmittelbar an. Die
Genesis des Fühlens, Denkens und Wollens im Individuum ist der des
Zusammenfühlens, -denkens und -wollens im socialen Organismus vollständig
homolog, daher auch das individuelle Nervensystem und dessen Reizwirkungen
dem socialen Nervensystem und dessen Energiewechsel vermittelst directer und
indirecter Reflexe analog sein muss. Durch die Unterbrechung der socialen
Innervation bei indirecter Reflexwirkung wird der Energiewechsel im
socialen Nervensystem aufgehalten und in zwei besondere Actionen
gespalten, wodurch der sociale Process der Innervation dem Beobachter
klarer und bestimmter veranschaulicht wird, als solches im individuellen
Nervensystem und namentlich im Gehirn, der in einem beschränkten Raume
Millionen von Zellen umfasst, der Fall ist. Wir haben schon oben bemerkt,
dass die Reizübertragung von einer Ganglienzelle zur anderen in unserem
Gehirn nicht auf substantiellem Wege, wie solches zwischen den anderen
Zellen der Fall ist, sondern durch indirecte Berührung vor sich geht. Dieser
Modus der Reizübertragung kann nur in Analogie der Wirkung der
indirecten Reflexe im socialen Nervensystem erklärt werden. Daher muss
auch die Psychologie in den Kreis ihrer Inductionen die sociale Organismen-
lehre einschliessen, um eine breitere Basis als vergleichende Wissenschaft
zu gewinnen.

303
 Nicht zu den geringsten Vorzügen der organischen Methode gehört die
Auffassung der Gesellschaft als Zellenstaat, wodurch die Sociologie die
Bedeutung einer Cellularsociologie erhält. Eine Cellularphysiologie und eine
Cellularpsychologie sind noch im Entstehen begriffen. Der Sociolog beginnt
also seinen Weg von dem Punkte, den zu erreichen jene Wissenschaften nur
noch bestrebt sind. Der Sociolog könnte nun den Naturforschern und
Psychologen die Erreichung des von ihnen ersehnten Zieles erleichtern
indem er die Ergebnisse der Sociologie an die der Biologie anknüpft. 
Unsererseits haben wir auch die sociale Pathologie als Cellularpathologie
nach dem Vorgehen Virchow's aufgefasst.
Schon die Entdeckung der rein ökonomischen Gesetze hat den Werth
derselben für die Biologie bewiesen. Das von Adam Smith auf
ökonomischem Gebiete festgestellte Gesetz der Arbeitstheilung hat die
Physiologen auf die Bedeutung desselben Princips für die Lebewesen
aufmerksam gemacht. Darwin bezeugt, dass er die ersten Anregungen zu
seiner Selectionstheorie durch das Werk von Malthus über das
Bevölkerungsgesetz erhalten hat. Daher ist zu erwarten, dass durch die
definitive Constituirung der Sociologie die Ergebnisse der sociologischen
Forschungen eine noch nicht geahnte Bedeutung für die Naturkunde und speciell für
die Biologie und die positive Psychologie, die als Theil der Biologie angesehen
werden muss, erhalten werden.
Schliesslich muss auf die Erweiterung der Naturanschauung überhaupt in ihrem
ganzen Umfange durch die Anknüpfung der Sociologie an die Naturkunde
aufmerksam gemacht werden. Die Naturanschauung wird dadurch nicht blos an
Breite, sondern auch an Tiefe gewinnen. Und jeder Gewinn an Tiefe in der
Naturanschauung ist zugleich ein Gewinn für eine idealere Weltanschauung. Wir
haben wiederholt auf die Bedeutung der organischen Methode nach dieser Richtung
hin in unseren früheren Arbeiten hingewiesen und können auch den Leser hier nur
auf dieselben verweisen.

Indem die organische Methode das Geschehen in der Gesellschaft und in der
Natur unter einen gemeinschaftlichen Nenner zusammenfasst, trägt sie nicht blos
zur Klärung, sondern auch zur Vereinfachung mancher Auffassungen nach beiden
Seiten hin bei. Führen wir hier nur ein Beispiel an. Die Rechtsphilosophie entbehrt
jetzt noch jeglicher natürlicher Grundlage. Von der Naturkunde theilt sie ein
bodenloser Abgrund, den zu überbrücken sie bis jetzt ausser Stande gewesen ist.
Indem nun die Sociologie, dank der Anwendung der organischen Methode, den
Beweis liefert, dass das Rechtsleben im Staate den formbildenden Trieben in der
Gesellschaft entspringt, die den morphologischen Energieen in den
Einzelorganismen nicht blos analog, sondern auch homolog sind, so begründet sie
nicht blos das ganze Gebiet der Rechtswissenschaften auf dem festen Boden der
Naturkunde, sondern sie vereinfacht auch dadurch die Zugänge zu diesem Gebiete,
die noch jetzt auf einem äusserst verwickelten und künstlich aufgeführten Bau
logischer, ethischer und metaphysischer Postulate ruhen. Die in der Rechtssphäre
hervortretenden Anomalieen sind ihrerseits, wie wir solches ausführlich
auseinandergesetzt haben*), den histologischen Krankheitszuständen in den
Einzelorganismen analog, gleichwie auch die ökonomischen den physiologischen
und die politischen den vereinheitlichen Trieben und Tendenzen in den
Einzelorganismen. Von dieser Seite eröffnet sich ein weites, noch unbearbeitetes
Feld sociologischer Forschungen. 

304
 *) S. La Pathologie Sociale Capitel IV, V und VI .

In Deutschland ist die organische Methode in der Sociologie, so viel uns

bekannt, nur von Schäffle, obgleich unter manchem Vorbehalt, in Anwendung
gebracht worden*). Als der hervorragendste Vertreter dieser Methode in Frankreich
muss Rene Worms anerkannt werden**). In England ist Spencer und seine Schule,
wie wir gesehen haben, auf halbem Wege stehen geblieben. In Italien findet die
organische Methode nur wenig Anklang.
Auf weitere litterärhistorische Ausführungen müssen wir verzichten, um nicht
aus dem Rahmen, welchen wir uns in dieser Studie vorgezeichnet haben,
hinauszutreten.

*) Bau und Leben des socialen Körpers.

**) Rene Worms: Organisme et Societe .

In unseren Betrachtungen sind wir geflissentlich jeglichem Wortstreit aus dem

Wege gegangen. Der bekannte Satz: wo die Begriffe fehlen, dort stellt zur rechten
Zeit ein Wort sich ein, könnte in Anwendung an die Kritiker aller Zeiten
folgendermassen ausgedrückt werden: wo die Beweise fehlen, dort stellt sich zur
rechten Zeit ein Wortstreit ein. Da nun aber Worte, sie mögen auch noch so
inhaltsleer sein, doch immer noch so manche Verwirrung, namentlich auf
wissenschaftlichem Gebiete, bewirken können, so dürfen wir uns der Aufgabe nicht
entziehen, die Vertheidigung der organischen Methode in der Sociologie auch nach
dieser Seite hin aufzunehmen. 

Ein heftiger Streit ist in letzter Zeit unter den Sociologen über die Frage
entbrannt, ob der gesellschaftliche Verband als ein Naturorganismus oder als ein
Superorganismus aufgefasst werden müsse.
Mit dem Worte Superorganismus kann nun aber ein doppelter Sinn verbunden
werden. - Fasst man die Gesellschaft als Superorganismus in dem Sinne auf, dass
das sociale Geschehen nur eine höhere Potenz derselben Energieen darstellt, welche
sich in der ganzen Organismenwelt kund thun, so wäre gegen eine solche Be-
nennung auch vom Standpunkte der organischen Methode nichts einzuwenden. Man
könnte mit ebenso viel Recht eine höhere Thierspecies als eine Superorganisation
den niederen Thiergattungen und der Pflanzenwelt gegenüberstellen, wie auch das
Nervensystem als eine Superorganisation im Vergleich mit dem Knochen- und
Muskelsysteme bezeichnen. Fasst man jedoch diese Benennung nicht im relativen,
sondern im absoluten Sinne auf, indem man dem socialen Geschehen eine der
übrigen organischen Welt absolut verschiedene Gesetzmässigkeit zuschreibt, so
spaltet man die Erscheinungswelt in zwei Hälften, die unter einander nichts
Gemeinsames haben. Dann wird der Sociologie der feste Boden der Naturkunde
entzogen und sie muss darauf verzichten für eine positive Wissenschaft zu gelten.
Da nun aber die Superorganiker ausser Stande sind irgend welche Beweise für eine
absolute Unterscheidung zwischen natürlichem und supersocialem Geschehen zu
liefern, so arten ihre Gegensätze zu der organischen Lehre in ebenso viele

305
Wortstreitigkeiten aus, die ihrer Natur nach sich als endlos erweisen, wie eine jede
Bewegung im leeren Raume. 
Ebenso verhält es sich mit der von einigen Sociologen vorgeschlagenen
Unterscheidung zweier Kategorieen von Energiepotencialen, durch welche dem
socialen Geschehen ein doppelter Charakter verliehen wird. Ein jeglicher
gesellschaftliche Verband soll nämlich, nach der Meinung dieser Sociologen, das
Resultat einerseits von natürlichen Nothwendigkeiten sein und andererseits durch
den freien Willen des Menschen bestimmt werden. Als natürliche Nothwendigkeiten
werden dabei das physische Medium, die Nahrungsstoffe, die Schutzvorrichtungen,
Zeugung, Wachsthum u. s. w. bezeichnet. Dagegen werden die socialen
Beziehungen (les relatives sociales nach der Terminologie der französischen und
englischen Sociologen) durch entsprechende Bethätigungen des freien Willens
einzelner oder aller Mitglieder des socialen Verbandes bestimmt. Auf dieser
Anschauung beruht die ganze Lehre vom contrat social, als deren Hauptvertreter J.
J. Rousseau angesehen werden muss. Wenn in dem einen Lande eine
republikanische, in dem anderen eine monarchische Regierungsform eingeführt wer-
den, wenn dort eine liberale Gesetzesbestimmung durch Abstimmung einer
Volksversammlung oder eines Parlaments in Kraft tritt, hier durch den Willen des
Monarchen eine Verordnung im conservativem Sinne als allgemein bindende Norm
eingeführt wird, so geschieht solches, wie die Conventionalisten meinen, in Folge
absolut freier individueller und socialer Willensacte, die durch keine
Nothwendigkeiten beschränkt werden; wogegen die Befriedigung der physischen
Bedürfnisse der Individuen, sowie die rein materiellen Processe im socialen Leben
von nothwendigen Naturgesetzen beherrscht werden.
Suchen wir nun uns Rechenschaft darüber abzugeben, in wiefern das
Individuum und die Gesammtheit als freie und inwiefern sie als durch
Nothwendigkeiten gebundene Wesen erkannt werden müssen. 
Durch das Bedürfniss des Athmens ist der Mensch in unmittelbarste
Abhängigkeit von der ihn umgebenden Atmosphäre gestellt; er kann nur äusserst
kurze Zeit der Luft entbehren, auch für dieselbe kein Surrogat finden. Aber in
Hinsicht auf die Nahrungsstoffe ist seine Wahlfreiheit schon eine grössere, eine
noch grössere in Hinsicht auf alle Schutzvorrichtungen: Kleidung, Bauten, Waffen
u. s. w. Der Umkreis der Selbstbestimmung erweitert sich noch für den
Culturmenschen in Hinsicht auf Ortswechsel, Wahl und Erfindung der
Productionsmittel, Austausch und Capitalisation von Werthgegenständen,
Associationswesen u. s. w. Aber auch auf den höchsten Culturstufen wird die
menschliche Freiheit insofern durch Naturnothwendigkeiten beschränkt werden, als
zur Befriedigung nicht blos der physischen, sondern auch der psychischen
Bedürfnisse des Menschen stets materielle Mittel nothig sein werden.
Andererseits ist das Individuum, sowie die Gesellschaft auch bei der Wahl und
der Bestimmung der sogenannten relations sociales gleichfalls durch
Nothwendigkeiten gebunden. Ein jeder gesellschaftliche Verband ist gezwungen
sich hierarchisch zu constituiren, um zu einer Vereinheitlichung im
Zusammenwirken aller seiner Theile zu gelangen; eine jede Gesellschaft, besonders
wenn sie sich als selbstständiger Staat ausgebildet hat, bedarf nothwendig zu seiner
Existenz einer Regierung, also Centralorgane, welche die Vereinheitlichung
bewirken und vorstellen. Ein jedes Regierungsorgan kann seinerseits, wie die
Gesellschaft selbst, nur aus Personen bestehen, und diese sind an nothwendige
Existenzbedingungen wie jede menschliche Persönlichkeit und der ganze Staat
gebunden. Worin besteht nun die Freiheit der Glieder einer Gesellschaft in Hinsicht

306
auf die Wahl einer republikanischen oder monarchischen Regierungsform? Sie
beschränkt sich auf die Bestimmung, ob das Centralorgan aus einer Vielheit von
Personen oder aus einer einzelnen Person zu bestehen hat und auf die Wahl der
Personen in einer Republik und einer Wahlmonarchie. Die Thätigkeitsäusserungen
der Centralorgane, sobald sie in's Leben treten, werden ihrerseits wiederum durch
mannichfache äussere und innere sociale Nothwendigkeiten bedingt. Eine jede
Regierung ist gezwungen bei den von ihr getroffenen Maassnahmen die
Beschaffenheit des Bodens, auf welchem die einzelnen Theile des socialen
Nervensystems eingebettet sind, die von der Bevölkerung ererbten physischen und
psychischen Anlagen, die historisch bereits präformirte typische Gestaltung der
socialen Gewebe und Organe, die bereits erreichte culturelle Entwickelungsstufe u.
s. w. zu berücksichtigen. Dasselbe hat seine volle Gültigkeit auch in Betreff aller
Thätigkeitsäusserungen, die im Schoosse der Gesellschaft überhaupt, vor sich
gehen. Könnte man einen Querschnitt in irgend welcher Richtung durch einen
beliebigen socialen Körper thun, so würde man sich des Vorhandenseins der beiden
Factoren, der Freiheit und der Nothwendigkeit, in allen Sphären des socialen Lebens
überzeugen; nur das Verhältniss zwischen Freiheit und Nothwendigkeit würde in
den verschiedenen Sphären sich als ein wechselndes erweisen. Nun ist es gerade die
Aufgabe der Sociologie, als reiner Wissenschaft, die Nothwendigkeiten des socialen
Geschehens, mit anderen Worten den nothwendigen Kausalzusammenhang der
socialen Erscheinungen zu erforschen; wogegen die Bestimmung darüber, wie der
freie Wille des Menschen sich inmitten dieser Nothwendigkeiten zu bewegen hat,
wie er den Kausalzusammenhang des socialen Geschehens ausnutzen soll um
zweckmässig zu handeln und höhere Entwickelungsstufen zu erreichen, dem
Staatsmann, im umfassendsten Sinne des Wortes, obliegt und den Gegenstand der
Socialkunstlehre bildet. 
Es sei hier nur noch bemerkt, dass in den meisten Fällen der einzelne Mensch
sich Illusionen über das Maass der ihm zustehenden Freiheiten macht; er fühlt oft
nicht die zahlreichen Bande, durch die er an die Gemeinschaft gebunden ist durch
Abstammung, Familienverhältnisse, Stellung, Beruf, religiöse Vorschriften u. s. w.
Man vergesse eben nicht, dass ein jedes Individuum in eine bereits fertige
Gemeinschaft hineingeboren wird, und dass eine jede Gemeinschaft ein Product
historischen Geschehens ist, welches nicht blos durch Willensacte und
Zufälligkeiten, sondern auch durch eine Fülle von Nothwendigkeiten in
mannichfachster Weise bedingt worden ist. - Würden keine sociale
Nothwendigkeiten obwalten, wie wäre es zu erklären, dass in vollständig von der
übrigen Welt abgeschiedenen Culturcentren, wie z. B. im Aztekenstaat und Inka-
reich, dieselben staatlichen Typen an den Tag getreten sind, wie sich solche zu allen
Zeiten in der alten Welt gestaltet haben. Das Aztekenreich war eine auf feudaler
Grundlage fussende Wahlmonarchie, wie das frühere Polen, und das Inkareich eine
auf demokratischer Grundlage aufgebaute unumschränkte Monarchie, wie das
heutige China. Es giebt nur zwei reine Typen von Regierungsformen: Republik und
Monarchie, sowie auch die ganze Erscheinungswelt uns entweder als Einheit oder
Vielheit entgegentritt. Die übrigen Staatenbildungen stellen nur Zwischenformen
dar, von denen die einen sich mehr der republikanischen, die anderen mehr der
monarchischen Verfassung nähern. Die Azteken und die Inkas konnten nicht anders,
als eine Wahl zwischen den einzelnen, durch die Gesetze des socialen Wachsthums
vorgeschriebenen Regierungsformen wählen. Desgleichen hatten sich die öko-
nomischen und Rechtsverhältnisse in jenen beiden Reichen ihrem Wesen nach nach
denselben Normen gestaltet, wie solche auch die alte Welt früher gekannt hatte und

307
noch jetzt in verschiedenen Ländern verwirklicht. Die Azteken und Inkas ahmten
Niemandem nach, sondern gehorchten unausweichlichen Nothwendigkeiten des
socialen Geschehens. Einer solchen Nothwendigkeit folgen auch alle religiösen
Gemeinschaften, alle wirthschaftlichen Associationen, alle irgend welche
gemeinsamen Zwecke verfolgende Vereine, so unstätt und wandelbar auch die
Formen, die sie annehmen, sein mögen. Und solches geschieht aus dem Grunde,
weil sie entweder selbst im Keime begriffene Staaten darstellen oder Bruchtheile
von Staaten bilden, deren inneren Bau sie abgekürzt, mit allen wesentlichen
Factoren reproduciren*). Es steht dabei jedem Individuum, jeder Gemeinschaft,
sowie jeder Staatsgewalt frei zweckgemäss oder zweckwidrig zu wirken; aber sie
werden nicht den nothwendigen Folgen entgehen können, die ihre Handlungsweise
nach sich ziehen muss. Im ersten Falle wird das Individuum und die Gemeinschaft
in ihrer Entwickelung fortschreiten, höhere Culturstufen erreichen, im letzten Falle
wird ihre Bewegung nothwendig eine rückschreitende sein, verschiedene
pathologische Erscheinungen, Desorganisation, und schliesslich den Tod nach sich
ziehen.

*) S. meine Studie: Ya-t-il une loi de 1'evolution des formes politiques? in

dem Bd. II der Annales de l'Institut international de Sociologie .

Dieselbe unlösbare Verknüpfung zwischen Freiheit und Nothwendigkeit thut

sich auch im Ameisen- und Bienenstaat kund, nur ist in denselben ein sehr viel
engerer Spielraum der Freiheit, in Folge der niedrigen Entwickelungsstufe dieser
Staatenbildungen, angewiesen. Der Ameisenstaat ist eine Republik, der Bienenstaat
muss als eine Monarchie angesehen werden. Die Bienenkönigin wird gewählt und
zur Ausübung ihrer Functionen erzogen. Die Wahl kann auch eine unglückliche
sein, wie in jeder Wahlmonarchie. Ein Irrthum kann aber nur obwalten wo Freiheit,
sie mag auch noch so beschränkt sein, vorhanden ist. Das Thier kann sich auch als
Individuum, gleichwie der Mensch, in der Wahl seiner Nahrung, seines Wohnsitzes,
seines Weibchens, seiner Vertheidigungs- und Angriffsmittel irren. Es geniesst also
auch nach dieser Richtung einer gewissen Freiheit, obgleich ihr engere Grenzen
gezogen sind als dem Menschen, besonders aber dem Culturmenschen.
Aus dem Vorhergesagten folgt nun, dass die Unterscheidung der
Thätigkeitsäusserungen des Individuums und des socialen Organismus in zwei
Kategorieen, von denen die eine durch nothwendige Naturgesetze und die andere
durch den freien Willen des Menschen bestimmt werden, jeden realen Inhalts
entbehrt; es ist eine nur auf Wortbestimmungen begründete Classification, die da-
durch auch nur zu Wortstreitigkeiten Veranlassung geben kann. Der contrat social
war eine historische Hypothese, wie das goldene Zeitalter und andere Utopieen. Auf
solchen Hypothesen darf eine positive Wissenschaft ihre Forschungen nicht
begründen. 
Zu den auf inhaltsleere Wortbestimmungen zurückzuführenden Classificationen
der socialen Erscheinungen müssen überhaupt alle diejenigen zugezählt werden, die
nicht den in der Biologie bereits festgestellten Kategorien entsprechen. Ein solches
Verfahren führt stets zur Lostrennung der Sociologie von ihrer natürlichen Basis,
der Biologie und der positiven Psychologie. Alle socialen Energieen müssen, bei
Anwendung der organischen Methode, in ihrer Bedeutung als Potenzen der
biologischen Energieen, erforscht werden; sie einer anderen Classification als dieser
zu unterziehen, könnte nur Verwirrung bei der Durchführung von Analogieen

308
zwischen dem socialen und organischen Geschehen nach sich ziehen. Wir haben
unserseits die soeialen Erscheinungen und Bethätigungen unter drei Kategorieen
zusammengefasst: die ökonomischen, juridischen und hierarchisch-politischen.
Diese Kategorieen entsprechen einerseits der Eintheilung der Biologie in
Physiologie, Morphologie und Tektologie (Anthropologie, Zoologie, Botanik),
andererseits den jetzt bereits bestehenden speciellen Disciplinen, welche die Gesell-
schaft zu ihrem Gegenstande haben: Nationalökonomie, Rechtswissenschaft, Politik
(Staatswissenschaft im engeren Sinne). Vermittelst dieser Classification knüpft die
Sociologie eine jede dieser Disciplinen an die entsprechende biologische
Erscheinungssphäre und weist sie auf den natürlichen Boden hin, dem sie erwachsen
ist. Der jetzt auf sociologischem Gebiete herrschende Wirrwarr wird nur dann ein
Ende nehmen, wenn die behufs Erforschung des soeialen Geschehens
vorgeschlagenen Classificationen biogenetisch begründet sein werden. Im
entgegengesetzten Falle werden sie nur zu endlosen Wortstreitigkeiten führen,
wie solche auch jede nur auf inhaltsleeren Wortbestimmungen begründete
Terminologie nach sich zieht. 

Auch die neu aufgetauchte Lehre vom geschichtlichen Materialismus

kann Veranlassung zu vielfachen Wortstreitigkeiten geben.  Der sociale
Energiewechsel wird stets, wie wir solches bereits bewiesen haben, von
mechanischen und chemischen Auslösungen und Neubildungen materieller
Bestandtheile sowohl im individuellen als auch im socialen Nervensystem
begleitet. Es kann daher von einer Oekonomie des socialen Nervensystems
in demselben Sinne die Rede sein, wie von einer Physiologie des
individuellen Nervensystems und speciell des menschlichen Gehirns. Die
Anhänger des geschichtlichen Materialismus fassen aber die Oekonomie des
socialen Geschehens nicht in einem so umfassenden Sinne auf, denn sonst
würde ihre Lehre mit der der Organiker zusammenfallen. Unter socialer
Oekonomie verstehen die Geschichtsmaterialisten das wirthschaftliche
Leben im engeren Sinne, nämlich die Aneignung, Production, Vertheilung
und Consumtion von Gütern, die vorzugsweise dazu bestimmt sind, den
physischen Bedürfnissen Befriedigung zu gewähren und unter dem
allgemeinen Begriffe von Nährstoffen und Schutzvorrichtungen
zusammengefasst werden. Nun können aber Nahrungsstoffe und
Schutzvorrichtungen im socialen, wie auch im individuellen Organismus
nicht unmittelbar Reflexe produciren, sondern müssen, nachdem sie vom
Individuum assimilirt worden sind und das Individuum sich denselben
angepasst hat, zuvor in psychische Energieen umgewandelt werden. Wie
weit aber der Weg von der Assimilirung der Nährstoffe bis zur Ausbildung
derjenigen Nervenorgane abliegt, die als die materiellen Träger der höheren
psychischen Energieen anzusehen sind, geht daraus hervor, dass diese
Organe, dem socialembryologischen Gesetze gemäss, im Individuum nur
nach Recapitulirung der ganzen vorhergehenden psychischen
Entwickelungsgeschichte seiner Vorfahren zur vollen Reife gelangen. Die
tieferen Motive des Fühlens, Denkens und Wollens eines jeden Individuums
liegen also in ungeheurer Ferne von dem, was er isst oder was seine
Vorfahren gegessen haben. Jene höheren Nervenorgane sind ein Resultat des
socialen Lebens, ein Product der Reflexwirkung des socialen Nervensystems.
Sprache und Kunst, die ihrem Wesen nach auch nichts Anderes, als ein
veranschaulichtes Sprechen ist, bilden die Mittel, durch welche der Energiewechsel

309
im socialen Nervensystem vor sich geht. Dieses lebt und wirkt, entwickelt und
differencirt sich nur in Folge ununterbrochener Auslösungen und neuer
Aufspeicherungen von Energiepotencialen seitens der Individuen und letztere
werden ihrerseits wiederum durch die im socialen Nervensystem vor sich gebenden
Reflexe zur Thätigkeit angeregt. Als das Hauptmittel, durch welches auf dem Wege
der Reflexe das Zusammenfühlen, -denken und -wollen der Menschen bewirkt wird,
ist, wie gesagt, die Sprache. Daher glauben wir berechtigt gewesen zu sein, die
Thesis aufzustellen: der Mensch ist als Culturwesen zu dem geworden, was im
Verlaufe der Geschichte der Menschheit gesprochen worden ist. Die menschliche
Cultur in ihrer Gesammtheit kann daher ebenso wenig als Resultat des
wirthschaftlichen Geschehens wie die höheren Anlagen des Individuums als
unmittelbares Product der Nahrungsstoffe anerkannt werden. Man müsste gerade
das Gegentheil behaupten, nämlich dass das wirthschaftliche Leben, zum wenigsten
was Form und Culturstufe anbetrifft, durch die individuellen und socialen
Energiepotencialen bestimmt wird. So lange Australien nur von Australnegern
bewohnt war, erhob sich das wirthschaftliche Leben dort nicht über das Niveau des
Urmenschen. Es erreichte die jetzige Culturstufe nur in Folge der psychischen
Energieen über die die europäischen Ansiedler verfügten. Und auf demselben Wege
ist die Cultur zu allen Zeiten vorgeschritten*). 

*) Hr. L. Stein stellt wiederholentlich, in seiner Kritik der organischen

Methode, der mechanischen und chemischen Nothwendigkeiten unmittelbar die
ethischen Imperative entgegen, die als Norm für das sociale Geschehen dienen
sollen. Zwischen diesen Normen und jenen Nothwendigkeiten, welche die
anorganische Natur beherrschen, liegt aber das grossartige Gebiet der biolo-
gischen Nothwendigkeiten und um diese handelt es sich gerade in der positiven
Sociologie. Letztere ist weit davon entfernt, das ganze sociale Geschehen
mechanisch oder chemisch erklären zu wollen, da sogar die einfacheren Lebens-
processe in der Natur nicht auf die ausschliessliche Wirkung mechanischer und
chemischer Kräfte zurückgeführt werden können. Nun sagt der Hr. Verfasser:
„Da die kirchlichen Imperative immer mehr zu verblassen die Tendenz zeigen
und auch die staatlichen ihre frühere Consistenz bedenklich eingebüsst haben,
so muss die Sociologie ihr Absehen darauf richten, eine Normwissenschaft zu
werden, d. h. teleologisch motivirte Imperative zu formen" (S. 33). Die socialen
Imperative fasst der Hr. L. Stein in seinem Werke: Die sociale Frage im Lichte
der Philosophie (S. 705) schliesslich in der Formel zusammen. „Handle so, dass
du in jeder deiner Handlungen nicht blos dein eigenes sondern zugleich das
Leben deiner Mitmenschen bejahst, insbesondere aber das der künftigen
Geschlechter sicherst und hebst." Ob diese allgemeine Formel die Zehn Gebote
und die Bergpredigt ersetzen könne, ist sehr fraglich. Aber es handelt sich hier
zuvörderst um die Frage: gehört es zur Aufgabe der Sociologie, solche Normen
zu bestimmen und sich an die Stelle der Religionslehre und der Moral zu
setzen? - Die Folge davon wäre, dass die Sociologie sich den Charakter einer
religiösen und moralischen Wissenschaft anlegen würde. Es giebt nun wohl
eine Wissenschaft der Religionen, eine wissenschaftliche Ethik, aber eine
religiöse oder moralische Wissenschaft wären Undinge. Die Benennung selbst
schliesst bereits einen inneren Widerspruch in sich. Wenn der tieferblickende
Organiker schliesslich zu denselben Imperativen, wie solche in den Zehn
Geboten, in der Bergpredigt, ja, in der Formel des Hrn. L. Stein enthalten sind,
gelangt, so geschieht solches auf dem Wege der Forschung biologischer

310
Nothwendigkeiten und nicht in der Ausübung eines Apostelamts oder einer
Moralpredigt.
Was die Zwecknothwendigkeit, die der Hr. Verfasser als Ausgangspunkt
für die sociale Normwissenschaft anerkannt wissen will, betrifft, so bemerken
wir unserseits, dass nicht blos die menschlichen Gesellschaften, sondern auch
die ganze Organismenwelt bestimmte Zwecke verfolgt. Woher sollte bei
solcher Bewandtniss die Biologie, gleich der Sociologie, nicht auch eine
Normwissenschaft werden? Dient sie doch nicht blos an und für sich, sondern
auch in ihrer Anwendung, als Kunst, bestimmten Zwecken (Hygiene, Therapie,
Psychiatrie, Land- und Forstwirthschaft, Geflügel- und Viehzucht, Garten- und
Obstbau etc.). Damit aber die Ausübung dieser Künste möglich sei, müssen
zuvörderst die biologischen Gesetze ergründet und festgestellt sein und das ist
Sache der Wissenschaft. Ganz ebenso giebt es eine Socialkunstlehre (Finanz-
und Staatswirthschaftslehre, Jurisprudenz, Diplomatie, Kriegskunde etc.) und
da das Zweckmässigkeitsprincip im socialen Organismus, seiner höheren Natur
wegen, stärker hervortritt, so hat auch das sociale Können dem Müssen
gegenüber einen freieren Spielraum; aber es ist dennoch an biologische
Nothwendigkeiten gebunden und solches aus dem Grunde, weil die
menschliche Gesellschaft nicht blos eine ideale Organisation darstellt, sondern
ein realer Organismus ist. Da zum Wesen jeglicher Wissenschaft die Er-
forschung der nothwendigen Gesetzmässigkeit der Erscheinungen gehört, so ist
es gerade die Aufgabe der Sociologie, die biologischen Nothwendigkeiten des
socialen Geschehens zu ergründen und festzustellen. In dem Maasse als die
Sociologie die socialen Zwecke zum Gegenstande ihrer Forschungen erwählt,
verliert sie daher ihren rein wissenschaftlichen Charakter und verwandelt sich
in eine Staatskunstlehre. Als solche macht sie alsdann auch Ansprüche die
Moral und sogar die Religion zu ersetzen, wie solches mit St. Simon und Aug.
Comte der Fall war. Die Organiker ihrerseits erheben keine Ansprüche für
Staatskünstler zu gelten. Sie beschränken sich darauf, die Gesetzmässigkeit des
socialen Geschehens zu erforschen. Möge alsdann die Socialkunstlehre die
Ergebnisse ihrer Forschungen zu den ihr vorgezeichneten Zwecken verwenden.

Schliesslich wäre noch Folgendes hervorzuheben:

Die organische Methode in der Sociologie ist keine neue Erfindung. Der Stifter
der christlichen Religion hat sie in seinen herrlichen Gleichnissen bereits in
Anwendung gebracht. Indem Jesus sein sociales Ideal durch Beispiele aus der
Organismenwelt erläuterte, legte er den Grund zur positiven Sociologie. Würden
seine Gleichnisse nur Allegorieen und rhetorische Figuren darstellen, so hätte ihre
Wirkung keine so ergreifende und tiefgehende sein können. Jesus hat die
Erscheinungswelt nicht als schwärmerischer Bewunderer von Naturschönheiten
betrachtet, sondern als tiefblickender Erkenner der in allen Naturerscheinungen sich
kundthuenden weisen Gesetzmässigkeit und ihrer unlösbaren Verknüpfung mit dem
socialen Geschehen. Die christliche Theologie hat dieses ursprünglich intuitive
Erkennen weiter durchgeführt, indem sie die Kirche als den erweiterten Leib Christi,
als ein mit höheren Organen und Gaben begnadigtes Individuum, als einen durch
höher potencirte psychische Energieen belebten realen Organismus aufgefasst hat.
Wir haben in unserer „natürlichen Theologie" den Versuch gemacht, den
Parallelismus zwischen der christlichen Lehre und den Ergebnissen der positiven
Sociologie nach dieser Richtung hin zu beleuchten. Wir haben solches zu

311
unternehmen gewagt in der Ueberzeugung, dass die christliche Lehre nur dann in
ihrer vollen Bedeutung und Tiefe wird erfasst werden können, wenn sie auch auf
wissenschaftlichem Gebiete wird als Wahrheit anerkannt werden.

Den pädagogischen und erzieherischen Werth der organischen Methode haben

wir in unserer Socialen Pathologie*), sowie in unserer Graphischen Methode in der
Sociologie*) ausführlich hervorgehoben. Jeglicher, der durch Schule und Erziehung
zum klaren Bewusstsein gelangt, dass die menschliche Gesellschaft ein lebendiges
Individuum ist, wird die Pflichten, die ihn an die Gemeinschaft binden, tiefer,
wahrhafter und umfassender empfinden und ausüben, als derjenige, für den der Staat
mit seiner hierarchischen Organisation nur eine allegorische Figur darstellt ohne
innere reale Wesenseinheit. Jedermann, der das sociale Geschehen als einen verein-
heitlichten Lebensprocess auffasst, wird eine klarere Vorstellung vom socialen
Müssen, Sollen und Können erlangen, als derjenige, der sich nur um
fragmentarische Kenntnisse auf sociologischem Gebiete beworben hat oder nur zu
einseitigen Anschauungen, ökonomischen, juridischen oder politischen, gelangt ist.
Es kann auch nur derjenige Staatsmann schöpferisch wirken, der das ihm
anvertraute Gemeinwesen nicht als einen abstracten Begriff, sondern als einen
realen, durch gesetzmässig wirkende psychophysische Energieen belebten
Organismus behandelt.

*) S. 298 u. f.

*) Bd. III der Annales de l'Institut international de Sociologie, S. 86.

Wir haben eben angeführt, dass theologisch die christliche Kirche als
erweiterter Leib Christi und daher als ein von einer lebendigen Wesenseinheit
durchdrungener realer Organismus aufgefasst wird, daher denn auch die Glieder der
kräftiger zusammengefügten und einheitlicher constituirten Kirchengemeinschaften,
wie die katholische und griechische, sich ihrer Solidarität mit der Gesammtheit
fester und klarer bewusst sind, als die Glieder loser aufgebauter religiöser
Gemeinschaften und die Angehörigen eines Staates. Nicht blos der ideale Charakter
der christlichen Lehre, sondern auch der reale Aufbau der christlichen Kirchen, führt
zu diesem Ergebniss. Eine Idee erhält nur dann einen socialen Werth, wenn sie in's
Fleisch und Blut einer bestimmten Zahl von Individuen übergeht, wenn sie sich im
socialen Nervensystem incarnirt. Ein jedes Ideal muss sich in höheren individuellen
Energiepotentialen und in höheren Formen des socialen Lebens ausprägen, um als
ein sociales anerkannt zu werden. Auch jeder Staat verfolgt seinerseits ideale
Zwecke, aber er stellt zugleich einen Körper, ein System von mechanisch, chemisch,
physiologisch und psychophysisch wirkender Energieen dar, und die Erforschung
dieses Geschehens bildet gerade den Gegenstand der positiven Sociologie, wobei
die organische Methode ihr als sicherer Leitfaden auf den unendlich verschlungenen
Wegen des socialen Werdens dienen soll. Die positive Sociologie bezweckt also das
wissenschaftlich zu beweisen und den Geistern durch Schule und Lehre
einzuprägen, was die christliche Lehre bereits als Wahrheit anerkannt hat.
Die genialen Gesetzgeber und Volksführer aller Zeiten: Lykurgos, Solon,
Numa, Karl und Alfred, Peter und Friedrich die Grossen fühlten sich alle als
Energiecentren lebendiger Collectivwesen, die sie neu zu organisiren oder organisch
umzugestalten berufen waren. Sie waren also alle, dem Wesen ihrer Thätigkeit nach,

312
Organisatore. Wären sie nur Oekonomisten, Juristen oder Politiker gewesen, 'so
würden sie als einseitig wirkende Specialisten auf keine staatsmännische Genialität
Anspruch erheben dürfen. Hätten sie in ihrem Wirken nur die Gegenwart
berücksichtigt und nicht die ganze vorhergehende Evolution der Gesammtheit als
einer realen Individualität aufgefasst, sowie auch ihren zukünftigen organischen
Entwickelungsgang durchschaut, so hätten sie nichts Lebensfähiges geschaffen,
sondern nur flüchtige Begebenheiten oder ephemäre Umgestaltungen hervorgerufen.
Die Sociologie ruft die Wirklichkeit des socialen Geschehens in's klare
Bewusstsein, wie solche von jeher den hervorragendsten Geistern stets unbewusst
oder halbbewusst vorgeschwebt hat. Auch die Naturkunde kann nur das erforschen,
was die Erscheinungswelt ihr bietet und was als Object jeglichem Erkennen und
Wirken des Menschen stets gedient hat. Die jetzigen Organiker sind Organisa-
tionslehrer wie die leitenden Staatsmänner aller Zeiten praktische Organisatore
waren.
Eine positive Wissenschaft ohne Object ist ein Unding. Soll die Sociologie die
menschliche Gesellschaft als Gesammtheit erforschen, so muss sie vor Allem den
realen Charakter der Gesammtheit anerkennen. Der Sociologie ist mit Recht die
Würde einer selbstständigen Wissenschaft abgesprochen worden, so lange ihr das
eigentliche Object ihrer Forschung fehlte. Dank der organischen Methode ist
dieses Object, die reale Individualität des Menschenstaates, entdeckt worden
und in's Bewusstsein, wenn auch einer nur geringen Zahl von Forschern
getreten. Mit der Verläugnung dieses Objects verläugnet die Sociologie sich
selbst als selbstständige Wissenschaft. Es kann dann keine Sociologen,
sondern nur Anthropologen, Ethnographen, Oekonomisten, Rechtslehrer,
Culturhistoriker geben. Da aber unter diesen einige durchaus für Sociologen
gelten wollen, so sind in letzterer Zeit solche Zwitterwissenschaften
entstanden, wie Anthroposociologie, Ethnosociologie, Rechtssociologie,
Socialökonomik, Socialphilosophie der Geschichte etc. aufgetaucht. Damit
solche Zwischendisciplinen auf Existenzberechtigung Anspruch machen
dürften, ist jedoch vor Allem die Existenz einer Sociologie mit Anerkennung
ihres Objectes, des Menschenstaates, nothwendig. Jene halben Sociologen
erkennen aber dem Menschenstaate keine Individualität zu, sondern nur den
Personen, aus welchen er besteht, und allenfalls noch der menschlichen Gat-
tung. Sie vergessen aber dabei, dass auch eine jede Person nur ein
Collectivwesen ist, das aus Zellen besteht, die Zellen ihrerseits aus
Molekülen und diese aus Atomen, deren Existenz bis jetzt noch kein
Naturforscher hat constatiren können. Mit demselben Rechte wie die
Individualität des Staates könnte man daher auch die Individualität jeder
einzelnen Person, ja sogar jeder Zelle und jedes Moleküls negiren. Die
Verneinung der Individualität des Menschenstaates hat zur Folge, dass alles
sociale Geschehen nur als Begriffsbestimmung aufgefasst wird und dass die
sociologische Terminologie und die Classilicationen der socialen
Erscheinungen nur auf Begriffe zurückgeführt werden. Diese Begriffe
werden schliesslich als Realitäten anerkannt und erhalten die Bedeutung von
Idolen, die Bacon als diejenigen impedimenta bezeichnet, die den Weg zu
jeglicher objectiven Forschung versperren. Eine Polemik zwischen einem
Organiker und solchen subjectiven Sociologen ist ebenso fruchtlos, wie
zwischen einem Naturforscher und einem Metaphysiker. Erster steht auf
festem Boden und erforscht das Werden der Erscheinungen Schritt vor
Schritt vom einfacheren zum mannichfaltigeren vorgehend. Der subjective

313
Sociolog und der Metaphysiker schweben in einem luftleeren Raume auf den
Schwingen abstracter Begriffe. Solcher Schwingen bedarf wohl der Dichter und der
Künstler; der Forscher muss aber darum stets beflissen sein, den festen Boden unter
den Füssen nicht zu verlieren. Und für den Sociologen ist dieser feste Boden die
Naturkunde. Daher schliessen wir mit dem Satze, den wir bereits am Anfange dieser
Studie angeführt hatten: Sociologus nemo nisi biologus.

____________

314
 2005

A Supplement

315
 Part I

I finished this work on 31st of December 2004. In January 2005 I went on a

book buying spree. Today is 06/03/05. In the interval a stream of books has poured
through my door, some useless, some useful, some superb, and one an absolute gem.
The significance of some of these books is such that I am obliged to add a
supplement to this work to take account of the new insights I have been given by
these finds. Any Interest? was written as a result of obtaining a book called Social
Adaptation by Bristol, that included a direct response to the work of Kidd that we
have considered here. A response I cannot be bothered discussing since it is simply
vitriolic and illogical from beginning to end. But this work is like that of Coker in
reviewing a wide range of authors of the period and thereby being a good source of
names and ideas. In the last couple of weeks, since writing Any Interest?, I have also
received Outlines of Sociology by Ludwig Gumplowicz, American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 1899; first published in German in 1885, which features
in this short essay Any Interest?

Any Interest?

Are there any people interested in a realistic account of human existence?

Obviously there can only be one answer to this question as it carries the logic of the
slightly more direct question, Is anyone interested in a true account of existence?
My great passion is atheism, and, by implication therefore, science, since
science is the only alternative account of existence to that preached by theists. The
present state of science is such that we are in a stable state of ignorance in respect to
the establishment’s ability to account for human existence as we know it on this
planet. This is a remarkable thing given the advance in knowledge, it suggests that
there is something staggeringly unique about humans, so unique as to suggest humans
must be anomalous, simply incomprehensible. Given the astounding things we can
comprehend easily, this beggars belief.
What, a committed atheist is bound to ask, is going on? Lets see shall we.

It will require 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. The beliefs that were involved then were
only traditional beliefs regarding the Creation. These beliefs were never very
deep-seated, and a single generation was sufficient to bring about the
discarding of the old and the adoption of the new; but our fundamental notions
of right and wrong are very much older than the Biblical story of the Creation,
and very much more deep-seated. To have to give up, for example, a
cherished belief regarding democracy, or socialism, or individualism, or
culture, or gentlemanly conduct, or as to what constitutes virtue, in order to
square ourselves with the facts of the universe, will involve such a mental
struggle that very few can be expected to come through it very successfully in
a single generation. Nevertheless, the process is going on. They will rule the
world who are fitted to rule the world by virtue of their strength and

316
 efficiency, not by virtue of the assumed beauty or persuasive power of their
ideals. They who are unfitted will perish as certainly as did the dinosaur or the
mastodon, regardless of their apparent bigness or assumed attractiveness. It
will be well with any people which undergoes this mental revolution early,
and begins first to study how it may adjust itself, its moral practices, its social
ideals, to the hard conditions of universal law. To do so is to prove itself to be
the superior race or chosen people. To refuse to do so is to elect extermination
rather than survival, death rather than life.

(Social Adaptation: A Study in the Development of the Doctrine of

Adaptation as a Theory of Social Progress, Lucius Moody Bristol, Harvard,
1915, Preface, by T. N. Carver, Page xi – xii)

This is a rather remarkable paragraph, though you need to be able to read

between the lines to recognise this is so. He is actually telling us who the master race
is, and why they are master. And thus he is indicating that he already grasps the
fundamental arguments arising from biological evolution applied, without reservation,
to human society. He talks as if this were something to come, and it was, but only in
the sense of a continuation of what had gone before, a fact implicit in the very idea of
evolution, and it is this fact that you must see in order to comprehend the stupendous
importance of Carver’s words.

Commenting on the ideas of Ludwig Gumplowicz, who apparently presented a

ruthlessly scientific analysis of society, albeit an analysis I would say was flawed,
Bristol offers this last point of criticism;

4. He has failed to appreciate the dynamic of intelligence both in

individual and social amelioration.
Finally, while granting the necessity of religion for complete
adaptation,for most people,he seems to feel that the highest attitude toward
the Great Unknown is that of the atheistic free-thinker. Judged by the
pragmatic test this cannot be true. His fatalistic philosophy of despair, or of
stoical resignation,is not such as to inspire a group to heroic deeds or lead to
that kind of social endeavour which might prevent the decay and destruction
of the group that has attained wealth and culture. For this reason his social
philosophy can never become the philosophy of the dominant group. It stands
condemned as false before that judge which to him is the only judge,the
laws of life. Its normal outcome is the destruction of the group that accepts it
and applies its precepts.
Gumplowicz’s greatest contribution to our subject is just this,he has
carried passive social adaptation to its logical conclusion from the standpoint
of fatalistic determinism. If he had said the last word the task of the social
philosopher would be hard indeed because heartless. To rob people of the
illusions of hope and delusions of religious belief without providing a better
substitute may be in harmony with science, but surely not with pragmatic
philosophy.
(Bristol, Page 169 – 170)

Bristol is correct to say that the pragmatic test makes the idea that atheism is
the highest expression of belief invalid if science indicates that religion is integral to

317
the human species. But in order to recognise this Bristol must understand that
atheism is equally well the only intellectually true belief it is possible to have, and
therefore by the ideal test Gumplowicz is indeed correct to set atheism upon a
pedestal, exactly as I do. And we might note that it is by no means certain that theism
is essential to the human species, it is precisely this question that I am seeking to
investigate by quizzing people with the presentation of my ideas in association with
Lilienfeld’s work.
If you feel that we must tell ourselves a lie, and so keep God alive, then you
will be responding to, and at the same time affirming, the assertion Bristol makes
when he says that to follow Gumplowicz’s ideas is to court extinction; but, is it so? Is
the only possible way for a civilised society to exist by way of self deception? And if
so, why so? The answer to this last question, if we affirm the former to be true, is that
an elite group is always necessary to direct a civilised society, and the only basis upon
which a civilised society can be effective, that is, to be efficient, as Carver has it, is if
the slaves are all willing and give freely of themselves to all that the masters dictate.
Free slaves demand a mode of deception, by definition. Consequently the balance of
understanding pans out in this curious state of affairs where we all play the role of the
crowd admiring the King’s new suit of clothes woven from invisible thread, except
some, the daft kid for example, do not get it. They cannot grasp that to be free you
must be a willing slave, they cannot give themselves up to belief, they must have it as
it is, they must be true individuals. And so those who are too clever for their own
good are the losers, they are loose canons in society, anarchists, trouble makers.
Conversely, the willing slaves are the winners, the elite see to that as part of the
package of being the elite, the master race. And so the sheepthe meekinherit the
earth.
This reward for obedience and dedication to the master, coming from the
slave, provides the critical dynamic leading to the ubiquitous triadic structure of all
large scale human societies. Needless to say, if the tiny knot of masters who have all
authority over society are to reward the huge number of slaves, whom they rely upon
for their positions of power, then somewhere, somehow, someone has to pay the price
of this differential distribution of resources. Thus we get a social structure that forms
about an inner core surrounded by an inner ring, that in turn is circumscribed by a
further well defined outer zone. The gradual formalisation of this triadic structural
pattern has taken place as human society has evolved into an ever greater state of
unity, and has led to the evolution of a global organism defined by three distinct
representations of one core identity, thus we have Judaism, the core, Christianity the
inner circle, and Islam the outer zone, all together forming the basis of one organic
whole.
The last paragraph quoted above says all that needs to be said in defence of the
idea that science is entirely subservient to religion in our society, in any respect that
threatens the authority of the theocracy which rules our society. Why are academics
in universities concerning themselves with philosophy when what they are supposedly
dealing with is science? Bristol’s work was published under the auspices of the
economics department, while he was affiliated to the sociology department, two,
supposedly, scientific disciplines. It is not for philosophers to debate what is real, it is
for scientists to tell everyone what is real, and then, if others feel so inclined, for
amusement perhaps, philosophers may comment upon its implications. But no
philosopher can ever overrule a scientist, unless the scientist is a scientist in name
only, being a stooge of the establishment. Then the roles are reversed, and there will

318
be a call for a true philosopher to come forward who has struggled to discover the
wisdom so carefully suppressed by the State.
Bristol is being absurd. If the sole determinants of life are the laws of life,
which is self evidently true, as acknowledged by Gumplowicz, then the sole
determinants of life are the laws of life. Asserting that we may have hope of salvation
is all very well, and may indeed be pragmatic, but if it is then it will be so because
such delusion obeys the laws of life! The vortex of reality cannot be escaped by an
act of delusion, if such an act is serviceable then it is because the laws of life have
made it so. The question then is why delusion is vital to the human animal? Bristol is
admitting that this is so, but saying it cannot be allowed to be so! And the fact that
this state of denial has indeed been the history of our society since Bristol’s time
indicates that we live in an absolute theocracy, a society in which the scientific
establishment is nothing but the poodle of the theocracy. This dressing up of
theocratic ideology in a philosophical garb includes the sentimental defence of
compassion for the sake of the poor deluded individual who needs their delusion to
allow them to get on with the brutality of mindlessly serving their master with a
happy heart. But this ruse only works because humans evolved to function in this
way.

Lets take one more example of this kind of argument emanating from the
scientific establishment in defence of the suppression of scientific truth in the name of
theocratic integrity.

‘Just one thing more before I give way to Professor Julian Huxley. His
lecture is so packed with ideas and his reasoning so close that there is a point
which may escape your immediate notice. It is a point which makes a special
appeal to me, and which I dare hope will gain your acceptance. He holds that
we who wish to make reason the guide of life can no longer afford to be the
mere breakers of images; if our way of thinking is to make progress in the
world we must set up as well as cast down. Our lecturer, you will find,
realizes to the full that we have no more right to deprive men and women of
their religion than of their favourite drinks unless we can provide reasonable
and acceptable substitutes. We shall now listen to his constructive proposals
with unfeigned interest.’
(Science, Religion, and Human Nature, Julian Huxley, Watts & Co.,
1930, Prologue, Sir Arthur Keith, Page 12)

Keith is of great fascination to me because he is the only author of a truly

scientific account of race that I know of, albeit one that goes nowhere. Ethnos or the
Problem of Race Considered from a New Point of View, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner
& Co. Ltd., was published in 1931 and in the light of the above open declaration that
scientists such as himself had no right to do science that conflicted with the capacity
for religion to exist it is now understandable to me why his excellent and succinct
consideration of race from an anthropological point of view led nowhere. I also have
a book by a French anthropologist from the 1870’s that states that it is not the
province of the scientist to question the nature of religion, The Human Species, A. De
Quatrefages, C. Kegan Paul & Co., 1879. This kind of sentiment is found repeatedly,
though not always so blatant as the above, no opposing opinions are ever expressed.
Although it looks like Gumplowicz was inclined toward disregarding the sanctity of
religion; I have not yet obtained a copy of his work in order to appraise this sentiment.

319
 Immediately after the Second World War the theocracy’s new political
machinery established to take advantage of the gains made in the war set up a
propaganda wing UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organisation, that set about taking full advantage of the propaganda value provided
by Nazis propaganda. UNESCO’s inversion of Nazi sentiments made any attempt to
discuss scientific views covertly spoken of above near impossible. The Nazis did not
evolve for nothing, they were just as much a product of ‘the laws of life’ as anything
else on this planet, and just as functional and positive from a scientific point of view;
if not quite as congenial as other facets of the same phenomenon. The opening
manifesto of the victor’s propaganda organization stated that there was no such thing
as a master race, and they ordered the scientific community to produce evidence
proving that race was a figment of the imagination. Huxley tells us that “in the
preamble to its Constitution it expressly repudiates racialism and any belief in
superior or inferior “races,” nations, or ethnic groups.” (UNESCO Its Purpose and its
Philosophy, by Julian Huxley, 1946, page 7.) It is a pity that UNESCO did not think
to say there was no such thing as poverty, disease, crime or death, since clearly they
either have the power of God, and all they need do is say something is so, and it is so,
or they are full of it. We can see from this what difficulty any academic would have
in broaching any true scientific account of humanity and the reasons we get to a place
where a master race finds it advantageous to oblige people deny there is such a thing
as racial identity.
Here then we have a few academics, masquerading as scientists specialising in
human society and human nature, making it implicit that they know exactly what
human nature is, and can explain what place humans have in existence, in a matter of
fact way, but asserting that they have no business doing so for one reason or another
that basically comes down to the difficulties it poses for people. These people were of
course scientists, they were as close to being scientists as anyone gets. Yet they were
not real scientist, they had a social function which overruled any absolutely scientific
function, and this made them priests from the scientific fraternity; I choose, for
obvious reasons concerning the objective of freeing science from the responsibilities
of priestcraft, to dismiss their scientific status on these grounds. The fact is that
scientists themselves insist they are independent, that this has to be the case, and they
have no affiliation to political authorities of any kind, surreptitious or otherwise. For
this reason alone I am amply justified in taking the line I take, and, on the basis of the
proofs offered here, insisting that even by their own definitions such people as I cite
here are not true scientists irrespective of any considerations that contradict this claim.
What do people make of this, is there a general acceptance that it is wrong and
undesirable to explain the truth? Proving God does not exist is easy, explaining every
facet of human existence, answering any question any person could ever hope to think
to ask about any facet of human existence, of any kind, is easy-peasy. The gist of
these answers were worked out in the nineteenth century. This is why these early
twentieth century academics speak so freely in these terms, because they were
nurtured on this true knowledge and it fell to them to provide the arguments to
prevent the theocracy from being destroyed by this revelation of reality The above
quotes are a snippet reflecting this ideology of subversion emanating from the
establishment. So we do not allow science to reveal the simple truth. And this act of
suppression is supposedly done in our name, in the name of people; and, truth to tell,
as I have sort to try and combat this deliberate act of suppression in my own small
way, the response has confirmed the idea that people do indeed not want to know the
truth. We are happy that we have the atomic bomb. A global population that is more

320
of a threat than a host of such weapons. The new war on terror is so beautiful to us,
so many things please us about ourselves, as we live out our lives in our idyllic
utopia. What kind of depraved psychopath would even think, for one moment, of
rocking our divine cradle!!
I see the immense difficulties the truth poses for people, for some
people, hence my question, Is there anyone who is actually of the opinion that if we
can indeed destroy religion outright, and reduce humans to an entity indistinguishable
within the realms of life from any other life form, in any unique sense whatever, then
we should do it? Is anyone interested in a true account of existence? The answer has
to be yes, but is the answer yes?

____________

You can see from the above that I was excited to hear about Gumplowicz,
ever optimistic as I am. Upon obtaining the book I was at first thrilled to see that at
last we had a real spokesperson for the organic method translated from German into
English. The opening to the translator’s introduction is as follows.

Gumplowicz’s “Outlines of Sociology” is distinguished from all earlier

sociological works by the character of the sociological unit upon which it is
based, which is the group. The author limits himself to the study of the action
of groups on each other and the action of the group on the individual.
(Gumplowicz, Introduction by Frederick W. Moore, page 5)

Excellent. Then we have a summary of the books argument beginning with

four basic principles, the fourth one being very nice indeed.

Fourth.The author holds and defends the position that every political
organization, and hence every developing civilization, begins at the moment
when one group permanently subjects another. Subjection of some to others is
the source of political organization and political organization is the condition
essential to growth.
(Page 7)

Gumplowicz then proceeds to give us a summary of the subject so far, and he

lays into Lilienfeld with undisguised contempt. He absolutely loathes the idea that
anyone would ever presume to offer a scientific conception of society, and he
expressly affirms the Biblical idea that human law is distinct from all other laws of
the universe. Appalling. Now we know why this work was, unlike, the work it
attacks, translated into English. In discovering this we find further evidence of how
clever the scientific establishment is at folding in upon itself in layer upon layer upon
layer. Like the convoluted surface of the person’s brain, the social brain, the authority
structure, just folds over and over again to protect its inner core and elaborate its
identity. The brain in our skulls is presumed to have evolved its folds in order to
create a greater surface area, since the surface layer of the brain is the most highly
evolved cerebral element. The social structure is not folded as such, because it is not
a unitary organ, it is an exoskeletal structure. It evolves institutional structures
dealing with information, in the form of knowledge, that act as a series of physical

321
entities uniting with one another through the medium of the organic tissue ensconced
within the structures, thus preventing penetration by rogue elements not imbued with
the necessary identity programme. Lilienfeld considered the fabric of society to be
living tissue as I do, although he does not use the term exoskeleton, and the living
biomass he speaks of as the substance of the ‘social nervous system’. This reasoning
fits the manner in which we are inclined to describe the social dynamics of human
society. The structures themselves infuse the required identity into the organic tissue
as it ingratiates living units into its physical structure. This is how the scientific
establishment comes to be so thoroughly subverted by a wholly contradictory
theocratically oriented organic tissue, whereby we get scientists that are in reality
technicians who function socially as priests aiding the political masters who finance
the institutions to which they are attached.
These academic structures are the product of the dynamic Gumplowicz
identifies in his fourth principle quoted above, they are the structures of subjugation.
Our society is ruled by an authority that depends upon the control of knowledge. In
Gumplowicz we find an outright defender of religion mimicking the ideas of those
who would destroy theocracy incidentally, by virtue of their love of truthas is the
case with Lilienfeld, whom Gumplowicz mimics even as he attacks him. In
mimicking a threat to theocracy the impression of an atheist is taken on, but this is
subversive, and not a true impression. Gumplowicz we find is then vilified as an
atheist by an overt defender of theocracy, namely Bristol acting in his capacity as a
scientist. This convoluted method of knowledge control is essential because only by
this means can the theocracy be sure to prevent any real ideas that undermine their
authority from competing in the open arena where, given the chance, they would be
sure to prevail, simply because they are correct. Lilienfeld is the true threat, his
position is taken up by people like Gumplowicz, and the sociologist Lester Ward
would be another good example of the same kind, and even Spencer fits this category
despite coming to prominence before Lilienfeld as his career was long and he changed
tack along the way. It is clear from the translation of Lilienfeld’s Defence provided
here that there is nothing else remotely like this man’s ideas on view, and that his
ideas are consistent and impossible to contradict in many important particulars such as
the insistence that, as he says in Latin when closing, sociology is none existent when
there is no biology. We might just note here that what is unique about my own ideas
comes directly from the fact that first and foremost I am an atheist. I want to destroy
religion. It is this goal that causes me to drive my enquiries into those areas that
others stop short of, presumably simply because they do not have any impulse to take
this question up. Amazing as that seems to me.
This pattern of mimicry, courting vilification by a false display of affiliation to
controversial ideas, is seen echoing down to our own day. Darwin is the supreme
defender of religious faith, and we know how hated he is by the faithful. Today the
most despised enemy of religious faith of a like kind is Richard Dawkins. He is
relentlessly pursued by scientists dedicated to the defence of Biblical principles in
science, and there simply could not be anyone more precious to religion than
Dawkins, as we see when we read his work or listen to him speak. The game goes on
and on, the mechanism is relentless, and it relies upon the authority given to it by the
universities who support these pseudo authorities in the role of professor, and print
their corrupt science, and give them their authority.

Of Lilienfeld we can, on the whole, say no more than has been said of
Schaeffle. He has the same erudition and equally great intellectual power and

322
 inventiveness; and he displays the same degree of industry in exciting a plan
which is fundamentally wrong and in defending a cause which is lost from the
start.
The fundamental thought of his ponderous work is expressed in these
words:

“There is only one way to make human society the subject-

matter of a positive science. It must necessarily (?) be classed (!)
among organic beings and regarded as an organism as much above
man as man is above all other organisms in nature. On no other
condition is it possible to treat human society inductively and to
conceive of it as an inseparable part of nature. On no other condition
can dogmatic social science become positive. But on this condition it
obtains a basis as real as that of natural science.”

The reverse of all this is true. Social science can never “obtain a basis
as real as that of natural science” until the fantastic view that “society” is an
“organism” has been cleared away.
Lilienfeld’s query whether “social organisms do not obey the same
laws as other beings” must be emphatically answered in the negative. The
distinction between social organisms and organic beings is something more
than a simple “preponderance of the principle of adaptation in the former and
of the principle of causality in the latter.” They are distinct species of
phenomena and different laws control them. Laws of organic development
and laws of social development are toto genere unlike and ought not to be
confounded. When Lilienfeld further inquires whether “in relation to us, the
whole of mankind does not constitute an organic being uniting in itself all
social groups and related to them as the whole is to its parts,” we may be sure
that we are confronted with a wretched scientific blunder. After mankind has
been declared to be an “organic being,” what can be expected from any further
investigation?
(Gumplowicz, Pages 34-5)

The final sentence quoted here is the most telling, the one I am most delighted
to see. But unfortunately Gumplowicz asks this as a rhetorical question, meant to
damn any true science of society exactly as Bristol does more directly. Consequently
we do not get any elaboration of just what the problem is with making human society
subject to a ruthlessly detached scientific analysis, we are expected to see what the
problem is. And we do see it. The problem is that the recognition that society is a
living being is the proof that God does not exist. Recognising society is a
superorganism involves decoding the meaning of the word God, the effect of this
decoding is like a ceramic pellet flicked at a laminated car window. The effect is
silent, seemingly insignificant, but a moment later the window shatters into fragments
leaving the whole interior of the car open to invasion by a thief. Judaism is dead, the
whole domain of society that Jews make possible, that they evolved to exploit,
without which they cannot exist, is laid open to a new dispensation. Jews like
Gumplowicz are hardly likely to of favoured such an outcome, and, as we see, he did
not.
With the death of the nineteenth century enlightenment that is epitomised by
the words of Lilienfeld quoted by Gumplowicz, the death knell tolled for our hopes of

323
freedom from the misery of enslavement to Judaism. The Great War was the first
sounding of that death knell. It signalled the reaction of the theocracy against the
upsurge of freethought. Thanks to the likes of Jews like Gumplowicz, and a host of
their Christian dependants, the eradication of Judaism by the gradual flowering of
progressive ideas was thwarted. This tragedy led directly to the reassertion of
theocratic authority, realised in the act of world war which led to the creation of the
Nazis, and the final establishment of a state for the master identity to call its own, just
as the superorganism went global through the act of engendering world war. The
ingress of the plague of Islam into Europe, the darkest expression of the dark side of
human nature, is the substance of the new dark age. We see it in the war of global
terror launched by these Muslim slaves of Zionism. We see it in the appeal court
rulings defending the right of women to accept abuse, by allowing them to wear their
slave regalia even in school. We see it in the vindication of Sikh fascist action by
ministers of state, and the upsurge of Christian fundamentalism, as Christian groups
terrorise cancer charities and media managers alike, in order to impose their vile
identity code on those who resist, those who wish to be free. The slaves taste their
power. The Moslem slave being the most abject object of servility it is possible to
conceive of, even more debased than a Christian slave, truly a remarkable
accomplishment for Judaism. If we find the Nazis horrific, and we do, we should
express the same horror for the Jews, for without the Nazis the Jews could not exist.
It is the pustule of hate embodied in fascistic ideologies that makes religion the force
it is, when the need arises. With the ingress of Islam into Europe we have entered a
new dark age. Of course our masters who orchestrated this monstrous thing tell us
otherwise, as we see one of their priests, Gumplowicz, doing in the above when faced
with the simple logic of truth. Possession is nine tenths of the law, there is nothing
we can do about it but squeal, so lets squeal.

Understand what is being said here. Yes I am unleashing my vitriolic hatred

of these damned menaces to freedom, these damned theists. But this is my right after
sinking myself into the history of the subtle manner in which religion subverts
knowledge even as it feeds us its own pap version. We are like leaf-cutter ants
dragging their herbage back to the nest to feed the one uniform substance upon which
they in turn rely, their cultivated fungus. Judaism is our monotone fungus, we
consume it like a universal urine passed through the filter of theocratic structures.
There is no escape, no matter what we do. Call it religion, whatever the creed, call it
science, whatever the discipline or speciality, and it is all in uniform compliance to
the universal piddle of Judaism. This makes me mad. But, aside from my rightful
indignation, there is the simple scientific argument that I set out, and this calms me
down, for I see that all is just as nature made it, and that is what I like to comprehend.
Of course just because it delights me to know what the vectorial route of transmission
of the malaria parasite is, does not mean I want to experience the damn thing, quite
the reverse.

Human society is a living organism, its being is defined by an identity infused

within it, and throughout its substance. Our, now global organism, has as its
gravitational hub the Jewish identity. Hence all historical facts can be given a
biological interpretation which will always ultimately revolve about this identity hub.
This point of focus will persist through time, but its presence will only come to the
fore on momentous occasions when there is a critical organic phase in progress that
involves the overall structural organization of the superorganism. The large scale

324
events are therefore bound to feature Jews and Judaism in their dynamics. We must
recognise that in this general context Christians and Moslems are categories of Jews.
The extension of the core identity into two subidentities means that the central
significance of the Jew becomes obscured much of the time, and it is therefore only
when major upheavals occur in the organic structure of the superorganism that their
centrality comes to the fore. Although I wonder if this balance will begin to change
now that a primary objective of obtaining a territorial base has been accomplished,
will Judaism become more pervasive over the next couple of millennia as the whole
world comes under their direct administration and there is no longer any need for a
muscular authority to maintain Jewish power throughout the world?
At this particular point in time I am dealing with proximate events involving
core Jews, and relating them to the Jewish theocratic authority of identity, to which
we are all subject, from a biological point of view. The loss of a true science of
society, covertly subverted in the name of Judaism, and the consequent world wars
and so on, are most pertinent to us now, we are connected to these events, my parents
fought in the Second Jewish World War. The ceaseless warfare instituted by Jews is
of direct concern to me, it is what makes me a slave. For others it is not a problem,
because they have no idea who they are, their alien Jewish identities are implanted
harmoniously, and the eye cannot grieve over that which it does not see. It is
specifically the loss of true knowledge that defines us all as slaves, whether we know
it or not. A women married to a lovely man who is raping her daughter is an abused
women even though she does not know it. But in so far as those people exist that
openly espouse their slave identity, who promote Islam and Christianity, these people
are slaves to the core, and contemptible for it because of their affront to knowledge,
and their evincing peace and love, while exuding hate and greed whenever their will
is thwarted.
Our organism is thousands of years old and if we look back over the historical
record we can see how the Jewish role has evolved. Roman society thrived on the
internationalism of Judaism. This indicates how the organic dynamics involved in the
evolution of the primary slave identity of Judaismthat is Christianityclosely
followed by the severance of the umbilical link to Jerusalem, leaving the Jews
dispersed throughout the tissue of the organism they ruled, with their power newly
focused on Rome, the centre of the then global territory, is just as much about the
specific nature of the Jewish identity then, as it is about the nature of Jewish identity
in relation to the rise of the Nazis and global civilization now.
It is perfectly clear from the sketch of Judaism produced here, in relation to
the most dramatic events of our history, that a true science of society as envisaged by
Lilienfeld simply could not be tolerated. Gumplowicz’s question acknowledges as
much. Bagehot’s observations on the nature of collective identity recognises this
impasse. Bristol’s open condemnation of truth in science as idealistic and anti-
pragmatic, affirms this clash between religious identity and knowledge. Here we
make the specific link between knowledge and the actual religious identity that makes
the problem real, it is a matter of the master race surviving, it is this that induces the
establishment to suppress science in favour of religion. It is all about Judaism.
Bagehot’s suggestive remark revealing that he knew the real nature of our society
consisted of a reference to ‘our’ caring for the Jews; which he said he could elaborate
on, but would not do so.
How do the Jews rule our world?
Through their unique relationship to the law. In a paper entitled Was there a
Roman Charter for the Jews?, Tessa Rajak, Journal of Roman Studies 74, 1984, we

325
have a very nice phrase used to characterise the infrastructure of Roman authority that
was worked by the Jews. Speaking of the direct efforts of the Jewish elite to utilise
Roman structures of administration, and the success they met with, the author says ‘It
is all entirely in keeping with the normal stimulus-response pattern of Roman
administrative decision-making.’ (Page 118) Indicating that Jews were able to exploit
the Roman system of authority in their own name even before they converted the
Roman Empire into a Judophilic appendage, under the denomination of Christianity.
Rajak continues with a fascinating description of the dynamics binding the
Jews to the Romans, as the dependants of Roman authority. What is described is a
materially powerless group of people who require the defence of the most powerful
people. The same dynamic applies today, as it has always applied. But what does
this curious relationship mean? It has often been publicised as a struggle for survival
by the weak, and sometimes as the defence of the weak by the strong, as an act of
altruistic care, of sorts; interspersed with bouts of anti-Semitic reaction. And why this
epileptic reaction? The fact is that if a group of people, the only group able to
survive millennia, and to take a land when all others about them go on dying out and
losing their identity, their culture and their lands, can command a mighty force to
protect them, then it is this, seemingly powerless group, that is the master. It is the
benefactor of action, not the actor, that is the master. I may be one man, a millionaire,
able to activate a hundred artisans to build me a mansion, but I am the master, the
hundred are my slaves. This fact comes into its own once we recognise that human
nature is corporate, and the social being is a living organism imbued with an identity.
The identity is what counts, not the muscle it commands. Indeed it is only by way of
this insight that we can make sense of the history of the Jews and ourselves, in so far
as we see ourselves as distinct from them.
With this clear description of the lines of force linking the Jews and the
Romans together we can easily imagine the social features concerning identity and
form evolving to allow the emergence of a Romanophilic Jewish identity, specifically
adapted to the Roman infrastructure that the Jews had symbiotically immersed
themselves into in such a way that they were dependant upon it for their very survival.
Perhaps the Jews created the Romans, as the Romans appear to of created the
extension of the Jews by acting as an environment drawing the attributes of Jewish
identity out until Christianity came into being. Christianity, the Trojan Horse of
Judaism. Just as the atmosphere draws the bat out of mammalian potential, or the sea
draws the whale from the same source. Just as mammalian fauna itself drew out the
human from the original mammalian template in response to the established social
domain of mammals to make a mammalian superorganism. Darwinism teaches us to
see adaptation as a chance affair resulting from the reaction of the individual to the
environment. But the reality is that the environment is an information interface that
draws out the living form in a manner that equates to what we call purpose. The
environment exists, and life adapts to it.
By evolving a Jewish identity adapted to take full advantage of the Roman
superstate and its power, the latent potential of the Jewish ideological identity, in
contrast to the limited potential of a racial or territorial identity, could be released.
The inevitable conclusion we must draw from the special features of the Jew’s status
in Roman society is that the Jews were beneficial, in some symbiotic sense, to the
authority of the Romans. Jews we may say facilitated Roman authority, acting like a
universal social catalyst, the one unifying element in a multicultural panoply, and the
Jews valued the one thing that needed to be valued in this context, the delivery and
maintenance of authority through administrative measures. The Jews were a

326
surrogate extension of Roman power. They were the none reactive element of the
social flesh, the catalytic nerve cells, causing central authority to disperse throughout
the biomass by virtue of the mode of subsistence Jews exploited within the societies
they ingratiated themselves into while preserving their original identities and loyalty
to Jerusalem. This comes across clearly in the paper just referred to, quite apart from
its obviousness once we have recognised the true nature of Judaism as a facet of
superorganic physiology. The distribution of this universal catalyst of a highly
uniform nature aided the flow of information, especially in the form of legislative
regulation, and thus the flow and reach of authority. The Jewish catalyst was
dispersed right through the biomass, as it still is, reaching all parts. The Jews
evidently functioned as the nerve fibres of the organism, running through the tissue,
but not being of the tissue, they conducted business, but they did not go to war, in
general. Jews were insulated from the biomass of the societies in which they existed,
and, something Rajak puzzles over, the neighbours of the Jews invariably resented
them, so that it was the Roman authorities who insisted they be tolerated. The Jews
were coated with a sheath of identity keeping them separate for a purpose. It was the
facilitation of the feedback system, that was so necessary to the command structure,
that the Jews provided. This is why we see their special affinity to the typical
stimulus-response feature of the Roman administrative structure revealed in the traces
left of these early days of the organic being, that today we see in a vastly more
extended stage of development.
To sum up and clarify this most important point, what the above means is that
the Judophilic social environment of Rome, evolved into the even more intensely
Judophilic social environment of Christendom, in which we live today; although our
society looks as though it is beginning a transition into a Muslim state. Where the
actual society emerging from Romano Judaism, although not nominally Jewish, just
as Roman society was not nominally Jewish, even though Rome evidently existed to
serve Judaism, and not being contained by the same identity sheath as the original
Jews, was composed of a living biomass that had its own sub-Judaic identity,
complete in most essential details, but adjusted in various significant points, such as
the loss of the sheath of delineation which isolated Jews from others. The Christian
Jews being given instead an identity message of universality, evolved to spread and
disperse, as the Romans evidently had been, acting as a vehicle for the Jews to extend
their dominion beyond the limits to which Roman authority had taken them. The
same pattern was repeated with the evolution of the Islamic sub-Judaic identity
pattern, which again has specific attributes specifically suited to its tertiary position in
the impending global organism’s physiological framework.
The Romans became the Christians through the organic relationship of the
Jews to the social organ of authority which made the Jewish identity the medium of
the message, and therefore the master identity. The more we think about this the
more obvious it becomes that the Jews must have been the social force behind the rise
of the Romans. Where did the Romans come from? No one knows, appropriately. It
is like the Sumerians. Where did the Sumerians come from? No one knows. What is
it about these founders of civilisation that they emerge from nowhere and deliver a
unifying force for society of astounding power. The master status of the Jews in all of
this is however obvious really, since the Romans became extinct some fifteen hundred
years ago while the Jews have gone from strength to strength, and today they have
never had it so good. This is the true nature of our civilization’s history. This is why
Judaism survives, why Christianity came into existence, took over, and persists
despite all the wisdom that makes it an intellectual monstrosity. And this is why the

327
Moslems are here now. Now, the world is the Jew’s oyster. And they are feasting, as
ever; feasting on us. But we are them. It is all so confusing.
This then is the organic nature of Judaism laid bare. It is catalytic in nature.
Judaism delivers the power of transmission to the message of authority, it receives the
commands of God, and transmits the message by facilitating the uniform flow of
information through the multifarious organic constitution which is the physiological
structure of a human superorganism. But in doing this it is the Jew that is the master
identity, the master race giving the organism its purpose; no matter what UNESCO
say about there being no master races. This is why we went to war in Iraq, and this is
the only reason we went to war in Iraq. The physiology of the superorganism is real
in its own right, it is not an analogy of the individual body. There is no actual brain in
society existing, as most seem to suppose, in the integral structure of the state. There
is only the body that delivers the message, and therefore actuates all action, and in our
world that is the Jews. The Jews deliver the message we all move to.

We may just note that Outlines of Sociology was published in 1885, and only
translated into English in 1899, just one year after Lilienfeld published his Defence,
which, despite defending the ultimate exposition of the organic method, like his major
work that appeared in five volumes setting out this exposition, has never been
properly translated by a bilingual speaker. This is the Jewish theocracy at work,
managing its host, through the established structures that evolved to serve just this
purpose. And we can see how effective this method has been, ignorance has reigned
supreme. The Jewish domination of the world has gone from strength to strength, and
in this scientific world religion thrives while science is nowhere to be seen.
Yes, Gumplowicz’s unanswered question, Where to once you have said
humans are a superorganic species? does have the quality of an omen about it. It asks
what we can do, how we can continue existing if this idea informs us of our place in
existence. But while I could speculate on this subject, I do not want to increase the
bulk of this work, and the simple fact is that I believe in the truth as a reflection of
what is real, as being the best thing for humans. And we might just say that the
playing out of our destiny in the guise of our Jewish master identity since the Jews’
eradication of true science, has hardly been a joy to behold. And it looks like there is
worse to come, if possible, and even if there is not, the time will come when even the
Jewish model of destiny will run out of time of its own accord. Then what will be
left, and where is there left to go from there? Why wait until the fat lady sings before
we anticipate what we will do when the present performance ends? By then, in this
game of life, we may have no home to go to.

328
 Part II

A second part to this supplement is necessary to mention a couple of books

that have recently come into my possession, which simply have to be mentioned.
National Unity and Disunity: The Nation As a Bio-Social Organism, George Kingsley
Zipf, Principia Press, Inc., 1941, is superb. Flipping the book open I hit upon a
paragraph beginning thus:

American paranoid tendencies may be felt to have reached their

highest point in the last World War when the whole country, under an attack
of mass-hysteria, crusaded “to make the world safe for democracy,” with all
the delusions of grandeur, utopia, persecution, and self-righteousness that are
the stereotyped symptoms of this most vicious mental disease.
(Page 79)

Not actually relevant to the subject in hand but the phrase “to make the world
safe for democracy,” rings in our ears today as the idiot Bush blurts out his deranged
nonsense, I just could not resist showing that this piece of programming had been
used before. More to the point, the preface begins with a delightful statement of
intent.

Some time ago it occurred to the author that we might learn much
about our various social, economic and political problems if, instead of
viewing man as “God’s noblest creation,” we studied human group-behaviour
with the same ruthless objectivity with which a biologist might study the
organized activity of an ant hill, or of a bee-hive, or of a colony of termites. In
other words, if we viewed man as but just another case of social organization
in Nature’s balance, we might hope to discern something of the fundamental
drives that govern our behaviour, regardless of whether that behaviour
happened to strike us as particularly “noble” or “ignoble.”
(Page iii)

This is quite simply the finest statement of intent I have ever come across, it is
unique in my experience, and I cannot imagine how it could be improved upon, it is
perfect. In keeping with this perfection, for once, the whole book echoes a true
intention to challenge the fundamental barrier of authority that prevents us from
knowing the truth about ourselves; the author does not say this of his own effort. But
he does say this: 

Of course, in presenting this material, the author has not disguised

from himself a certain difficulty which merits very frank mention. It is one
thing to examine natural phenomena objectively and dispassionately without
any reference to our ethical or religious preconceptions. But it is quite another
to present set after set of quantitative data in which are included not only the
reader and the author, but also, in all probability, most of our friends and
relatives. For, after all, we are writing objectively about ourselves in our
capacity of being just another social animal in Nature’s balance.
(Page x)

329
 Again, superb. And he goes on to state that the problem with this, is that we
might not like what we find ourselves obliged to conclude from our investigations,
but, however this may be, the point is that if he is wrong, then he should be ignored,
and if he is right then the forces identified will most likely take effect whether we like
it or not. Then he goes on to say that if the book should find its way into the hands of
an abject bigot who has fixed opinions about what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’, then
this would be an ideal moment for that person to put the book aside.
I love this, it is brilliant. I could say no better on my own behalf, in a
responsible introduction to my own work. Unfortunately I have not sort to pamper to
the bigot, it is the bigot I seek to attack, so my unpublished work is not overrun with
phrases emitting a sense of responsible caution.
In line with the truly astounding uniqueness of this piece of scientific work,
primarily intended as an economic treatise, this book is the only one I have ever found
dealing with the true biological nature of humans that has had anything to say about
the obvious role of the Jews in this context. And once again what Zipf says is
remarkable. In the final chapter, chapter six, Cultural Drives, we have heading
number five “Psychological Nations” and Nationalistic Minorities, with a
subheading a) The Jews as a “psychological nation.”

With no provision for a social-economic elite, the Jewish nation was

apparently organized from very early times on the basis of the principle of the
maximum “good” for the given number. And this given number rigorously
included all Jews and excluded all non-Jews. In Chapter Five we discussed
the economy of this principle and noted its great advantages. If the author’s
interpretation of Jewish organization be correct, then the fundamental
principle of the Jewish national organization was one of high efficiency in a
social-economic sense.
But now let us watch this hypothetical principle function, after the
Jews had become dispersed. Wherever they migrated through the Middle
Ages, they clung together and worked under the principle of the greatest good
for their entire number. Implicit in this principle, of course, was the corollary
that non-Jews belonged under the heading of consumable goods to be used by
the Jews. It was hence inevitable that the application of this principle with its
corollary would eventually make of the Jews a social-economic elite.
(Page 366)

And Zipf notes the obvious fact that periodically, arising from this inevitable
success that was programmed into Jewish corporate identity, were bound to be bouts
of reaction induced in the farmed non-Jewish population. Reactions that we call
pogroms. To this day the Jews continue to farm us, although we know very little
about this because we do not have any means of distinguishing Jews as Jews, from
Jews as Christians. Which is one indication why a Judophilic Jewish subidentity
creates a so much more efficient organic physiology than a non-Jewish Judophilic
identity such as that of the Romans, as discussed in Part I. What we do know
however is that we are farmed ruthlessly, or we know this if we are not complete
idiots. As it is, our whole culture is infused with the religious propaganda of
individuality and individual choice, which tells us to believe we actually choose to
live and do what we do. Just the other day I actually heard some establishment dork
on television say that laughter is put into shows because people “want” to be told

330
when to laugh. I have to say I would kill a person with my bare hands if they said
something like this to me, face to face, if, that is, the laws governing the farming of
humans in our society were not there to punish me afterwards for such
undomesticated behaviour.
Putting Zipf together we Rajak, who we considered in Part I, we are able to
flesh out our ideas concerning the nature of the Jewish identity and its relation to the
physiology of the superorganism. Using Zipf’s ideas in conjunction with insights
gained from Rajak’s knowledge of Roman society, we can see that the Jews not only
served as a uniform medium, facilitating the communication of a pervasive sense of
the unspoken presence of alien authority through the biomass of the organism, but the
Jew’s insulation from the biomass, induced by their identity, also meant that they
served as a means of farming the populations that were subject to the remote organ of
power and authority that obliged these subdued populations to accommodate the Jews.
We have only discussed the Roman period, aside from our own, but the main
feature of Jewish history is the repeated rounds of relocation from one main focus of
power, such as Babylon or Egypt, to another. We must suspect that the Jews were
crucial to the ability of a major power to act as an imperial force over an extended
area composed of a series of distinct territories defined by the people resident within
them. These territorial mosaics composed of human superorganisms needed some
abstraction of the overarching force of authority imbued into them, which meant a
body of people with an overtly non-aligned identity was required to serve the
functions we have already discussed, of providing a uniform medium of delivery for
the authority of command, and also providing a means of drawing energy from the
biomass being governed from a distance by an alien authority. In short, Jews deliver
authority and extract energy; they are the nervous system. Once again we find
ourselves thinking in terms of a catalyst, not a uniform part of the organic being
directly involved in all activity, but nonetheless, an integral part, essential to the
operation of a remote alien authority acting as the primary hub of the superorganic
mosaic. In this image of superorganic being we might envisage the governed biomass
as the flesh, the intrusive might of the ruling force as the skeleton, and the infused
tissue of the Jews as the ever present unchanging medium of information constituting
the nerve tissue of the organism. I guess this smacks of nineteenth century analogical
method, which I do not approve of, but I will allow myself the use of this method of
expression just once because I think I have got the job about right on this occasion,
and I have been explicit enough about precisely what actual social structures I am
referring to as they occur in real life.
We have just recognised that the Jews are the nervous system of the extended
super massive superorganic entity, that emerges from the unification of diverse
cultural identities under one head. We have also recognised that in functional terms
the Jewish biomass has a somewhat catalytic role in the physiological dynamic of the
superorganism because the Jewish identity isolates the Jewish biomass giving it its
role subordinate to command. It is interesting to note in this context a remark
Lilienfeld makes toward the end of his monograph translated here, to the effect the
insights gained from applying the organic method to society might help biologists
understand the body. In other words we are saying that perhaps nervous tissues
evolved from catalytic biochemical agents existing in early cellular life forms. If so
then biochemical catalysts were the first sentient entities on this planet, entities that
sense and mediate rather than engage in operations, thereby constituting command
entities relative to a biomass within which they exist as isolated intrusions.

331
 The whole thrust of Rajak’s essay concerns the question of whether there was
a Roman charter for the Jews, or whether there was just some sort of unspoken
arrangement that persisted through time and occasionally found expression in periodic
rulings. It is continuously stated that local people resented the Jews and sort to
prevent the Jews from conducting their life according to their own ways. The
Romans however always intervened on the Jew’s behalf, if they had not done so then
the Jews would of been wiped out. The crucial point about this is a subtle one, the
Jews evidently stood as an emblem of Roman authority. Their imbedded presence, in
the form of a non-military body, gave them a special emblematic power that emitted
the message “go on touch us if you dare,” and in so doing subtly impressed upon the
people, without the ever present provocative, destabilizing and expensive threat of
military might, the fact that they were subject people. In this way people were
gradually domesticated over time, as generations grew up under the new dispensation
and lost any sense of their pre-conquest origins. So the point we are making here is
that this arrangement Rajak deals with had a certain subtlety about it that somehow
stood halfway between domination and some degree of autonomy. This is what
domestication is, domesticated sheep are free, within the farmer’s fields. The emblem
of Judaism said to the vanquished territories that they could have the freedom they
wanted to express their own identity, lost as it was, to all intents and purposes, in
being vanquished, but only if they showed obedience to the alien authority by
allowing non-imperial aliens into their midst, people who only want to have the same
right to practice their culture freely too. And this accounts for the highly pragmatic
tolerance of all religious forms that characterised Roman rule generally, something we
find mentioned so often by historians. So there is some very forceful, but highly
subtle, intertwining of social forms and forces going on in this arrangement between
the Jews and the Romans, and presumably all the other imperial forces the Jews have
been attached to down the ages.
This pattern of functional social arrangements evolved over time by generating
social structures and various associated identities to compliment these structures.
These social forms related to the practice of one superorganism taking command over
another; somewhat as Gumplowicz correctly identifies as the founding mechanism of
civilisation and growth, see Part I. In turn this social evolution, which is a physical
phenomenon, a biological phenomenon, was derived from the individual physiology
of humans which Gumplowicz specifically denies is the case. By which we mean the
physiology arising from the fact that human nature is corporate, and human individual
physiology evolved to form a living organism at the level of social organization,
capacity for language being the principle feature of human physiology enabling this
development; although of course by no means the only one.

Speaking of Herbert Spencer Gumplowicz says,

He is an individualist and endeavours to derive knowledge of social

events from the individual and his nature. If this were possible sociology must
be a higher order of biology, since we get our knowledge of the individual
through the latter. But we may state here that the social communities are the
sociological units or elements, and that it is not possible to ascertain their
mutual relations from the properties of their constituent parts, i.e., from the
properties of individuals. No one starting from the latter can reach the nature
of the group. Hence biological analogies are worthless in sociology except as
illustrations.

332
 (Outlines of Sociology, Page 28)

Never was anyone more wrong. One wonders on what grounds these
professors and self appointed experts presume to speak such errant rubbish. He says
of Lilienfeld ‘He seems to think that a metaphor can be made real by “conceiving” it
to be real.’ (Page 36) One wonders where Gumplowicz thought he got his own gifts
of divination from; certainly not from a consideration of the evidence of reality as
experienced and as revealed by confirmed investigations. As Lilienfeld says, no
sociology without biology. Which is only like saying, no forests without trees. Who
can argue with this logic?
Certainly, it is because we cannot say what the human animal is from the
study of any one person that we are able to say the individual is not the animal. It
takes a combination of individuals to make up the true form of the human animal.
But, certain universal features of human individuals, such as the power of speech, the
general lack of specific physical adaptation to a fixed physical environment, with its
concomitant lack of physical prowess in individual humans, relative to animals in
general, does indicate the true nature of the social group. These facts indicate that the
group is a superorganic being; and that individual anatomy is generalised as a specific
adaptation to the formation of a social body. Furthermore, some specialised traits of
human individuals, such as homosexuality, can only be explained by understanding
that humans are a superorganic species. Thus homosexuality, on its own, proves
conclusively that human nature is corporate, if it were not then homosexuals could not
exist as a permanent minor feature of all human groups.
On this subject of the origin of homosexuality there is actually a nice little
piece of reasoning to be found in Outlines, although the author was evidently
completely oblivious to the connection we find here.

Some social groups, like the ruling, subject and merchant classes, are
original, primary, ethical and hereditary. Others, like the priestly and
professional classes, are secondary and evolutionary and arise by
differentiation. Though we no longer see primary groups arising, it has not
been proven that no groups ever arose genetically; though we see only the
differentiation of secondary groups it cannot be asserted that all groups are of
that sort. Nevertheless all social groups of whatever origin are alike active as
social elements and those of the secondary sort tend by endogamy and
otherwise to strengthen their coherence.
(Page 13)

Homosexuality is clearly a genetically evolved behaviour that defines a

distinct social group, even though it is not an exclusively inherited behavioural
expression, this is so because the introduction of homosexual behaviour into society
means the tendency of humans to acquire behaviours will result in culturally acquired
homosexuality when suitable conditions prevail. Homosexuality has the primary
condition of reinforcement mentioned by Gumplowicz, namely endogamy, built into
it, since men bonding with men form a social clique amongst men of an order of
social introversion way beyond anything marriage kept within a clan or elite order
could ever hope to achieve. This is so as long as the practice of homosexuality gives
rise to a priestly caste; and in the case of the Spartans homosexuality gave rise to a
whole cultural way of existence founded upon homosexual elitism. Of course even if
Gumplowicz had had the clearest sense of this, he could not of voiced it in print under

333
any circumstances. I am not sure how I can expect to fair when doing so even today;
a tricky subject to be sure. But just because homosexuality evolved to serve the
function of creating differentiation oriented toward the evolution of a priestly elite this
does not mean we live in a society ruled by homosexuals today, our organism is far
more complex than such a simplistic conclusion suggests.
So, it was the dispersal of a mediator of power through the region of the
ancient world that made the rise of the Romans possible, that mediator being the Jews.
We have Gumplowicz’s fourth principle asserting, correctly, that it is the domination
versus subjection dynamic operating between distinct groups of people, that gives the
impetus to growth on a super-social scale, making what we call civilization possible.
By identifying the catalytic role of the Jews in this life process we begin to unravel
the feedback process operating between cultures composing a social ecology,
consisting of a human superorganic fauna; thereby revealing the feedback process
which is implicit in Gumplowicz’s proposition, as discussed here, that we have just
mentioned. Identifying this feedback process means we are enabled to recognise how
one cultured form induces the emergence of another new cultural form, as a direct
response to its own existenceindicating a creative feedback loop, and so generating
the growth process that Gumplowicz is referring to in his fourth principle.
Jew makes possible the rise of the Babylonians, Jew makes possible the rise of
the Egyptians, Jew makes possible the rise of the Romans, Jew makes possible the
rise of the Christians, Jew makes possible the rise of the Moslems, Jew makes
possible the rise of the British, Jew makes possible the rise of the Americans, Jew
makes possible the emergence of global civilization.
This linkage does not mean that all leading historical powers are a direct link
in this chain. The Greeks are a notable exclusion, also, there is the North African
civilization which the Romans exterminated after the raids of Hannibal, the elephant
man of the alps, and this civilization was Semitic, as the Jews are; I have a mental
block on this name I am afraid, sorry, I knew the Romans did a good job of
exterminating them but ....... Corinthians, was that it? So the linkage is, as we would
expect, selective, who the Jews associated with is purposeful, as it must be if the Jews
are going to be the eternal thread in this growth process. Dominant powers can arise
and appear to go it alone, and come to the fore. But the biological nature of human
societies, and the role Jews evolved to serve in their organic being, means that, in the
end, as long as Jews exist, only those cultures that are Judophilic will survive long
term. And it is this fact that eventually induced the emergence of sub-Judaic
identities in the form of Christianity and Islam that cannot help but accommodate the
Jews, for in fact there living being is as much Jewish as that of the Jews themselves.
Any differences being hierarchical. What we therefore end up with, is a Jewish
superorganism with a triadic physiological structure, akin to the structure we find in
all human superorganisms that we have any knowledge of. A superorganism appears
normally to be dominated by one cultural identity, with a triadic political structure
consisting of priests, military and masses. The Japanese were split into a triad of
distinct religious identities, Shinto, Confucianism and Buddhism, each of which came
to be associated with the political elements of a macro hierarchical structure.

The history of Japanese religions and morals shows in this way the
interaction of various forces which manifested their vitality more in
combination than opposition. A saying ascribed to Prince Shōtoku, the
founder of Japanese civilization, compares the three religions and moral
systems found in Japan to the root, the stem and branches, and the flowers and

334
 fruits of the tree. Shinto is the root embedded in the in the soil of the people’s
character and national traditions; Confucianism is seen in the stem and
branches of legal institutions, ethical codes, and educational systems;
Buddhism made the flowers of religious sentiment bloom and gave the fruits
of spiritual life. These three systems were moulded and combined by the
circumstances of the times and by the genius of the people into a composite
whole of the nation’s spiritual and moral life.
(History of Japanese Religion, Masaharu Anesaki, Page 9)

This was an efficient system of organic growth, but the Jewish system goes
one better because it actually consists of three forms of one religion, so distinguished
as to define a hierarchical triad. It is this remarkable, but entirely natural and organic
feature of Judaism, which has made Judaism the mediator of a global superorganism.

Having proceeded further into Zipf I have hit another excellent vein of
reasoning. In chapter three Towards the General Law of Social-Economic
Development we find a few comments that might appear vague, but with my attention
attuned to one particular wavelength I find them very nice indeed. He uses the
analogy of a broken chandelier to discuss the various states in which equilibrium
might be reached, and to illustrate that while we would only think of the state in
which the chandelier is hanging from the ceiling as the right state to be in, the
smashed state upon the floor is just as much a state of equilibrium even though the
owner would want to get an artisan to return the chandelier to the ceiling.

Perhaps the same applies to the hypothetical conditions of health,

disease and cure of a social-economic system which may be seeking a
condition of greater equilibrium as it takes a path through a field of assumed
opposing forces, among which the likes, dislikes and wealth of the
hypothetical “owners” together with the active capacities and needs of the
“artisans” have their places. We do not know what the terms, “owners” and
“artisans,” mean, nor indeed what actual correspondences there may be
between the chandelier and a social-economic system.
(Page 149)

Zipf may not know what the terms “owners” and “artisans” mean, but we mostly
certainly do know, they mean the master identity and the priests, the Jews and the host
of people delivering the message of conformity. And we know what the conditions of
equivalence are between the chandelier and society. Where a society falls out of
synchronicity with the master race then it needs to be brought back into line as we
have been discussing when Organicism threatened to destroy the Christian slave
implant so the priests (artisans) orchestrated two world wars and the infusion of
Moslems into Europe to get the chandelier (society) back where it belonged, attached
to the ceiling (Judaism).
He discusses the general conditions applying to the dynamics of a social-
economic system and indicates there needs to be a directive purpose determining
where a society is going in order to direct social forces in a manner that constitutes a
social-economic system. He even uses the Nazis as a possible example of a curative
response to a social ailment thereby indicating the same disregard for moral
judgement when trying to analyse the social organism. This is very good indeed.

335
 Moving a little further on we find more resonance with my own argument on
page 152 where he has a subheading On the value of tools in the solution of specific
problems in a given situation, in which he suggests we should “inquire into the nature
of a tool to see whether it has any inherent value”. His emphasis is so narrowly
focused upon economic conditions that he does not get far with this but given my
chapter Tools it is interesting to see this thought emerging in such a book as National
Unity and Disunity. He does however try to extend the idea of a tool beyond the
normal one of an artificial aid to human work, so that we find all cultural goods are
“tools of any conceivable sort (material, intellectual, or “spiritual”)” (Page 154).
On page 165 we have another interesting subheading Political parties take
part in ethical and aesthetic evaluation. Tradition, polarization, and cultural lag, in
which he tackles the subject of shifting energies within the economic framework in
relation to the different interest groups of which a society is composed. In doing this
he approaches my argument on energy gradients and associates identity with these
energy distributions, in effect making it implicit that there are identity gradients
defining interest groups. It is from this line of reasoning that we are able to account
for the evolution of religious ideas and relate their form to social dynamics of a
material kind, something which we find historians and economists puzzling over
fruitlessly when the subject arises. The Lever of Riches by Joel Mokyr, referred to
within the main work, has something to say on this matter on page one hundred and
seventy, but we cannot look at this here.

Nevertheless if we summarily say that those most favourably affected

by a restriation constitute the positive pole of the restriation, while those most
unfavourably affected constitute the negative pole, then we may suspect that a
social-economic system is bi-polarized during a period of restriation. Should
we find that a given system is constantly being restriated, then we should have
to conclude that it is constantly bi-polarized.
(Zipf, Page 166)

This idea of polarity only needs to be extended to the idea of society as a

charged field made up of a host of polarities due to the distribution of its material
fabric, that is in a constant state of transformation at some level, and we have my
argument concerning the shifts of populations and goods along energy gradients and
the emergence of leading identity formulas in the shape of elite priesthoods who
manage social integrity via the medium of religious identity which is rooted in the
control of knowledge and language itself. Zipf was good, or as good as it gets before
my time. What this indicates is the soundness of my reasoning from a scientific
perspective, for it shows that if you do try to take a dispassionate look at human
society as a biological entity you are bound to be driven toward one logical set of
conclusions based upon an energy dynamic model.

The further you venture into this book the more amazing it gets, it is orgasmic,
never mind organismic. Chapter four is entitled The International Organization of
World-Terrain and in it Zipf proceeds to discuss the manner in which territories form
according to economic factors. There is subtitle 10. The “Balance of Power” and
World-Balance, page 223, where we have : 

336
 Now we shall ask whether it would be possible for human society to be
organized into one single world-wide homogenous social-economic system
without breaking into subsidiary national social-economic systems.

He then proceeds to reason thus ....

let us now build an imaginary world-wide superstate and see what

happens to it. First (a) we shall take world conditions as they are today with
all their racial, cultural, linguistic and religious heterogeneity, and we shall let
an imaginary city, say, Gulliver, try to keep all in "balanced" position with no
means sacred to this end. That done, we may note that the world may
conceivably be in somewhat of a turmoil. To decrease this turmoil, we shall
make the problem easier for Gulliver by removing all racial, cultural,
linguistic and religious heterogeneity. [Islam] That is, (b), we shall kill off all
but the most perfect Lilliputian protestants of excellent school and university
background so that the earth's surface may become populated exclusively with
their own homogeneous and accomplished progeny; and we shall see how
their progeny in time will break apart quite naturally again into national units
with the familiar cry, as it were, of "give me liberty or give me death."

So in Gulliver we have an effective priesthood aiming to be the chosen people ruling

the world. The act of homogenising the global population is realised in reality
through the medium of Islam, hence my insert. Because of natural economic
dynamics that tend toward fragmentation the dominant position in world economics
cannot remain geographically fixed, yet this priesthood wants to be forever dominant.
To illustrate the conflict of interest here Zipf sets out to indicate how this priesthood
might use all Machiavellian means to retain its supremacy fixed in one location, he
uses New York and sets the tale in America. The use of Gulliver is no accident for it
is clear that while he disguises the true identity of the priesthood he has someone very
definite in mind. It could be the Jews in America, I just do not know. Swift of course
wrote Gulliver’s Travels as a means of saying things about his society that could not
be said directly. I wish I had the imagination of such authors so I could do a similar
job; as no doubt others might too. In the introduction to Zipf’s Psycho-Biology,
reprinted in 1965, we get a few biographical details on Zipf. He was born in America
in 1902 and spent a year studying in Germany in the 1920’s, and went on teach
German. In the work we are concerned with here he often uses the Treaty of
Versailles as an example of a terrible wrong done to a people, so he seems to have
deep sympathies with the Germans of his day. Here we are two years into the second
world war and he may well be trying to say the unsayable and be pointing the finger
of responsibility at an international Jewish conspiracy that operates by exploiting the
natural dynamics of the human social organism. In the biographical note just referred
to National Unity and Disunity is described simply as a book about ‘the study of the
sizes of cities and the movements of population.’ (Page x) Which is a bit like saying
that Gulliver’s Travels was a tour guide of hitherto little known places of interest.
Still, as we are attuned to Zipf’s organicist argument we see immediately the
excellence of his line of reasoning as he provides us with a fine account of how a
cultural identity such as Judaism must take the form it does in seeking to become the
ruling authority of the human species. In this description we see why, since it is clear
that a fixed territory cannot remain forever in universal command, the Jews had to
become a Diaspora, and from that same logic why the Jews had to be associated with

337
a transitional mode of leading ‘global’ authorities, from the time of their release from
territorial anchorage to the present. And hence the appearance of the Gulliverphiles
that Zipf describes in the America of his day, the new elite slave-priests of Judaism.
To be the chosen people a culture is required that instigates a free roaming knot of the
human biomass able to subsist within suitably cultivated cultural mediums that remain
anchored to territorial locations; as we have just discussed above in relation to the
Roman context. This fact is perfectly obvious, but in Zipf we have a brilliant attempt
to describe the dynamics of the relevant biological forces in scientific terms that
would be forbidden in his day, and are still outlawed today.
Zipf was a Harvard academic and it seems amazing to me that his work could
of been simply taken at face value as statistical research, with the undercurrent of his
organicist reasoning not being uppermost in the thoughts of those who read his work.
After all he does give the subtitle to National Unity and Disunity as The Nation As a
Bio-Social Organism. What more do you want! This overt declaration of intent is
there just the same in his Psycho-Biology of Language and the man providing the
introduction says himself that the uncompromising application of scientific logic to
language will not be to all tastes. Still, there you go. I love it.
On page 234 of Unity and Disunity we get a description of the mechanism
inducing a reaction against Gulliverians which is a vindication of Anti-Semitism and
pogroms in general, if we take it that Gulliver is synonymous with Judaism. So, it
appears, we are not just dealing with Jews in America but also Jews in Germany in
these scantly clad satirical sections of Zipf’s argument.

Yet even then they must beware a reaction which can appear overnight,
once they are recognized for what they are. For with them, as with any other
deleterious force impinging upon a social-economic system, the system
affected can become organized to repel or neutralize their influence. Hence
overnight they may become pariahs (see subsequent chapters) who may be
hunted down in the most viciously vengeful fashion. All the former symbols
of membership in the exotophile elite may in this event become symbols of the
pariah. We all know in general, for example, that on one day the callous
hands of the manual laborer can suffice to mark him as a pariah; yet a month
later, with a revolution intervening, there may again be a show-of-hands with
all those led off to execution whose hands are not callous. And it might be
similar with our Gulliverians whose cultivated Gulliverian ways of acting and
thinking might mark them suddenly as enemies. Moreover the fellow
travellers of the Gulliverians might suffer with them. For all propaganda of
any sort in a social-economic system would seem to be potentially an
impingement upon that system; it can organize that system to neutralize the
effect of the propaganda if not to expel the propagandists as alien and
deleterious forces.
(Pages 233-4)

________________

And so to the book I had in mind when I spoke of a real gem. Metaman: The
Merging of Humans and Machines into a Global Superorganism, Gregory Stock,

338
Simon & Schuster, 1993. Wow! What a title! Full of promise, and the beauty is that
this book does not disappoint.
Stock has not the faintest idea what the nature of his subject is, in so far as he
does not grasp the evolutionary point of his idea, namely that, if humans have evolved
into a global superorganism then they have always been a superorganism, no other
conclusion is commensurate with his proposition. It is from this work that I finally
deduce, without reservation, that the driving force of overt atheism is a necessary
precondition to recognising the true nature of the argument here. You have to see
religion as something terrible, as an absolute obstacle to intellectual progress that
simply must be erased from existence if there is ever to be any real science of
existence. Only from this starting point can you make a comprehensive and plausible
account of the kind Stock attempts here, or indeed that Zipf attempted.
I have to admit that I invariably only glance at books before deciding what
they are all about. With most books this is all it takes because I have a very clear idea
of what I am looking for, and I have never found it, so I instantly recognise the
familiar signs of its absence. I loved the general expression of enthusiasm for the
superorganic idea, and immediately identified the critical failing of the author in
respect to a true grasp of this idea. But I did hit upon some fundamental remarks
which are more akin to an alignment with the usual theocratic authorities, which
explains how this book got through the system despite, on first appearances, seeming
to favour a true analysis of human nature.
In chapter one Planetary Superorganism: Glimpses of a Promising Future, we
have a subtitle, Crossing the Threshold, under which Stock affirms his
uncompromising commitment to Jewish mythology, assuring us that in no way does
he seek to undermine the theocracy, or intend to deliver a true analysis of human
society. It has always been evident to me that the idea I am promoting is ideal for a
global theocracy, as long as the theocracy itself is not undermined, evidently this
result is what we see in prospect in Stock’s work. Firstly he does the one thing that
all scientists must do if they are to affirm they are true enemies of science, true priests
of the theocracy, he affirms human individual status. Yet he uses an illustration that
completely invalidates the point he is trying to make!

To be part of a superorganism might at first seem incompatible with

human individuality and personal freedom. But consider the red blood cells in
the human body. In no other place could these cells more successfully bind
and release oxygen than suspended in the blood stream, nourished by other
organs, and defended by other cells. Beyond any doubt, red blood cells are in
an ideal place to do what they do best and thereby fulfil the natural potential of
their individual lives. Their service to the body is an expression of their very
nature, not an imposed burden. And they are amply repaid, because a healthy
body, by its very nature, provides for their well being.
(Page 28)

Give me a break! This is what you have to do to survive while trying to study
reality in a theocracy, talk crap. The above reminds me of the argument that Islam
makes people happy. I agree, for the sake of argument, belief in Islam is one of the
greatest sources of happiness imaginable. So bloody what? Given that it is a load of
rubbish, an ideology sustained only by the most asphyxiating suppression of the truth,
does the fact that people love it, mean they are not slaves? Of course it does not. The
only way a human individual can be free is if they have free access to all knowledge

339
that it is possible for humans to possess. That is my definition of freedom. Freedom
to know; a freedom the Ancient Greeks did not know, and a freedom we have, no
more than they had. The fact that we believe we have this freedom, the fact that we
do not know we do not have this freedom, does not mean we are free. Ignorance that
is imposed by authority is not freedom. The fact that this state of ignorance is a
product of the theocracy subverting science and suppressing truth means we live in a
state that is the opposite of freedom. Our ignorance of the imposition just means that
while we are slaves, we do not know we are slaves. Yes, as long as you are oblivious
then this is good enough. But what kind of moron do you have to be to be oblivious
of the oppression inflicted upon us by the Jews! It beggars belief that an animal can
be so organized as to be able to feed itself, and yet still be this stupid. Humans must
be the least rational life form in the universe, any less rationality than Stock displays
in the quote above simply could not exist.
If society’s academic institutions taught that the earth goes about the sun, but
the political institutions that provided all means of existence in society claimed that
the sun went about the earth, and people chose to believe that the sun went about the
earth because this meant they could eat, then that would mean that they freely chose
to believe an idea that made them happy, and to reject the idea that they knew was
true, but believed was false. If the political establishment was called Islam then to be
a Muslim would make you happy, and you would not be a slave because you would
freely choose to be a Muslim, otherwise you would freely choose to starve. So you
would be a slave, except not so much of a slave as a real Muslim, because you would
know you only believed because you had to. Whereas all real Muslims are devout, so
they no more know they are slaves than the red blood cell knows it is a component of
a greater organic being. So, from this, it seems that what amounts to freedom for
Stock, is a state of perfect harmony between the physiological needs of an individual,
and their provision, awareness has no bearing on the matter. This is the exact
opposite of what I mean by freedom. What we have displayed here is the contrast
between the normal state in which all forms exist, including inanimate forms, that is a
state of pragmatic freedom, and the conceptual state of ideal freedom, which can
never exist under any circumstances. For example, the earth’s location at the centre
of universe is a conceptual state of freedom. While the earth’s true place, fixed in
orbit about the sun, is a state of pragmatic freedom. In other words what we see
displayed here is the use of words to fabricate a false image of reality, for the word
freedom used in all these various contexts is ludicrous.
Stock goes on in a similar vein and evokes arguments reminiscent of those
explored by Peter Berger in his Introduction to Sociology, arguments I have already
given my reaction to when discussing the legal restrictions on drinking and driving, or
fox hunting and such like. Sadly, after making these remarks, I now find myself
hating Stock’s book. Damn. Only in part though, it is still the best thing I have ever
found as an argument for the idea that humans are a true superorganism.

_________

I only revisited Metaman at this time because a book arrived today, 08/03/05,
which seems to be a precursor of Stock’s argument, The Integration of Human
Knowledge: A Study of the Formal Foundations and the Social Implications of
Unified Science, Oliver L. Reiser, Porter Sargent, 1958. The connection does not
seem entirely obvious in the title, but happily the central idea of the modern world

340
being the coming into being of a human superorganism figures as the predominant
theme in this book. What is more this professor of philosophy makes the same
resounding fundamental error that Stock makes, he sees the burgeoning of modern
communications as the foundation of a World Sensorium, the initialisation of the
superorganism. In other words he fails to recognise that it is human nature that is
corporate, and what the coming of modern communications, and of one global culture
indicates, is no more than the coming of stone tools in the hands of an early hominid
several millions of years ago indicates. Both these amazing technological
accomplishments say precisely the same thing, that human nature is corporate, and
they say nothing more than this. And the one says this no more than the other. Think
of it like this. Which piece of technology can be said to say most effectively that
humans could fly, the codged up kit of Orville and Wright, or the sound-barrier
breaking jet, Concorde? Obviously they are on a par in this respect, except we might
well say the first example of flight really made the statement. So in fact it is the first
signs of human corporate nature, which is the ability to walk, that indicates the
coming of the global superorganism, not the actual culmination of this potential as
discussed in the work of Reiser and of Stock. What we do see in the arrival of the
global superorganism is a critical stage in the realization of the potential first revealed
in our early progenitors, who first reveal themselves in the evidence of their bipedal
gait.
So then, it seems I must recommend this book too, with the usual provisos.
Although I have had this book only one hour I have already been delighted to find the
subtitle Social Physics in chapter XIII. In the last chapter, Archetypal Humanity:
Avatar of Synthesis we find the name George K. Zipf appearing along with several
others, and knowing how superb Zipf is this gives me another series of names to
search out in order to find yet more little gems on the true science of society; such as
it is, or was. Hey, its as good a hobby as stamp collecting, licks it by a mile in fact.
Lets just snatch a telling piece of Reiser’s flawed anti-scientific, theistic thinking, in
which we have the wonderful commitment to the idea of a superorganism combined
with a total failure to apply a scientific conception to this idea, exactly as we have just
seen appears in Stock’s lovely work.

In our form of scientific humanism the assignment is to work out the

consequences of the idea that the next level of human evolution will see the
emergence of a social organism with a planetary civilization as its action-
pattern. This possibility of world unification through what is termed an
economic-political-ideological synthesis can be attained only if we exert a
supreme effort at harmonizing our scientific, religious, esthetic, economic, and
educational programs. The social embryology of world unity calls for (1) a
subjective-psychological transmutation of human nature, and (2) an objective-
social transformation of man’s institutions, both representing a kind of
spiritual alchemy. That is to say, the proliferation of the coming world
organism calls for psycho-social mutations. How can this be accomplished?
(Page 391)

The man clearly has not the slightest notion what it is that he is so fascinated
by. All he need see is that the millennial long process of the subjection of humanity
to the authority of the Jews merely needs to continue. All he need say is that all that
is necessary is for us all to continue to become ever more harmonized to the identity
of the Jews. So how come he cannot see this, and why does he not say this? Because,

341
as I have already pointed out in respect to Stock, Reiser also fails to begin from the
one correct starting point available to any investigator of these subjects. Which is the
position of an absolute atheist, determined to eradicate all religion from the face of the
earth, and to make it impossible for anyone to believe in God. Do this, be an atheist,
and all can be revealed, fail to do this, and no matter what, you will remain as blind as
the day you were born. This is an all or nothing condition of doing science, real
science is atheism, as real atheism is science.
Yesterday, 05/05/05, some culture show on BBC 2 had an interview with,
presumably, the director, Ridley Scott, I think, of a new religious movie called
Kingdom of Heaven, in which the interviewer said this man had done an incredibly
brave and radical thing by making a film that dared to suggest Moslems and
Christians had something in common. This genius, with the power to see this
revelation, accepted the compliment as well deserved and stated that in some sense
these faiths worshipped the same God! Boy he is a clever thing, and he gave a little
sermon saying it was a fact that either religions united or there was no future for
humanity. We had to think of fine ideas like grace, grace he said, this is a lovely
word; my mind wretched at this display of sentimental drivel; now there is a true
priest speaking, halleluiah. There is something seriously wrong with a society that
supports a sufficient body of people to pay for the making of such gush; tragic, now
there is a beautiful word. First they perform their sacrifices to capture our attention
and demonstrate a need for their services, then they go to work on us, showing us,
with their moronic propaganda, what the solution is to the problem they have created.
We know what the solution is, erase the priesthood.
As we can see from the upsurge in religion these days, humanism, like
science, cannot come to the fore as long as religion exists. This should be self
evident. Why isn’t it? Because we live in a theocracy, and there is simply no means
of generating atheistic ideas, that is why. We are nothing more than abject slaves of
the Jews. To be free we must set out to destroy Judaism, and this fact applies as much
to Jews as it does to those who go by some other label. In the same sense that to be
free of capitalism the factory owner must seek to destroy capitalism just as much as
the worker he exploits in order to live his grand lifestyle as master. The only
difficulty is, Why would the masters want to be free? And that is the whole point of
this naturally evolved hierarchical system of organization, they wouldn’t, and they
don’t. And so they must make sure that their slaves do not want to be free either.
And that is the primary function of the Jews, and the prime function of the religious
slave implants associated with Jewish authority. Which brings us back to where we
began a moment ago when we discussed the blind servility engendered by Islam
which made people happy to be Moslems. Round and round we go. Get the picture
yet? Didn’t think so.
When the time is right, when the Jews rule the world with an iron grip, as they
do America today, or Britain for example, in another millennia or two, then the truth
we fight for today will no longer matter. Just as two millennia after the Greeks first
discovered that the earth went about the sun the Jews finally released this bit of
knowledge, because by then, with their two new slave identities firmly established on
a new basis, the ground had shifted from the mystery of the heavens to the mystery of
life itself. We can, in other words, never be free. Bummer!

From another recent arrival at my door we find the question we have just
answered in a purely scientific fashion, being asked .........

342
 Voltaire once pointed out that Christian historians seem to suggest
“that everything in the world had been done on behalf of the Jewish
people ...... if God gave the Babylonians authority over Asia, He did so to
punish the Jews; if God sent the Romans, He did so to punish [the Jews] once
more ......” He went on to ask: “Why should the world be made to rotate
around the insignificant pimple of Jewry?”
Voltaire did not try to answer his own obviously rhetorical question.
Yet it might be asked seriously. For the history of the Jews is still more
widely read and know than any other, and it is incomparably the most
influential of the histories of the Western world. For centuries it has been a
source of inspiration: the history of the Jews became the Bible. It has been
used to make the world intelligible, to justify the universe and its Creator, not
only to the Jews before and after Christ, but to Christianity and Islam as well.
The Bible is not only the best-selling book of all time, but also the most
widely read.
Most people see themselves as the center of the universe. But why did
the rest of humanity finally share the Jewish version of world history? Why
did they all believe the world rotated around the Jews? Why did Jewish
history become the prototype for the history of the world? If the Jews are as
“insignificant” as the nonbeliever Voltaire suggests, why did this numerically
tiny and powerless people loom so large in Western history?
To believers, the answer is plain. The Jews were important to God, so
they must be important to all who believe in Him. But many nonbelievers,
too, such as Hitler, thought the Jews important and powerful beyond their
numbers. Why are they believed to be important not only by their friends, but
even more so by all their enemies? Their existence itself seems uncanny, as
does their relationship to the rest of the world. How did they arouseand
surviveso much hostility? Will they survive emancipation? Now that they
have their own territorial state once more, will they survive as a cultural and
spiritual entity? The question sounds paradoxical. But the Jews are but a
series of paradoxes.
(The Jewish Mystique, Ernest van den Haag, Stein and Day, 1969.
Page 42-3)

The answer being, that the Jews are the central nervous system of the human
superorganism, within which we all exist, as part of the living tissue.

343
 Part III

Today, 14/03/05, a book arrived from America which deserves an appendix all
to itself. The Social Organism: A Short History of the Idea that a Human Society may
be regarded as a Gigantic Living Creature, George R. Maclay, North River Press,
1990. This is the most expensive book I have ever bought, and I got it at nearly half
the asking price, the reason being its rarity. I have just emailed the dealer to see if
they will tell me how rare. (15/03/05, no joy there then, the answer was
uninformative. When I tried to obtain this book from the library however I was told
there were no copies in the country, so I accepted it was rare.)
I expected it to be a fairly worthless account by some enemy of the idea.
Because I did not think I could afford this book when I found it a couple of months
ago I bought the only other book carrying the authors name to get an idea of what he
was about. The Dominant Man: The Pecking Order in Human Society, George
Maclay and Humphry Knipe, Delacorte Press, 1972 only arrived the other day but it
has an air of anthropological objectivity about it that I liked and so my expectations of
The Social Organism have been raised.
Upon immediate inspection the book is delightful, worth the full price, if I
had had it to spend. Maclay is actually passionate about the idea and he gives a nice
initial account of his thoughts in chapter one The most interesting person in the world
a brief encounter. The initial downside is that this book is a history, so, for
example, we begin with an account in chapter two of Hobbe’s idea of man as
machine. And there are other chapters on equally commonplace boring thinkers such
as Durkheim, who contributed nothing to the debate as far as I am concerned. And
meanwhile there are no hidden surprises leaping out at me, he has no chapter on
Lilienfeld. There is also no index which is a product of the publication’s obscurity I
suppose, since it appears to be a labour of love by the author who says he has no
academic status of any kind. This lack of status completely surprised me, and
delighted me at the same time since this explains why the book was written. No
academic would dare write such a book, although I do actually have a book of short
essays by a biologist that expresses a very positive attitude toward the superorganic
idea in general, and even mentions the ingrained antagonism of academia to the idea
of humans having anything in common with other life forms; The Lives of a Cell:
Notes of a Biology Watcher, Lewis Thomas, Allen Lane, 1980. First published 1974.

On Societies As Organisms

Viewed from a suitable height, the aggregating clusters of medical

scientists in the bright sunlight of the boardwalk at Atlantic city, swarmed
there from everywhere for the annual meetings, have the look of assemblages
of social insects. There is the same vibrating, ionic movement, interrupted by
the darting back and forth of jerky individuals to touch antennae and exchange
small bits of information; periodically, the mass casts out, like a trout-line, a
long single file unerringly toward Childs’s. If the boards were not fastened
down, it would not be a surprise to see them put together a nest of some sorts.
It is permissible to say this sort of thing about humans. They do
resemble, in their most compulsively social behaviour, ants at a distance. It is,
however, quite bad form in biological circles to put it the other way round, to

344
 imply that the operation of insect societies has any relation at all to human
affairs. The writers of books on insect behavior generally take pains, in their
prefaces, to caution that insects are like creatures from another planet, that
their behavior is absolutely foreign, totally unhuman, unearthly, almost
unbiological. They are more like perfectly tooled but crazy little machines,
and we violate science when we try to read human meanings in their
arrangements.
(Page 11)

The second disappointment is that despite the enthusiasm, Maclay has no idea
how to think about the issue. I find this sad, but entirely expected. As I have already
stated, the essential prerequisite of doing this social science is that you have an overt
and assertive position on the question of religion. It is vital that you set out as an
atheist determined to annihilate religion, and to make it impossible for anyone ever to
believe in God, when you have finished. Anything less than this will distract you
from the central premise that humans are a part of nature, for the real difficulty in
asserting this idea is not discerning the truth, but combating the theocratic forces of
social being that are necessarily dependant for their existence upon your failure. Your
prime object and duty then, is to try and destroy the society in which you live;
anything less than this and you must fail in your mission. Succeed, and society will
self destruct immediately afterwards of its own accord. A real mission impossible if
ever there was one. But that is the mission should you choose to accept it; so many
have, so many have failed.
Lets see what Maclay says in respect to the total failure of the idea of the
social organism to catch on despite all the good reasons causing us to think we might
of expected it to do otherwise.

‘Despite these modern biological revelations and the intriguing

comparisons they invite, few people in fact subscribe to this society-as-
organism idea. Theoretically these recent developments in the biological
sciences make it easy to regard the human society as an individual organism,
but in practice there has been no great rush to take advantage of the
opportunity. One would have to search long and hard to find a man who
sincerely views his containing society as a living creature.
This reluctance suggests that the human psyche might be naturally
disinclined to exercise such a holistic understanding of its containing
community. It would be easy to provide a possible evolutionary explanation
for such an innate disinclination. Generally speaking Homo sapiens likes to
think of himself as the central character in the play and the author of his own
decisions, and he possibly needs to regard himself in this light in order to
function coherently. To be consistent with this abiding sense of self-
importance and autonomy, the mind then has to treat its containing society as
an optional circumstance, a product of the leading actors’ choosing.’
(Page 10-11)

No, no, no, damn it!! What is the matter with these people? Hell!!!!!!
It makes me so mad, the answer is so obvious, it is not as if there were not
enough excellent books dealing with the issue that, in this context, matters above all
others, the issue of social authority. For a notable example of a discussion about this
subject from the period prior to the extinction of Organicism see The Ruling Class,

345
Gaetano Mosca, first published 1896. By not recognising the role of authority in the
determination of these matters Maclay predetermines the answer to the question he is
dealing with, which is whether or not people are individuals or the society is a social
organism. If authority determines the disinclination of people to see society as an
organism and the mass simply abides by their decision then society is by definition a
social organism. The reluctance therefore suggests that the human psyche is vested in
the elite organ which directs the behaviour of the organism. Maclay treats what the
intellectuals say as all there is to it, and thereby dismisses the mass of the population
as being nonexistent. It is as if we were to suppose that when a person decides to go
for a walk only the brain has made this decision and the rest of the body has no part in
it, which of course is correct, but then we recognise that the brain and the body are
one.
Notice the way Maclay speaks of people in the above passage as if they were
individuals making decisions. Yet he does this even as he is attempting to account for
why it is that people who are self evidently not individuals, just cannot help seeing
themselves as individuals. Reading this work is like looking through a pair of
binoculars at a man out of earshot, perched one hundred feet up a tree, attempting to
saw the branch off upon which he is sat by using his blade to cut between himself and
his big idea, the idea being to fell the mystery. Something falls, but it certainly ain’t
the tree of knowledge. Excruciating; not for the woodsman, he is too daft to notice,
for the observer unable to make a sound that can be heard.
The answer is to visualise the existence of a feedback loop operating between
an organ of command and the body of the organism, hardly a radical idea. We then
only need envisage a pattern of understanding whereby a body composed of
individuals acting as an organ of information, obtains its reason for existence by
commanding the mass of people to obey whatever idea it is that gives the organ of
authority its position of power. From this initial conception we can elaborate
endlessly upon how this organization might enable a superorganism composed of
individuals to compete for available resources with other superorganisms formed
upon a like pattern. Having thus envisaged such a scheme we only need look for the
evidence of its being real, and as part of that evidence we would note the manner in
which people acquired a blindness to the real status of their position relative to the
resulting social form. It is so simple, why oh why does this man not see it?
One thing at least, my usual suspicions about work being done under
constraints of one kind or another should not apply here, since the man states that he
is an independent operative thinking for the sheer love of it. But he is not the first
such passionate individual I have come across. Morley Roberts, working in the
twenties and thirties was quite prolific, and as much as I love the trend of his thinking
he too goes well wide of the mark, you can see what he is trying to do, but he
certainly does not succeed. I had a book of Robert’s sent me from Northern Ireland
last week in which he resurrects Lamarck to act in conjunction with Darwin, can you
believe it! I didn’t. It seems he was struggling with the disjunction created by
Darwinism between an explanation for biological evolution and the lack of an
explanation for social evolution as an extension of this same rationale. Unfortunately
the damned book stank of some perfume and I had to send it back, and as it was so
daft I am not going to replace it.
One more thing that comes out of all this variety of material is the irrepressible
force of this superorganic idea, and the obvious fact that while we struggle to explain
anything at all about ourselves this idea just keeps hanging on in there. It is all we
have, and that is because it is correct, it just needs someone to get the idea across in a

346
valid form, and that requires a determined effort to destroy religion in all its forms. A
self destructive act because we live in an age rampant with religious bigotry, and
psychotic zealots rule the world from top to bottom, exactly as Nature intended

The other critical failure of understanding on full display in the quote above is
the ubiquitous display of a feeble imagination when trying to visualise the nature of
the object we have in mind when we think about society as a living thing, as an
organism. Once again, we are forced to say to ourselves, with an immense sense of
frustration, What on earth is the problem?

‘One would have to search long and hard to find a man who sincerely
views his containing society as a living creature.’

Well you don’t say? And why is that surprising? A person would have to be a
blithering idiot to think of their containing society as a living creature. This is simply
the wrong mode of expression. The central idea to apply here, an idea I have never
seen applied anywhere, is the idea that humans generate an exoskeleton in a manner
exactly comparative to the way coral molluscs generate exoskeleton which ends up by
evolving into a massive structure way beyond the apparent capacity of the individual
elements of living tissue. The simple reason being the act of continuous accumulation
of organic growth over time. Continuity over time, this is the central issue of the
organic process, how that continuity is generated in any given case, in any given
species that is, is pretty much irrelevant, it is continuity over time that matters. No
one would think of a coral reef as a living creature, although I have seen precisely this
terminology applied to a book about coral reefs advertised on the internet. But while I
am contradicting myself here, the point is I am sure no one actually thought of the
reef as a living thing that might have a mind of its own and a purpose, and be able to
move about and so on, the sort of things the word ‘creature’ suggests. What they have
in mind is the integrated operation of the elements that go to make up a coral reef
habitat, their integration being so complete that the result is akin to the whole, being
one living thing. I say no one has ever thought of society as an exoskeleton, and this
is true to my knowledge, but Lilienfeld does say that the fabric of society is alive and
he too talks about the continuity of accumulation in the reflection and attraction effect
that allows the living society to come into being. So he is the only person who shifts
in this correct direction. He does in fact mention corals too, I do not see why he could
not think of the idea of society as an exoskeleton, it took me a while to see it but it is
so obvious.
Now transfer this conception of a living whole to the idea of a human society
and we begin to get somewhere. We are not likening society to an individual animal,
breathing, eating, mating and dying. We are likening it to other superorganic forms
which we can see all reduce their components, made up of units of living tissue, to a
state of dependence upon some fabricated structure which appears to have the
qualities of an exoskeleton within which they live. An exoskeleton the living units
build up over time through the incremental addition of substance that each individual
is oblivious to the significance of in the overall result that arises due to the continuity
of the process over time, and which, over a sufficient period of time, becomes so
dominant a feature of the bio-terrain that it draws in other species and forms an
ecosystem all of its own. This is the form of the living thing that I live within, that we
all live within. This is simple, sensible, and easy to envisage, albeit that we must then
see things like cars, planes and televisions as the equivalent human excrescence to

347
that creating coral or termite structures. But in respect to this last fantastic thought we
can recognise that we are remarkable creatures.
However, as remarkable as we are, there are a few considerations we can
make ourselves aware of that bring this transcendence into the realms of
comprehension, if we so wish to enlighten ourselves. Firstly, we have only recently
become quite so remarkable, it is the fabrication of the products of the modern era that
really are astounding and hard to visualise as products of nature. But if we step back
gradually and see the that the products of the Ancient World, as magnificent as they
were, lacked this technological magic, and can be attributed to cleverness applied with
the action of brute force to raw natural products, as in the building of the pyramids,
then, if we leap back further, and see ourselves living at the interface with nature,
armed only with the tools chipped from the earth, we begin to grasp the nature of our
apparent uniqueness, which appears not so unique after all; so we use hands to hold
rocks, big deal. Moving forward once again we can appreciate that for all the
immense complexity of our technological environment, the basic elements of its
operations are all imbued into the organic structures of which the whole biosphere is
composed, things such as electrical systems, and the communication and sensory
ability they give rise to. What shifted people from the natural into the artificial
domain was the application of fire to rocks, releasing metals. This has an awesome
effect upon our sensibilities, and accounts for the obsession with gold, but in the end
all metal is is a form of purified rock, and therefore building a steam engine is only an
elaborate form of flint knapping aided by the application of a little extra heat and
know how.
With this brief but considered reflection in mind we then only need note the
comparative scale of the expression of the natural dynamic we observe in creatures
like corals and termites, where it has the most wonderful result, and see that given the
magnification of these tiny components into the size of ourselves, the fact that where
corals can only make 2,000 mile long reefs, consisting of the most diverse ecosystems
on earth, while all the termite can do is build a city of mud capable of housing twenty
million individuals, compared to this, given our sheer mass, the building of giant
ocean going liners, of space stations, and cities holding millions of people supplied
with light, water and all the extras, is really only to be expected. In fact, considering
all things, we might wonder just what it is that holds us back, and makes us so puny
compared to our insect and mollusc kin.

Unfortunately we must assume Maclay was impressed by the ideas he traces in

this work, ideas that were useless because they did indeed have a myopic focus upon
the structure of the state, their authors being primarily members of the social elite
preoccupied with arguments about social organization, Hobbes for example, and not
particularly concerned with the abstract investigation of the real world such as the
scientist must concern themselves with if they are to discern the real world’s true
form. Reading Gierke’s account of these matters reveals Hobbes’ motives for
describing society in terms of mechanics. Hobbes was a religious man and a royalist,
and he had a very definite political agenda which his mechanistic sociology was
designed to serve. Organismic Theories of the State by Coker says it all, the
preponderance of thought is all about the various features of social structure and how
to allocate them an analogical position relative to an animal. This is wrong, wrong
and wrong again. Maclay, given that he is seeking to make use of modern biological
insights, should of seen that this was a naive way to go about the business in hand.
And in any case my own dabbling into the historical material has made it more than

348
evident that it is the analogical method that was the downfall of these first early
modern Organicists.
I have determined that the Jews are the catalytic element in a complex
superorganic structure, because I rightly focus upon identity as the medium of
biological form. And as such Jews literally constitute the nervous tissue that relays
information and energy about the body, while keeping themselves relatively inert in
comparison with the flux of operative tissue within which they are imbedded. The
Jews identity, and this functional role, evolved together, and impacted upon the social
structure that brought about this process of evolution. This is the feedback loop
occurring between the organ of authority and the body we spoke of above. My
description is not analogical, but it nearly is, and I noticed in passing the other day
that one early author mentioned in Coker says that the priesthood is the nervous
system. I did not stop to look at what was being said, but I did notice that this seemed
to be connecting with my thoughts about the role of the Jews who have their special
position by virtue of their religious status. So the failure of this early observer was
not one of logic, but one of his point of focus, he was fixated on the state structure, he
should of been focused upon the scientific idea of the human species as a
superorganism, and then looked to see which elements in society fit the required
function. But of course, as I have just said, this makes the false assumption that these
thinkers were concerned with the determination of abstract truth, which they most
certainly were not. The real barrier to the realization of the organic status of society is
the fact that people simply do not find society to be in any sense an abstraction. For
some reason people find law, money, power, wealth, politics, religion, war and so on
to be of some personal significance to them, and this is where they go wrong when
they seek to deal with the question us aesthetes are preoccupied with here and now.
Lilienfeld specifically states however that the state is the ultimate realisation
of the social organism in his day, which I must say I find quite staggering given his
deep obsession with religion. The other day I noticed a recognition in a religious
historians work that the highest social unity is defined by religious identity, so why
could no one concerned with the idea of the social organism see this?

The civilization of mediaeval Christendom was essentially dependant

on the ecclesiastical organization of Europe as an international or rather
supernational unity. It was irreconcilable with the conception of a number of
completely independent sovereign societies such as the national states of
modern Europe. The mediaeval state was a congeries of semi-independent
principalities and corporations, each of which enjoyed many of the attributes
of sovereignty, while all of them together formed part of a wider societythe
Christian people.
(Progress and Religion, Christopher Dawson, 1934. Page 177.)

Because main stream science is forbidden by the theocracy from studying the
social organism, the subject has been shunted into numerous culverts of the academic
world. I initially discovered a trace of it in political history, which led me to Gierke,
and the dam then burst, I was in. But following the stream has still been difficult. I
am always keeping my eye out for any indications of ideas that hint that they might be
sympathetic to superorganic sociology, even if they do not mean to be. So for
example while bumming around an internet book agent last week I hit upon a superb
title in the psychology domain dealing with the way people fail to grasp the
significance of their individual actions in terms of creating mass social effects. What

349
more could I ask for? A copy is on its way to me. Micromotives and Macrobehavior,
Thomas C. Schelling, 1978. Not inspiring upon first glance, and I have not sort to get
further into it because I am preoccupied with this project at present, but another nice
title evoking the centrality of our theme.
The subject of the exoskeleton is something I am very clear about and I would
like to pick up on any suggestions along those lines, so I have recently bought books
on the evolution of technology. But naturally the authors go out of their way to say
they only mean this in an analogical sense, and in no way in any biological sense;
echoing somewhat the observation made by Thomas above in respect to biologists and
insect behaviour. An interesting find has been Marshall McLuhan, I now have a
couple of his books, but I have no got into them. They have lovely modes of
expression up to a point, but the man is oblivious of the real meaning of his subject,
he is really an artist, and a book by his son that sounded superb proved to be
absolutely incomprehensible. I may as well of got the proverbial chimpanzee bashing
away at a keyboard in the hope of getting it to write a Shakespeare play within in a
million years, and stopped it after two days, and the result would be no worse than the
stuff in that book. Even so, look at this from Daddy McLuhan:

After three thousand years of explosion, by means of fragmentary and

mechanical technologies, the Western world is imploding. During the
mechanical ages we had extended our bodies in space. Today, after more than
a century of electric technology, we have extended our central nervous system
itself in a global embrace, abolishing both space and time as far our planet is
concerned. Rapidly, we approach the final phase of the extensions of
manthe technological simulation of consciousness, when the creative
process of knowing will be collectively and corporately extended to the whole
of human society, much as we have already extended our sense and our nerves
by the various media. Whether the extension of consciousness, so long sought
by advertisers for specific products, will be “a good thing” is a question that
admits of wide solution. There is little possibility of answering such questions
about the extension of man without considering all of them together. Any
extension, whether of skin, hand, or foot, affects the whole psychic and social
complex.
(Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, Marshall McLuhan,
McGraw-Hill, 1964. Page 3-4)

Now while this is silly childishness, in part, typical of the artistic temperament
we can see where his kid got it fromthe subject matter and mode of expression is
dead good. When I speak of the idea that human nature is corporate, and say this fact
is able to explain all things, it is precisely in regard to this kind of intuitive grasping
insight that I see the potential exists to pull together the multitude of disparate
commentaries, the plethora of variations, of fragmented observations, that are all
really of a kind. And to make them rotate about the single idea of human nature being
corporate, and the human animal being a superorganism. It does not matter whether it
is anthropology, biology, sociology, economics, art, history, psychology, or whatever.
All of these subjects, when dealing with this aspect of their subject, can easily fall into
orbit about this one true idea. This is the very proof that it is the correct idea. An idea
without bias, an idea that overlaps reality perfectly, an idea that generates no
irrationality, and will in fact cause all the inherent irrationality due to the

350
disparateness of these various fragmented accounts to disperse as it pulls everything
together and unites all ideas concerning humanity into one true image of reality.
It was this kind of argument no doubt, presented in Understanding Media, that
fuelled the work of people like Stock when he wrote Metaman. In another book
McLuhan says clothes are an extension of the skin, a natural enough supposition, but
one informed by a cute idea without any real understanding of just what it is that is
being talked about. With the idea that human nature is corporate firmly in mind we
can deal with this issue precisely, and without any possibility of being mistaken. For
we start from the premise that human nature was the same seven million years ago,
before any kind of hominid was clearly in view, and the transition to bipedal gait,
dextrous manipulation of materials, nakedness and symbolism, clothes, were all
batons of evolution drawn out of anthropoid potential by the interface of the social
environment as it generated a truly superorganic mammal from a primate lineage.
Hence we do not look to the contemporary expression of the extension of skin
into the superorganic domain of social organization, with its superficial, skin-deep
impression of significance centred upon itself, we look to the point of origin in time,
millions of years ago. Time we saw was brought into being through language that
creates the human superorganism, so when we look back in time we see the products
of this linguistic process laid out like beads along a thread of corporate nature woven
from filaments of linguistic expression. Being informed by our key idea we make the
assumption that all the various attributes mentioned just now concerning human
physiology, were coming together at the same time and leading toward the same
outcome of creating an individual that constituted a component of a living social
being. So while stone tools are crudely thought of as being hunting or food preparing
implements, we would do better to think of the original forest dwelling apes as
creatures finding a way to live as an integrated unit, and the transition to an upright
posture and the use of the hands to make things will of led the way so that one of the
first things we might imagine is the establishment of shared shelters, in other words a
common skin. Hunting was not the first move, a common skin was. This is why we
became dextrous, to fabricate an exoskeleton. And this is why we became naked, and
this is why we have that peculiar feature of our physiology, our sweat glands, these
stuck us together, so to speak, uniting us in a sensual sense, into a sticky body bound
together under one skin, just as our flesh beneath our epidermis is wet when cut.
Sweat was the inner, subcutaneous juice of the organism; yummy yummy. This was
the beginning, and if the common forest shelter was the initial development toward
the formation of an exoskeleton then the equivalent of this today is the entire fabric of
the exoskeleton, which must include the entire landscape, but in order to focus
ourselves on understanding this elusive idea we can stick to the idea that the extension
of the skin is not clothes, but architecture. Now that makes far more sense than
clothes as the extension of the skin, especially since we see in the formation of ritual
centres of all kinds a form of architecture that more than any other carries the
corporate identity of the social organism. Like that? I do.

Returning to our flawed gem ...........

Before going to bed last night I scanned through the last chapter, chapter
eleven, The selective character of this history, which I had expected to be the most
interesting due to the mediocrity of the subject matter the book dealt with as
compared to the superb material available to a serious historian of this subject. With
my senses alerted to yet another fraud I was not disappointed in my newly acquired

351
dire expectations, here I found myself disliking this fellow traveller in this most
wonderful domain of wisdom intensely, feeling him to be a typical enemy, the kind I
had come to know so well in this life as I have gone about my quest for true
knowledge. He evidently was an absolute knob-head.
He even sets out to explain why the idea of the social organism had fallen out
of favour, excusing the relevant scientific department, sociology, on the grounds that
it had to contend with the fact that it was accused of being unscientific! Damn it, it is
because the study of society was subverted, so that sociology existed to protect
theocracy, that sociology ignored its natural status as a branch of biological science,
and therefore dismissed the question in hand, out of hand, that the problem being
discussed here existed. How could a sincere historian of this material fail to see this?
Sociology was not a poor innocent victim of misunderstanding despite all the best
efforts of its devotees, like some flirtatious little virgin at a grown-ups party.
Sociology was a lascivious whore, corrupt and painted to the eyeballs, with all
orifices open, inviting abuse from all and sundry, from any degenerate pervert; and
that is exactly what sociology got, and hence the demented nature of what it gives.
Maclay, who the hell are you? If a high priest wanted this job done in the
name of religion he could do no better than to of employed you. So why bother? He
finishes on a nice touch by saying this.

‘The society-as-organism idea has been so thoroughly unfashionable

for most of this century that it could almost be described as “forgotten.” Many
modern men and women must occasionally day-dream along these society-as-
organism lines, and they are condemned by the subject-specific ignorance of
our times to imagine that they are venturing out into a new realm of
speculative thought. This volume will have served a sufficient purpose if it
does no more than inform such new-world adventurers that the bold idea they
are toying with in fact has a formidable old-world pedigree’
(Page 343)

Nice, but nasty. Taken at face value, nice. But considered for the hidden
message implicit in this closing paragraph, very nasty indeed. It seems to be saying,
“Forget it. You thought you had found the answer, but you see, you were wrong, go
to sleep sleepy one, back into your dream, forget, forget, as all who have gone before
you have forgotten, and been forgotten, as you too will be.”

Pathetic! Sad. True.

Maclay’s words are the mumblings of a hypnotist.

Amen.

Postscript : 

On the dust jacket there are three commendations, and yesterday,

16/03/05, I searched for books by each of the names, the first was Prof. Kenneth Bock
whose glowing testimonial appears on the dust jacket thus : 

352
 “Far surpasses in clarity, style and charm anything I see from my
colleagues in the sociological fraternity. No, I should not have made that
comparison; Maclay is in another class ........”

To be compared favourably with sociologists in this day and age is the worst
thing any organicist could ever suffer. Bock wrote a book called Human Nature and
History: a Response to Sociobiology, published in 1980, five years after Wilson’s
Sociobiology, in which Bock argues that it is vital to interpret the biological and the
social separately; a copy is on its way to my door. Now I get it! Maclay’s closing
comment makes sense in this post Wilsonian context. The effect of Wilson’s work
was what everyone in the scientific fraternity dreads, the resurrection of the scientific
conception of humanity that they exist to suppress. The Social Organism was just one
more brick in the wall trying to put people back to sleep again after the ripple in the
pool of somnolence created by Wilson’s pebble.

Human Nature and History: A Response to Sociobiology by Kenneth Bock,

published 1980, arrived from America today, 22/04/05. This is a piece of religious
propaganda in historical guise, exactly as expected. But it is nice to have the books
that come to your attention in your hands. This also shows the importance of dust
jackets, since it is from the dust jacket on The Social Organism that I saw Bock’s
name associated with this work, and no one with any friendly interest in the social
organism would want to be associated with the author of a book like Human Nature
and History anymore than an American president would want to be associated with
Lenin.

353
 Part IV

I am forced to add a fourth part to my supplement by a book that came into my

possession this April, whose subject matter is of central concern to our subject and is
from the period in which Organicism ruled. The Basis of Social Relations: A Study in
Ethnic Psychology by Daniel G. Brinton, published 1902 is a frustrating book because
it is so exactly what we are looking for while being entirely typical of everything that
we deplore and consider to be false. On page ten of the introduction we have : 

Ethnic psychology does not hesitate to claim that the separation of

mankind into groups by psychical differences was and is the one necessary
condition of human progress everywhere and at all times; and, therefore, that
the study of the causes of these differences, and the influence they exerted in
the direction of evolution or regression, is the most essential of all studies to
the present and future welfare of humanity.

We might remind ourselves that in his fourth principle, discussed in part one of this
supplement, Gumplowicz also declared what the central force was in the making of
progress, namely the domination of one people by another. In Brinton’s prime
mechanism of progress we have a complimentary proposition since it is a
precondition of domination between different peoples that differences should exist,
and that there should be some means of maintaining the differentiation after the
amalgamation by force that creates the hierarchical structure driving the organic
dynamic these commentators call progress.

Fourth.The author holds and defends the position that every political
organization, and hence every developing civilization, begins at the moment
when one group permanently subjects another. Subjection of some to others is
the source of political organization and political organization is the condition
essential to growth.
(Page 7)

Brinton’s proposition, furthermore, indicates the foundation of Keith’s

arguments concerning the origin of race that we recognised had the last valid word to
say about the function of race as a medium of creating the human superorganic form.
This idea of ethnic psychology is obviously vital to the notion of religion as the
bonding agent of superorganic form that is produced by the evolution of linguistic
ability. Thus Brinton looks very useful indeed. However as we scan through this
posthumous work we see that as he continues to offer the right argument forcefully,
he also, at one and the same time, forbids it to be taken in any sense seriously. There
is so much fine talk in his chapter The Individual and the Group that I hesitate to find
a quote. But lets take the following because it seeks to expressly declare the
individuality of the individual at one and the same time as declaring the reality of the
group as something distinct from the individual.

While the unity of the ethnic mind is fostered by a conscious effort to

promote common interests, modes of expression, ambitions, and aims, its
energy is in direct proportion to the cultivation of the sense of individuality

354
 among its members, for from the latter alone are born the impulses to
progress. The fatal error of many communities has been to bend every effort
to secure the former, while they neglected or actually endeavoured to suppress
the latter.
(Page 32)

Within my account I have stated that as the unity between the individual and
the slave identity imposed upon them becomes ever more synchronised so the
perfection of the superorganism increases, such that Roman slaves and American
negroes raised within the organism found they belonged to the organism but still
knew they were not of it. While the Christian and Moslem slaves of Judaism raised
within the organism simply have no conception of their slave status, and they love
their master as their own without even knowing who their master is. The master is
made real in the structure of the Jewish identity, then this master identity that controls
the living social organism is projected onto the woven image of God that the mass of
the social organism worships in the belief that there really is such being. Thus the
identity slaves worship the real master, the Jews, in the act of worshipping God. And
in the case of the Moslems of today this is so even while they express unrestrained
hatred of the Jews as the people who think they are master of the universe and who
have made the Moslem their enemy by invading Palestine. All very bizarre, but
possible simply because of the generation of a whole universe of none existent reality
in the form of a religious mythology that is the identity of the superorganism because
it is woven into the exoskeletal fabric that is generated via the fluid-genetic medium
of linguistic information that creates both the exoskeletal substance and its identity.
This robotic factor in superorganic physiology is expressed here by Brinton except in
a weak manner where, as a slave of Judaism himself, he thinks he is free and fails to
recognise the nature of the dynamic concerned. It is a pity with such a challenging
piece of work that it was left unfinished on the death bed of the author for it is
undermined throughout by an emphasis on the Biblical command that the individual is
all, and one cannot help but wonder how the man who thought to write such things in
the first place would of finally been prepared to see his work go to the publisher. But
I suppose we are safe in assuming he would of said nothing with any real truth in it,
no one else ever did, apart perhaps from Lilienfeld, which is why he was so roundly
abused.

___________________

Having been forced to begin a further appendix we had better make use of it. I
found a reference to a book on Amazon, in one of those book review contributions
invited from all and sundry, which led me to a monumental piece of work that has to
be mentioned somewhere in the context of this subject.

Living Systems by James Grier Miller, McGraw-Hill Book Company 1978, divides
life up into seven systems Cell, Organ, Organism, Group, Organization, Society and
Supranational System. The book has 1102 pages and is an horrendous price to buy,
for no self evident reason. But it is right up our street in terms of the basic drift of its
intentions, although unfortunately, as in all cases except mine, the author fails
completely to comprehend the nature if his subject, he fails to grasp, in other words,
that humans are themselves actually part of the systems of life. Actually we see in
Lilienfeld’s monograph translated here a reference to such a general system of

355
division as Miller has produced, so the idea is by no means novel, but Miller certainly
goes to town on the job and he ostensibly includes social systems in his scheme.
Finding Spencer mentioned in the index I dipped into the text to see what was
on offer, as I wanted to discover if Miller had anything useful to say pertaining to the
organicist theory of society.

Societal evolution, in my view, is part of the evolution of all living

systems that began with the emergence of life from nonliving matter. The
biological evolutionary changes that gave man his unique hands and
manipulative ability; high general intelligence; socially cooperative nature;
ability to vocalize, communicate, and imitate; and capability of using symbols
were what made human society possible. Although genetic evolutionary
changes in man continue, these human attributes have remained stable over
time and are in all important respects alike throughout the human species.
Evolution of society does not depend to any important extent upon genetic
variations but primarily upon the accumulation and transmission of learned
information from one generation to another. Evolutionary changes occur in
the charters, written and unwritten, of societies and in their cultural aspects
rather than in human genetic templates.
A feedback relationship between the two sorts of evolution appears,
however, to have been of mutual benefit, since the probability of human
survival was increased by cooperative living.
(Page 854)

This extract comes from chapter eleven The Society. It indicates the complete
failure of this man to comprehend the most basic fact concerning life, namely that life
is life. He is totally overawed by the word of the Bible, namely that humans are
unique, and that is an end to it. With the emphasis upon genetics as the mode in
which evolution occursdespite the recognition that social codes generate
evolutionary change at the societal levelis an indication of the importance of the
brick wall built by Darwin that has ensured science could do nothing for evermore to
breach the divide thereby set up between life and human society. Where does this
man think the ability to produce social codes comes from? He has already told us in
the same paragraph, from speech. Yet he does not see that speech evolved so that
society would evolve, but instead he thinks speech evolved so that individuals could
survive better through the existence of society. He thinks society serves the
individual; as the body serves the cell I suppose! Idiot. This is the kind of rot
apologists were coming out with in political treatise in the centuries preceding the
twentieth. If this were so then each individual would be his own master and there
would be no social authority. But the exact reverse is the case, and it is the
proliferation of genetically evolved characteristics that ensure there will be social
structure with a command centre that makes society exist, central amongst these
genetic attributes being language. How ridiculous can things get! It is all about me,
me, me. But this is not correct, language evolved in order to create social structure
from coordinated interaction between individuals who were of no importance at all to
the resulting superorganic form, anymore than a cell within the body is caused to be a
part of an organ which is made to be a part of the organism and so on, for the sake of
the individual cell. How can someone who has produced such an extensive piece of
work, and who knows anything at all about humans and the society they live in,
stomach this kind of moronic argument, never mind be its author? Beats me. But still

356
this is a monumental piece of work and it must be taken note of. We have done our
duty. Now lets put it in the theological trash bin where it belongs.

_____________________________

It is a good job I have run out of money to buy books with or these appendices
would never end, or so it seems; and I thought good books were so hard to find on our
subject. Today, 21/04/05, an excellent looking book arrived from America. Out of
Control: The Rise of Neo-Biological Civilization, by Kevin Kelly, 1994 is an
impressive looking item. From the blurb on the back leaf of the cover we have this.

Ultimately, Out of Control is a book about the marriage of the born and
the made, the biologicalization of everything from computers to government.
Only by extracting the logical principles of life and installing them into
machines can we hope to manage our increasingly complex world. Our future
is technological, but it will not be a world of gray steel. Rather, cows and
carrots are more indicative of the kind of inventions humans will make in the
futureproducts that are grown rather than manufactured.

As ever in the works that attract our attention there is a highly evocative organicist
theme that we warm to that nonetheless never goes remotely near realising its true
potential, as we see it. It is clear that the above is suggestive of the notion of social
fabric as a living exoskeleton but that this idea is here secured within the realm of
human control, and not finally seen as something driven by nature that we are carried
along with.
The first interesting thought I had after reading this description of society
being obliged to take account of its organic status if it is to be developed in a
harmonious manner, was that this idea is familiar from another age and another
context. This is the legal fiction transferred to the domain of technology. In Gierke’s
work on the legal ideas about society current in the Middle Ages we are shown that
the arguments about the shape of society and its legal organization drew heavily upon
the notion that society was an organism, an idea that had to be contained in order that
it could be used without getting out of hand, and as such was described as being a
legal fiction. But the interesting thing is that the only way the elite could design the
managerial structure needed to run society was by treating the social organism as if it
was a social organism, surprise surprise. I wonder why that was?
In Kelly’s work we see precisely the same effect in another department of
social organization which is now the leading social facet of our own time, because
where the structure of the superorganism required a legal framework to evolve in the
Middle Ages, today, this political structure is well established and of no concern, it
runs itself. The success of low level biological modelling applied to governmental
structure has given rise to a superorganism that has mastered the generation of
exoskeletal fabric to such an extent that it is in this extended physiological department
that the principles of living tissue must be taken to heart most urgently today if the
organism is to continue to grow. This will require a much higher level of biological
modelling, that is the argument of Kelly’s book. Yes, very interesting.
As we turn to the book itself we find lots of good stuff within its pages. The
author, as ever, has not the slightest clue as to the significance of what it is that he is
so fascinated by, as we can see from page one.

357
 The realm of the bornall that is natureand the realm of the
madeall that is humanly constructedare becoming one.

How many times have I made this observation now? It is becoming tedious. Gregory
Stock in Metaman made the same argument, he sees the global superorganism
emerging, but thinks this is something absolutely new. Everyone does the same thing.
Does a telephone do something that was not done 50,000 years ago? Of course it
doesn’t, it allows people to speak to each other. Why did people speak to each other
50,000 years ago? Because people were part of a superorganism. And why do people
use a telephone today? Because people are part of a superorganism. End of story.
Something which occasionally occurs to me as I watch items of news about the new
age of telecommunications that is spoken of in the most dramatic terms, concerning
vast sums of money and incredible advances in technology, is the banality of the facet
of the story where we consider the end use to which the products are put. So the big
thing with mobile phones is the fact that they are the must have accessory for kids,
they allow them to chat to one another! Miracle of miracles, at last language has been
invented, children can speak. Holy cow!
Taking this bit by bit approach to understanding human culture that we see
demonstrated in Kelly and Stock, where new points of departure are continually
invoked, and no continuity of process is recognised, preserves all the ignorance of the
ages and changes nothing from a conceptual point of view. Thus allowing all
necessary physiological change to go ahead without conflicting with ancient primitive
ideas about the nature of existence that would cause the organism to die. This is of
course the perfect strategy for the theocracy and the organism it is, as this means that
old ideas about the nature of existence, no matter how primitive, are not questioned
while allowing new ideas to contribute to the being that is owned and farmed by the
Jews.
There is a two edged continuation of this theistically complimentary theme
within the work, for we have nice chapters like chapter nineteen POSTDARWINISM in
which there is a discussion about people who have questioned the veracity of
Darwinism exactly as I do, seeing Darwinism as good, but inadequate science, that
fails to deal with major issues. Kelly even states that the trouble with going down this
road is that, just as the Jews are protected from real criticism by the Nazis, so
Darwinism is protected from real criticism by Creationists; except he does not
mention the Jew business; that is our speciality, we must have a death wish. But in
raising this subject, which is nice, he does not see that the issue arises due to the
organic structure of society supporting a theocracy which has constrained knowledge,
and this is why Darwinism is flawed by inbuilt limitations. Instead he lets all sorts of
people have a say, even out and out enemies of science like Gould. Still, this is yet
another nice find from the modern era adding to the circumstantial evidence that no
matter how important it is to the authorities to suppress science, the force of reality is
just bursting out of every pore of the living tissue of the social organism and
screaming to be given expression by the poor lost souls who are trying to make sense
of life in the modern exoskeleton ruled by the ancient order of idiots.

___________________________________

Having slagged-off Miller in my usual dismissive style I certainly like the

book nonetheless, and one of the nice things about it is its extensive references. I

358
have already obtained a book from America that I just had to have, courtesy of the
same, because of the essay Human Cultural Evolution and Its Relation to Organic
Evolution of Insect Societies by Alfred E. Emerson in Social Change in Developing
Areas. The title of this essay is a dream, and the essay is excellent, but, obviously,
fundamentally flawed, as ever.

1. Population systems are highly evolved integrated biological entities,

ranking in importance with such analogous units as the gene, the cell, and the
multicellular individual organism.
2. Population systems may be divided into two basic types: (a)
intraspecies populations exhibiting genetic continuity, and (b) interspecies
populations exhibiting ecological continuity.
(Page 50-1)

This is quite right and it is easy to see in point number one the inspiration for Miller’s
entire scheme.

Each type of population system has adaptations between its individual

components analogous to the adaptations between the parts of a
protoplasmically connected individual. Populations, therefore, have many
organismic attributes and may be cautiously considered to be supraorganisms.
Like an organism, a supraorganism is an open system with an export and
import of materials and energy to and from an environment to which it is
adaptively oriented; it exhibits a degree of self-regulation (homeostasis) of
optimal conditions of existence and perpetuation; it exhibits functional
division of labor between its parts, and an integration into an inclusive whole
with emergent attributes not to be found in the separated parts by themselves;
and it has a temporal ontogeny and a temporal phylogeny that incorporates
time and spatial dimensions into a multidimensional system.
(Page 51)

Very nice indeed. However, when discussing recent fossil discoveries in

Africa by Dr. L. S. B. Leakey, named Zinjanthropus boisei and dating from about one
and half million years ago, he says that “circumstantial evidence points to a crude
social organization, possibly allowing cooperative hunting of animal food.” (Page 53)
indicating, as usual, the total failure to grasp the place of humans in evolution and the
very meaning of human emergence from the process of biological evolution that
makes the idea of a biological human nature implicit. Having just described the ant
societies it should of been obvious that humans are the mammalian equivalent of
superorganic insects forms. The idea of emergence is used in respect to attributes
appearing in aggregations that are not found in the parts that those aggregations are
composed of. But the crucial point to recognise in relation to this question is the one I
make central to my account where I reduce all things to the fundamental basis of
energy dynamics mediated by a creative information medium of form. From this
position we do not struggle with ideas of emergence, we make sense of them by
thinking of zones of latent energy potential toward which life evolves in what we
usually think of as a purposeful manner because of the developmental dimension that
forever results in increasing complexity and hence ever more perfect forms of life, as
it appears from our superbly evolved perspective that is. Life evolves toward zones of
latent energy potential, energy that life can exploit by evolving. Life does this

359
through the medium of abstract information mediums that act as an interface for
living tissue. An interface that searches out the correct configuration for a life to take
in order to enable it to act as a key that will tap into the latent source of energy so that
this latent energy flows into the key form in the act of the form’s coming into being.
On this basis it is all about information and energy, as things should be when we are
discussing the universal process of creation, a single unified process, as it must
logically be. God only gets a look in because this unified process is split asunder by a
specialised body of humans acting in accord with the dictates of evolution that have
brought the human form into being in order to exploit the latent energy potential of
mammalian physiology. Language is the functional extension of DNA into social
space.
Emerson fails to gain a proper perspective on social structure, as I am always
pointing out with all the people I consider, as I did with Miller above, so that he fails
to recognise that all social items are of a like kind, whether they are stone tools or
computers they all constitute exoskeletal structure, and that is all they are. So that
when we see indications of a crude social structure we do not struggle to make sense
of this evidence, we place it within our perfectly smooth sequence of emerging human
form that we expect to see as we know human nature is corporate and is forever
driving human form in the direction of a more perfect superorganic organism, or
supraorganic organism, as Emerson has it.

The biological evolution of insect social organization is on the order of

200 times as long as the cultural evolution of human society. It appears to
many modern scientists that the transition from nonhuman animals to man was
not the result of any great qualitative or quantitative change in his individual
biological functions and structures.
(Page 53)

Not much change! Upright postureoccurring four million years agohands,

brain, speech, tool use, nakedness. All these genetic adaptations taking millions of
years to emerge as a unified and perfected package are what transformed the
nonhuman animal into the human animal we know today. And this, to this idiot
sociologist, is not much change! So much for modern scientists, better off with
Ancient Greek philosophers.

There was possibly some advance in mental ability at the earliest

human levels, illustrated by the manufacture of crude tools. Size of brain and
mentality seem to have progressed rapidly from the most primitive hominids
to the origin of our own species, Homo sapiens. But none of these qualities
indicates the enormity of the breakthrough apparent in the rapid evolution of
the human species toward the exponential social advance of recent centuries,
since Magdalenian man painted herds of extinct animals on the walls of caves
in France and Spain about 15,000 years ago. I am inclined to the view that we
must turn our attention to the processes of cultural evolution for an
explanation, without negating the relatively slow advance through genetic
change in man.
(Page 53-4)

Well if Emerson is anything to go by the process of increasing mental ability

has been thrown into a reverse sequence vastly more rapid than that which brought

360
our kind into being in the first place. “Crude tools” the man says, dismissively. The
point to bear in mind about a highly sophisticated tool like a roughly shaped flint hand
axe is not what it looks like nowadays when we dig it out of the dirt, but how it
looked in use when it was the instrument which made the whole exoskeletal structure
of our earliest fully human ancestors. Fully human in terms of being true
superorganic anthropoid mammals, as they must of been to of been producing such
stunningly elaborate and sophisticated tools as flint hand axes. If this man had half a
brain, or more to the point, probably, any integrity, he would realise that from the
nonhumanoid animal to the hand axe is one vast leap in complexity and sophistication
for mankindif only one small step in the mind’s eye of an ignorant manin
comparison to which the distance from the hand axe to the spaceshuttle, although
impressive to an ignorant priest, is but a minor shuffle. A stone tool is a fragment of
exoskeleton, just as a skull is a piece of skeleton. If we were visiting earth from
another star system in a million years time and found only remains of humans and
picked up a skull, could we see from this item what marvellous substance it contained
when alive? No. If we look today at the dead skeleton of a coral reef can we see in
our imagination the stunning beauty and richness of life that we know a reef supports
when alive? No, it is too amazing to visualise in this way. A stone tool is the same.
We only see them as dead fragments of a living form, if we could see them as they
were, in the hands of a humanoid one and half million years ago, we would be
amazed. It is what a stone tool does that matters, what a skull does, what a reef does.
Emerson’s scant and worthless examples of change indicate nothing, but my
examples indicate a great deal concerning the explosion of creative excess in recent
centuries, and make everything perfectly natural and comprehensible within purely
natural parameters. And my examples are the valid examples. Genetic change
represents the evolution of a species toward a source of latent energy, by means of
which the evolving form ascends an energy gradient relative to its ecological niche.
As the evolutionary cusp in the ascent process is reached the latent energy potential
goes critical as the form becomes a key opening the ecological gate holding back the
release of energy which can then flow through the key which exists in the form of the
newly evolved species. So upon reaching a critical condition the evolved form
releases energy stored within itself in the process of evolving toward a latent source of
energy in which process it becomes part of the niche itself. In passing the critical
point the evolved form releases its energy in a creative outpouring of diverse structure
and form as befits the particular circumstances in question.
Applying the idea that energy cannot be destroyed to an environment, in terms
of energy an ecological niche can only be one total system that cannot be added to or
subtracted from, in the same way a given volume of liquid is always the same volume
irrespective of the make up of the fluid it consists of. We assume that in terms of
energy life forms unfold within an environment by becoming part of that
environment, turning elements already within the environment into another form.
Hence humans proliferate across the globe but only at the expense of other species,
Dodos and Tasmanian Tigers are turned into humans. At the level of energy nothing
has been either added or subtracted from the system. Likewise, Druids become Jews,
American Indians become Jews, Australian aborigines become Jews, Aztecs become
Jews, and so on as one global organism evolves. Passing the cusp of evolutionary
development releases the latent energy of evolution accrued within the organic form,
resulting in a rapid dispersal or expansion of that form leading to diversity based upon
that model. This occurred when bony fish evolved, there were none, then there were
some, then there were thousands of all kinds distributing the latent potential of

361
evolution throughout the biomass of boniness they constituted. Slow build up,
followed by release, makes perfect sense. But does away with the God the Jews need
to farm society. Bearing in mind the point Emerson makes concerning the contrast
between interspecies and intraspecies evolution, a point noted in the main part of this
work, we may note that diversity arises in the case of interspecies evolution
generating an ecosystem, whereas monotony arises in the case of intraspecies
evolution generating a superorganism. Hence as the global organism evolves under
the pressure of the evolution of the Jewish identity in the Middle East a few thousand
years ago that brought a radically new kind of superorganic elite into being, that was
adapted to exploit the new kind of agriculturally based type of exoskeletal structure,
we see a process unfolding that seems to of gone critical only in the last couple of
centuries, so that human superorganic types are rapidly collapsing into one type under
the influence of the Judaic core of social gravity.
But we must also note that the build up of evolutionary form harnessing a
latent force of energy within its structure, and the code it has for building such
structure, concerns the evolution of strategies to exploit matter more efficiently. And
this is why when a cusp in the process of ascending an evolutionary energy gradient
has been reached the new kind distributes itself throughout all available niches and
replaces any resident types with a new form that more efficiently exploits the
environments the unevolved resident forms were occupying on the strength of a prior
stage of adaptation. Thus the replacement of native peoples all around the world in
recent times by a kind that were formed according to the pattern that we call Judaic,
have resulted in massive changes in lands where so recently there was only stone age
culture and now there are skyscrapers, motorways and all sorts. It is truly amazing,
but it is also entirely natural and biological, and all comprehensible in purely
scientific terms that utilise ideas of energy in relation to living systems. It has nothing
at all to do with culture, there is no such thing as culture as distinct from biology. No
culture without biology. There is only a superorganism and the exoskeleton it exudes
in the process of making itself, just as any life form makes itself by fabricating
structure according to an information code. Culture is just language, as biology is just
genes.
It is no surprise to find Emerson striving to ensure science is suppressed and
theology remains unassailable. Sad but inevitable. This fact begins to emerge as he
talks about insect societies being entirely dependant upon their genetic inheritance.
He fails to recognise the features of human genetic inheritance pertaining to our
superorganic form’s evolution, and then acts as though there are none. I cannot be
bothered with any more of this Jesus freak rubbish in scientific guise. Morley Roberts
complained that sociology denied its biological roots and that sociologists were
ignorant of any biology, as did Lilienfeld, and as we can see the observation can be
extended to the modern era where they know nothing about anthropology and they
continue to spout off about what society is and is not. Of course the layers of
duplicity abound and the sociologists rely upon the anthropologists who are even
worse than the sociologists; so there is only one winner, the theist.
When we insult someone as we have insulted Emerson here, we implicitly
define them as individuals since we make them personally responsible for their faults
that so annoy us; or at least we make them the point source of flaws that cause the
faults they display to be displayed. Needless to say this is ridiculous in a case such as
that of an academic espousing his professional ideas. Such a man is a robot, made so
by his slave induction into the organism that set all the logical levers within his brain
in one particular mode that, via the operation of the linguistic code implanted in his

362
brain, cause his thoughts always to affirm that humans are individuals, most notably
himself, and that as such humans are most definitely unique and cannot possibly be
accounted for by any natural means comparable to other life forms. The array of
academic disciplines is so evolved as to constitute a structural filter selecting between
types of individuals whereby those people who are most inclined to want to attack
social authority in the name of the sacred individual that they so passionately believe
in are only drawn toward those academic fields where fulfilling this idea causes them
to reinforce the authority they despise. This is the information interface that has
evolved in the process of the living superorganism’s emergence according to the
dictates of Jewish mythology and identity. Here we see language acting as an abstract
creative medium of form, the specific words are those used by an academic like
Emerson, the forms produced by these words are the professional status of people like
Emerson and the social structures within which he serves, which includes things like
the books produced that carry these words. The words produce the living fabric and
are carried in the living fabric.
It really is a neat trick, and it works by denying the individual access to true
self knowledge of their own real identity as a unit within a living superorganism, by
substituting a false model of self knowledge, one declaring their own personal sacred
being. As the pope said at his inauguration “We are all the product of an individual
thought in God’s mind.” When religion dies back as it must from time to time,
someone like Marx comes along and remodels Judaic individualistic mythology
according to a new design which does away with God. Individuals inclined to attack
the old theocracy in the name of communism come to the fore and inevitably recreate
the same structure as went before, based on sacred individuality. In the long run the
new communist states are bound to be isolated by lack of interaction with the
theistically dominated enclaves of the superorganism, through lack of the usual means
of trade and information exchange, so that in time the communist variation will wither
and be reabsorbed back into the theistic fold; exactly as we can see has happened.
And all this because the basic tenet of Jewish mythology is adhered to, that the
individual is the be all and end all of human existence, even though this is the
fundamental lie that makes everyone into a slave of the Jewish superorganism.
Had a true voice of social revolution come forward in the nineteenth century
when religion was under considerable pressure from new scientific ideas they would
of taken the form of someone like Lilienfeld, and of revealed the true nature of
humans, thus destroying Judaism and setting people free. But the theocracy worked
hard in all manner of ways to see that this did not happen, and it did not happen. But
an awful lot of other terrible things did, and so the theocracy thrives today as never
before.

07/05/05 I just got to the remark above about Miller’s references and recalled
that the library phoned me yesterday to say a book I ordered had arrived. I had
forgotten about it and did not recognise the title because it was just an essay within
the book that wanted. As I am on the verge of finishing this work and being ready to
post it I wanted to mention this essay and decided to rush off to town and get the book
in question. I recalled that there was a special sale of reference books from across the
county and regretted the fact that I was skint, but while at the library I could not resist
taking a peek. It was ace, there was no one there, I could of wept at the stuff on sale,
a complete set, twenty volumes of the National Biography for £100 or best offer, I’d
of offered £50 if I had it. A map of the county by Mordon from 1695 for £85; bugger.

363
And loads more goodies. I selected two books, A Mound of Many Cities or Tell el
Hesy Excavated, Frederick Jones Bliss, 1894, for £6!!, can you believe it? Fabulous.
And another item, just a fiver, that seemed to be a bit of a curiosity right up my street,
and how right this has proved to be. No beer for me tonight now, no eyeballing
young fluff with sexy white satin knicks peeping out of gravity sensing pants, or was
it just the impossibly slight delight of her nates, forever needing retrieving with a little
twist, an inadvertent glance behind to see whose there, tongue hanging, just an old
codger, still, give him a smile just the same; last nightnot tonight, damn. Why’d I
go look at those books!
Actually, as it happens, the reference was not in Miller anyway, it was in
Kelly. The item was by Samuel Butler, “Darwin Amongst the Machines”, that Kelly
says suggests the biological nature of machines; as you can imagine I want it. In
searching for this on the net I hit on a modern book entitled Darwin Among the
Machines: Evolution of Global Intelligence. I have ordered a copy but it has not yet
been sent on its way. This, along with Out of Control and Metaman, is beginning to
indicate a minor genre dealing with this modern conception of the global
superorganism as a new beginning for humanity arising with the advent of a global
community. Interesting, but entirely misconceived.
After all this panic and rushing about the book the library got for me does not
contain the essay I wanted to see, much to my consternation. I will have to look into
the matter. But it is too late in terms of this project. However, I have just dipped into
the oddity I picked up this morning, and here is a little something to finish on.

In the most primitive societies we know of there is a highly developed

communal sense, and a high development of communal custom and law for
the sake of mutual protection and comfort. Yet, however highly developed
such communal custom may become, it is none the less the custom of societies
composed of human beings each one of whom is a unique individual with his
own particular personal needs, appetites and ambitions. There is no evidence
to show that human society was ever like a beehive, wherein the functions of
the individual bees have no meaning except in relation to the hive, and no
individual bee has any value except as a member of the community. In a
human society the individual members take on and agree to communal
functions.
Among many African peoples the impression given to the white
visitor, accustomed to the ‘liberal’ individualism in which he has been reared,
is one of all-enveloping convention. The individual does not seem to exist.
He seems to have no mind of his own. All his actions seem to be tribal
actions. He works, eats, marries, dies and is buried according to immemorial
tradition and insuperable custom. Such a visitor does not realize that even in
Western industrial societies there are many wide-spreading social taboos,
‘things no fellow should do’  ‘don't do that; it looks so common’, or ‘don't
do that; it shows such bad breeding’, or ‘don't do so and so; it isn't done’. We
do not realize these things simply because we do not notice them. We do not
notice them simply because they are part of our ordinary life, like the air we
breathe, so that we do not notice that we are breathing. But it is certain that
the self-consciousness of individuals among African tribes is inconspicuous to
the white visitor only because it is not talked or written about, and not because
it is non-existent; and the black visitor to South Kensington or West Croydon

364
 would probably feel much the same oppression of enveloping convention as
does the white visitor to Timbuctoo.
It is only in peculiar and small societies, such as that concentrated in
the neighbourhood of Bloomsbury, that the individual possesses or even
claims any freedom from social prohibitions; and even in Bloomsbury the
probable truth is that the individuals who live there have simply rebelled
against the conventions of Kensington or Croydon, to embrace conventions of
unconventionality which are quite as onerous. The statement that primitive
tribes are like beehives in their communalism is, after all, only a relative
statement and, on examination, it becomes clear that such communalism is
relative to an ideal individualist and self-conscious society and not to any
actually existing one; and even if it could be shown that the mind of
Timbuctoo is more communal than that of Tooting, that would not prove that
the society of Tooting is composed of individuals who, after long centuries of
effort, have won to the proud possession of self-consciousness while the
individuals of Timbuctoo are still slumbering in the night of beehivedom. It
may well be that the self-consciousness of the modern European is more
highly developed than that of the Central African; it may well be that tribal
conventions have not the force in London that they have in Africa; but, having
regard to the nature of the human being as we know him and love him,
whether in England or anywhere else, it is not a true description of a human
society to say that it is a hive in which the members develop individuality.
They are individuals to start with, and they take on communal functions; they
are not functional units which may or may not end up by developing
individual idiosyncrasies.

(The Necessity of Belief, Eric Gill, 1936, Pages 105-7)

“ Me thinks he doth protest too much.” He makes our argument for us.

_______________________

31/05/05. I have been writing a couple of additional supplements due to

recent readings and so I guess I am already to produce a second edition. Therefore I
can now update the matter of Butler’s essay on Darwin and machines, which I just
heard from the local library today cannot be obtained and must be viewed in the
British library! However the modern book which assumed the title of this Victorian
essay did arrive and gives me a much better reference which I have found on the net
for a mere £20 or so, but it also reveals that the essay is only two pages long and thus
reveals it to be a lot of trouble for very little material. But I am making this entry now
because I want to take a sample from Darwin Among the Machines: The Evolution of
Global Intelligence,
*
What leads organisms to evolve to higher types? (Darwinian
evolution, as Stephen J. Gould, among others, has pointed out, does not
“progress” toward greater complexity, but Darwinian evolution, plus
symbiogenesis, does) Is a global electronic intelligence something new, or

365
 merely the materialization, on a faster scale, of an intelligence that has existed
all along? Natural selection is based on the death, or favored survival, of
individuals, and its speed is limited by the time it takes to proceed from one
generation to the next. In the age of information the pace of orthodox
Darwinism is being left behind. Darwinian evolution, in one of the paradoxes
with which life abounds, may become a victim of its own success, unable to
keep up with non-Darwinian processes that it has spawned. Erasmus Darwin
may turn out to be right.
We have been moving in this direction for some time. “Cultural
patterns are in a sense a solution of the problem of having a form of
inheritance which doesn’t require killing of individuals in order to evolve,”
observed Nils Barricelli in 1966. “You can evolve them by selecting for
cultural patterns, and in this respect it would be a much faster evolutionary
phenomenon.” The same goes for digital organisms, which do not need to die
in order to evolve, although, if memory is limited, the threat of death may
help. It also applies to biochemical circuits, such as the molecular hypercycles
that preceded the origin of life, or to the topology of an electronic networka
pattern of connections that persists over time, transcending the individual
lifetimes of the components from which it is formed. Individual cells are
persistent patterns composed of molecules that come and go; organisms are
persistent patterns composed of individual cells that come and go; species are
persistent patterns composed of individuals that come and go. Machines, as
Butler showed with his analysis of vapour engines in 1863, are enduring
patterns composed of parts that are replaced from time to time and reproduced
from one generation to the next. A global organism and a global
intelligenceis the next logical type
(Page 190-1)

So we see a nice vein of enquiry revealed here all concerned with the
inevitability of recognising that society is an organic entity and humans are but cells
within that entity. But the manner in which this argument is presented by people like
Dyson is guaranteed to enable the process to continue under the dominion of the
church while never revealing the true reality of the situation, exactly as Darwin’s
work made possible. This continuance of ignorance in conformity to the requirements
of theocratic authority is revealed constantly in works of the type just quoted in the
way that the ideas are always presented as something radically new and never seen to
be a continuance of the natural process of biological evolution we can see this
demonstrated glaringly in the opening section of the passage quoted where we have
the idiotic notion of the Darwinian process out evolving itself. The degree of
stupidity these brilliant and gifted priests of science are able to come up with is
limitless and truly impressive. Nonetheless the tenor of this rationale remains the
same, it continues to imply the uniqueness of humanity only this time by using the
slightly obtuse formula of this unity of artificial form all being something new.
Which it most definitely is not, it is simply the continuing evolution of the exoskeletal
form in accordance with the dictates of the laws of the universe.

366
 Bibliography

Masaharu Anesaki History of Japanese Religion: With Special Reference

to the Social and Moral Life of the Nation, Charles E.
Tuttle Company, 1983. First published 1930.

Karen Armstrong The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism,

Christianity and Islam, Harper Collins, 2000.

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

“Natural Selection” and “Inheritance” to Political
Society. D. Appleton and Company, 1890.

George Basalla The Evolution of Technology, Cambridge, 1997. First

published 1988.

Peter L. Berger Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective,

Penguin 1975. First published 1963.

J. K. Bluntschli The Theory of the State, OUP, 1901.

Kenneth Bock Human Nature and History: A Response to

Sociobiology, Columbia University Press, 1980.

Elias Bredsdorff Hans Christian Andersen: the story of his life and work
180575, Phaidon, 1975.

Daniel G. Brinton The Basis of Social Relations: A Study in Ethnic

Psychology, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1902.

Lucius Moody Bristol Social Adaptation: A Study in the Development of the

Doctrine of Adaptation as a Theory of Social Progess,
Harvard, 1915.

F. W. Coker Organismic Theories of the State: Nineteenth Century

367
 Interpretations of the State as Organism or as Person,
Columbia University, 1910.

Auguste Comte Positive Philosophy, translated by Harriet Martineau,

Calvin Blanchard, 1856

Charles Darwin The Origin of Species by Natural Selection, Watts &

Co., 1929

Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene, OUP, 1999.

Christopher Dawson Progress & Religion: An Historical Enquiry, Sheed

and Ward, 1934. First published 1929.

John Durant & Science and Culture in Europe, Science

Jane Gregory Museum, 1993.

Alfred E. Emerson Human Cultural Evolution and Its Relation to Organic

Evolution of Insect Societies, in Social Change in
Developing Areas: A Reinterpretation of Evolutionary
Theory, Edited by Herbert R. Barringer, George I.
Blanksten and Raymond W. Mack, Schenkman
Publishing Company, 1965.

Otto Gierke Political Theories of the Middles Age, translated by

F.W. Maitland, Cambridge, 1900.

Natural Law and the Theory of Society 1500 to 1800,

Vol. I & II, translated by Ernest Barker, Cambridge,
1934.

Eric Gill The Necessity of Belief: an enquiry into the nature of

human certainty, the causes of scepticism and the
grounds of morality, and a justification of the doctrine
that the end is a beginning, Faber and Faber, 1936.

Jane Goodall Reason for Hope: A Spiritual Journey, Thorsons, 1999.

Julian Huxley Science, Religion, and Human Nature, Watts & Co.,
1930.

368
 UNESCO Its Purpose and its Philosophy, Preparatory
Commission of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organisation, 1946.

Sir Arthur Keith Ethnos or the Problem of Race Considered from a New
Point of View, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd.,
1931.

Presidential Address on Certain Factors Concerned in

the Evolution of Human Races, Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute,1916.

Kevin Kelly Out of Control: The Rise of Neo-Biological

Civilization, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,
1994.

Benjamin Kidd Social Evolution, Macmillan and Co.,1894.

A. L. Kroeber The Superorganic, American Anthropologist, Vol. 19,

No. 2 April-June, 1917.

Gerhard Lenski Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification,

McGraw-Hill, 1966.

Paul von Lilienfeld Thoughts Concerning the Social Science of the Future,

Bd. I Die Menschliche Gesellschaft als realer

Organismus;

Bd. II Die socialen Gesetze;

Bd. III Die sociale Psychophysik;

Bd. IV Die sociale Physiologie;

Bd. V Versuch einer natürlichen Theologie

Publisher, E. Behre’s, 1873-1881

The Defence of the Organic Method in Sociology,

Georg Reimer, 1898.

369
W. J. M. Mackenzie Biological Ideas in Politics: An Essay on Political
Adaptivity, St. Martin’s Press, 1979.

George R. Maclay The Social Organism: A Short History of the Idea that a
Human Society May be Regarded as a Gigantic Living
Creature, North River Press, 1990.

The Dominant Man: The Pecking Order in Human

Society, George Maclay and Humphry Knipe, Delacorte
Press, 1972

Marshall McLuhan Understanding Media, McGraw-Hill, 1964.

William Sharp M‘Kechnie The State & the Individual: An Introduction to Political
Science, with special reference to Socialistic and
Individualistic Theories, James MacLehose and Sons,
1896

James Grier Miller Living Systems, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1978.

Joel Mokyr The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and

Economic Progress, OUP, 1990.

Gaetano Mosca The Ruling Class, McGraw-Hill, 1939. First published

1896.

P. D. Ouspensky A New Model of the Universe: Principles of the

Psychological Method in its Application to Problems of
Science, Religion and Art, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner
& Co., Ltd., 1931.

A. De Quatrefages The Human Species, C. Kegan Paul & Co., 1879.

Roy A. Rappaport Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity,

Cambridge, 2001. First published 1999.

Oliver L. Reiser The Integration of Human Knowledge: A Study of the

Formal Foundations and the Social Implications of
Unified Science, Porter Sargent, 1958.

370
Morley Roberts Biopolitics: An Essay in the Physiology, Pathology &
Politics of the Social & Somatic Organism, Dent, 1938.

J. Rumney Herbert Spencer’s Sociology: A Study in the History of

Social Theory, Williams and Norgate, 1934.

Thomas C. Schelling Micromotives and Macrobehavior, W. W. Norton &

Company, 1978.

Albert Somit Biology and Politics: Recent Explorations, Mouton,

1976

Pitirim Sorokin Contemporary Sociological Theories, Harper &

Brothers, 1928

Herbert Spencer The Principles of Sociology, Vol 12, D. Appleton and

Company, 1896. (First published 1878-80)

Social Statics, together with The Man Versus the State,

D. Appleton, 1897.

The Data of Ethics, Hurst & Company, 1879.

Gregory Stock Metaman: The Merging of Humans and Machines into

a Global Superorganism, Simon & Schuster, 1993.

Andrew Sullivan Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality,

Picador, 1995

Lewis Thomas The Lives of a Cell: Notes of a Biology Watcher,

Allen Lane, 1980. First published 1974.

Thomas L. Thompson The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past,

Jonathan Cape, 1999.

Lester F. Ward Pure Sociology: A Treatise on the Origin and

Spontaneous Development of Society.

371
 Psychologic Basis of Social Economics, Page 471-2
of Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, Vol. III. July, 1892June, 1893.
Kraus Reprint Corporation, 1968

William Morton Wheeler Emergent Evolution and the Development of

Societies, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.,
1928.

Essays in Philosophical Biology, Russell &

Russell, 1967. First published 1939.

Leslie A. White The Concept of Cultural Systems: A Key to

Understanding Tribes and Nations, Columbia
University Press, 1975.

Edward O. Wilson Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Belknap Press, 1978.

First published 1975.

George Kingsley Zipf National Unity and Disunity: The Nation As a

Bio-Social Organism, The Principia Press, Inc.,
1941.

The Psycho-Biology of Language: An Introduction to

Dynamic Philology, M.I.T., 1965. First published
1935.

372