You are on page 1of 319

Master Race

Why

We Hate Them
and

Why We have the Them

by

Howard Hill

Godless House
Posted to Scribd : Friday, 15 June 2012

Contents
Page

Introduction

Ch. 1

The Science of Human Nature


I Taboo II Social osmosis III The game IV Freewill IV So what ?

7 8 10 14 15 19

Ch. 2

Nazi Academic Anti-Semitism


I Meyer-Christian II Weinreich

26 26 30

Ch. 3 Everywhere, but Nowhere


I II Knowledge control When only seeing is the means to knowing, science does not exist III The evolution of complex linguistic identity programming IV Manufacturing the Hitler Taboo V Embryonic master identity VI Identity as the hub of social self organization VII Superorganic self-organization creates society VIII Chapter Summary

33 33 34 41 43 48 52 53 55

Ch. 4 Semantic Closure Equals Linguistic Identity, Equals Religion


I II III IV V Superorganic science arrives, maybe Newsflash What speech is Self-organisation in humans Darwin made Nature in humanitys image by making competition the key factor in evolution VI Wilsons Superorganism VII Wilson as traitor to science and friend to religion VIII Individuals as vortices of linguistic force

57
58 62 63 64

64 66 70 70

Ch. 5 Keeping it Tight


I Semantic unity in a global, religious structural triad

73
77

Ch. 6

True Atheism
I II III IV V VI VII IX Linguistic creative force Structural integration of sham secularism Arrow of identity Scientific historical method delineated False atheism Another Gatekeeper formula A remarkable book Americanism

80 83 84 88 90 94 96 98 101

Ch.

7 Religion as the Manifestation of Superorganic Consciousness


I II III IV V VI Religion as the consciousness of the state, or state identity Wonder of wonders ! Continental sociology Essence of the war between religion and truth Godless dimension of Judaism Nature of consciousness

104 111 113 113 115 119 124

Ch. Ch.

8 Perfect Logic 9 Kastein on Making the Jewish Master Race


I II III IV V VI The Jews shadow : antisemitism Gatekeeper antisemitism Hitlers Jewishness ? Natural selection and the making of the Jews Evolving hierarchical social anatomy Culture of cultures : inevitability of social hierarchy VII A new monster of darkness discovered

128

133 134 135 140 141 145 149 156

Ch. 10 A Crucible of Human Master Identity


I II III IV V Essence of master race power Monism overrules dualism Linguistic authority and science Paul von Lilienfeld : my hero Amateur v professional science

157 161 164 167 168 171

Ch. 11 Big Questions Bullshit

175

Ch. 12 Self-Organisation and All


I II

178 Memetics 178 Political interlude on corruption towards power 181

Ch. 13 Free Will


I Conscious will is an intersection within a flow of corporate information II History of memetics III A little Ray of thought IV Origin of the Jewish master race status V Science of freewill

186 186 195 197 201 203

Ch. 14 Reason has no Reason


I Rationality

207 208

Ch. 15 Shallowness of Memes


I II III IV V VI Knowledge continuum Scientific fads on religion Naked clothing Informations image Pulsation Cohens principle expanded

210 213 215 218 221 222 225

Ch. 16 Daily Philosophy


I II III IV V Demise of a New Atheist Neutral units of core power Homosexuality as a pseudo ideology A final pub encounter Humanist atheism

232 236 239 241 243 244

Ch. 17 Mackenzie
I Morality II Linguistic force is human willpower

248 249 251

Ch. 18 Love
I Breivik II Paternalism by social authority creates innocence in the person III A word on multiculturalism

257 257 261 264

Ch. 19 God is Society I Comtes religion of humanity

267 269

Ch. 20 Super-individuals

274

Ch. 21 Brotherhoods of Fear


I Migratory force as an impulse towards Master Race formation II Recognition at last !

276 280 281

Ch. 22 Recognition at last !


I Learning is the privilege of the nonexistent II Human ecology

282 283 284

Appendices

1 2 Triadic structure
3 Katies letter 4 Early piece

286 286 288 306

Bibliography

309

Introduction

Ever since discovering the true scientific explanation for human existence as we know it, I have been fascinated by the Jews. A week or so ago, today being Monday, 18 April 2011, a copy of Hitlers Professors, 1946, arrived from California, a piece of Jewish propaganda garnering the proceeds of the vicious anti-Semitism of the period that had just been brought to a close. Dipping into it in search of any particularly interesting sections I soon discovered the name of a Nazi anti-Semitic author who published a book on the Jewish relationship to the British, as slaves of Judaism. To my delight this book was available, a bit pricy for my pocket, but what are credit cards for ? A copy arrived from Holland this dinnertime, Die englisch-jdische Allianz : Werden und Wirken dir kapitalistischen Weltherrschaft, Wolf Meyer-Christian, 1940. I cannot capture the exact meaning of this title by machine translation, but this will do The English-Jewish Alliance : the making of capitalist world domination. Being in German I immediately set about scanning it, to enable translation, and as I did so an idea began to take shape. Bits and bobs of material seemed familiar to me, the general drift of the analysis that is bound to be familiar to anyone who takes an interest in the anti-Semitic literature of the great age of anti-Semitism culminating in the Nazi movement. To have a piece of anti-Semitic literature published by a Nazi in the opening years of the last world war, directed at an elucidation of the English relationship to the subject, well, what more could we wish for ? So much material. It is very difficult to make much of these studies when they are in a foreign tongue, although over the years I have accumulated a few specific items in English. But the point just now, is not to think about the detail of Jewish status, but rather to think about its meaning, in purely philosophical terms shall we say. The idea then is to use this Nazi study of the true master race, upon whose essence Hitler modelled Nazis ideology, as a kick-start for delving into the nature of a master race in genuine sociological terms, of precisely the kind that Hitler made impossible by creating the Hitler Taboo against any such genuine science of human nature. It should not pass unnoticed that such telling material on the Jews as Master Race is only to be found in the hands of coldblooded anti-Semites, that is what makes the true meaning of the Nazis comprehensible, as the medium of the taboo central to securing the status of the Jews as master race in the present dispensation of the world, refreshed by the two world wars, and thus begun again. The Hitler Taboo, like all such mindless dogmas of hate, places all studies of modern society based on real science, beyond the pale, exactly as can be seen openly described in works like Human by Nature, Weingart et. al., 1997. Sociological organicism is the basis of our reasoning, where the human animal is known to be a living superorganism created by nature, and where the individual is known to be none existent, for all that we are one such ourselves. Once kick-started, our study will proceed to draw in whatever material it may to elucidate the topic of the master race as a key aspect of the topic of human corporate nature.

Chapter One

The Science of Human Nature

We must begin by affirming where science has brought us thus far, to a knowledge of human nature in perfect keeping with all science, whereupon we may venture to understand all aspects of human existence, without sentimentality. Last night, 29/07/2011, I had a brief chat with a young fella who likes to be a bit mystical, and when I challenged him on the subject of any interest in science that he might have, he said he had ultimate respect for science. Asked how this related to his ideas, he rattled off the creation of the universe from the big bang to the appearance of life in thirty seconds, and when he arrived at humans he began to run in reverse, starting with our obviously powerful brains that give us special powers of decision making and purposefulness. This was a perfect demonstration of the impossibility of enforcing reason on anyone, in the shape of accurate, that is, scientific knowledge. Individuals just play with reason according to need, which is cultivated in them by society, because in the end, all that knowledge is in our heads, is words. So that our arguments are for those who want to know reality, we are not arguing with anyone, nor seeking to persuade anyone, of anything. Here we provide absolute, perfect knowledge, it is here if you want it, that is all. Perfect knowledge is not a reference to each and every detail, but to the general approach, essentially to the insight that humans are superorganisms, and individuals do not exist as ends in themselves. Before you can say anything about humans that is true to reality, you must know what humans are, and that is what we know before we begin, and no one else knows, at all. Humans are not divine, they are not psychological, they are superorganic, the sum of individuals is the animal. Humans evolved to be social, not in some incidental way, our bodies are so made that living socially is, for us, an absolutely deterministic given. Humans can no more live outside a social environment than fish can live out of water, or birds can live without an atmosphere to fly in. This is so obvious it beggars belief that it needs to be said, and yet, to this day, official pundits of human nature deny this, they say that we choose to be social, that living socially is a prerogative we opt for because we have decided it is in our best interests to do so ! In other words, living outside society is so intolerable, that we choose to live in society, for all the benefits it brings as compared to our natural state as independent, but ragged individuals. This is pure trash reasoning, and its exponents are our greatest philosophers. This ludicrous view leads to the contract theory of society, and it is so utterly wrong that it is the modern, secular equivalent of religious myth, which, as an explanation of human life in society, could not be further from the scientific truth if it tried to be. It remains a most popular idea today, nonetheless. Tonight, Monday, 18 April 2011, in a programme on BBC 4 called The Gene Code, we had a famous evolutionary scientist, Steven Rose, talking about how we would starve to death in three months if we were forced to eat only raw food, because we had lost our ability to digest food in this way, having evolved an external stomach called a frying pan. This sample of evidence is snatched from the social ether in passing, and it would be nice if this kind scientific reasoning could be made fundamental to understanding of who and what we are. But it is not, what is made fundamental are our

feelings about who we are. This is understandable, but it is not science. This Rose by the way may be a scientific practitioner, but he is no scientist, he is as flawed as all the other academic priests adhering like a limpet to Darwins religiously prompted nonsense. In a philosophical conception I have christened Atheist Science, I have argued that the human animal is a superorganism so that, as we have an ant nest or a bee hive, we also have a human society. It follows that the person is but a unit within that Being, a sentient brick cell of a superorganism. This tells us that we are part of a living physiology, and this indicates a physiological social structure, from which fact the realisation that a master race must exist, becomes obvious. Roses smart arse observation makes the truth of this undeniable, though he himself would deny it, like the youth in the pub, he would treat humans independently of such basic scientific facts. But it is just such facts about our biological evolution, accumulating one by one, that prove that we live as we must, and not in any way, as an act of choice.

I Taboo We have discussed this tricky subject of a master race at length already, in various pieces of work, but can we now discuss this subject from a tranquil position ? In a work called Atheist Science, near initial completion, I included some remarks about the Druids as master race, inspired by a BBC 2 programme just a few days ago. So this subject is not of itself anti-Semitic, but the Jews are the master race of the present living superorganism, which now includes all humanity within its grasp, so there is no avoiding this reality if we wish to have a science of humanity. It is only when we come face to face with the mass of material describing the role of the Jews as the master race, which is always either vehemently anti-Semitic, or else declared inveterately so, that we get some idea how this vital attribute of our extended human physiology actually works. This taboo of anti-Semitism protecting the master identity is a primary demonstration of how nature builds social form, that we as individuals are powerless to resist. We fail to recognise social attributes for what they are because we think of social dynamics in terms of ourselves as responsible individuals, being oblivious to the fact that only the superorganism has any meaning as an end point of social action. Sadly I cannot read the work of Meyer-Christian that I recently bought, as it is in German, but it is a little different from anything I have got my hands on previously, which is excellent. In terms of understanding the dynamics of master race physiology, the core organ of superorganic physiology that is, this work may be helpful because it seems to present a web of Jewish influence at the upper echelons of a host society. Of course this is a basic stance of anti-Semitism, but that political facet is not our concern. The great lament for us, is that the organicist science of the nineteenth century did not culminate in an intellectual expression of these ideas, or not sufficiently anyway. The problem is difficult however, because of its taboo nature in the post cleansing social phase we are living in now, following the end of the last world war that prohibits any open studies of Jewish master race power. Venturing into the pages of Meyer-Christians book this afternoon, the feeling I had that made me initiate this piece was OK, here these people are, these Jews, spread through our society and having all this influence, and here we are, bending over backwards to facilitate them. I mean, after all, is that not what the title says, The English Jewish Alliance ? I considered how people would feel if we talked about these things today, telling them about the influence the Jews have on our world, what they would think ? And I thought, they

would think, What ? Most ordinary people would not give a toss that the Jews were intertwined in our world and manipulating us, exactly as the most vitriolic anti-Semites had ever claimed they were. And why should they ? Viewed in purely practical terms our world has become so vast in its economic depth, being truly capitalistic now, that the infusion of alien identities into our world is so complete, that we cannot tell ourselves from our none selves. And of course this is the general picture of human social evolution, especially as it has intensified in the last century and a half, and absolutely gone supernova in my lifetime. Yesterday, 06/05/2011, we had the second referendum of my lifetime, on changing first past the post which had delivered the horrendous disaster of right wing politics ruling our world for the last thirty years, destroying socialism, turning its party, New Labour, into the champion of rampant capitalism, and all the misery that goes with it. This referendum was for the Alternative Vote, a pathetic system, the offering of which torpedoed the prospects of victory from day one, making one suspect the Liberal leader Clegg, of deliberately scuppering the one chance for a significant change to the political system in my lifetime, he being a toff first, and politician second. Forty two percent voted, of which sixty nine percent said keep it as it is ! Mostly we do not give a toss who rules us, and when we do we express an infinite love of blind, ignorant fascism. Thats folk for you, they want security, stability, order, continuity of material wellbeing. And I guess if you are a regular plod, that makes perfect sense. So no one ever cares about the parasitic Jew, they never did. Anti-Semitism is always a cooked up device of the master race, focusing attention on themselves. That is how Jews get us to serve their purpose, by making them the central concern of our world, exactly as they are today because, in proximate terms, of what Hitler did yesterday. This sort of thinking provides a hint as to why a Jew like Baalbrit would write anti-Semitic literature, which is another item I have recently come across and purchased a copy of. Newsnight last night, 09/05/2011, BBC 2, had a debate on the dozen or so areas which voted Yes to AV. The idea was that these anomalies represented enclaves of left wing intellectual types, they included Oxford and Cambridge, plus several parts of London, etc. Having generally agreed that there is no such thing as a progressive majority, near the close Jeremy Paxman asked the question It makes you wonder where Clegg ever got the idea that there was a progressive majority to come out in hordes and vote Yes ? Exactly. Only someone who knew absolutely nothing about British politics could of thought the British people would, under any circumstances, vote for AV. Or, alternatively, only someone who knew nothing about AV, could of thought thus. The Conservatives knew they were safe allowing this referendum or they would never of agreed to it in the first place, so why did the Liberals not know they were flogging a dead horse by accepting this method ? Cameron is supposed to of come out all guns blazing because of panic in the ranks instilled by the realisation of what a Yes would mean, but once it was possible to argue that AV meant more than one vote for some, instead of the golden rule of one man one vote, the game was up. So, in summation, the truth is that no one understood what any of this meant until they fought the campaign, and brought reality to the fore. Yesterday also saw the matter of the Health Service reforms questioned in relation to the agreement signed by Cameron and Clegg months ago when forming the Conservative-Liberal coalition government, which Cameron is now willing to change significantly and Clegg is determined to revise radically. It is agreed that these men never read this important document. The insight we are driving at here, is that politicians are face men, they have no idea what their policies are about, they are puppets fronted by the civil service, the machinery of state. The real agenda lies within religion, which is imbued into the ruling elite especially, and much of the biomass, as an integral identity. The basic institutional framework built upon that identity foundation, operates according to a biological dynamic, which befits societys true status as a living animal, a superorganism.

The other thing I meant to write down somewhere, which came from yesterdays regional news, 06/05/2011, was the story of a women in Lancashire who was complaining that her son had not gained a place at the local community school, and was now forced to attend one of the four religious primary schools, even though she was a Humanist. The council said the community school took no account of such matters in allocating places, but of course the religious schools do, which skews the situation so that religion is forced on atheists. We have here a subtle example of the fact that religion and science cannot exist simultaneously, given the mass of religious schools forced on us by Capitalist social mechanicsthat delivers competition in education rather than centralised regulationwhat is required to even up the balance are schools that are expressly atheist. Obviously there are no capitalists who can pay for such schools, so they must be state schools. There are no moneyed atheist organizations, in fact there are no atheist organizations at all. This is a beautiful example of what has been happening to our country since the world wars trashed our secular society and let the poison of Islam in to restore our slave attachment to Judaism by reasserting the importance of religion. It is also a consequence of destroying Socialism, which is inherently atheist, while restoring unbridled Capitalism, which is the engine of Jewish, that is religious fascism. This is the reason why left and right wing fascist Capitalist administrationsare both driving forward a programme of religious education, decade after decade. This is the way to make us slaves, and these bastards know it. I am returning to this piece after a seven week break, the last edit was 31st July, today is Tuesday, 20 September 2011, and we may just note that a fortnight ago the Free Schools plan was in the news as coming into effect, an insidious, devious little scheme, enabling religious schools to burgeon under state funding, without any restrictions of any kind whatsoever, not even needing to employ teachers ! This is rampant religious fascism, a sign of the tragic times we have been reduced to living in. Now this is what we fought wars for, to make sure that England would be the domicile of the most abject slaves. The new formula for Free Schools allows unqualified teachers to be taken on so that religious schools can employ appropriate individuals able to indoctrinate their pupils in the one thing that matters, their alien identity. It occurred to me yesterday, 08/01/2012, that I could become a teacher in such a school if there were any that were expressly atheist. How good would that be ! I would get to teach the truth to the world, yes ! But of course there will not be any such school in a million years, because there is no community of atheists as there are always communities constituted as a consequence of any religious identity that comes into being. This fact proves all that we say about the nature of religion as identity associated with corporate being. This creative social dynamic is what makes linguistic force the basis of political power.

II Social osmosis The political selection system based on social identity, constitutes a feature of superorganic physiology, an osmotic membrane surrounding an organ of social physiology. A membrane that serves to build and sustain identity intensity, and purity, by allowing approved identities to be nurtured while others are starved. This hardly sounds like a multicultural society, but the key thing is to be religious, so this is a broad osmotic identity pressure, built into the social structure at its largest scale of existence. The osmotic membrane, the selection system, reinforces slave identity while cleansing the biomass of

antagonistic identity elements of a none religious kind. This is not an absolute process, but rather a hierarchical process, where all individuals remain part of one uniform society, no matter how antagonistic to that society they are, but some are favoured within the hierarchy while others are put at a disadvantage and marginalised by being consigned to lesser roles by the directive nature of the social structure operating on parameters of identity. Some may be alienated altogether, like myself, though even so, I am still highly integrated within my society, I am not banged up in prison for example. In Egypt this week, today is Friday, 13 May 2011, there were clashes between Muslims and Christians and five people were killed, I think they said. This we would heartily disapprove of, but essentially the mere maintenance of religious schools is exactly the same thing, it is just that our society is vastly more subtle in its management of these essential dynamics of identity based physiological social delineation. Likewise there has been some attention given to a great hero of free speech in China this week, an artist. But we have no more freedom than the Chinese, the only difference is that where the Chinese authorities oppose freedom headon, our absolute theocracy strokes with the fur, so that we provide lies that all are free to evince, but no one, in China or anywhere else, is allowed to go anywhere near evincing the truth. When the Chinese are fully integrated into the Jewish order, being run by a Muslim political order, then the Chinese will be as free as we are today. It could take some time. Time is something the universe has in abundance, and since the Jews alone in the human universe are immortal, there is no problem, all must succumb. Kill it with time, a fine motto to live by, if I had a coat of arms, that would be my motto. Never do anything today that can be put off until tomorrow ; more words to live by, only do what you want to do. Be your own master. The above ideas have been expressed in terms of social cleansing, both as war and as social filters of identity, in Katies piece addressing the First World War, written this September (see appendix 3). The membranes of social osmosis can be viewed as an all pervasive linguistic force field, carrying an identity charge which recognises suitably programmed people as neutral, allowing them to pass, but reacts to anti-identity sorts by resisting their passage through the structures that each expression of the force field guards. This prevents selected individuals from flowing freely through the social structure, keeping them out of areas of social power which then become concentrated with conversely selected individuals, who carry the neutral identity ultimately shaped in conformity to religion, with parameters set by the master identity of Judaism. We do not need to think in the grandest terms when trying to visualise this model of social anatomy. Every detail of our lives takes place within the exoskeleton of the superorganism, so that any factor that might constrain us, anywhere, constitutes a linguistic force field serving to filter the biomass to keep its makeup concentrated on the core identity values of the living superorganism, thus maintaining a healthy superorganic constitution as defined in terms of the integrity of the core identity, which is Judaism. This filtering by way of identity may exist in the form of a roadside camera hunting for law breakers ; schools seeking to refine their intake according to a specific religious dogma ; employers looking for the most servile workers ; bars demanding a dress code ; the list is endless, at every turn we are constrained by an infinite number of linguistic force fields imposing values on our actions, forever sifting and filtering us to keep the body of the superorganism pure. Job interviews, references, credit checks, and all sorts of linguistic force fields exist to regulate the purity of character that the superorganism has concentrated within its inner tissues. And certainly, it is the ever increasing intensity of this all pervasive osmotic process of social control, that works its way up from the farthest reaches of the biomass to the inner core, always testing and refining to make sure impurity of identity attachment is minimised everywhere, while purity of identity attachment is maximised at the core where political

power resides in government, military, academia, policing, and everywhere at the heart of the superorganisms being. The creation of social structure such as the osmotic membrane surrounding slave induction centres, schools that is, is as random as the evolution of somatic structures, which is to say, it is not chance driven at all. Given our somatic social physiology, we have no choice but to produce these social forms. Our political methods are part of the process whereby nature organises these outcomes by making us think we are the conscious creators of social order. Hence people are desperate to get their sproggs into religious schools because these slave induction centres have all the privileges, while state schools are deliberately allowed to fester. They were advertising a reality show yesterday, I think that is the correct genreit is all they ever seem to churn out nowadayswhere all council services were withdrawn from a street and people were left to fill the void. The philosophy informing the design of this propaganda show, assumes that people are individuals even as it sets out to show that they are not, that they are part of a social structure upon which they are utterly dependant. This pivot of deception is the very essence of our existence. First we are told that we are individuals, then we are shown that we must all freely choose to give up our individuality in order that we can exist ! It is like a practical demonstration of the contract theory, a contrived proof of a religious lie. The brain forms a material structure that operates as a unit of control that means we do not exist, where central amongst the brains operational parameters is the imperative to affirm that we alone exist ! Thus our brain exists to deceive us. A television programme like this is therefore an example of the brain deceiving us. A defence of the programme broadcast yesterday, 16/05/2011, stated that the idea was to show how individuals coped, but that is not so. The show, screened last night, though I did not watch any of it, was a piece of religious propaganda, in that it was about reinforcing the idea that we are individuals, rather than allowing us to know that we are animals, part of a superorganism, so that nature dictates every last detail of how we live. Which is why we have to put up with BBC bullshit like this, instead of having science informing us about what all social events mean. Moving on a few months, as I read this piece quickly for a last time, I watched some of a nice BBC history programme last night where the presenter entered the bowls of the British Library to examine the royal collection of illuminated manuscripts, some reaching back to the seven hundreds. These were lovely to see, but the interesting thing for us is the manner in which this propaganda was used for the exact same purpose for which it was intended all those years ago, by the BBC last night, 9/01/2012. The talk was all about how the King wanted to do this or that, the true nature of these documents as pivotal elements of superorganic physiology, powerhouses of linguistic force, being way beyond the imagination of the naive academic presenting the show. This was all about our territory being subsumed under the yoke of Judaism, exactly as it continues to be now, and this is obvious once we know that there is no such thing as a person, and only the superorganism has any existence. But of course we do not know this, ordinarily, and BBC propaganda like this is intended to make sure we never do. What is social osmosis all about ? It creates structural order, including the order of life itself, by setting up contrasting enclaves of material being. If we think of a cell maintaining itself through the mechanism of osmotic membranes delivering purity within, compared to the raw environment without from where materials are drawn for making the life form, then the selective mechanism of osmosis can be seen as the basis of life. A most important point about an osmotic structure is that it sets up a gradient between two adjacent environments that must always be interpretable in terms of energy, giving us an energy gradient. Energy gradients are the basis of hierarchical structure, necessary to create a master race. We have also made the ascent of an energy gradient in a localised place where a new

life form has come into existence, which then descends the gradient by entering the surrounding void created by the act of developmental ascent, the basis of evolution itself, due to the force of information seeking latent potential energy of life first by ascending a life energy gradient, then by descending that gradient to disperse newly formed life. Energy gradients are therefore of immense importance in life. Obviously science could not be allowed to present a theory of evolution based on energy, as this would inevitably embrace human social existence, exactly as we now find with the emergence of an approximation to such a model based upon complexity theory and the self-organization paradigms derived from it, which science is struggling to subvert currently, to ensure that religion continues to be protected from science. With such thoughts in mind we may ask how the basic principles of biological osmosis can be applied to social structure. If our school is regarded as an organ of superorganic anatomy which has the special role of developing, purifying, and maintaining the identity of the whole superorganism at a primary level, then the pupils are the immature cellular units of superorganic being to be processed by this social organelle. The linguistic identity programme of religious form, and the regulation of selective procedures within the education system, are information patterns interacting to organise the overall superorganic constitution. The result of this interaction is the initial purification of superorganic identity via an osmotic social cleansing of the biomass, through selection according to religious affiliation. Within most schools a purified base of cellular material will be established by the application of such methods. One assumes the same method will select the staff too. The filtered neonate slave cells are then nurtured, and their purity is a reinforcing factor in the success of the whole process as it is mutually reinforcing between individuals. Success is determined by evaluation culminating in exam results at the point of expulsion from the slave nurturing pod, ready for service as an adult cell within the mainframe of superorganic physiology ; as a teacher for example ; although all adults are virtual teachers. All the features of this process that we are currently describing, can readily be seen to conform to the idea of a linguistic force directing the creation of all social structure and action, for it is the operation of language that enables all these social processes to take place. We cannot see the linguistic force however because it acts through us, animating us in a manner whereby this force obliges us to think that we are in control of ourselves. This is the genetically evolved social brain at work, making us all alike temperamentally. In terms of evolved somatic anatomy, a birds wings create the aerial space birds occupy, as the human brain creates the social space these creatures occupy. In terms of energy gradients, the purification of identity by ensuring that intake is affiliated to Judaism within, while antagonistic identity programming is excluded, sets up a gradient of linguistic force defined by identity, which shows us that identity is an expression of linguistic force, that in turn shows us why religion is the basis of superorganic formation, and hence the basis of power in society, given that religion is the general term for the specific forms that always impart an identity marker to their adherents. Social osmosis seems to be a perfectly workable idea in terms of Atheist Science principles. From this description we can see why religious schools obtain an advantage over their nonreligious counterparts, and hence why they are so popular with parents and children alike. With this biological approach we also find ourselves delivering a vastly more subtle form of the nineteenth century analogical method, that was so denigrated at the time because of its crude, crass stupidity, comparing body tissues such as nerves to telegraph wires for example. The principle of comparison can be seen to be absolutely correct, but the basis upon which the comparison is founded must be integral at all levels of comparison, based upon the essence of human nature, not superficial, comparing gross appearances without integral explanations.

Our leaders have no idea what the meaning of their ideas are, and hence no idea why they do the things they do, or believe the things they believe. So where do these beliefs, these ideas, in short, where does the order manifest in society come from ?

III The game What is a game ? A game is a set of rules, first and foremost, because all games must have rules. If we see the makings of a game in the appearance of human affairs, then we must ask from whence the rules arise ? Human affairs have the appearance of a game because they follow a definite pattern, that always leads towards a fixed end point that none of the participants know exists. Thus the players have no idea they are part of an organised programme with rules dictating a fixed outcome, they think all is to play for and nothing is determined. Indeed this feature of human existence is very much at the forefront of our cultural ideology, we see it manifested most blatantly in Christian propaganda spewed forth down the ages in the form of endless calls to arms, defence being needed against imminent destruction. This propaganda is part of the game, destruction never comes, and that which is visited upon humanity is always drawn from a religious source, and always serves to reinforce the Jewish autocracy, in the end. In any game there is a predetermined outcomethere is a winnerbut precisely who the winner will be is not known, hence the game is on. In real life, this scenario is somewhat different. The predetermined outcome is all that is real, who the winner is, is of no importance whatsoever to the game. In other words, the game is all that is real, the players count for nothing. Nature does not care whether the Jews are the winners, or the Incas, or the Buddhists. The game is the unfolding of human corporate nature into a global superorganism, end of story. This is the principle behind Dawkins selfish gene idea, where he makes evolution the game in which genes are all that matters, as life forms are just vehicles for the transmission of genetic information. Smartarse nonsense as usual from our priest academics. A formal game like chess mimics the game of our social life, in the critical way that we desire to discern for real, as the source of the rules directing us. How do we get closer to the rules we obey ? Returning to our recent example of politicians formulating an attitude to a longstanding political issue, that of the alternative vote, which turned into a social reaction only when tested, we have a manifestation of the rules acting upon us. This is shown in the way the process unfolded toward a predictable, certain end, that even so, no one could quite predict. Extending the principles acquired from this example to a far more dynamic, intense setting, we may think of the unfolding of a military campaign, a war. Extending still further, we come to the social order itself. This method ripples forever outwards, but always retains the same rules within. This is very much in keeping with the idea of self organization with which we find ourselves captivated at present, with much new material coming to light under this heading. Last night, 14/05/2011, BBC 2 had a programme on Domesday, which nicely brought home the way a grand plan of a major sort played out. We had the Invasion in 1066 and Domesday published in 1086, when a new set of rules was thereby established to fix the Norman elite in place, within the English social structure. This was a form of grafting by resetting the rules, which were in any case already part of the same local strand of the game, Judaism that is, and the same set of rules which defines all these human games. So this specific event was really a deep code revision of an established set of local rules. In addition to this excellent historical example we have the one taken a fortnight ago from one of

Olivers programmes, discussed below under the chapter Everywhere but Nowhere, concerning the way the Romans (alias the Jews), took over Britain in a two stage invasion set one century apart ! All of this involves the fixing of rules that players play out, through their culturally inculcated programming, organised via a social organisation composed of an array of identities and structures that we have said constitutes an osmotic social processes, that manages the dynamics related to the fixed structures, and culminates in the ongoing action of life, an example of which was the decision making process we spoke of earlier, concerning the alternative vote. So the rules for the social game are derived in exactly the same way as applies to all structure in the universe, surprise surprise. An idea that harks back to Herbert Spencers evolutionary philosophy of the mid nineteenth century, showing how far advanced ideas were then, before the great cleansings of the twentieth century, and how far ideas have decayed since, in that we must say these things now as if they were radical. The process of structural formation, wherever it occurs, involves a code the rules fixed, that is preserved, within a structure to which the rules relate creatively. At the social level the code is linguistic and the structure is cultural, so this is the game. In effect we live within a giant three dimensional chessboard, which takes the variable form of a culture the chessboard is in fact the living superorganism in this analogy, what religion identifies as God. So the idea of the game just helps us think about how the behaviour of our elite directs all social activity coming under the information of the One culture game thereby acting in a uniform direction expressed in One identity, Judaism in our case, to create an arrow of identity moving forward consistently through time. We might say that the arrow of history is, in biological terms, an arrow of identity belonging to a superorganism. And finally, we must understand that these rules are the charges of which the linguistic force fields discussed above, are composed, whereby the new rules of osmotic social sifting keeping the English out and letting the Normans into the hierarchical structures operate. This re-phased the linguistic force in England according to a new identity pattern, rearranging the charges according to a new linguistic programme, French instead of English, and all that went with such a change. But, as noted, the new arrangement was still encompassed by the overarching pattern of Christianity, which itself comes under the set of rules called Judaism.

IV Freewill The idea of freewill is part of the religious drivel we can never get away from, not much entertained in our works, but with the idea of the game as a model for visualising the manner in which social structure is delivered through compliance to a subliminal set of rules, we may have an exceptional opportunity to consider the real nature of freewill, such as it is. With the game of chess in mind we can easily refer the idea of freewill to this setting, and ask how far we have, or may express freewill, within the context of playing chess ? This contained setting allows us to understand that while we have freewill in the making of moves, we are precisely constrained by the rules, and dynamically constrained by the ongoing progress of the game. This dynamic constraint is what we find operating in real life, where the moves we make are time bound, space constrained elements, of the social structure within which we all operate. The moves made by the Liberals and Conservatives respectively, a year ago, as they laid down the terms for the coalition relationship predetermined the unfolding series of moves that has followed since, culminating in the

referendum at the beginning of this month, which was a disaster for the Liberals, topping off the triumph of entry into government for the first time in a hundred years or so. It is easy to see how this real life setting mirrors the game of chess in which the winner is determined by the skill displayed in the earlier phases of the game. From the outset the Liberals had one prime move : to demand a referendum on full blown proportional representation. Why did they not make this obvious move ? The answer is simple, all parties are infiltrated by the conservative element that rules our world, as seen here in the figure of Nick Clegg. How can a man from his background be a liberal in anything but name ? He joined the Liberals to fulfil a political ambition, not to express an inherent political belief. He just wants power. He spoke in his speech yesterday, 21/09/2011, at the Liberal conference, about this country being our home and making it a fit place to live : its words, just pure unadulterated verbal gush, coming from the mouth of a man who would not know or understand a value in life, if it was forced up his posh nose with a blow from a lump hammer. He gets his idea of leadership from reading Shakespeare and imagining himself a hero, instead of what he is, which a juvenile ponce, a degenerate, an inveterate liar, and an example of the worst that humanity can produce, in short, a professional politician. What it is really important to understand from this example of current political affairs, is that the rules are working perfectly, everything that should happen, is happening. The rules do not exist to gratify me, or Mr Clegg, or anyone else, they exist to form a living human animal, the superorganism, and that is why the Liberals did not make the one move that they had to make, from an individual point of logic. The excuses given by the Liberals unwittingly recognise this, for they say that party political ambitions had to be put on hold for the sake of the nation, in these dire times. They talk to us as if we were little children, while acting as if they were our caring Mothers. But behind the lying drivel, lies the truth. The truth is that the rules shaping the organisation of the living superorganism is delivering perfect outcomes, like this sacrifice of eternal ideals for the sake of the short term enjoyment of political power, due to moves enacted millennia ago, centuries ago, decades ago, years ago, and hence, as inconsistent and illogical as they obviously are, onto the moves happening right now. All these moves, past and present, are working towards global domination, not towards personal gratification. In order to achieve this long-term end, which is of course an infinite projection of human nature, and hence an end never satisfied, the rules subsume all lesser elements of gratification, forcing actions to coalesce about the lowest common denominator of collective unity, where power is most concentrated. This is why uniformity is the quintessence of human nature, why there can be only One identity, and that identity is Judaism. Politicians find themselves faced with a situation they do not want, so they take a pragmatic course and explain their decisions in the most positive way they can, which is why we get all the offensive stuff we do get from them ; and here we explain why things work out this way. The Liberals are forced to give up their core ideal for the sake of political power, and they present this as a noble sacrifice for the good of us all. And that is how the rules of nature are presented to us through the medium of linguistic force that creates the identity programme delivering these outcomes by controlling our behaviour, to form a unified social order, a mammalian superorganism. The politicians have no idea that this is what they are part of, which is why they talk drivel to us, as they follow the identity programme implanted into their brains, according to the situation they find themselves operating within as individuals, upon the board game of social life where they have the professional role of manipulating the masses who carry the same slave programme as the politicians. This is the blind leading the blind, a phrase that nicely captures the gist of what is happening on a personal level. Blind we may all be, but nature is not, she knows precisely what she is doing, and all is going exactly to plan, as it always does.

Yesterday, 11/01/2012, I caught a snippet of a programme on developments in European technology that looked at the seventeenth century invention of gearing, used in mills to convert power from vertical to horizontal etc. The millers were the first engineers the man said magnificently. But as we can see from the examination of motives and methods in politics described above, if the superorganism is the mill, then the politicians are this mills gearing. For entire people are identical in being fashioned by one uniform corporate identity, but as human corporate nature unfolds its growth potential through the process of social evolution, some are given special roles that allows the entire mass to act in an otherwise impossible fashion, as the politicians manipulate the uniform dynamic of the linguistic identity programme so as to shift the direction of social action according to the needs of a growing superorganism. We are only able to recognise this mechanistic aspect of social anatomy because we have teased out these dynamics by thinking of a real life example in terms of a set of rules creating social form at the behest of a linguistic force created by the evolution of human somatic form. Social gearing is no mere illusion, it is as real as the gears in your car. The introduction of gearing equates to the management of force, or power, and it involves structural organisation in the flow of energy control. Hence the mill intensified power to the grinding stones at its heart by having a large wheel key into a tiny wheel, delivering a rotary ratio of ten to one. In society the enact same principle applies. By having special structures, mills of linguistic force, political institutions that is, like a church or a monarchy, and placing individuals within these structures as priests, kings, politicians, soldiers, policeman, lawyers, academics and so on, we find the same structural principle applies. These especially linguistically identified individuals represent the linguistically anonymous masses beyond the structure, imparting a social power ratio to all that the nominated do. And this relates back to what we said about the Liberals taking part in this machinery last year. The delivery of social power within the structure determines individual action, and the whole nation of sixty million people acts in obedience to the inane stupidity of the small number of people making the stupid decisions. Meanwhile the propaganda tells us that the powerless masses are the seat of power, which is true ; as the flow of water is the seat of power in a mill, but so what, its not the rushing water that impresses us as the engine of power, it is the fancy gears, and rightly so. Concerning freewill in relation to these thoughts, we obtain a fairly subtle appreciation of the reality of freewill in a setting where freewill is not by any means all it may appear to be when considered one move at a time. This relates to the idea of our nonexistence that has become such a prominent feature of our Atheist Science philosophy of late. We can, by emphasising our autonomy as individuals, as ends in ourselves, readily think we have freewill, but as we shift further away from the intimate, we ought to understand the reality of our nonexistence as units of a wider setting, that of the game : which is the superorganism. These ideas are the sort of thing we need to help us get to grips with the slippery nature of the more extravagant ideas we extol, to do with the reason for world war devastating Europe in order to cleanse the degrading slave biomass of Judaism, to prepare for an infusion of fresh, invigorated Jewish slave identity, in the form of the alien culture of Islam. On BBC 1s Big Questions religious propaganda show yesterday, 15/05/2011, discussing Does Britain have a problem with Islam ?, one Muslim threw in the comment that Islam has been good for Britain because it had brought in a flood of sentiment attached to highly prized values, as in family values. My ears pricked up when I heard this because that is precisely what we say all the time. The Muslims were imported following the cleansing of our freedom loving British culture, to reinforce our attachment to authoritarian Judaism,

which takes the form of these highly prized values impinging on personal freedom by making people obey a higher authority instinctively, through their religious identity programming. So in terms of understanding how social development continues on a level that transforms society massively every single generation, we may note that nothing ever changes with regard to our values. These values then, are the rules of the game. Our human corporate nature produced by our genetics, lays down the basic parameters of the game of life for our species, which involves the generation of a social structure, achieved through the manifestation of linguistic force, that wells up from within us, uncontrollably. All societies must abide by this basic set of rules ingrained into our physical being by our genetics, that drives us to speak and hence to exude culture, and therefore to accrete a social structure at the core of which lies social authority, as the culminating expression of the linguistic force emanating from our genetically evolved linguistic physiology. Built upon a strictly biological foundation, is a cultural layer of social order, with its own set of rules producing a related cultural form. These rules are an extension of the genetic rules of human corporate being, they take the form of linguistic rules, in the broadest sense, being born of our linguistically evolved physiology. These linguistic rules are constrained by the rules of human corporate being, set by the genome, they are like the rules of chess setting out the parameters of the game which the players enact. The linguistic rules are the elaboration of experience, seen in chess in the history of the game, which keen players have learnt over the generations. When new knowledge comes forth, as it does regularly, to threaten the core identity of Judaism, in all its forms, a set of rules exists built into the social fabric, providing a spontaneous, structural defensive response. This gave us the game strategy of Darwinism, a new book like the Domesday Book, setting out a new set of rules that established a new authority upon which science would be based in conformity to ancient religious dogma. From this enactment of a new set of rules the players took their cue, and so the world wars, the Nazis, the holocaust, the establishment of Israel, all followed upon the chessboard of life appearing under the guise of Judaism. One move following the other with all the predictability of a clockwork machine, because the rules made it so, and the rules were woven into the image of Jewish identity. The Nazis, like everyone else, obeyed the dictates of these rules, and hence they placed the Jews at the centre of their motivations. Individuals acting within these frameworks were oblivious to the rules, they are programmed by these rules in such a way that they cannot see them, because their physiology is made to let their sensory stimulation take the form of a reading of reality, whereas in truth it is an enactment of reality, performed in the act of perception. What you see with the minds eye is real, in other words, though in reality it is not real at all, except as a representation of something else that can only be understood by science taking an abstract view of existence, which in our world, in our absolute theocracy that is, means Atheist Science. In much of my work the general tenor of my stance on this topic, must be of a kind that would be condemned as overtly anti-Semitic, or inherently so. But I have always insisted that I am no anti-Semite, for whatever this declaration is worth. But it is certainly only in taking possession of this overtly anti-Semitic treatise this afternoon, named above, and being put in mind of a reaction to it, that I find myself able to express the real sense in which I am actually quite tolerant of the reality of being a slave of Judaism. The point is that these extended, detailed accounts of the influence of Jews on our world down the ages, written in Nazi Germany, are what they are, which is essentially undeniable, and as such, they beg the question, So what ?

IV So what ? The science of human nature tells us that being slaves of the Jews is natural, and not only natural, but inevitable, and presumably, essential, at least in the need for some all encompassing influence of the master race kind. And as we have just seen, for many people such attachment to a master race is of little significance, at the plebeian level. And at the higher level the matter speaks for itself, our masters of our own kind, are happy to serve the masters of another kind, for that is where their power ultimately derives from, and they know this intuitively, so that Christians know their interests are intimately entwined with those of the Jews, notwithstanding periodic bouts of Christian anti-Semitism and an historical sense of superiority, which in point of fact has always been a necessary front proving that Christians were free, an essential part of the slave identity linguistic programme in other words. Setting aside the idea of the objection being cooked up as a device for manipulating us, as in the formation of the current Hitler Taboo protecting Jewish identity from the interrogation of a genuine modern science of sociology, where then does the conflict, the objection to a master race, arise in any real sense, if any ? There is a most curious quality to our nature as physiological units of a higher organic being. It is a question of how our somatic form, our bodies, have evolved to enable a mammalian superorganism to come into existence. The primary issue here is one of structure, the structure we know as social. Structures evidently require to be organised about an interplay of opposites, at its simplest this can be thought of as the interrelation between the top and bottom of a wall. If a superorganism is to be composed of individual animals evolved for the purpose, there must be structural delineation, and as with the wall, the top must be integrally related to the bottom. And there must be a top and bottom of some sort. All nature wants is the whole thing, the superorganism, but how to get there via individual units of an animal kind ? The solution is to have a core which unifies, a core of authority that acts as the top, and we have a mass that is animated by this core, acting as the bottom, the foundation of the social structure. But the arrangement is not simple, it turns out that while we may have a series of structural hierarchies building a pyramid like block of social authority in which all are unified, we find that an ever present, all pervading, yet still mysterious element, serves as an essential ingredient, this is the Master Race. The master race is the embodiment of core authority, and it is generated by natures method of construction, through the power of communication which animates the cellular units of social structure, to form a superorganism. So at rock bottom, language capacity is the key to the somatic strategy adopted by nature to create the mammalian superorganism, exactly the same solution as must apply in any superorganism in fact, such as we find in our cousins in kind, the insect superorganisms. We are sufficiently familiar with superiors to be able to think about some of the difficulties that power hierarchies pose to social form. At the same time, people like authority. I have to remind myself of this because it is such an alien idea for me. But people like monarchy, police, military, teachers, experts ; in all sorts of ways people acknowledge authority favourably. Which brings us to the special circumstances surrounding the existence of a master race, which is something quite different from any ordinary pinnacle of authority. As we have just seen, people are not necessarily antagonistic to the idea of being enslaved to a master race, much has to do with perception, how the master is known to us. In the case of Judaism we must begin by taking notice of the formal relationship established by Christianity. It is the decay of Christianity in the nineteenth century, under the influence of

advancing scientific knowledge, that has brought us to the juncture where we can have this conversation. I have just finished skipping through the pages of a work that tried to examine the meaning of the clash between religion and science, in such a way as to allow the author to deny the reality of any absolute conflict. The Old Faith and the New by David Strauss, 1873, is an irritating piece of nineteenth century, scientifically inspired atheism, trying to forge a way ahead that champions science, while soothing religious sensibilities. I have not been at all inclined to jump on this bandwagon, quite the reverse, but in this piece, I do find the inclination heading in this general direction of a final accommodation, maybe. It feels like this, but I am not sure it will turn out to be. Perhaps you can see in what has been said already, that instead of my usual stance of demanding an all out war between science and religion, and an insistence that scientists must seek the total eradication of Judaism, as the figurehead of religion, from the face of the earth, so that science can exist, I am taking a wholly different line here. My emphasis has always been upon the need for religion to go, before science could exist, and I see no reason to change that position, but by beginning from a position of Master Race dynamics, this emphasis becomes irrelevant, because we are accepting the arrangements of superorganic physiology that we are a part of, and trying to understand the function of the master race element which stands as the ultimate obstacle to our freedom, as realised through access to a true knowledge of self provided by science. In a strange sense, by dealing with the subject which is anathema to science, scientifically, we somehow seem to negate the restriction it imposes upon science, without requiring that science destroys its subject. As long as we were affirming an atheist agenda linked to science, or hammering on about our slave status relative to any religious identity programme, we were set at odds with the subject in hand. For sure, speaking about the Jews as the master race is hardly friendly to Judaism, but neither is it directly aggressive. The idea behind the impulse to write this piece, is that the existence of a master race is natural, they are always there, so what are they, and how do they work ? Wednesday, 20 April 2011 I have just finished scanning Meyer-Christian and in order to try and assess the contents of an item mentioned, for which there is just one copy available in Denmark, I transcribed this page :

to get this machine translation, tweaked a bit to tidy it up :


To be able to count suspecting to this excellent people. On the same line, the abundant reception lies of to be sure rich Jews into the English top layer, the narrow intercourse of the English kings with them whereby they find it less objectionable to visit Jews in their houses as an about a characteristic people comrade of slighter origin. One can explain that naturally alone with the attractive force, that the wealth exercises always on weak characters. But the sheer legal of such processes through centuries through yet the need lets become after another explanation awake. For we assessed yes that also on rarely the Judaism a special sympathy exists for England and the Englishmen. In England, the Jewish capital concentrates. On England aligned itself of beginning the most powerful movement, that Judaism produced : Zionism. Of Jewish texts we also have explanations for this remarkable fact. Does if the historian of the older Zionism, Nahum Sokolow encounter, in its story of the Zionism the determination : England is in contrast to other countries by Israel more yet than by Greece and Rome influenced become : through the power and the light of the Hebraic

intellect, through the Bible. Do entirely similar thoughts we find twenty years later, 1938, in the Viennese Jew Baalbrit, in his book England and Israel : So differently otherwise English of Jewish tradition is, gives it yet an indestructible bridge that connects both : our Bible. The eternal thoughts of the Torah are for the English intellect living reality, not only a hazy memory of the religious hours of childhood as they are for so many enlightened Europeans. The Briton knows, as well as we do, the story of our servitude in Egypt and the Babylonian exile and he knows also of all the promises of our prophets of the return to the country of our fathers. . . So Torah and political events legitimize likewise the British empire before all other countries to the office of the mandate for the Jewish national home.

(Meyer-Christian, p. 199) This talks about the history of Jews in England, associated with royalty through their status borne of wealth. This historical material is mediocre stuff, but I like the second paragraph because it gets more to the heart of the issue of English slavedom to Jewish destiny, by virtue of the Christian slave identity programme that makes Biblical mythology, English mythology. The last sentence is unclear to me, I like the hint of a connection between Britain obtaining world domination making her the natural agency for Jewish ambitions ; and now we can see this baton has passed to the Americans for the exact same reasons. And will eventually pass to the Chinese by the looks of things, for the period of consolidation to come. This may even explain why the Jews gave America to the English ! Now there is a thought. History does not affirm this mode of acquisition, but then it wouldnt, would it ? But the fact that the British having a world empire suited the Jews to a tee can, given that the Jews are the master race, be inverted to say that it suited the Jews that the British should become the first global power, thereby ushering in the dawn of a global Jewish dispensation beginning with the establishment of Israel, exactly as history records did happen. And, as shown by the anti-Semitic material above, we perfectly well know this to of been the Jewish objective in view long before its realisation was ever attained, an objective inherent in the Jewish mythology of Chosenness. The Jewish cultural ambition is the motive force at the heart of empire building, and has been now for several millennia, so it would seem. This is an idea that makes perfect sense of all our history, once we understand our true biological corporate nature, and see that this process is rooted in our evolutionary biology, exactly as we would expect, scientifically speaking. Last night, 23/05/2011, there was a most intriguing bit of work on BBC 2, something about machines having taken over our world. Unfortunately it began with a weird old American women eulogising some crank womens intellectual ideology of ultra individualism, which had me fleeing elsewhere in double quick time. But the gist of the story was too appealing, and it called me back, several times. I caught something about an American economic guru, Greenspan, saying his models could not predict the economys performance because computers were having an organising effect that could not be modelled. I could not be bothered with this, but later I picked up the thread as I suddenly found this show taking on the role of topical political propaganda, explaining how the powers that be innocently brought about a global economic collapse in 2008 by falling under the spell of the idea which said computers now meant there could never be an economic failure, ever again ! Yeah right. They then blamed the collapse upon a deliberate policy of the Chinese, simple and straightforward, it replicated what the Americans had done to the Chinese in the nineties, but no one in the West could comprehend this attack ! What a load of waffle. These collapses are the means by which we are farmed. Look at us now, our social infrastructure is being trashed, we are being forced to work more, for less, if it was an accident, then it was heaven sent, for our masters who own us and farm us, that is. But of course, this wonderful outcome now requires propaganda to hide this fact, and here we have it. One fascinating line

they threw out described how the flood of cheap money from China was distributed to a kind of third world nation existing within American borders. Extraordinary, that is the most extreme description of a divided nation I have ever heard, and it suits the picture we get of America very well, making for a society to be admired and despised, at one and the same time. A programme like this shows how conspiracy theories are an important tool in the priesthoods disinformation efforts to suppress clear understanding. The programme closed with a statement saying that we suddenly found ourselves in a world where computers ran the show, chaos could break out anywhere, and we were little more than components in a great machine, powerless to do anything about the unfolding events of world affairs. Now that is more like it. All in all an odd programme, delivering an unusual theme which we can be sure they will not leave as their concluding thought had it, our nonexistence as individuals that is, the next episode will change this stance I am sure. This show had to be recorded here, because in general it is highly in keeping with the Atheist Science principle that we do not exist, that all there is, is the superorganism, and the coming of machines, especially computers, ought indeed to intensify this effect. But reading the above remarks on the Jews, written weeks ago, after viewing this show last night, I feel we may put this effect of computers into a continuum which includes the Bible with its Jewish programming, as an identical effect. The creation of this now ancient cultural form, this expression of linguistic force in script, took control of human affairs, just as computers have done of late, and guided social development along a more focused trajectory, exactly as history records, and as we experience in the everyday affairs of the world. Thus mythology channels human energy in a directive manner. And in order to do so constructively it does this in conjunction with an identity programme that unifies the biomass under the imperative of the identity carrying mythology, which is why the master race mythology evinces a programme of unification under one identity. So the piece of Nazi Anti-Semitic writing that prompted this work a few days ago, has immediately proven its usefulness in illustrating a perfectly neutral scientific appraisal of just what it is that makes Jewish global society exist today, as a manifestation of human corporate nature directed towards forming a living superorganism created by nature. But, in keeping with the tenor of this work, we need to pullback from the antagonistic aspect of these considerations and say OK, the Jews are the shakers and movers and they derive this from a cultural heritage which gives them the motivation seen in the idea of the Chosen. This leads the Jew to draw all peoples into their orbit by creating slave identities, and this has created the modern world, which it must be admitted is impressive, so that such considerations are not all negative. If there is much that we do not like about these Jewish dynamics, we can at least agree that they are not really Jewish dynamics, they are the biological imperatives of human corporate nature. And they have many benefits that can be thought of in terms of bringing out the best in us, in terms of realising human collective potential. There had to be a master race, and the Jews are it ; there has to be a major world power in turn, to realise the power of the master race. So we have an endless series of empire building superpowers, from Sumer right down to modern America, now on the wane as the rising star of China comes up, with its massively increasing Jewish slave population of Christians, still officially resisted by the so called Atheist state, but that will change, you can bank on it. Capitalism is the machine driving this process, a most important point to understand, and China is the engine of capitalism now, because of its continental scale economy, as yet not fully exploited by the Jew, and that will never do. I have not translated the section, but Meyer-Christian has a heading thus : The English-Jewish Opium War, which I find most intriguing. I always thought this war was an exceptionally evil piece of our foreign history, but it seems the Jews forced us to behave this way, which makes perfect

sense, the Jews will stop at nothing in their quest to rule the world. I have known very few Jews, but I met some young middleclass drug dealers back in the 70s, well connected even as teenagers, and they were a well to do family of Jews ! Unbelievable, no English person would ever of behaved quite like them, although of course, these lads were English. They were not regular criminals, thieves and burglars, but law meant nothing to them, one boasted of an insurance scam he had casually pulled off, and they seemed to have nothing but contempt for the machinery of social order. Lets take a look : The English-Jewish Opium War The most insidious war, that a country apiece against the population of another led, is the English-Jewish poison war against the Chinese people. Country necessities, not enmity did not dictate it, but rather alone the icy striving after profit. England attained its power position justifiable by nothing in China through the poisoning of the Chinese people with opium. The millions, that herewith gushed forth, filled the cash registers of the Jewish family Sassoon. (Meyer-Christian, p. 81) We all know the unpleasantness of this moment in British history, and we also know the role of the British East India Company in such ruthless goings on, a Capitalist machine if ever there was one. What we need from this Anti-Semitic treatise is the Jewish connection. With what did China pay this enormous importations ? And china sufficed already soon no longer in addition to tea and silk. The buyers passed over in addition to pay with silver. This silver export ruined the Chinese finances in short time, and to be sure persistently. It has made that once so rich country into the impoverished one that we know it as today. The silver flowed into the cash registers of the firm Sassoon that had received the monopoly expired in 1834, of the East India Company. In 1838 Sassoon shipped not less than 34,000 boxes to China, wherefrom it one. Profit of almost 16 millions pulled in only a year ! Such business successes make it understandable that the boss of the house was raised, David Sassoon, highly, when the Chinese emperor in just this year to make, 1838 that decision announced the game with the vigor of its people an end. The overseer of English trade in China, Sir Charles Elliot, demanded in a note that no more English ships would bring opium to China. That would accept was given. It changed however nothing, for Sassoons ships were Indian ships and not English. Neither the Christian nor the Jew needed known themselves therefore that to burden when it was arrive them in this manner, the more to deceive. The Chinese emperor answered with the execution of all Chinese involved in the opium trade. Of Elliot, it forced the extradition of 20,000 opium boxes that it let publicly burn in Canton. Therewith had demanded the Jewish millionaire that had to carry the damage. Sassoons cry to London found a willing ear. England explained is certain the war, that notorious opium war how historically on occasion of the firm Sassoon to China ! After three-years action of the glorious British fleet against the defenceless Chinese coastal cities, it ended in the peace of Nanking with the submission of China. The English fleet, that Grand Fleet, acted in this war to such an extent barbarous and fiendish that one can actually only admire the English propaganda, the soldiers honest in the world until today its navy the call received can although its excuse for officers directed on the enrichment by robbery quite, and the teams pressed to the service were anyway robber, murderer and junk by profession or out of passion.

(pp. 82 3) So here we see the connection elaborated upon, indicating how the Jews have their fingers in the pie of whatever their slave biomass is involved in, and at the most telling level in terms of exploitation, and power mongering in the world. But even as we use this Nazi period material in more detail, we do not need to follow the logic of an anti-Semitic dichotomy arising from the manipulative aspect revealed in this work. The worst aspect of moderate reasoning, making science anathema to Jews and Nazism its saviour, is that it leads us to point out that in actual fact the real necessity for an anti-Semitic reaction is to found in the needs of the Jewish movement itself, this antiSemitism spurs the process along toward realising Jewish aims. It is a fact that we have pointed out from time to time, that moderate accounts of Judaism were not popular, they have an implied negation of Judaism which cannot be avoided, and this the Jew is forced to reject, therefore insisting that anti-Semitism be visited upon them by suppressing true, moderate explanations of religion and human nature. This is the worst thing we can say about the Jews, that they need horror to realise Jewish master destiny, this makes the Jews the sole beneficiaries of war and social cleansing, especially that directed at themselves, as in the holocaust. The one thing that is anathema to Judaism is to be accepted into oblivion, for this is a prelude to assimilation into host cultures, and hence we find Jews always fighting against assimilation, just as Christians always fight against the impending decay of their Jewish slave identity. The reason for this fear of assimilation by the Jews is that in the course of accepting the Jews, the hosts burden of Jewish slave identity is dismissed, leaving the Jews out on a limb, and this is why it was the Christian priesthood who fuelled anti-Semitism, as odd as that seems at first, not to say second and even third interrogation. Of course the excuse cooked up by Christians is that the Jews killed Jesus, but that is all nonsense and not worth paying any attention to. This is the interlinking between master and slave that makes each dependant upon the other. The Christian priesthood is the lieutenant of the master race, through hierarchical arrangements they are masters in their own right, who they serve the true master lying behind their power. Once the crisis is over and religion is no longer being ignored, peace can be restored and Christians and Jews can set about having a love-in again, until the next time religion cools and another war is needed to fire up concerns once again. Being ignored is the one thing a slave making religion cannot tolerate, linguistic force must be expressed, or it is no more. This issue is a problem, it is not religion, not Judaism, but anti-Semitism that we need to resent the Jews for. This is a real problem, for this is what sets us at war amongst ourselves, in order to keep the master in place, unwittingly, duped by all sorts of nonsense about evil, enemies, and fights for freedom. And this curious roundabout way of keeping the master in place is necessary simply because the master is unrevealed. The Jew lies behind power, so that overt power keeps the Jew in power by periodically attacking the shadow lying behind itself, its own shadow that is. Anti-Semitism is shadow fencing, but to a structural purpose. These dynamics arise because the flow of information that we know as linguistic force, that delivers a social structure through an array of identities, sets up the conditions where these machinations are required because we know the world through the images created out of purely linguistic representations. Behind all linguistic representations, behind knowledge that is, lies the reality, which is biological in its nature and can be understood scientifically once we know what the human animal is, namely a superorganism.

Chapter Two

Nazi Academic Anti-Semitism


I find myself being transported all of a sudden into an unknown land of extraordinary knowledge, where everyone speaks in a foreign tongue unfortunately. From Meyer-Christian I have found Baalbrit which, on page one hundred, is given in a footnote as England and Israel, 1934, but which later on is referred to in the text as being a 1938 publication. This reference on page one hundred and ninety nine, talks about the work as that of a Viennese Jew, the one copy online tells us that Baalbrit is the pseudonym of Rob Fuchs-Rebetin, published in Vienna in 1938, along with a description thus, Nazi-era Anti-British / AntiSemitic propaganda concerning Britain & Zionism. The immediate question here, must be why is a Jew writing this kind of material ? The list of contents is not inspiring and the item is short, so I am not buying it. Wednesday, 25 May 2011 But I did buy it a week or so later, I could not resist, but I have not had a look at it yet. Now we come to something entirely different, Dr. Peter Aldag. He seems like a serious writer, whose works I still need to get my head around because of a profusion of confusing titles, which include a book about the Jews ruling England ! Amazing. These are available for free download, and to buy, which is even more amazing. They loved their pseudonyms these Germans, Peter Aldag was Firtz Peter Krueger, according to one German dealer, although, my spellchecker prompts me to wonder if this should be Fritz. Aldags books are offered under an array of confusing titles, I have bought one which I have already downloaded that seems like an incredible book about Jews in England, and another facsimile of a book about the Jews ruling England, which may be in the black letter Fraktur font, but was cheap enough to take a chance on. Hitler is supposed to of consigned Fraktur to history so it is odd to find a 1939 piece of Jew hating material using it, but one item I downloaded for Aldag is in Fraktur. I seem to recall reading that this font was condemned as a piece of Jewcraft imposed on the Germans, a standard refrain for destroying anything. 25/05/2011 Das Judentum in England, 1940, consists of two parts in one volume, part one being Juden erobern England, while Der Jahwismus Erobert England, 1989, is a reprint of part one, so I wasted my money buying this second item, but it was the only way to figure out what the different titles meant, for sure.

I Meyer-Christian Last night, 24/04/2011, I translated the contents pages of Meyer-Christians EnglishJewish Alliance, and in doing so I picked up a couple of pointers to pages worth looking at. First sample, page nineteen, is nothing special, just having to do with the history of Jews in England. My next port of call is page sixty four, where we have the subheading The Concentration of Power. This section must be of some interest to us as it discusses the intermarriage between Jews and the upper classes, bearing in mind that England was then

ruled by the aristocracy as surely as any nation on earth ever was. And it pretty much is today amazingly enough, look at the toffs in all the higher political positions, and who knows how many of their class infest the rest of the machinery of power that farms us. But ours is a sociological enterprise and we are not interested in these social dynamics from an antiSemitic stance, but rather from a physiological one. Such interbreeding between distinct segments of the biomass delineated by structural hierarchies of the Jewish identity, Christianity that is, are powerful indicators of the manner in which linguistic force generates a linguistic programme that allows a global biomass to arise from a structural interlinking occurring on many levels, to form a complex superorganic anatomy every bit as complex as that of our individual somatic forms. In the coming chapters of this work we will consider how these dynamics are being worked out in the biological context, removed from sociology, and it is clear that by thinking of humans as superorganisms these arrangements between identity groups within a unified biomass associated with the centre of power and key political agendas, such as empire building, scream out to us that the Jews are the master race and the Christians their slaves. And hence why this organicist insight into human biological nature could not be tolerated, and why, when it could not be stopped, it generated this kind of negative interest in the Jews, causing a pooling of social energy toward a core objective of world power, realised in the Nazis, but derived from the Jewish identity programme. This result being a biological outcome of human corporate nature, not some dastardly scheme of the Jews, or the Nazis as distinct from the Jews. In his History and Destiny of the Jews Kastein talks about there being something in the Jewish character that provokes anti-Semitism, there must be something about the Jew and his characteristics which provokes this uniform reaction (p. 412) But this is an intuitive description of an obvious fact, that we have just explained in scientific terms, based on the insight that humans are superorganisms created by linguistic force, which organises superorganic anatomy by weaving structure from a complex arrangement of social identities, where the Jewish identity is the lynchpin of the whole arrangement, wherein anti-Semitism acts as a physiological dynamic maintaining the master identity of Judaism, relative to all other identities they have converted into images their own identity, of whatever localised kind. The next section I leapt to came under the heading of The political centre of world Judaism, page sixty eight. This centre was identified as the Board of Deputies of British Jews, founded in 1760. Lets take a page image here :

Translated roughly by machine, we get the following :

The political centre of world Judaism


Over three hundred pages in the English of Jewish annual, that takes in on tough cliff of the Jewish organizations. This immense number of political, economic, social and religious unions, organizations and institutions arise not only the well known Jewish inclination to the creation more tangled together, interlocked organization systems, in whose structure only the dedicated is knowledgeable. This amassing of interests representations has also a direct purpose. Once the Judaism itself is since centuries to the united form forced, into manifold interest groups divided so that anyway the number of the representatives, that must be considered in the arrangements of the leadership of the world of Judaism with seat and voice, is not slight. In addition however yet following political deliberation comes : in the more organizations the Judaism of the British government and the single authorities opposite is, the more manifold the circle of the persons, that are confessed the single official the power that stands behind them the more largely appears. That is the reason why in London for each conceivable purpose a characteristic Jewish organization exists, that is equipped after the parliamentary manner with a president, several vice presidents, treasurer and numerous committee members. So almost all these arrangements have a Council, a so-called administrative committee, and an executive committee. Therefore they possess mostly no actual characteristic life. Within Judaism they embody also neither a larger follower shaft nor in most felling a certain group. You everyone are nothing other as the polyp arms, with which the head of the English Judaism has itself in the English public life secured. This head is named : Board of Deputies of British Jews. (Meyer-Christian, p. 68)

Tricky reading I know, but a sight better than it would be if you had the raw German spiel. Bits can be picked up, I love the passing remark about the secret elite who alone know the real significance of all these manifold Jewish organisations in whose structure only the dedicated is knowledgeable. This is exactly what we would expect in the physiological order delivered subliminally by linguistic force, and of course the familiar riposte that accuses people of conspiracy mongering, defends the secret core from being threatened by such knowledge seeping out beyond its proper confines. The way Jewish interests are described as being furthered by the Jewish organization of political forms that penetrate every aspect of life, making for a manifold integration of the master into the body of the slave, but only in the sense of obtaining influence over the whole, not in the sense of becoming the whole : the Jewish linguistic master identity programme requires the slave to live and to be the greater living mass. And of course it is perfect that this supremely organicist outlook, identifying the Jews as a master race, or parasite, should be voiced only by anti-Semites, so that when those enemies of Judaism are destroyed the science of master race identity, that is of human nature, can be castoff with them, exactly as has happened with the rise and destruction of the Nazis. All of this is the work of linguistic force expressing human corporate nature. In a work I was reading today, Selected Self-Organization and the Semiotics of Evolutionary Systems by Luis Rocha, 1998, we have a jargon loaded discussion of ideas

which could be applied to this Atheist Science idea of language as a biological information flow. The scientists never cotton onto this idea of language being a flow of organic information controlling individuals, as part of a living organisms existence, they are locked into the delusion that language is something real, that they have possession of. To us this seems crazy, because we have seen the light, but unless you have glimpsed beyond the everyday nature of language, it is remarkable how real our thoughts seem, even to people like these scientists who are so good at applying the logic of information flow as an abstract biological phenomenon everywhere else in existence, but who never for a moment realise that the same thing actually applies in our case too ! The simple reason for this blind spot is that you have to realise that you do not exist, that the only real human being is the superorganism that you are part of, as surely as a termite in a nest. This is murderously hard to see, and that is why these incredibly elaborate structural arrangements can be made in the form of social structure, that has immense power and can therefore be discerned by people, as proven by the work of these Nazi intellectuals, but still, no one ever thinks to ask if this is somehow a product of human evolved form, and its underlying biological nature. I am not sure which is worse to read, this machine translation of Meyer-Christian or the material on bio-semiotics in my own language. Both need a heavy dose of flexible thinking to be understood in a harmonious manner from which useful meaning can be extracted. One thing I did like in the above quote was the organicist moment where the reference to polyp arms extending some kind of master organ into the body of the English coral reef, or social body in other words, smacks of an organicist view of the Jews parasitizing a superorganism, wherein we are the slaves securing the parasite in place. It would certainly be nice to have this kind of work properly translated.

II Weinreich As I come to read this work prior to posting on Scribd, I was expecting this chapter, but I expected it to be based upon the work I refer to at the beginning of the Introduction, Hitlers Professors by Weinreich, 1946. I thought I had written a bit about this item, but seemingly not. Of course it was the lever giving me access to the likes of Meyer-Christian, but the work does have an overview of Nazi period academia that is worth noting. Just opening Weinreichs book now to see what I can snatch by way of filling this gapping hole in my work, I see that it is a fascinating item, quite unique I should think. It is perfectly academic in style, it is Jewish, and it reveals a lot about the methodical method of the Jews towards their host body. But in 1946 the Jews had achieved the maximum extent of their ambitions, for the moment, and all they had to do now was to sit back and wallow in their glory. And that is what this book exudes, the sentiment of sublime celebration, expressed in an act of contempt for their supposed enemies, who look ridiculous in defeat. What I especially liked about this book, came not from the specifics of its subject matter, as fascinating as it is to have an insight into this topic of an intellectual Establishment anti-Semitism, but the more general statement coming at the beginning, and I think my task of including something of this work belatedly, having found it missing, will be made easiest by simply quoting the relevant passage and then stating what we may draw from it : History, to quote from Justice Robert H. Jacksons opening address before the Nuremberg Tribunal, does not record a crime ever perpetrated against so many victims or one ever carried out with such calculated cruelty. . . . Determination to

destroy the Jews was a binding force which at all times cemented the elements of this conspiracy. Whose conspiracy ? It will not do to speak in this connection of the Nazi gangsters. This murder of a whole people was not perpetrated solely by a comparative small gang of the Elite Guard or by the Gestapo, whom we have come to consider as criminals. As is shown by Hitlers threat, afterwards frequently repeated by himself and his henchmen, as the literature of the Nazi Party, the Reich government, and the Wehrmacht shows, the whole ruling class of Germany was committed to the execution of this crime. But the actual murderers and those who sent them out and applauded them had accomplices. German scholarship provided the ideas and techniques which led to and justified this unparalleled slaughter. Everyones feeling naturally revolts against such a stupendous accusation. Frankly, the present writer, too, would have considered it an exaggeration on the basis of the casual evidence available until recently. But when, after the defeat of Germany, German publications (which now number about five thousand) began pouring into the library of the Yivo, the previous scattered impressions gathered into a coherent picture. To subject the conclusions arrived at to even closer scrutiny, other extensive collections of German literature were examined. Thus the present report, based upon a good many thousands of books, pamphlets, periodicals, and documents, provides ample evidence that there was participation of German scholarship in every single phase of the crime. The ideas underlying the ultimate action were developed in advance with the necessary philosophical and literary trimmings, with historical reasoning, with maps and charts providing for the details with well-known German thoroughness. Many fields of learning, different ones at different times according to the shrewdly appraised needs of Nazi policies, were drawn into the work for more than a decade : physical anthropology and biology, all branches of the social sciences and the humanitiesuntil the engineers moved in to build the gas chambers and crematories. But could it not be, we are tempted to ask in a last effort to save at least a bit of our belief in the fundamental integrity of scholarship, that Hitlers accomplices were merely sham scholars, nobodies elevated in rank by their Nazi friends and protectors, who produced what is described as scurrilous literature ? Even this consolation is baseless. The scholars whom we shall quote in such impressive numbers, like those others who were instrumental in any other part of the German pre-war and war efforts, were to a large extent people of long and high standing, university professors and academy members, some of them world famous, authors with familiar names and guest lecturers abroad, the kind of people Allied scholars used to meet and fraternize with at international congresses. The younger academic people might have stayed a little longer on the waiting list as Privatdozenten except for the fact that several thousand positions were vacated through the dismissal of Jewish or liberal professors ; but, technically, the young Nazi instructors more often than not were qualified for the positions they were offered just as the scientific periodicals and publishing houses with which they became affiliated have been known to every specialist abroad in his respective field. If the products of their research work, even apart from their rude tone, strike us as unconvincing and hollow, this weakness is due not to inferior training but to the mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiates all moral and spiritual values and, by standing order, knows exactly its ultimate conclusions well in advance. (Hitlers Professors, pp. 6 7)

It is nice to see these Jewish propagandists rejecting the simplistic routine of putting nasty things down to some errant conspiracy, and thereby implying that there was something far more structural at work here. Indeed there was, it was the power of the Jewish master race converting the whole German people into a military phalanx set on a collision course with humanity, that would drive the Jewish people into a position of supreme power by placing them in a unique position amongst all peoples on earth, maintaining the position the Jews have held as master race, for millennia. This was no conspiracy, it was the natural force of language playing out the potential of human corporate nature as it has come to exist in a social form, at the present time. Of course what no Jews ever do, is explain what Jews are, why they exist, what Jews do in the world ? They are just treated as some God given thing that is, a whole people that no one has any right to query the nature of. And in order to substitute for an answer to this pressing, fatal question, Jews need this anti-Semitism which puts the question beyond bounds, hence we now live in the era of the Hitler Taboo. No national European culture stands in isolation. German culture was one with all other Western cultures. So that what we have here is an argument about European culture, although the Jews are keen to hide this facteven as they provide the best evidence for asserting itby describing how the entire edifice of German scholarship was drawn into serving the political agenda of the day. This centrality of knowledge in political power dynamics is key to how society works, how knowledge manufacture creates political power, this is why we say that science today exists to serve the Jewish theocracy and why Darwinism is an imposition of this theocracy at the very basis of our social being. And this applied to the Germany described above as much as it does to us, now. The integral corruption of German academia is emulated now, only now it is accomplished in the benign form of overtly Judophilic lies. Darwinism is the base corruption of science instituted by religions grip on academia. Even more dramatic, and exactly identical in character to the anti-Semitic corruption of German scholarship, is the corruption of Western sociology which saw the eradication of organicist sociology, to be replaced by the overtly political sociology which openly denounces the monistic principles of science and says sociology must take the part of an adjunct to political ideology ! The assertion that scholarship that overlooks spiritual values, religion that is, is vile, is an inversion of the truth, all science dealing with humans must deny all values of all kinds, if it is to understand the animal it deals with scientifically. So what we have here in Germany, is an important facet of the knowledge controlling process that allowed science to be subverted while religion, Judaism that is, was engineered back into omnipotent supremacy. This account is very important to understanding how the Jewish slave identity programme manipulates the host biomass on a global scale by controlling knowledge in enclaves, thus dividing the slave biomass by setting its structural elements at odds with itself so that social cleansing can take place through an ensuing process of restructuring that obliterates localising authority and leaves the sole powerbase of Judaism intact. This is a vital insight into Jewish master race mechanics. Germany was an intellectually free society where any knowledge was fearlessly studied, whereas in England genuine science, as in organicist sociology, was totally suppressed. A hint of this idea can be seen in the remarks of James Bryce, Sociological Papers, 1905, page xv. It is from this different linguistic flux that the different attitudes arise, in conjunction with other more obviously political factors. The social dynamics of war and social cleansing are biological processes, not products of evil, or of anything like evil, as the Jews would have us believe, as they get ready to whip us up into another annual grovelling to the holocaust ; what event could of empowered the Jews more ? They were on Channel Four News tonight, 16/01/2012, condemning humour based on the Nazis.

Chapter Three

Everywhere, but Nowhere


The book of choice for reading at this minute was an incredibly extravagant purchase from last summer, costing more than 60! When was I ever going to make use of it ? Now! Evolutionary Systems, 1998, after a bit of an unpromising start, is proving to be a real gem. The essay I am currently getting excited about is Selected Self-Organization and the Semiotics of Evolutionary Systems by Luis Rocha, a more mouth watering title could hardly be imagined. Its a bit of a bugger to get your little bonce about, but with persistence there is mana to be found therein. The joy of these detailed anti-Semitic analyses of Jews within Christian society is that they constitute an analysis of master identity behaviour, within a human superorganism, if we choose to so treat them. Our own rough guide to superorganics, as in the essence of Atheist Science, has a plethora of ideas describing the dynamics of human society in a biological manner. Such that the essence of life is deemed to be information, the existence of which was initiated by the reading of light energy, bringing information into existence simultaneously with life forms created to harness the energy patterns thus read, to produce information, thus creating living structure. Leaping on from the transformation of inanimate matter into life, we apply this logic to human society and speak of linguistic force producing a linguistic identity programme, that organises sentient brick units of superorganic being, to form a living superorganism, the true human animal. With this abstrusely named article identified above, full of jargon and obscure descriptions, to the uninitiated at least, we do still find an intimation of fundamental scientific ideas that can be used to invigorate our more general ideas, encapsulated briefly just now.

I Knowledge control From time to time in the course of our efforts to recount the dynamics of life within a superorganism, we let fly some wild ideas. The great revelation initiating Atheist Science is the insight that humans are true superorganisms, and everything else follows from this inspiration. The first great conceptual consequence is that science has been perverted in a scientific age, to allow the eternal, absolute theocracy, to continue unimpeded on its course, as the central political manifestation of the living being of the superorganism. From this insight we eventually become clear that all our efforts at the discovery of material relevant to the subject of superorganic being must be second-hand, accessing only that which has been corrupted in order to prevent what was once known, from being known now. This becomes clear because we discover that the central idea of human biological corporate nature was known, being embodied in sociological organicism, that was erased from society by the First World War. Because of these discoveries we come to see that the control of knowledge is above all other things in importance with regard to political power,

and hence the insane war of 1914 18 now makes perfect sense, for the first time ever. Seen as a war to cleanse society of the irregularities caused by the nineteenth centurys age of enlightenment in science conflicting with religion, so that the madness of the Great War becomes the beauty of the First Great Cleansing, so we understand these horrors and see that personal evil, is collective good. This is why God permits evil, because God in His true form, as superorganism, needs evil, as surely as we need the air we breath. This scientific explanation for evil is logical even by religious standards, for the idea of God that we are fed implies that the existence of evil can only mean that God needs it as part of his great plan. Blooms Lucifer Principle makes the link between our superorganic nature and the manifestation of evil, his insight is however negated by his standing fast with the idea of persons as individuals existing in their own right, thus denying the reality of the superorganism, in the end. It can only be one or the other, the existence of the superorganism or the individual, it cannot be both simultaneously. This is why science and religion cannot exist simultaneously, because religion is the myth providing the individual with their relationship to the superorganism, which science decodes, thereby destroying the superorganism. This clash of knowledge arose during the nineteenth century and the world wars recovered the situation through acts of great evil which destroyed science and reinstated mindless religion. By personal evil we mean that which is experienced by us as being evil. Apart from this atrocious sounding idea of the Jews being the driving force behind all our wars, the other extraordinary idea we often bandy about is that which says the Romans were the slaves of the Jews. Or there is the idea that the Jews created Christianity, or wrote the Koran ! All these fantastical ideas spew forth as if from a deranged mind. All these ideas are perfectly correct, but they sound insane. And this is because we are presenting them in the slave language which binds our consciousness to the political foundation of individual being, which makes all human activity due to the free will of the person. Whereas these insane ideas are scientific, because they derive from the scientific fact that there is no such thing as an individual, and that the superorganism is the only real thing. Thus we make known something that is everywhere, and nowhere, being diffused within and throughout the being of the superorganism, and not to be found entire within the extent of any individual person.

II When only seeing is the means to knowing, science does not exist On Tuesday evening, it is now Thursday morning, Neil Oliver presented another episode in his Celtic Britain on BBC 2, dealing with the Roman period. He closed by saying that the Roman era ended, as it had to do sometime, but it left behind some deep seated influences, which were especially to be found in the persistence of Christianity. How odd that he should see and understand that Rome had to end sometime, but he failed to understand that the passing of Rome must ensure the end of Christianity, unless Christianity was the essence of Roman political power. This our fine professional academic had no understanding of, and why was this ? Because it did not happen, Christianity did not end. In other words he understood that Rome had to end as all political forms have ended previously, but he could not apply the reverse logic to contradictory features of continuity, such as Judaism, which persist no matter what political authorities come and go ; and now Christianity showed the same independence from such political structures. The problem is, that the inbuilt assumptions of our cultivated minds contain no contradictions, we understand these outcomes from history, the method of history introduced by the Romans, as Oliver pointed out, but

what he did not point out, because he did not know it, was that the true possessors of this historical method were the Jews, who made the power of writing into a basis for a superorganic identity which was their own cultural identity. The power of writing is of course the most potent expression of linguistic force, and this is what imparts longevity to a religious identity that supersedes any political form, making political forms act as carriers of linguistically created, inscribed, religious identities. Why are we grateful to people who save us from terrible events, like Churchill and the Second World War, yet those people who saved us from similar catastrophes by not allowing them to happen, we give no thanks to ? What about the financial crash that did not occur in the nineties, thanks to the hard work of some anonymous people, maybe ?, why are we not grateful to these people we do not know, who saved us from something that did not happen ! In a way this silliness is linked to the power of the master race expressed in the taboo process of anti-Semitism, for here, rather than not thanking people for things that did not happen, we find things that are contrived, like hating the Jews as parasites, delivering artificial events of real horror which serve the purpose of protecting the Jews as the master race by creating monstrous anti-Jews such as Hitler. There is a dynamic here derived from our process of handling knowledge, whereby we only pay attention to things that happen, while things that do not happen, are of no concern to us, understandably. What makes this silly talk worthwhile, is that science, like maths, actually allows us to see the things that did not happen ! That is the whole point of science, it is predictive. And this is what we are saying above when we talk about the lame history provided by a good professional historian, versus the brilliant history provided by a poorly equipped, isolated, amateur philosopher like myself. Oliver can be deeply profound and wise about the nature of Romes passing because it happened, but he is oblivious to the nature of Christianity because it is here now. Whereas we can easily treat Roman and Christian culture as aspects of superorganic physiology because we have the key to a true science of humanity. Reading a passage from Meyer-Christian I am reminded that In the year 1290, king Edward had banished the Jews nested since Roman times in the island. (p. 19) Imagine Oliver, or any academic, seeking to understand the deep meaning and significance of this Jewish presence, and relating it to the persistence of Christianity. The reason for Christianitys continuity is supposed to be because the indigenous people had been transformed into Christians from deep within, due to exposure over time ; quite apart from any religious explanation to do with conversion into true believers meaning that people, as individuals, had experienced a religious conversion. They had previously been deeply attached to their nature gods of water and the woods, now these were forgotten and Christianity had filled the void. But there is far more to what Christianity is as a religion than any mere difference between worshipping landscape features and worshipping in a church that constitutes a continental wide political authority. In terms of our present discussion, the withering away of the Roman civil presence to leave the Jewish presence fully intact, is the really interesting thing about this whole business of the Roman periods destruction of the millennial long Celtic era, and our historians see none of this. They see nothing because the Jews were not really here, they never appear in our accounts of these periods, or very rarely, yet in 1290, out of a population measured in hundreds of thousands, 16,000 Jews had to be expelled because these parasites, the master race, were having too much of an impact on their slave population. What were Jews doing in England at all ! Clearly they were here because England was a slave body of Judaism. So this idea of being nowhere and everywhere is most apposite when we seek to make sense of the insane idea that the Romans were in reality the slaves of Judaism. The fact is that the way we understand things in terms of the individual is vital to keeping the Jews invisible within their slave biomasses, for it obscures the reality of a

core organic power existing at the heart of all social bodies. This is why organicist reason in the nineteenth century made the state or nation out to be the social organism, an inflated individual, but never identified the true object of human corporate nature, centred on the Jewish identity. Thus we are kept blind by a hierarchy of individual identities all subsumed under one form of identity, the religious identity, which is taken to be purely individual, and never considered as a political body ! Quite remarkable, and this explains why the Romans, the supreme expression of these attributes of state formation combined with a supremely tolerant attitude to all individual identities, initiated the coming of the global civilization. Olivers account sounded like a piece of propaganda for multiculturalism, but it made sense that the Romans should of introduced a multicultural format for social structures, because they were acting as the agents of their masters, the Jews, who inherited all their hard, social structure building work. Just yesterday, 16/01/2012, the BBCs Sunday morning religious propend show The Big Question, asked if there was any proof that God exists, and set atheists against religious freaks, as usual. The atheists were good, but useless because they acted from the same logical spring of individual being as the religious freaks, and at one point some Muslim who had communicated directly with God berated the atheists, asking them who they were to deny his personal experience. This nicely demonstrates the critical importance of maintaining the lie that individuals exist as ends in themselves, and this really is the Achilles heel in any atheist efforts to oppose religion, that everyone buys into this delusion. This is what makes atheists unwitting allies of theists, this is how people are made slaves from within to a core authority, by controlling knowledge, exactly as nature intended these social structures should be managed through the medium of linguistic force. Were I on the show and able to reply to this pathetic person, I would say You do not exist, no individual exists as an end in themselves, so that only science can say what anyones ideas mean. This was an answer no one could offer, because I am the only person ever to of known this, or to know it now. This answer would change nothing, but it would set science at odds with religion, as it should be, allowing no compromise. One atheist put it to a Muslim scholar that he presumably accepted that if he were born in India he would now be arguing for Hinduism, and this was conceded, but the statement dismissed as meaningless ! There is no point in talking to these freaks because religion is not about religion, it is about power, and the religious freaks knows this instinctively and defend their vile ideas accordingly, just like a politician, with the single minded concern to win the day. Friday, 20 January 2012 I decided I wanted to communicate with the bullish atheist who had made the excellent points in this BBC propaganda show so I tracked him down, and it appears, surprise surprise, that I have discovered another Gatekeeper of the absolute theocracy working in the guise of an atheist. I sent him this email :

David Aaronovitch, Hello fellow atheist, maybe. I noticed you on last Sundays Big Questions programme presenting the atheist agenda. I particularly liked it when you asked the Muslim Scholar if he accepted that were he born in India he would be defending Hinduism. He accepted this, but dismissed the point as meaningless. I would of liked that to be explored but the debate sped on. Searching for you online just now I glanced at a 2005 piece dismissing the boycott of Israeli universities. Then I found your website and the big impression coming off the page is an interest in conspiracy theories, we are offered a boast regarding your caustic rationality.

You could be my man, I doubt it, but lets have a go. First off, lets be perfectly clear, if you are the ultimate anti-conspiracy theorist, then I am at the very least your equal. I would not deign to consider a book like your Voodoo thingy, anymore than I would wish to consider the ins and outs of any lunatic idea for myself. After watching the programme on Sunday, I came away thinking about the atheists taking part, why are they bothering to talk to these degenerates ? Do politicians debate with Nazis ? Do feminists debate with rapists ? Religion rules our world, so the idea of starving these people of the oxygen of publicity is not relevant, but still, what earthly gratification can you get from debating with such people ? I see from looking at the blurb offered on your book that you say that you discovered some kind of logic to conspiracy theories. You ask why people believe them, and you offer a true basis for scepticism. I doubt that. The question is, who are you, where do you come from, what are your beliefs ? I see nothing on that under your biography. ____________ So lets begin by thinking about this most important question that you put on Sunday. What were you driving at when you fired that telling logical shot across to the other side ? And what do you make of the fact that this attack meant nothing ? Another atheist stated the same point, or was it you, in another manner, by pointing out that there are a host of religions which claim infallibility, and each invalidates the other. OK, this is undeniable. You see it, I see, we all see it. But it makes no odds, religion continues to rule our world, why is that do you think ? If we let the infamous Dawkins answer for us, we are supposed to accept that people are flawed, in a recent appearance on Newsnight he told Paxman that it tore him up that so many Americans were woefully stupid. Now lets shift sideways a moment, responding to your essay on Israel. What do you think Israel is, where do you think it came from, why do you think it exists ?

Individualism In each of the above points we find a thread of continuity, positive and negative, but a common thread, and that thread is the idea of the individual. Consider this. One of the opposition launched an impassioned attack of his own on those with you on the atheist front bench. He had been communing with God and he demanded to know by what right the rationalist denied his personal experience. Do you see where this is going ? Of course you do, your not stupid. The integrity of the person and as authority in themselves is raised here in the attack you made, and the attack made against you, and in both cases the demand that the individual be

treated as an end in themselves, was in favour of religion, in favour of stupidity, in favour of conspiracy, we may say. Whereas, your argument was implicitly denying the very existence of the individual. What else could of underpinned your assertion that the man facing you would be supporting another faith if he had been born in another faith zone, this was tantamount to saying there is no such thing an individual, as a person ! And that, my friend, is it, the end of it, it is all you need to know in order to understand all these things. But you do not know this do you ? Otherwise you would of responded by saying Because you do not exist ! There is no such thing as an individual existing as an end in themselves. As long as everyone adheres to the idea that humans are persons, existing in their own right, then reason will be doomed to wallow in ignorance, and religion will be left to perform its natural, biological, healthy function, of organizing people into social bodies which form the basis of political orders. It is this fact that gives rise to Israel, that is what Israel is, the political form of the Jewish identity, a religious identity. Religion is identity, that is all it is, and the person does not exist, except as a cellular unit of the social body which a religion allows to exist. And since you are so interested in conspiracy theories, let me explain them to you as well while I am at it. It is in the nature of life that information acts in a coherent manner to deliver continuity over time, that is evolution. An identity could be called a conspiracy on that basis, and genomes could be called a conspiracy to exist, if we liked. The idea of conspiracy is another means of making the individual seem real, when they are not, it is a political expression. The idea of memes carries the idea of genetic information forward to the social domain, and here the complex flow of information creates social structure. Life, species, religion, politics, conspiracy. These are modes of creative expression occurring in a continuum of information that runs from the genetic to the linguistic.

Freedom If what I am saying is true, why am I the only person to know this ? Why is it that the professionals dont know this, why dont you know it, why does Dawkins not know it ? If I say it is because we do not live in a free society, your ears will prick up and your brain will immediately fire up the programme that says incoming conspiracy theory. In other words, all the different strands of information pull together to allow a central authority to exist, but as I say, at rock bottom is the principle that individuals are authorities in their own right. Upon this false principle, the whole edifice of authority is based, which makes you think you know what is right, always assuming you give a toss, which is by no means certain, after all, you make a damn good living out of being one of the voices of ignorance that the rest of us have to listen to, or be disappointed. 18/01/2012 21:36

I do not expect a reply. I wonder if he is an atheist Jew ! An absurd thing if ever there was one. His essay defending Israel recognised the existence of people who do not recognise the legitimacy of Israel, which must apply to all atheists as a matter of course, since no atheist can accept the right of Jews, or any other religious identity, to exist, since if religion exists then atheists are its slaves. With a name like that he could be a few generations on from the flood of Jews from the east, which is what I was driving at when I said we knew nothing of who he was. The Jews are notorious for infesting the public face of society, its media, and this shows why, even if this particular Gatekeeper is not a Jew, he is certainly a Judophile, so nothing he says can be trusted by atheists. ___

Just recently, today being Saturday, 01 October 2011, I got my hands on a most amazing history book, dealing with the origin of nineteenth organicism. My above remark on why this outlook focused on the state as culminating object, forces me to refer to History, Man, & Reason : A Study in Nineteenth Century Thought, by Maurice Mandelbaum, 1971, at once. It is tricky trying to extract the nub of the idea Mandelbaum is offering us without reading a fair swathe of his work, which takes time. We can settle for a snapshot :

these polities also carried implications for the way in which the ideal end of the state was to be conceived. This end could then no longer be viewed wholly in terms of individual well-being : as natural growth, the state had a being and a goal of its own. States could be regarded not as the products but as the destinies of individuals ; they were living, growing things, the embodiments of long traditions, and the bearers of all that bound the individual to his soil, his family, and to his fellows. On such a view the universal state was a myth, for the appeal to the universal state was based upon the universal reason of man, but the national state was a reality, an embodiment of the feelings and traditions which bound a group of people together. (pp. 55 6)

This argument concerns the rise of historicism in the immediate aftermath of the enlightenment, whereby a developmental view of history came into existence which culminated in the evolutionary, organicist view of society, dominating the nineteenth century. All of which sounds great, but it was riddled with the most appalling corruptions of reason, borne of religious domination. So that while Herder promoted an organic view of humanity, he made everything centre upon God, rather as we saw Erasmus Darwin do in the close of his piece On Generation in his Zoonomia, when he said science exists to show Gods glory ! But our particular interest just now, is to see how the late eighteenth century philosophers were already putting in place the crucial flaw in the scientific model of society, based upon the organicist insight, a flaw that made the state the embodiment of the social organism, even as they made way for this truly scientific, organicist sociology, which carried the insight of organicism at its heart. So a poison fatal to science was infused into the embryo of modern science from the first moment of conception. Small wonder therefore that by the close of the nineteenth century the child of enlightenment reason should die, still born, due to the poisonous intellectual environment of religion, into which all scientific knowledge is born. As I am reading this today, Monday, 16 January 2012, I must record the recent discovery of a new organicist voice, Hugh Doherty, whose Organicist Philosophy has just

come into my possession, volume four thereof, on sociology. It is truly the most remarkable exposition on society as a social organism I have ever seen. This man is so important I have immediately set about writing a piece on him, he is very obscure as an historical figure, but we should just notice him in the context of the above remarks on the early appearance of the organicist idea in England. Unfortunately as superb as his commitment to organicism is, he is first and foremost a dedicated Christian, which rather spoils things, except he seems to of embraced the science of the period as fully as anyone, he was a medical doctor and therefore needed to be open to science by virtue of his profession. Just started reading this volume four of Doherty today, Wednesday, 23 May 2012, at last it is baking hot. ___

It is worth stating that Christianity proved itself again, its resilience, in its resurrection after the nineteenth century enlightenment in science, from which the church is now fully recovered. Easter was last weekend and we were treated to the drivel spouted by our religious leaders at such times, some of them cursing atheists who sort to destroy religion. Men of immense power who wanted male on male sex to be promoted in society seemed to be the inspiration for this denunciation, not Darwinists or pseudo scientists like Dawkins. One divine said religious schools should only reserve ten percent of places for children whose parents go to church, that was big of him. Reports then revealed that one million kids attended five thousand religious bigotry schools ! Sorry, that was primary schools. What an utter obscenity in this so called free land. Disgusting. But this is how we are made slaves of Judaism. This is the machinery that guarantees that nothing ever changes, that we remain as debased and ignorant as animals, eternally. Can you imagine it, people being taught about Jesus in school today ? It beggars belief. The adults who do this work are sick degenerates who should be executed, prison is too good for them. And this is all because of the carefully worked Roman invasion of two millennia ago. Last night, 26/05/2011, Newsnight was debating the Oldham race riots of ten years ago and Kirsty Wark pressed a Tory Paki politician on the question why the state was remorselessly promoting faith schools, given entrenched social division was obviously rooted in such institutions. He scarcely bothered answering her, religion is so awesomely powerful now that such questions can be brushed aside as professional religious freaks care only about one thing, social power derived from the religious power they are affiliated with. The previous night Newsnight was talking about a fascist religious group that want abortions outlawed being given a seat on a body advising the government on abortion provision. They said nothing about any religious aspect to this group, but it is a given. These fascist developments arise because following liberal phases of change society is allowed to decay by the core powers that really rule society through their structural placement that does not change with the political faces. This continues for decades until the only motivating, that is political bodies, with any wealth behind them, the churches, whose power is rooted in their insidious control of state machinery and their intertwined links to corporate capitalism, can get back into fully operational political power, so that arguments are made that these conservative, regressive methods, work, while others do not. This is true, they do work where liberal ideas fail, but why ? Because humans are superorganisms and the individual does not exist, so that in addition to the dynamics of corporate social power just stated, ideals invoking the power of the individual are fractious and unable to create the social order that the slave ideologies of religion naturally generate by negating the individual, this is why the Jews created the Romans, and why the Romans were the vehicle supreme of Judaism.

Oliver talked about the struggle Celtic people mounted in Britain to retain their identity. In the previous episode he had described the remarkable way in which the Jews, as in the Romans, took over the islands human biomass, the heart of Celtic power in Europe. In 55 BC Caesar established a bridgehead on the south coast and then withdrew, after putting local tribes under his authority by a light touch. He took royal children to Rome to be programmed into Romans, effectively making them the first English slaves of Judaism, well before England even existed ! Evidence of the staggering effectiveness of this method of superorganic incorporation is to be seen in the foundation of Silchester as a Roman town, created and built entirely by Celts, in the ensuing decades. A century after the first incursion however, the Romans came for keeps, taking possession of the island. By 200 AD, Oliver said, this invasion was forgotten as the indigenous people will now of counted themselves as Roman. More than once he asked, was it possible to be British and Roman ? A question we ask with great force today, after the reinvasion by Judaism following the last world war, this time in the guise of Islam. Is it possible to be British and Muslim ? No, is the answer. In last nights local BBC news, 27/4/11, we heard about a Muslim model selected to represent the UK at a Miss Universe pageant. Racists say she is a Paki and cannot therefore represent us. Muslims say she is a disgrace to Islam. Given that Islam is here, this is exactly what I love to see, with this girl following Western ideas, so that the aliens sent to destroy our culture, are going native ! It is not possible to be Muslim and English, just as it is not possible to be religious and a scientist. Accommodations between these identities are worked out, but the nature of these accommodations is only comprehended properly in physiological terms, regarding humanitys superorganic nature. Olivers overview of this era provides a perfect basis for us to pick up the subject and explain this process of identity transformation properly. Olivers brilliantly succinct and clear account provides us with everything we need for a true understanding of these matters, it just lacks the key, the prism through which to project all these facts, to render a true scientific picture based on biology, not history. Another point well made by Oliver was that the real power of Rome in a conquered land, was provided by its efficient civil service, its tax collectors. Herein lies a major principle of Jewish material power. Roman colonising behaviour was based on a sophisticated model for social structure building, and maintenance. Jews played a vital role in its operation as ever present stabilisers of such a state system, which their identity programme was developed to compliment and promote. This is why the Romans had a special dispensation for the Jews. Jews are people committed to state structure, it is the social framework within which they live, which they do not own, but rather they farm it from within, from behind the scenes, by virtue of their religion, culture and identity, evolved as it is to intermesh with the power structure of the state. A neat little insight into how this method of exploitation worked through a symbiotic relationship between Jews and Romans, comes from the observation that the money-lender was an ever present figure in the civilization of the time, (The Roman Fate, Heitland, 1922, p. 32) indicating the way military Rome opened up the world to capitalist Judaism.

III The evolution of complex linguistic identity programming If we think about the picture painted by Oliver, of a Britain undergoing transformation into a Roman province, such that a land populated by Celts becomes one populated by Romans, which gave way to its true form under Judaism, in the slave guise of Christianity, and then project this image back three millennia further, to the first civilizations and their war

driven empire building, then the two centuries required for the initial conversion of one human biomass into another, not by replacement of the biomass itself, but by the replacement of the cultural transfusion injected into the resident biomass, this looks like a process that well organised empire building cultures could of learnt to understand intuitively, by trial and error, and built into their cultural template by building up knowledge of practical results through experience, over the course of just a few centuries, refining their social organising methods in the same way the same founders of civilization learnt all the fine arts they practiced, as in metallurgy, astronomy, architecture, farming, literacy and civil service based state organization. This ancient art of social incorporation is what we have in the pure, refined, perfected form of Judaism, as the identity core at the centre of such a process, with the power to incorporate the whole human biomass of the planet under its identity. The incorporation of Britain described in terms of local history, by the stunted mind of a professional academic, is just one example of a natural, global phenomenon. The first geologists used such prime examples of universal principles to argue their way out of the black hole of ignorance imposed by the veil of Jewish history into which the Romans had incorporated us. But a new hole was dug by Darwin to contain the future in ongoing conformity with Jewish history, and this is why Oliver talks to us from within a pit of ignorance, from where he can see all the facts within, but none of their real significance without. Despite the opportunity for great understanding afforded to Oliver by his wonderful career, and the overt expression of a sense of a deep-time being vital to his subjects real comprehension, to grasp the time dimension of human existence, Oliver is oblivious to such simple ideas as those we present here in terms of identity continuity as the principle mechanism in understanding human existence. The idea of an arrow of time is familiar to intellectuals, so why do they not recognise the arrow of identity that is Judaism ? This is purely because their mental focus is fixed rigidly upon the individual as the human object of existence, the end of all action. This blinkered state is obtained by the total lack of awareness of a serious alternative the reality of the human superorganism as a living, natural, biological entity, the true end of all human action, as determined by mother nature, who made us. With these thoughts in mind we can see how knowledge becomes pivotal to social order, and hence why writing behaviour evolved, and so produced history, as a record of how to rule, along with all the other marvels of literacy that adorn our lives. History then, becomes a template for how to make society, which, in its making, provides history. This is exactly the kind of creative information loop we associate with self organizing life systems. The information pattern makes the physical form, while the form preserves the pattern, serving as the patterns carrier going forward in time. A temporal nature is exactly what we would expect to find is the essence of a physiological template for a living superorganism, and that is what history is, a template for existence, not an abstract description of existence. History is the complex linguistic identity programme that controls us, it is the linguistic force in action. Conversely, instead of manufacturing templates to define their existence, we can see why major powers have seen fit to periodically cleanse society of all knowledge, save the core template. The Chinese, Islam in the case of Alexandria, and most recently the Jews, alias the Christians, in the conflagration of the First World War, which swept Europe clean of its troublesome cultural advances in the field of knowledge.

IV Manufacturing the Hitler Taboo Because our academics are infused with a religious model drawn from Jewish mythology, we have no intelligent discussion of these matters. Reading the words above that I wrote yesterday, reminds me of the heartrending discovery I made last year while rummaging on the free book sites on line when I turned up a copy of an essay on cuneiform writing that talked about the discovery of an library intact, with all the scripts still in order on their shelves, which was then left to the locals to destroy as soon as it had been uncovered !! Pain, pain, such pain it gives me to think of this. This would of been a record of the earliest expression of just what we are talking about above, the method of organising superorganic form by a master race. But it was lost, the most precious record of any kind on the planet, and it was simply trashed through the incompetence of lovers of knowledge, who were the elite intellectuals of their day, unbelievable. May we be preserved from the enthusiasm of idiots. In addition to this thought, I have another. Dipping into a pre-cleansing work of the free scientific era, we find an example of how an Oliver might of been trained to tackle his subject of social transformation, if science had not been cleansed by the Jews in the world wars. Parasitism Organic and Social by Massart and Vandervelde, 1895, is a Darwinian treatise, tainted by organicist science. Our discussion of the manner in which a master race exterminates master races, and incorporates their slave biomasses into their own, is radically different from Olivers history. We indicate that such social processes are exactly akin to genetic evolution, only they are carried on by nature evolving body forms that are designed to receive a linguistic information programme to enable the creation of a superorganism through the resulting capacity to organize socially. The evolution of this body form is what the Handbook of Human Symbolic Evolution deals with, which I am currently making my second exercise in practical Atheist Science, by writing a piece called Nonexistence : the Greatest Secret of Existence, in which I critique the religious science this Handbook delivers. (There is one that got away, I have no recollection of this now, January 2012.) In a passage from this early twentieth century treatise on the same subject, or peripheral to it, we find this topic is picked up, although expressly denied, as we would expect of science corrupted by Darwinism. Organicism is inherently monistic, but not here. Here, inspired by individualism vested in the person, science is made compound, allowing the priest to have the best of both worlds, as usual : 2. In the social world parasitism is a characteristic of individuals, while in the organic it is a characteristic of species. The latter have travelled slowly towards that physiological character or habit. Natural selection has furthered the process and raised the parasitic habit to the dignity of a specific character, organically transmitted. In human society, on the other hand, the parasitic disposition or habit is formed by each individual in his own life-time, and remains an acquired and individual mark which is not organically transmissible. The progeny of a tape-worm can only be tape-worms, and must live in the intestines of another organism ; but in the social world there is no class of beings similarly bound by organic fate to a parasitic mode of life. Degenerate parents do, it is true, rear degenerate offspring, just as it is true that those who have a good heritage transmit the benefits to their descendants. But nothing in the nature of things requires that the heirs of the degenerate shall be parasites, or, if they do, that they shall be of the same order of parasites as their parents were. Imitation, in fact, is

the starting-point of this habit in the social world, and plays therein, as M. Tarde has pointed out, a part not less important than that of heredity in the biological sphere. 3. In studying social parasitism it is necessary to consider it in relation to the whole community, not in relation to the person or persons who may be attacked. Usurers, swindlers, and other evil-doers, must be regarded as parasites of the social body, and not of this or that victim whom they may happen to have preyed upon ; just as the naturalist looks on the Trichina as an enemy of the pig and not of the particular tissues or organs it infests. For, indeed, the individual exploited by the social parasite may find it very natural, or evenas in the case of prostitutionvery pleasant to submit to such exploitation. But the social body is injured none the less in its substance, that is to say, its resources. It may be said, generally speaking, that the features presented by social parasitism are less stable and less deeply marked than is the case in organic parasitism. Between the three formsnutritive, exploitary, and mimeticthere are no fixed dividing lines, and all three may sometimes be found together in the same individual. Thus a sinecurist may be at one and the same time a parasite (a) upon those by whom his salary is paid, (b) upon those who defend him, and from whom he borrows the social leverage by which he gains advancement, and finally (c) upon the working officials whose credit he shares, or who are discredited, it may be, on account of his uselessness and indolence. In the same way a sturdy beggar who feigns infirmity is a parasitic exploiter, not only of the community which keeps him, but also of the truly infirm, who are injured by his counterfeiting. (Massart and Vandervelde, pp. 20 22) This is a terrible piece of organicist science that reads more like a moralising religious tirade, it is nothing but a judgmental denunciation of the usual targets of religious oppression, attacking dishonesty and idleness, set in the genuine scientific context of social parasitism likened to biological parasitism. It is still one of the best seeming books I have ever seen, just as a boot in the face would be the most loving human touch ever experienced, if it were the only touch ever felt. What these fake organicist sociologists should be doing is showing how parasitism in nature is one of the highest forms of evolution, and that it appears in human life in the form of structural differentiation, as in the rise of priesthoods, and especially priestly cultures, most particularly that of Judaism. But of course they do not disregard all morality in order to do science, instead make religious morality the guiding light of their science ! ___ It is several weeks at least since I took this passage and wrote a response to it, and in the last fortnight I have received a copy of a book called England Under the Jews, by Joseph Banister, 1901, which the opening line of the above brings to mind. In Massart and Vanderveldes piece we find it stated that in society parasitism of a deeply organic nature exists, which invokes the Organicist model of the day, that of the social organism, while conflating it with the age old morality of good and evil, where some people are deemed malignant in themselves. In Banisters piece on the Jews, we find a treatise which applies this logic to a specific group of people, namely the alien Jew pouring into Britain, a foul poison amounting to an invading social disease. The creation of the Hitler Taboo which protects the Jews from their slave biomass in this scientific age, is the most important aspect of the Atheist Science account of modern times, in terms of a jolting revelation impacting on our world, and it is obvious what the basic structural form of the taboo is as an expression of linguistic force, as it simply involves wrapping up all science that is dangerous to the Jews in one package, called Nazism, which

catapults this dangerous science into the extra-social space of taboo, where it cannot be accessed ever again. But finding the evidence of how this package was put together from genuine science, to make of the Nazi expression of the Jewish master race identity, is something that has alluded me thus far. In our discussion of Nazi academia above we have seen some intimation of how knowledge in Germany was allowed to access this real science of human nature while it was suppressed everywhere else, thus setting the Germans up for a fall, and here we have a direct connection between the two, the science, and the Nazi Jew, only this time we have a rare opportunity to examine these ideas in English. Massart and Vanderveldes science is a corruption of true Sociological Organicism, it manifests an overt perversion of biologically based sociology, just as Darwinism is a corruption of the true logic of evolution. Darwinism was a prior link in the process of subverting genuine scientific knowledge to provide a mechanism creating social structure in a biologically functional form, relative to the Jewish master identity, by masquerading as the powerful new science of human social nature, providing the linguistic substance that others could use to construct the Nazi anti-Jew that was required to save Jews from the revelations of science properly applied, as we apply them in Atheist Science, without judgment or malice. Thus, as with complex organic reactions, such as photosynthesis, where progress through a long series of reactions allow the impact of photons to end in available life energy, so we may understand that a similarly long, complex chain of subversions, takes place in the manufacture of knowledge that enables a taboo package to be created, from pure reason. Massart and Vanderveldes piece is a clear example of the kind of ideas being banded about in the realms of sociology at the time when others were applying such logic to the ongoing trials and tribulations of society, so that from these simple, utterly outrageous assertions by priest-sociologists, a layman is able to spew forth the most terrible declamations against the Jews, exactly as we see in Banisters work. And this fuelling of vile political nonsense on the back of uncompromising science, we may take it, happened on a vaster scale in Germany, leading ultimately to the creation of the Nazis. Thus true science raised a pustule of political ideology which, upon bursting, ejected genuine science applied to humans, from society, healing society by way of a scab that is the Hitler Taboo, which preserved the Jewish superorganism as it had always been, but now safe from modern science. Cloaks piece on the evolution of the wheel, You Cant Reinvent the Wheel Because It Wasnt Invented in the First Place, 1968, describes a naturalistic, Darwinian process, creating artifacts which, despite the deference to Darwinism, is a nice idea that applies equally to the formation of false, functional knowledge, in the same gradual way. Whereby linguistic force is constantly directed through the social structure, being concentrated by the knowledge factories, to create an effect determined by the core linguistic force resident in Jewish identity at the heart of society, the heart of the global superorganism that is. This fuels the process whereby social ills are associated with the true Master Race in a vicious and terrible form, made real in the war and the holocaust, thus sealing the sublime knowledge of science that could of eradicated religion from the face of the earth, including the Jews as Master Race, and set humanity free from the trammels of nature, within a taboo of such intensity that it is untouchable. The taboo package can be seen in the process of manufacture, leading from Darwin to Hitler, only, while many have made the link between Darwinism and Nazism, we make the link in keeping with its essence, as a positive functional expression of linguistic force, in keeping with the needs of the Jewish superorganism. Nazism was not a perversion of Darwinism, Darwinism was the original act of perversion, and Nazism is its natural, and highly functional, product. The world wars, the Nazis, and the holocaust, occurred for a positive reason. They were not aberrations, nor even malformations. These evils were vital expressions of human nature, in keeping with the physiological needs of the Jewish superorganism at that time, imparted due to the expression

of linguistic force, which always has to be contained within the furnace of corporate being by safeguarding the One message of uniform identity, which is Judaism. The above piece of socialist sociology is an interesting item for a number of different reasons. It is firstly an organicist piece of work, but it is socialist too. One of the most fascinating aspects of the nineteenth century enlightenment is that it led to two opposite political models both rooted in organicist logic, Communism and Fascism. These political forms of organicist thinking came into their own in the twentieth century, but we can see the politicisation of science from the left wings angle, expressed crassly, in the above quote. The linguistic device which enables this perversion of science, is the mechanism of natural selection found in Darwinism, because this allows for the personalisation of human attributes. These authors recognise that individuals in some sense are elementary units of a social whole, but they do not realise that society is a superorganism and individuals simply do not exist. Hence they apply Darwinian principles to the formation of the individual in order to segregate the laws of evolution from persons and society. Consequently, they do not see social parasitism as a biological phenomenon, even as they expressly set out to argue that it is somehow part of a dynamic continuum ! Too pathetic. What this boils down to is the decoupling of biology from sociology by making genetic information responsible for biology, thus leaving linguistic information responsible for sociology, with the latter being under the conscious, wilful control of the person, acting as a social individual which, according to their personal nature, may be social or sociopathic. We simply could not get a more religious model if we took it word for word from the Jewish slave mantra of the Bible. The trick here involves the substitution of imitation for genetics, but the object is clearly to preserve a moral agenda vested in the person, thereby depriving science of any power of explanation that would excuse immoral behaviour. What science does however, if anything, is to show that religion is the supreme evil, not that evil individuals cannot help themselves. After the second act of cleansing of 1939 45, science was decimated, and we have no perverted representations of science acknowledging any organicist reality, not even as they subvert it with the aid of Darwin. We just get blind fools like Oliver who have not got the faintest idea of another reality lurking behind the ideas which fill up their brain. But by bringing these ideas together, we are able to nicely illustrate what Oliver was oblivious to that these earlier workers knew perfectly well, after a fashion, but were trained to pervert in their representations of humanity. For a true understanding of history what is required is the knowledge that humans are superorganisms, and there are no such things as individuals. Thus social bodies, however defined, constitute structures of a living being. From this perspective we can reach the truth, which shows us that the Jews constitute a special organ of superorganic physiology that serves as a brain within the superorganism, and this, viewed politically, as in socialism or fascism, makes the Jews parasitic, relative to other political elements. There is some definite reality about this parasitic view, and that is why Nazism developed to push this reality to the fore, since it could not be denied, and thus make it taboo, so that it could not even be mentioned ! What is nice about the above passage, the reason it was reproduced here, is that these authors raise the spectre of biology being responsible for human social dynamics, when they say that parasitism is not structural to the social order because it is personal, because in the social world there is no class of beings similarly bound by organic fate to a parasitic mode of life. The actual interpretation is erroneous since that is precisely what religion does, it creates social structure by binding Jews into a parasitic lifestyle, produced by rules that force Jews to act as elite master race elements alienated within a body of society, by taking on the

onerous task of money lender for example, forbidden to the slave class, who must work for a living and not live by usury, as was formerly the case in Christianity, though this strict role delineation is now only preserved in relation to the Islamic Slave Order of Judaism, having become redundant in the Christian slave biomass where economic structures are so advanced that the delineation between master Jew and slave Christian is secreted behind the elaborate structures of social power. Things like the Stock Exchange presumably facilitate this farming of society now, it clearly goes on, but the link to the Jews is no longer immediately visible, yet it must be there, since Israel exists, as do all the other trimmings of Jewish master control. Our role delineation aside, the one thing that is perfectly clear, even if a person has no idea what significance these things have, is that religion does allocate social status to people in life, as surely as any genetic attribute could ever do likewise, in any regard. If we refer to Blooms Lucifer Principle, 1995, we find this Jew provides a superb example of this principle of linguistic force generating a social identity, which appears as a religion taking possession of a slave biomass, only his example is not Judaism, it is Hinduism and its caste system. He has no notion of any such physiological relationship applying within his own cultural milieu of Judeo Christian America, apparently. Oliver paints a pretty picture, but one which is no more real than any mythology ever was. The African tribe that believed the creator god was a cow and its milk created the world, however it goes, is as sound and true as anything Oliver tells us, when all is said and done. If you live in a tribe where all you know is cattle and without them you would be dead, then thinking god is a cow is all you need to know. Olivers account of how we came to be what we are is vastly more sophisticated than this primitive African myth, but in the end it is pure, unmitigated bullshit, and obviously so. But that bothers no one, least of all Oliver, and so the myth does its job of making us all feel an integral part of the world, that we are indeed part of, and nothing other than, a part of. Yesterday, 26/04/2011, I wrote up a note on Blooms Lucifer Principle in which I said that the Jews wrote the Koran, even if no actual Jew had anything to do with the writing of this work. My proof was that the Koran is a pathetic rehash of the Bible, which may be suggestive to the open-minded, but still leaves something to be desired in terms of getting my meaning across. Combined with the understanding that there is no such thing as an individual, and that linguistic force is the creator of superorganic physiology through the organisation of sentient brick behaviour via the projection of a linguistic identity programme, we can set this vague assertion into a meaningful context, where this identity programme takes the form of Judaism realised in a coat of many colours, a rainbow of identities all coming from one pure idea of Jewish identity. So that Judaism is to human culture as sunlight is to the colours of the rainbow. Judaism is the prism through which human corporate nature shines to create the complex social order we see everywhere today, no matter what cultural shade or hue we actually see. Such a model allows us to conceptualise the deterministic relationship of the Jew to all things human, even when we find no physical evidence for the presence of the Jew anywhere. The Jew takes the position of divinity in our world, which is obviously what they do when they make their identity that of the superorganism, which the Jews call God. So far I have interested myself in the implications for ideas, of diffuse information within a living body as found in the essay by Rocha, but the preceding essay in Evolutionary Systems, is On Some Relations Between Cognitive and Organic Evolution, by Olaf Diettrich, which I read first because I liked the title. This essay did not inspire me however, but in speaking thus of our cultures being Jewish no matter how they appear to us, so that Nazism is Jewish for examplean obvious point we often makeI am reminded of a central theme in Diettrichs essay, which said that nothing that is seen can ever be what it appears to be

because all such experiences are interpretations produced by living physiology. I do not like this view, reality exists aside from us, but it does come into its own with regard to language as a biological information stream, oriented towards the creation of superorganic physiology. Such that the visualisations produced by language are indeed never what we make them out to be, because language so often creates the impressions that it delivers, rather than delivering impressions that are observed. Thus when we say that Judaism creates Christianity and Islam, or Nazism, we might abstract that idea by saying that linguistic force creates these forms by transmitting through the established identity of Judaism, which it previously created on the structural basis of superorganic being.

V Embryonic master identity Suddenly I find myself at work, today, Friday, 10 June 2011, is the last day of my first week in an electronics production factory, which is not conducive to my grand philosophical enterprise. The flow of books into my world has persisted and yesterday Spirit of the Biblical Legislation by Maurice Fluegel, 1893, arrived. The work appears at first sight to be a religious diatribe, but it has a turn of interest well suited to our purposes, for example we find this remark Israel was but a nucleus of the one human race, and Canaan or Juda but an epitomized United States of the World. (p. 3) The author was an American. Because the work is religious propaganda it is facile in its overall claim, the point being that it looks at what has happened and says we know what is claimed is true because of what has happened. This has no interrogative value whatsoever, it is like saying white people are superior to black people because white people are the leaders of the first world as we know it ; true in a partial sense, but not true in an absolute sense, even if the premise were true in an absolute sense. But the man knew his Bible and his interest here is our interest too, in that he is clear about the special role of the Jews, and his focus is upon the way the linguistic programme at the core of Judaism has become the linguistic programme at the core of all the world now. Thus the line we quote is a perfect nugget of Atheist Science reasoning, it indicates that Judaism established itself as an embryonic human superorganism giving expression to our human corporate nature, and showed its status in this regard long ago, both in the presentation of a linguistic identity programme and the resulting superorganic physiology, a miniature united states. All that remained was to grow, and that has now been done. While drawing on this enemy of reason to illustrate our science, we may remind ourselves of the same success arising since coming from a Jew, as in Kastein quoting from Jewish mythology in relation to their immortal nature in the face of cultural destruction that no other human identities have managed to survive. This miraculous survival trait is the other key factor in the making of the Jewish master race formula. The idea of the Jews as the embryo of a global superorganism is obvious from an organicist sociology point of view, but it is an idea that must be stated. At this moment, Wednesday, 18 January 2012, as I delve into the supreme English speaking Organicist Philosopher Hugh Doherty, so recently come to my full attention, I find myself examining Fouriers peculiar but highly organicist idea of society which inspired Doherty. Fourier used the idea of a social embryo to invoke the age old, tedious, religious notion of imperfect humanity becoming ever more perfect. He addressed this idea to the human species and thus overshot a scientific mark, but the principle is correct, all that was required was to understand that each integral social unit, of whatever kind, was a true superorganism, and that these individual superorganisms developed over time, in a process of development that involved

the merging of one biomass into another, to produce the global superorganism he envisions arriving at the end of the process. So that as ever, the failure is an inability to look at life as it is, if people do apply a scientific abstraction to themselves, such as that of an organicist model, they force it through the prism of religious dogma that overburdens the idea with political values.

UNCIVILIZED SOCIETY.

Four varieties of uncivilized or falsely civilized society have already existed and are still existing upon earth : the savage horde, the Patriarchal tribe or clan, the organized military barbarian nation, and the falsely civilized industrial nationality. Under these general heads, then, may be classed the various social forms through which mankind has progressed up to the present day ; and if four have already existed, may not a fifth or even a sixth be discovered and organized ? Common sense would dictate that there could, although the world hitherto has entertained a different notion. (London Phalanx No. 60August, 1842, in London Phalanx, 1968, p. 72. Possibly from Fourier, translated by Doherty.) This gives us a flavour of what we have just been referring to, and we can see how nicely adapted to our genuinely scientific ideas, this is. The key is to realise the actual nature of humans as animals evolved to form a superorganism, in the same way as some ants and bees have been. The failure to understand this simple fact leads to the confusion evident here where Fourier, whom these ideas are taken from, if it is not a direct quote, generalises the logic of human social development by applying it to humans in general, instead of applying this idea of social evolution to his own society. Doing as we say however, leads to horrific knowledge, the knowledge that the Jews are the master race and Christians their slaves, and this is something that no person who ever existed has grasped, at all, except me, apparently, maybe ? Wednesday, 23 May 2012 Dohertys fourth volume opens with an evocation of this principle described above, whereby scripture says war will end when human potential has been realised, and that one race has been made to destroy another. The implication is that one race has been created to destroy all others, the Jews, or master race, to create one unity race, but Doherty manages to fail to see this obvious consequence of his correctly understood principle of human nature. In the above then, we have some major technical insights into the dynamics of superorganic physiology, in which we are embroiled by virtue of our status as cellular units of superorganics being, sentient brick units we like to say. The ability to keep the biomass pure and focused upon a central authority associated with religion, is vital, everywhere, at all times. Becoming familiar with such ideas over the years we become very flippant about how we express this insight sometimes, so we often freely describe the Jewish theocracy, our masters, or simply the Jews, as waging war against ustheir slaves and propertyin order to continue their game of control over our world. When we speak thus, we couch these most dangerous assertions in reasons to do with our general ideas about the nature of the superorganism, and the role of Judaism as the core identity of that life form. We know that Judaism is at the heart of all this, we know that all Judaism is, is the identity of the superorganism galvanising all social energy about itself, so we know everything, but we just cannot say where exactly Judaism lies !

It is as if the Jews are everywhere, but nowhere ! We see their influence everywhere, but we find no evidence of their presence as frontline powerbrokers, plainly visible, anywhere. They do not sit as rulers upon a throne, or as leaders within a chamber of political power, appearing under their own name. At the Labour conference last week, today being Wednesday, 05 October 2011, Ed. Miliband, the party leader, was described as being grateful for the escape of his family from persecution, meaning he is a Jew. So next election, we may have a Jewish prime minister once again, a most significant thing, since Jews are always Jewish first, as Muslims often boast they are, and nationalist second. Yet we are not told about this most important political interest in this mans life ! Its incredible. Not really relevant, true, since all our prime ministers, as in Christians, are as Jewish as it is possible to be. But still, it is fascinating how they manage to keep such extremely important knowledge secret from the public at large. Thats Hitlers guiding hand nurturing them along once again. Jews are a covert brotherhood of identity, the inheritors of the system of secret affiliation that operated in the ancient world. Here we bring in our understanding of the hierarchical anatomy of the superorganism, such that Jews act as the amorphous core of motive power, the energy of inspiration equivalent to the motivation arising from the brain and its network of connections in the somatic body, while the Christian slaves of Judaism act as the material representation of the same, the face of political power. Christians are the Jewish spirit realised in the flesh, the flesh equating to the brain and its network, not the flesh of the body, the flesh of the body is Islam. Some such arrangement may be conceived of, and this helps explain why a master race develops in linguistic form, into a triadic identity structure. There has to be separation between living command and control centres in order to provide structural stability across the physical domain of society, which is the manifestation in the flesh of the superorganism in total. This description denies the Jews any material existence, making them out to be akin to the mind, contained within the meat of the brain. If we think about what the mind is, this idea is not quite as impossible as it at first seems given the physical existence of Jews. The mind is the information held in the brain. Information has no physical presence in itself, as a mass, it exists in the structural organisation of cerebral mass, and its relevance and importance to the existence of the mass that it exists within is the fact that information is what organises the flow of energy that creates living structure. This description perfectly accords with the idea of the Jew as a nonexistent part of the superorganism, existing as the reservoir of information of identity that builds the social form of the living superorganism, and exists within the brain of the beast, which consists of another cultural order. Before the influence of the Jews developed to the degree where it was able to disperse an identity image of itself in the form of Christianity, Jews lived imbedded within other elite structures constituting the social powerbase of the times, as Jewish history records. Again, referring to the recent discovery, today being 18/01/2012, of Fouriers early modern recognition of an organic nature to social form, we find that : This is a superficial sketch of Fouriers religious views, but Fouriers system is the science of association ; and this science can hardly be called a system, because it is a science of organic unity in various degrees of civil and political and moral and industrial organization. It is to society what the principles of architecture are to building ; not a particular form or plan of construction but the science of construction in every degree and form. It explains the law of savage incoherency, of patriarchal aggregation, of military nationality, and Feudal coalition in society, commonly called civilization, and after explaining the law of human progress through these various forms of general society or nationality, it teaches us the law of unitary combination or

association, which is destined to succeed these incoherent and oppressive forms of social and religious and political existence. It is the universal law of order, or series however, [that] constitutes the basis of the science of association, and not vague equality of rank, condition, and authority. It is neither false monopoly nor false equality that constitutes the law of order in society ; but graduated scales of rank, condition and authority ; the series which ascends from low to high, in every sphere of life and action, elevating gradually all who are below, as fast as those who are above can travel forward in refinement and true elevation. This is the basis of Fouriers science of association, which enriches all classes without spoliating any, and conciliates all views of truth, without negation, by offering extreme polarities a common centre of affection and of uses. (London Phalanx, No. 59.July, 1842, in London Phalanx, 1968, p. 58)

So this is really very nice. We take this here because of the evocation of a complex hierarchical order creating the full unity of social complexity that we have been attempting to express above, focused upon the Jewish identity. This social hierarchy appears in reference to the idea of a Series as the basis of the science of society, and essentially we could not agree more, the delivery of a hierarchy is indeed what a true science of society is all about. We get there by talking about the evolution of somatic linguistic physiology, which projects authority into the inter somatic social space, and thereby causes social structure to be laid down over generations of accumulating linguistic information. And there is another nice element to this, the most scientific sociology ever seen, before Atheist Science, which is the idea that artificial, that is political notions of equality based upon the idea of the individual as an end in themselves, are not the issue here, that a more organic idea of equality is what matters, that recognises the supremacy of the organic whole and applies fairness by offering equal of opportunity to all individuals, to play a part in contributing to that whole which is the object all exist to serve. Equality of opportunity is what matters, and sure enough that has become the guiding principle of our politicians today. Except, while they talk this talk, they in no way whatsoever deliver it. The disparity between what they so and do is so gross that we might wonder how they can talk so, but the answer to this, is that people want them to be so deceitful, because those with the advantages want to keep them. This is the pragmatic expression of social hierarchy that exists in the real world, as opposed to the ideal espoused by Fourier through a process of intellectual analysis that has identified the natural order of society and wishes to apply art to its improvement according to some ideal standard of individuality ; or the literal description of the natural order offered by ourselves, who care nothing for what is or might be, and only want to offer a true science of society as a natural phenomenon, disregarding all thought for the individuals that we are. ___

Last year, 2011 : Here we might mention another fascinating find, The Conquering Jew, John Fraser, 1915 ; which arrived this dinnertime. Looking at this volume in hardcopy I see the most fascinating closing statement, anticipating the certain disappearance of the Jew. The whole book is miraculous, I never imagined anything like it could exist, and why has it taken me a decade to find it, that is what I would like to know ? This book is all about the idea of the Jews dispersion throughout the European biomass, in such a way that no one knows they are

there, where they are everywhere but nowhere simultaneously. You would think this opening description would have warned against so stupid a closing one as just noted. The author travelled widely in order to study economic development around the globe, leading to the accidental discovery of the Jews integral presence everywhere, much to the authors surprise. What more delightful, more perfect idea, could Atheist Science want to discover in book form, and when else could such an idea have be openly discussed than at about this time ? And what solution to this scenario of revelation could there be, other than the formation of a taboo fit for the modern era, to allow the Jew to continue on into the future, as they always had in the past, than the creation of the Hitler Taboo that we have come to speak of so often, recently ?

VI Identity as the hub of social self organization With this overview of the general idea that knowledge control is linked to the idea of Jewish power in society, as a form of ghostly presence, which is nicely expressed by the idea of being everywhere and nowhere at the same time, I want to turn now, to this modern piece of abstruse science seeking to penetrate the mysteries of information relative to the creation and organisation of life. The Jews as master race could be thought of as the core memory of the superorganism, wherein the factor of corporate identity is preserved : The dynamical approach of von Foerster (1965) to cognition emphasized the concept of memory without a record. By utilizing functionals to change the functions of state-determined systems, von Foerster formalized the idea that memory can be observed in systems which are able to change their own structure and its dynamics and attractor behavior. Today, we name this kind of memory distributed, and the kind of models of memory so attained connectionist. The categories a distributed memory system classifies are not stored in any particular location, they are nowhere to be found since they are distributed over the entire dynamics established by some network of processes (van Gelder, 1991). They exist however in the form of attractors (eigenstates) which are nonetheless discrete as earlier observed. Categories are not stored in any one particular location of the network, but are identified with particular dynamic attractors for which we need an emergent level description. For a self-organizing system to be informationally open, that is, for it to be able to classify its own interaction with an environment, it must be able to change its structure, and subsequently its attractor basins, explicitly or implicitly. Explicit control of its structure would amount to a choice of a particular dynamics for a certain task (the functional would be under direct control of the self-organizing system) and can be referred to as learning. Under implicit control, the self-organizing system is subjected to some variation of its structure (including its distributed memory) which may or may not be good enough to perform our task. Those self-organizing systems which are able to perform the task are thus externally selected by the environment to which they are structurally coupled. If reproduction is added to the list of tasks these systems can produce based on their dynamic memories, then we have the ingredients for natural selection : heritable variation and selection. This form of situated, embodied, self-organization can be referred to as distributed memory-selected self-organization. Its relying on some systemenvironment coupling of structure has been stressed most notably within second-order

cybernetics and systems research. Maturana and Varela (1987) propose structural coupling as the general mechanism for variety increase, Pask (1976) refers to it as conversation in the cognitive realm. (Selected Self-Organization, Rocha, p. 345) Returning to this part weeks after first writing it, I find my take on the above quote is different from that given below, where I deal with the above in terms of linguistic force and the flow of information it constitutes in relation to the creation and maintenance of superorganic form. My first thought coming fresh upon this quote now was to view the distributed memory as being the Jewish individual dispersed throughout the extended, overtly none Jewish biomass. Here the memory with which we are concerned is the Jewish identity of the whole superorganism, so the Jews are the physical units of memory, carrying that memory by way of their linguistically acquired identity programme. The manner in which the memory is stimulated depends upon conditions, so we may find a description of the Jewish presence, or memory, lying dormant within a segment of the superorganic biomass, as when Fraser talks of the newly returned London cohort of Jews in his Conquering Jew, as being quietly respectable and earning their place in British society accordingly, for some two centuries. Whereupon, not long after this period of quiescence, all hell breaks loose, such that the Jews have not been far from our collective consciousness ever since. The persistence of the Christian slave Jew is of an identical order to that of the true, master Jew. A small minority of people are actively Christian, while a significant minority of the whole population are ostensibly Christian. But whatever the state of Christian activity in society the core body of people in positions of power, anywhere within the social fabric, in education, military, government, civil service, business, are heavily represented by Christians, who maintain the Christian identity in law, education, government policy and so on. Thus we find individuals act as capacitors of identity, carrying a charge of identity within themselves which is ever ready to be released into the social environment of superorganic being, as and when conditions demand or allow a boost of identity flow to stimulate activity one way or another, for or against an action, which always acts in obedience to the Jewish interest and objective of possessing social power, regardless of whether an action is overtly Judophilic or anti-Semitic. What we say of the Christian must now be applied to the Muslim too, as they have become an established part of the social biomass during my lifetime, and will now be here forever more. Unless we should actually become free one day, but that is not going to happen, ever. ___ VII Superorganic self-organization creates society Returning once again to this section, after completing my second week working as a machine part, I find my attention refocused upon this complex idea, my thoughts continue along the lines of the Jews as representatives of the master race organ of superorganic being, as an organ of memory, distributed memory we can say, which ultimately preserves the identity of the superorganism. But which also achieves its functional status by developing and sharing a cultural framework that complies with the discussion above, most particularly where there is talk of a self-organizing system generating mechanisms that classify its [societys] own interaction with an environment. This is described as learning, and we can think of the accretion of a culture as a learning operation whereby a superorganism

organizes itself by learning how to build, self-organize that is, its own structure. We can best see this process at work in the Jews because they are so unique in our world, as a people that classifies its own interaction with an environment, to give them their special position giving rise to the reaction they call anti-Semitism, which the rest of us call plain commonsense. Where we are commonsensitive, the Jews are not. I just had to get that creative use of English in after hearing a barmaid in the Kings use this word last night, much to her hearers consternation, and my delight. Obviously a lot could be said about how this spontaneous accretion of culture arises and operates to create a superorganic physiology, but it is not my forte to get into the nittygritty details of such ideas, and I think the logic presented here in the context of the above quote, is sufficiently obvious to allow others to do so should they wish. This week, today being Saturday, 18 June 2011, I received a copy of Across the Boundaries : Extrapolation in Biology and Social Science, by Daniel Steel, 2008. An extraordinary book I have to say, and not at all what I expected. This is not quite to say anything positive, but merely to note the plain fact of the matter. Right now my thoughts on the nature of the Jews as distributed memory within a superorganic physiology, which carries the identity of the whole and sets the agenda for social action by way of the driving motives written into the master identitys cultural routines, brings to mind the first passage I stopped at when dipping into Steels work, upon its arrival. The book is perfectly targeted for our purposes, in general terms, being aimed at the relationship between biology and society as natural phenomena, but it is bizarrely inspired in terms of its biological point of reference. It has for its inspiration the nature of living substance, said to be founded entirely upon the mechanisms of microbiology, all causal relationships in living organisms are mediated by molecular processes. (p. 42), which leads to the idea of an all pervading modularity. Of modularity we have this, mechanisms are modular in the sense that it is possible to intervene to change a feature of one component while leaving the generalizations that govern the others unaltered. (p. 43). Not very helpful, but this is because this professional philosopher is long on words but short on meaningful explanations. There is an example given concerning the ability to change one element of a genome while leaving others intact, I think, I have not really read it, but we can see where he is coming from here, vaguely. Steels objective then is to postulate the operation of a similar fundamental principle as molecular action, operating in the creation of social structure. I love the gist of the reasoning, and of course we already know that the void he is seeking to fill in Religious Science, is that which Atheist Science fills with the idea of Linguistic Force. Moving on a few pages to the application of this reasoning to social structure, we come to this : Social mechanisms typically involve reference to some categorization of agents into relevantly similar groups defined by a salient position their members occupy vis--vis others in society. In the description of the mechanism, the relevant behaviour of an agent is often assumed to be a function of the group into which he or she is classified. (p. 48) So, as we can see, this description nicely accords with the way we are speaking of the Jews as a group within society, generating social structure and serving a functional purpose thereby. Well, I say as we can see, but this selection delivers a stilted mode of expression, which I think comes out as I have rendered it to suit our purposes, though as seen here it is

not too obvious, I can only presume I felt this interpretation and application came across when reading this selection in situ. The unexpected thing about this volume is that it is a serious piece of philosophy. This makes it highly obscure, but intriguing. I have yet to take a real look at this book. ___ VIII Chapter summary In the above passage taken from Rochas essay, the idea of being everywhere and nowhere makes an appearance, prompting the inclusion of this idea in the present discussion. Evolutionary Systems is intended for the in crowd, who are expected to be familiar with the lingo, to outsiders like ourselves this raises a barrier known as jargon. From such in crowd based ideas we get popularisers of science, but where are there any popular representations of such ideas I wonder ? Kauffman, The Origins of Order, 1993, gets a mention, and he has written popular science, I have a copy of At Home in the Universe, 1995, which did not impress me. I do not imagine we would find Kauffman giving us quite what we get from this piece by Rocha, despite the difficulties of obtaining a full understanding due to verbal obfuscation. Key bits of jargon appearing in this passage are attractor, connectionist, eigenstates, and basins. By reading the essay we can tease out some idea of what is meant here, although it is far from easy to be definitive. When I read material like this I am trying to pick up its sense and to relate its meaning to the central concern of all my work, which is the organisation of superorganic physiology. The business about eigenstates comes from Foerster and is not elaborated on, but appears to refer to a symbolic unit within a system, what we would call a word in the context of linguistic force, generating a flow of information that we experience as language. Thus when Rocha equates attractors to eigenstates, he is indicating the physical power of this symbolic unit of a structure to organise the structure it is part of. In turn, when he talks about attractor basins he is invoking the summation of this symbolic power to organise, which leads to the formation of a large complex structure which gives rise to the whole idea of self-organization. We would refer to the core focus, or foci of linguistic force, as being the identity of the superorganism, such as Judaism. Basin then is simply another word for core or foci, one that presumably has the merit of not being generally used in such a context, and which therefore seems ideal to a scientist who thinks he is delineating a new subject by creating an obscure way of talking about it ! It is a commonplace among the work of scientists to see the plasticity of meaning attached to words being lamented, making words useless as a means of scientific communication, hence the sublime beauty of maths to a scientist. I have no patience with this attitude. Such a situation is all about authority, and I feel the fault lies with the scientists not those who corrupt their ideas by subverting the meaning of their language. The answer is for scientists to understand what language is and to use it with authority, and to hell with all the inevitable subversions. If scientists do not take my approach then we end up with this kind of absurdly opaque work, which smacks more of egotistically inspired priestcraft seeking elitism through obscurantism, more than an effort to obtain purity of thought in a difficult area of expertise for which no language has hitherto been crafted. All of which leaves us with connectionist, for which I felt a twinge of understanding seep forth yesterday as I read a passage, but which again, I do not have a definitive definition for. I am going to have to retrace yesterdays reading to recover that impression, I cannot think of it sat here now.

In the meantime, what we have in this passage is an erstwhile piece of reasoning dealing with the role of the Jews as the master race, forming part of a superorganism. These intellectuals are seeking to understand the real world, most especially the world of life, they are interested in the relationship between information and structure, and they have discerned the connection between linguistics and what appears to them as being best described as selforganization. All that is missing is the revelation that informs Atheist Science. Humans, although we are life forms, we are Language personified. We live in immense social structures, that are not subjected to this kind of reasoning. This is because religion says we are sacred beings, so that nature can have no part in our world. As a consequence these characters want to confine their studies to physical systems accessible to direct experimentation, such as chemical systems or computer models. This is why we find jargon like eigenstates entering the fray, I would assume ; I think the prefix eigen has to do with a measure of energy. The dictionary indicates it is a mathematical term denoting a standard aspect of a system, which I suppose must relate to the state of energy within a dynamic system. What would be nice to see, is the application of their reasoning to human life. The problem here is that this requires a full sense of the idea that individuals do not exist, so that language is not a tool but a biological flow of information, that organises the physiology of a superorganism. Such a treatment of human society is unthinkable in our primitive state of existence, subject as we are to the smothering blanket of religious dogma, upon which the life of our superorganism admittedly depends. The task of such application must fall to ourselves therefore. Having said that the arrival of Steels book referred to above, provides a more emphatic recognition of the need to bridge the gap between the implications of our evolved biological nature and the world we live in socially, despite his adherence to a mechanistic, physical model which fails to make force the basis of its reasoning, and therefore cannot hope to really transcend the limits of individual being by uniting social form into one coherent whole intellectually, to match actual reality.

Chapter 4

Semantic Closure Equals Linguistic Identity, Equals Religion

Semantic closure : open-endedness, materiality, and universality The notion of description implies a self-referential linguistic mechanism. A description must be cast on some symbol system while it must also be implemented on some physical structure. Since many realizations of the same symbol system are possible, viewing descriptions only as physical systems explains nothing about their symbolic nature in the control of construction. When A interprets a description to construct some automaton, a semantic code is utilized to map instructions into physical actions to be performed. When B copies a description, only its syntactic aspects are replicated. Now, the language of this semantic code presupposes a set of material primitives (e.g. parts and processes) which the instructions are said to stand for. In other words, descriptions are not universal, as they refer to some material constituents which cannot be changed without altering its significance. We can see that a self-reproducing organism following this scheme is an entanglement of symbolic controls and material constraints which is closed on its semantics. Pattee (1982, 1995) calls such a principle of self-organization semantic closure. It is also important to understand that when we say that a description-based selected self-organizing system is endowed with open-ended evolutionary potential we do not believe it is universal, that is, that any physical system can be evolved. A given semantically closed system is based on some sort of coding mechanism between inert and functional structures. However, the code and the associated construction are built on some material substrate constraining the whole semantic closure : there is a finite number of functional structures which may be constructed with a given set of parts. The degree of open-endedness will be dependent on the representational potential of this code. In other words, the larger the number of possible equally dynamically inert structures, the larger the universe of functionality that can be represented in them. For instance, living systems cannot evolve any functional structure whatsoever, but still the number of possible functional combinations attainable with the DNA-protein code system is very large, far beyond computational limits. In this sense, the emergence of functionality is open-ended though not universal. (Selected Self-Organization, Rocha, pp. 348 9) A given set of parts relative to human language, means the individuals that language organises into a superorganic being. This is why human development always follows the

common pattern from hunter gather to civilization, which in turn always has a highly constrained structural form involving agriculture based on domestication, town living, numerous social roles, caste systems, organized religion, social hierarchies, military, slavery, or virtual slavery, as in working for a low wage, and so on. Human Ecology : A Theory of Community Structure by Amos Hawley, 1950, arrived yesterday, June 2011, and is a remarkable find, one wonders how on earth such items can keep on popping up from nowhere as the years of searching roll by. This arose from my finally obtaining the essay The City as a Social Organism by Schnore, that I have been after for years. Which just goes to show how worthwhile it is to chase down these obscure items, opening up yet another portal on sociological organicism, now appearing under the umbrella of yet another sociologized discipline, ecology in this case. I say sociologized because really there is no need for a Human Ecology, it should just be sociology, where sociology should be a strictly biological discipline anyway, thus incorporating the usual ecological dimension automatically. Anyway I burst into this newly found text here, because my first perusal of Hawleys work brings me to the delightful assertion that human society has a definite order associated with it : Despite the large range of variability, the human community retains a sufficient consistency of pattern in different times and places to permit its ready identification as such. (p. 206) The text then proceeds to delight and frustrate, but mostly to delight us with some interesting discussion of the way the organicist idea had been applied over modern times, a very rare historical cameo this passage, found in a most obscure department of science applied to humans. That obscurity is not new to the seeker of true knowledge, it is a common tactic used by academics to push the genuine study of society towards the most obscure places, which nowadays seems particularly active in the area of self organization, which is a good area of research but needlessly opaque to the person who wants to know what humans are, as part of nature. Hawleys work is worth discussing, it has wonderful descriptions of the nature of society indicating that the individual does not exist, though he obviously does not develop this most important point into a full-blown scientific model of human society, as we do in Atheist Science. Unfortunately my writing has ground to a halt since I started working in a factory five weeks ago, this is the first bit I have done in a while, courtesy of Sunday morning, though I did write a twelve page piece for EvoWiki last weekend, Howard Hill : Atheist Philosopher of Science.

I Superorganic science arrives, maybe I would like to give a quick mention to the last book I have on order, another item I have been after for a couple of years, it was only published in 2009 but has been a little pricy for an item I expected to be poor, but which I had to buy because of the title ! The Superorganism : The Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect Societies by Bert Hlldobler and Edward O. Wilson, arrived 8/07/2011, and I got a swift fifteen minutes to

look it over yesterday. In the first place, it began with some very interesting, in-depth discussion of superorganicism. It used a most irritating word to refer to features of a superorganism : grades of superorganismic organization (p. xvii), being as good an example as any. This is not a word I intend to recognise, though it makes sense it is ugly because it is so tongue twistingly unfriendly to say, even silently when reading, and quite unnecessary since superorganic gets the job done just as well as far as I can see. My spellchecker recognised it, even if I did not, so I must of used it before, I cannot imagine this word is in the dictionary. Superorganismic means belonging to, or of, a superorganism ; whereas superorganic means being of a superorganic nature, I would suggest. As such, there is a subtle distinction, though I am not quite sure what it is, if it amounts to anything that is. The subtlety seems to lie in the way superorganismic indicates having a superorganic nature, without evoking the idea of an abstract principle of superorganic natures. Whereas we freely express the idea of superorganic nature by saying superorganic, which expressly indicates the abstraction of being superorganic. This seems a tad tedious, but, while this could just be Americanism, it also might be guided by a desire not to invoke the idea of superorganicism in an unconstrained manner, that could easily be equated to being truly social, and thus easily transferred to humans, by anyone. Yippee ! Ive just11/07/2011 06:35been sacked, Im free, Im free !! I am also screwed, but lets look on the bright side, eh. The twats knew I was sacked Friday when I was badgering everyone to tell me if I still had a job to come to this morning, but still the fuckers let me come in only to send me home. Thats employers for you, fing scum, shitfaced bastards of the world. So superorganismic must mean being of a superorganism, but all we need say is superorganic, as we would naturally do in the course of our work on human nature as a biological phenomenon. I definitely want to read the parts dealing with superorganics in general, but I suspect we will find the discussion is primarily aimed at circumscribing the subject in order to contain it, thus making it safe for religion, this purpose being the key factor in shaping the formulation of Darwinism, and all the life sciences. Still, it has to be worth reading as the discussion of superorganics is extremely rare in any setting today. They speak as if they had discovered the idea and must introduce its novelty to the world ; reflecting the rarity just mentioned. It is certainly true that no other book has treated of the subject in a scientific manner, as they set out to do here under this heading of The Superorganism. How interesting that after all this time, thirty four years, Wilson should finally move from Sociobiology to Superorganism, and how tragic that it is not human society that is the subject of this second major study. The idea of human society as a superorganism is what always lay unspoken in his first great work, it was this fact which caused him to become a target of his fellow scientists, who hate science being applied to humans because they exist to protect religion from science, as Wilson clearly does too. I was not expecting this coverage of the principles of, that is the actual idea of superorganic phenomena, and it is nice to see. What makes a superorganism, composed of individuals, a real thing ? for example. This of course is precisely the line of discussion that arose in relation to the idea of human society as a social organism, prior to the destruction of this sociological science in the post cleansing era, from 1914 onwards. This question having been refuted and crushed in its application to humans, it clearly needs to be dealt with by anyone who would resurrect this science within a limited zone of life today, which now

forbids the genuinely scientific study of humans along naturalistic lines. And clearly, at the same time, the onus must be on any such workers to ensure their argument is expressed in terms that are pinned down to the insect context, making it easy to keep a true Sociology from emerging as an unintended consequence of applying science to true societies in the animal world. It is no surprise therefore to see a heavy emphasis upon the genetic evolution of social behaviour, since this cannot be directly related to human social form due to the imposition of Darwinism upon the biological sciences. We achieve the connection by invoking a linguistic force that projects authority in the form of a linguistic identity programme into the social space, where it animates individual behaviour, causing that behaviour to follow an ordered pattern which appears as culture and social structure, providing the definitive pattern recognised by Hawley. Guided by the recently acquired Mandelbaum, History, Man, & Reason, I got a copy of Hegels Philosophy of History this week, today being Saturday, 08 October 2011, and amongst matters of general interest I noticed, while opening uncut pages last night, a reference to the idea of the Romans having been given a blueprint for their civilization by divine gift. As a matter of principle we have suggested this idea when dealing with the nature of the Romans as a slave body serving Judaism, where Judaism evolved as an expression of human corporate nature to form a culture, and hence a people, especially evolved to act as a mobile priesthood ruling civilized states in the Near East. The next logical step in this developmental unleashing of the latent potential of human corporate nature, vested in the power of linguistic force to create superorganic form, is for this master priesthood to establish a purpose built host, designed to carry out the plan of global domination inherent in the priesthoods master identity culture. So whether the idea is mooted in a farcical form or otherwise is beside the point, the intuitive idea has been recognised, and is correct. It has to be correct, there is no other way to account for the unfolding of history that has led to the present global world ruled by the Jews, through the dispersion of two major slave identities truly made in the Jews own image, that is, as full-blown blueprints, as it were. On page five of Superorganism we have an intriguing comparison between human and ant superorganisms, whereby both creatures are imagined to embody an equal global biomass. I like that thought, though given our explosive vortex of organic biomass, eradicating so much of life while expanding relentlessly over the last few centuries, and set fare to massively increase in coming years, if such a parity does exist, it has not done so for long, and will soon pass, and therefore can mean nothing, other than being an amusing anecdote. Given that such insects are our true comparator in existence, it shows what a worthless man Wilson is as a scientist that this is the only thing he has to say about humans arising from his study of insect superorganisms, presumably this demonstration of worthlessness is intentional, to reassure the priesthood that he is making not real comparison between animal superorganisms, and humans as the same kind of being. Further into the body of the work we have the interesting observation that an insect colony can be visualised as an information network (p. 309). This is highly commensurate with our view of the human superorganism created by linguistic force, by projecting an accumulative identity programme into the social space occupied by sentient brick units of superorganic being. They talk about this networks pathways determining all that is unique about each species, and we would relate this idea to the cultural and linguistic features of a human social structure. The idea of semantic closure describes the way this network embodies and contains the being of the superorganism, and all of this is in perfect keeping with these snippets found in a quick flip through a few pages of Wilsons work yesterday. This is an important point of comparison because, without having read the relevant passages, they must be thinking of the genetically evolved differences between ant species, denoted by

the variations in the socially evident information networks. Our comparative view of humans in this respect, occurs in relation to the linguistic information flow which denotes a specific social difference setting human societies apart, to a degree that equates to a species difference in ants, whereby a master type superorganism must come into being by eradicating all others in terms of this information dissonance, as occurred with the rise of Judaism, which has driven the global human biomass towards one global culture. This master type superorganism is epitomised, realises its perfect form, in that social type we call civilised. The physical manifestation of this information pool gives rise to human races in its earlier stages of expressing human corporate nature, so that race acts as an indicator of superorganic identity. The racial marker is superseded by the pure linguistic form of religious identity, as seen in Judaism, which incorporates racial forms under one linguistic identity, as it does intermediate cultural forms too. Last night, 11/07/2011, BBC 2 had a programme on Mohammed, and the subtitles on the pubs television said that one and a half billion Muslims etc. etc. . ., indicating that one quarter of the worlds human biomass are now enslaved to Judaism under this identity format. To this we must add the major biomass of Christians, and the lesser master core of Jews where global power is concentrated via the agency of Islam and Christianity. This amounts to a major proportion of the global biomass so that, in keeping with the dynamics of human populations that we are all too familiar with in a free democracy, where the largest minority rules, the whole global biomass is effectively a Jewish biomass, irrespective of the agnomen any portion of the total may travel under. Free in this respect means : the freedom of the strongest to rule by virtue of being the greatest unified minority. That is a scientific definition of Democracy derived from a proper, that is, a biological understanding of human nature. This definition explains the continuing importance of religion in our politics, as religion creates the unified minorities that support the political machine by virtue of the Jewish dogmas direct link to that machines sinews of power, by way of law, political organisation, military ambitions and the fiscal approach to social life, as in Capitalism. This link comes in the form of Jewish dogma, dictating the attitude of its adherents, or slaves, towards the social physiology of power. I was disappointed to see the term colony being used regularly, instead of the term superorganism, indicating that the use of this latter word for the title did not indicate a new mode of thinking about this subject. Of course we find in Wilsons apology for the offence caused in publishing his Sociobiology in 1975, which shot him to fame, appearing in his On Human Nature, 1978, that he is fully aware of the idea that humans might be thought of as a superorganism, because he expressly rejects this deeply offensive idea as being in anyway applicable to the evolution of homosexuality, which it clearly is directly related to. So that we know that this revolutionary activist for science, is as devoted to religion as anyone could ever hope to be. We cannot expect anything radical in this, his latest work to come into our possession, therefore. With a brief start made on The Superorganism today, Tuesday, 12 July 2011, the first thing to occur to me, was to consider the style of opening, which is unusual to say the least, verging on art, it is distinctly unscientific. Ideal for the job in hand, from the viewpoint of the authors. They speculate how alien scientists visiting earth a million years ago would react, and suggest that their most spectacular reports would concern the social insects, and would contain a number of obvious points. The first point would note that all social forms are landlubbers. Given the longstanding, and various explorations of this subject of superorganics, you would think these people would begin with an overview of the modern scientific investigation of this field thus far, starting, perhaps, with Espinas Des Socits Animales, 1877, which, to my recollection, mentions the corals, which are obviously an aquatic, social

species of mollusc. What we really require is a firm biological definition of a social species. The fact that Wilson did not know this, aside from being incredible, indicates the real effort being made here to circumscribe this pretence of science being applied to superorganics, almost defining social life in insects as self referential and self contained, having no comparative reach outside the insect domain, no abstract social principle therefore, which of course would immediately suggest a relevance to humans. Plenty of commentators on this subject from the pre-cleansing era of 1914 18 did think to mention corals when discussing the origins of social form in life on earth, being free at that time to give a more expansive interpretation to their ideas. It is almost as if Wilson is seeking to do what Darwin did for evolution, for superorganics, to lay claim to the subject for religion by producing a sterile scientific exposition on the subject which deals with insects, as Darwin dealt with apes, all the while keeping humans out of the picture in which they really belong. Which makes us wonder what Wilson was doing in 1975 when he produced Sociobiology, a book that did nothing for the study of humans despite all the furore it created in that respect, because it remained pinned steadfastly to Darwins travesty of science based on the idea of Natural Selection as the driving force of evolution, as later expressly enunciated by Wilson. What else, other than treachery, could we expect from a Harvard professor ?

II Newsflash 23/07/2011 11:38 I have just been listening to the BBC reports following yesterdays terrorist attacks in Norway, they are truly sickening. We have the usual bullshit, talking up a defence of the alien hordes destruction of our society and way of life, given in the name of freedom and democracy ! Singing the praises of Islam, it being the second largest faith in Norway, the BBC front man spoke of this attack as appalling, and the ingress of Islam as wonderful ! This is the sick depravity we are forced to endure, that drives nutters to do these horrific things. Unfortunately these horrible acts do no good, they only strengthen the arm that is already all powerful, and hasten our destruction as a free people, as Western Europeans escaping the grip of the Jews. It was of course a deeply religious act this massacre of political youths carried out by a Christian, who above all else loves love, and peace, since that is what Christianity stands for. This is Christianity as it really is, as a Jewish slave mantra fucking everything up. This is Judaism for you, poison flooding through our veins, as it has done for over two millennia now. The bout of liberalism and enlightenment which saw Christianity falter was merely a preparation for the ingress of Islam, aided by the acts of cleansing which destroyed science and opened the way to the Muslim ingress into Europe. There is nothing we can do about this, and our Western culture is already dead and gone, it just does not know it yet. The old dead man walking routine. We must accept the new Jewish dispensation, we do already, we can do nothing else. In Atheist Science we at least explain these things, which is all we can do, like cosmologists describing the suns death we are powerless to do anything about such an event, but we can at least know it is coming, and what it is now, now we are enduring the full expression of the horrific advance of religion across Europe once again. 25/07/2011 10:01 Steve Wright is on air on Channel Five, at his fascist best, acting in obedience to the absolute theocracy that he serves, showing us why he is such a powerful figure in our society, he such a bleeding Nazi. It is inevitable that we all denounce the attacks in Norway, but we should all realise that this horror has been brought upon us by our masters,

whom we can do nothing to oppose in the relentless subjection of our society to the Jews through the infusion of the Islamic slave identity, and the ongoing destruction of our free, democratic, atheist culture. Wright listed these objections and dismissed them as utter nonsense, and then he said the trial was going to be held behind closed doors in order to deny this man the opportunity to use the courtroom as a platform to promote his call for freedom from the fascist politicians that rule us. Wrights programme is a perfect example of why this massacre was the only way that this man could make himself heard. ___

III What speech is Back to the job in hand. Consider the first sentence of the quote at the head of this chapter. Think about the fact that we are animals that speak, we are linguistic phenomena. The usual model of human nature is that of an individual using language as a tool to further their own ends. This is a ludicrously pathetic representation of language, which is still current today. Language, as we can see from the above, is imbued into life, and as language objects, we are infused with the function and energy of language, so that we are severely tested if we are asked to think of language in an abstract manner that strips us of any conscious role in the expression of language. Language evolved to immerse linguistically empowered animals in a social environment, created by the evolution of linguistic physiology. The whole point of language is to reduce discrete somatic forms to the status of cellular units. This is self evident, and this is why any naturalistic idea of speech has been erased from our society, as linguistic processes have created this natural social cleansing outcome through the action of religion on the political order of society, as religion overrides pure reason engaged in as an abstract exercise in understanding. As it is, with the benefit of the insight that we do not even exist, that the human animal is a superorganism, and that we are mere cellular units of that animal, it becomes a matter of fact reality, that language animates us, and we do not use language at all, language uses us, if anything. And so, coming to this first sentence quoted above, we find a general proposition which discusses language as a natural phenomenon, that expresses this unfamiliar nature of all linguistic systems where a three part order of existence consists of a description, a symbol system and an object of physical structure. Instantly we can see that this neatly describes everything we have been saying when talking about humans as superorganisms, whereby a linguistic force produces a linguistic identity programme, that directs sentient brick activity to create superorganic physiology. Thus representation = linguistic force ; symbol system = linguistic identity programme, and physical structure = superorganism. The idea that representation equals linguistic force may seem incongruous, but we must understand that linguistic force is merely the power of linguistic physiology that has evolved genetically, therefore the representation here, is that of genetic form. We obviously are material entities that constitute units of representation, that are animated by the symbol system, causing us to self organise into the structural end product of society, the superorganism that is. Basically, this is what this opening sentence above, is referring to ; though of course the author does not know this. He only has in view the general form of living entities created by a genetic system, that constitutes a self organising system. We are applying his general principles to the specific case of human nature and human existence.

IV Self-organisation in humans Linguistic force animates human persons through the medium of language, that individuals are obliged by their biologically evolved physiology to engage in the use of. Whereby, these persons are caused to self organise into a social structure, unplanned, but highly organised. Unanticipated, the participants, the creators, more like actors in fact, nonetheless have no choice whatsoever in respect to this creative process. Therefore the creation of society is not done by persons, but by nature ; just as termite mounds are not built by termites, but by nature. The process of self organisation acting on humans, accumulates linguistic force within the social structure arising from linguistic communication. The resulting structural hierarchy raises individuals into positions of power and authority, such that concentrated linguistic force is released through the medium of these authority imbued figureheads. The driving force of what is called human progress, arises from the fact that a faunal population of human superorganisms constitutes a series of adjacent physical enclaves of linguistic force, each seeking to augment its own social structure, each acting as an accumulator of linguistic force appearing in its own resonance, or cultural mode. As these organic accumulators of linguistic force interact by virtue of proximity, not choice, the boundary between them constitutes an energetic limit relative to the divergent expressions of linguistic force. The characteristic human behaviour of warfare is a product of the resulting contact between linguistic resonances. The significance of environmental resources providing the energy of sustenance necessary to a superorganism, powered by the accumulation of linguistic force, enters into the long-term evolution of the faunal arrangement of these creatures, because it influences the flow of linguistic force across competing lines of demarcation, allowing some enclaves of linguistic force to accrete as others wane. Control over resources therefore acts to lower the limits of expression for a given mode of linguistic force, causing linguistic energy to flow from without, towards that linguistic body where resources are best organised. What we mean to say here is that linguistic energy arises from linguistic force, and the social body that expresses linguistic force most powerfully will draw social energy from surrounding social bodies, making it the focus of linguistic force within a faunal distribution of human biomass organised into social bodies, and hence the focus of linguistic energy, and consequently of social power and wealth too. In this way civilisation, or a global superorganism, evolves from the action of linguistic force created by biological evolution. This factor results in the characteristic behaviour called trade, which is so central to the formation of the master race, the Jews, seated at the core of the global superorganism defined not by the biological identity which is Judaism, but rather by the epitome of trade that is the structural form we call Capitalism.

V Darwin made Nature in humanitys image by making competition the key factor in evolution These factors constitute a complex, super charged energy process, that drives self organisation impelled by linguistic force, where mechanisms of competition are developed, such as weapons, and social structure that is better suited to organise one accumulator of linguistic force relative to another. So that in human existence competition becomes all

important. We see the exact same process taking place on coral reefs, where corals are obliged to occupy the same limited space and compete for its possession, the result being that they consume one another, exactly as human societies do. But this competition is an internal socio-physiological dynamic arising from the expression of linguistic force, it is not the genetic force which Darwin externalised and made the principle of evolution itself, existing within the none human physical environment. Darwins idea of evolution was produced under the auspices of the established social structure, by working according to an established pattern of knowledge construction, that retained the validity of the unacknowledged linguistic model at the core of the Jewish global accumulator. So that while superorganisms are characterised by especially intensified forms of competition, competition between species is not the driving force of evolution, the driving force of evolution is the urge to exploit the latent potential energy of life, which may look like life forms competing, but that is a mistake. Last night, 24/01/2012, BBC 3 had a programme on the establishment of classification in the life sciences. Until a man called John Ray, working in the seventeenth century, came up with a definitive idea of how to distinguish one species from another, no one knew what a species was. The distinction he provided was based upon the forms of plant reproductive apparatus. The next century saw the arrival of the famous Swedish botanist Linnaeus, who asserted the idea that sexual parts could be used to classify species, but this idea proved to be too narrowly focused on appearances, and over time its failure became apparent. Eventually scientists returned to the principles Ray laid down that were based upon seed structure, giving us monocots and dicots for example, which proved to be differences with a real significance in terms of distinguishing species. The point of this lesson being that precise correctness can look very like a similitude of precise correctness. Darwins emphasis upon the principle of competition driven by the mechanism of natural selection, is a false principle mimicking the truth in order to preserve the false knowledge of religion upon which our society is based. Unlike the two botanists, Darwin was not just dealing with aspects of life, he was dealing with all life, and what he determined applied to humans. The society we live in would not allow anyone to give a true scientific answer to the question of what causes species to evolve. This programme was, of course, promoting the religious propaganda of Darwinism. It said that the mystery as to why plants produced by crossing species were sterile, was not understood until Darwin gave the world his theory of natural selection. This explained the mystery by showing that species evolved by competing with one another over time, resulting in a family tree like pattern of species where, as branches became more distant from one another sterility arose from their cross pollination. However, these people are being deliberately obtuse, for only an out and out idiot could think that the principle of natural selection delivers the evolutionary pattern of speciation, which in fact has no bearing on this outcome whatsoever, and it is inconceivable that anyone could think it does. In actual fact the diversification of species occurs through the impulse to access latent potential life energy, which in dynamic terms is exactly opposite to the idea of natural selection. Natural selection suggests a fight between individuals to get energy, whereas the real process involves an invitation to life, to access energy. This is like the difference between internal and external power that we saw Kastein make the distinction between the soft power of the Jews versus the hard power of other peoples. How does Darwins fight for survival account for a deer becoming a whale ! A deer like quadruped did not spend generation after generation fighting to live in water, and hence become a whale. The invitation of water laden with potential life energy for mammals, of which there were none in the sea, was sitting there unexploited for generations, so that mammals could not help themselves giving up their legs and evolving fins to let them become filter feeders of the living soup which is the ocean that

whales exploit. Its funny, every science programme of whatever kind, Christmas lectures, astronomy, natural history, geology, wildlife, everything, always seems to have one object in view, that of validating Darwinism, they always manage to make the whole thrust of their own scientific prowess a vindication of Darwin. This is of course because Darwinism cannot do this for itself, and science exists to serve religion, which ruse is based upon the primary deception of natural selection as the force of evolution. Darwinism is wrong because it makes the individual supreme, rather than identifying the process which makes life One. There is perhaps a hint of the special significance of superorganisms for competition, in Wilsons introduction to The Superorganism, where he talks about the relationship of the superorganism to the environment coming between that of the individual and the environment, in such a way as to serve as a particularly edifying lesson in ecological matters. Wilson is not thinking about this in any sense as we are, but he is still hinting at an intensity of normal attributes being found in the exceptional form of the superorganism, because of its special constitution, being that of an animal composed of animals. Our suggestion is that competition appears as the be all and end all of existence to us, because, as units of living beings that vie with each other for existence, competition is the environmental dynamic we experience directly. In other words it is the superorganisms that compete with one another, not we who compete as individuals. We do not exist in reality, in terms of human biological nature, our political nature is a sub-feature of superorganic physiology. So the all pervading competition that we know so well, is our life experience derived from the physiological activity of the superorganism to which we belong, that we recognise as the urge to compete for survival, that has been cast in a mythological form masquerading as science, called Natural Selection, by Darwin. But there is so much in life taken as a whole, that contradicts this idea of a fight to the death, and survival of the fittest. Evolution is however the ultimate expression of life taken as a whole, it is the process which defines the nature of life. There is the creative urge that makes life take a profusion of forms and appear in abundance in so many different places, evoking an effusion of adaptation and cooperation between living forms, to create ecosystems defined by an accumulation of life energy distributed across a plethora of interrelated forms. This is the exact opposite of competition, and certainly the social form of animals is the personification of such cooperative form. But it is not really cooperative, it is structural, this allusion to positive values is the typically loaded language of human programming, that wants to give the impression of wilfulness and conscious intent, whereas in reality there is none, and can be none. This cooperative idea is represented in the silly religious type of life formula such as Gaia, which views the planet as a living organism, a whimsical, unscientific idea, full of love and poetry, and bereft of rigour and scientific meaning. Whenever I mention to people at large that the human animal is a superorganism, they always refer me to Gaia. Shit floats, as they say, and this pathetic religious idea is sticky, has gotten everywhere.

VI Wilsons Superorganism I am not interested in, and hence ignore, Wilsons co-author, sorry. The collaboration, whatever it consists of, is a distraction from the main object of interest this book has for us as a continuation of the sociobiology project, pretending, as it always has, to apply biology to humans where it really counts, in their social form, in a scientifically valid

manner, that yet bases itself on Darwinism, and is therefore just a continuation of the imposition of sterile science set in train by Darwin in 1859. Entering the meat of The Superorganism briefly this morning, Friday, 15 July 2011, I immediately find some very telling remarks, indicating how infinitely corrupt Wilson, and hence academia and science, is. This is our subject, this is what we know, else we know nothing. For sure I am an atheist philosopher, but I am an atheist philosopher of science, and it is the science that makes me a philosopher, the atheism is merely the starting point I come from. But it is apropos the insight into the science of human nature, the realisation that human nature is corporate because the human animal is a superorganism, that makes me a philosopher, that gives me something to say of immense importance, that no one else knows. Entering the meat of Wilsons work while coming from a much fuller grasp of the subject than anyone else can have, we see glaring flaws that others would be oblivious to, because their consciousness is informed by the same bias pivot of interpretation of reality, based on the idea of the person as the human animal, as Wilsons consciousness. He is guided by Darwin, the father of evolutionary science, the original fraudster and creator of the false interpretation that all now follow religiously, as per their training. Person, body, individual, form, matter, organismthese are the terms associated with the false pivot of interpretation that is modern science. Conversely, we emphasise words like force, information, identity, being, unity, structure. The relevance of these alternative selections must seem obscure to the casual onlooker, or uninformed academic, but when we see Wilson deal with the idea of the superorganism in a worthless manner, the words he uses tell the tale of the subtle linguistic deception of which he is a carrier. As a professional academic he needs to explain what the superorganism is that it warrants being treated as a reality in its own right, but he must do this while keeping within the Jewish linguistic identity programme that only recognises the individual human as real. Consequently all nature must conform to this religious dictate when being elucidated by a priest, by one who imparts knowledge that is. Through the message imbued into knowledge biased by the inherent linguistic orientation towards a false pivot of observation, all knowledge is made interdependent in a uniformly bias manner serving social power. We can imagine that such dynamics have led priests to envisage divinity in the modern form of an all wise deliverer of knowledge, whereas this unifying effect actually arises from the nature of humans as superorganisms. So that the knowledge we have is a product of superorganic physiology that binds the superorganism into being, by binding us, into the superorganism. All knowledge then, comes from the superorganism, which some priests do indeed call God. Accordingly we have : a superorganism, [is] a colony with many of the attributes of an organism but one step up from organisms in the hierarchy of biological organization. (Superorganism, p. 4) Now what pray tell, is wrong with that ? It is the mode of expression. It looks innocent enough, but it hides a massive act of deception, just as Darwins idea of Natural Selection does, which this book by Wilson and friend is intended to support. Of course we suggest no wilful deceit, the deception includes the self in its ambit, it comes from the act of learning to speak, self-deception being indicative of the fact that there is no such thing as an individual person existing in their own right. The really important thing for us, to be found in the realisation that humans are superorganisms, is that the life force, which is Information, means that superorganisms are an inevitable product of evolution, just as other forms are that are adapted for the distinct environments of land, water and air. Thus we seek to understand evolution in terms of force,

whereas Wilson seeks to understand evolution in terms of form. Form and force are related as are the chicken and the egg, but which comes first makes all the difference in the world when it comes to explaining the nature of life and its multifarious manifestations. Elsewhere, in an earlier work, Wilson argues that Natural Selection is a force, but this is ludicrous, pure priestcraft, in the house of Darwin, natural selection is the editor and principal driving, creative force. (Diversity of Life, Wilson, 1992, p. 80.) If he really meant this then he should use the idea continuously in all his work, otherwise such a powerful and important insight is nullified. Of course he cannot of been serious, he was playing games, seeking to cover all bases, hence I bet we see nothing about the force of evolution applied to the creation of superorganisms here. Here his focus is on the control of the idea of the superorganism, a new object of interest for his particular line of priestcraft, falling within the special domain of life that he has made his own, the controversial topic of social life as a biological phenomenon. In checking up the place where Wilson discusses natural selection as a force while reviewing this piece today, 26/01/2012, some other interesting aspects of this discussion come before us, where Wilson mixes up the idea of natural selection with information and language ! Which is much more inclined towards our atheist science tastes, though not when confused in this appalling manner. Thus we have the statement that Darwinism, natural selection that is, is filled with the information of realized nature. (Ibid.) And the curious description of its being nothing more than the active-voice metaphor of all the differences in survival and reproduction among genotypes arising from the effects of the genotypes on organisms. (Ibid.) Talk about trying to be opaque ! How could anyone possibly make meaningful sense of this, by obtaining from it a simple sense of what evolution actually is ? We must sense the idea of memes infusing itself into the consciousness which produced this garbled, nonsensical description of the natural force creating life. The idea that natural selection is a force is related to the true answer that Atheist Science provides, which is that Information is a force, the life force initiated by the process of life on earth, which, if not actually initiated by the reading of light energy, certainly took off along that organisational path by deriving its energy from the stellar furnaces nuclear radiation. From our conception, we understand that life must form superorganisms at all junctures where a new life engine comes into being, such as that of mammalian physiology. Wilsons lame vision does not impel us towards this insight, but rather manages to contain the idea of the superorganism at the level of the insect society, by saying that it is merely one more step up in an organisational hierarchy, thereby giving us a far less powerful conception, with limited implications. Thus Wilson sterilises his science of the superorganism in the act of producing it, and so protects religion, all these priestly duties being performed subliminally, merely by applying language in keeping with his training, which applies meaning according to a carefully worked out plan created by the absolute theocracy, over the course of centuries, not to say millennia. The absolute theocracy being the core authority of superorganic being, not a political, that is conspiratorial manifestation of individual political organisation. Environmental domination by ants and other social insects is the result of cooperative group behaviour. (Superorganism, p. 5) Yes, and what does he think environmental domination by humans is the result of, wishful thinking !! How can he come out with a remark like this without including humans in the sentence ? It is too snivelling for words. But it gets worse, oh so much worse :

In addition to this fighting edge, the enlarged insect power and coordinated actions enable members of colonies to construct complex nests with superior defensive ramparts and interior microclimate control. (Ibid., pp. 5 6) Hilarious ! Where we want to use insects to reduce humans to part of nature, this idiot uses humans to raise insects to the power of divinity. This sentence applies the religious language of sociology, to insects. Instead of treating the idea of the superorganism seriously and recognising its basic implications, that the superorganism is the only true individual and individuals, as in persons, do not exist, he has it that group behaviour allows individuals to build better nests !! Instead of recognising that nests are exoskeletal structure containing the somatic individuals that constitute the superorganisms cellular structure, housed within the exoskeletal framework, organized by linguistic force, according to the communicative power of insects, in this case. He manages to have his cake and eat it, like the good little priest that he is. This goes to show just how important linguistic programming is to the control of knowledge through the agency of a specially trained intellectual elite, a core priesthood. Todays review has led me to check a couple of items on my shelf which leads me to note that Wilson made comparisons between humans and insect superorganisms long before his involvement in this latest masterpiece :

What Makes a Social Group a Superorganism ? Obviously, not every social group fulfils the requirements of a superorganism. Wilson and Sober (1989, p. 339) define superorganisms as a collection of single creatures that together possess the functional organization implicit in the formal definition of organism. (Bees as Superorganisms, Moritz and Southwick, 1992, p. 4.)

Blimey, I just wondered how expensive this book was now, and how lucky I am to of got a copy some years ago ; one copy is available in India, priced at 230 including post !! Phew. A few days ago, 24/01/2012, I looked up a book I could of bought two years ago for 94, Darwinism and Social Darwinism in Imperial Germany, but was too much for me to stomach then, and I found a single copy priced at 925 !!! Bloody hell. This is something that has been happening on the net recently, where dealers are catching onto the rarity and unobtainability of books in their stock, but this price hike is the worst I have seen so far. Moritzs is a nice book, and unlike Superorganism it has the kind of historical overview of its core idea that we would expect from any such work pretending to be a seminal piece on its chosen subject. Oops! Sorry, Moritzs quote is from David S. Wilson, still, a useful quote nonetheless ! Something E. O. Wilson could of given us himself if he had seen fit to provide an historical overview of the topic in hand. Coming to the real Wilson now, for sure, we have : People often ask me whether I see any human qualities in an ant colony, any form of behavior that even remotely mimics human thought and feeling. Insects and human beings are separated by more than 600 million years of evolution, but a

common ancestor did exist in the form of one of the earliest multicellular organisms. Does some remnant of psychological continuity exist across that immense phylogenetic gulf ? The answer is that I open an ant colony as I would the back of a Swiss watch. I am enchanted by the intricacy of its parts and the clean, thrumming precision. But I never see the colony as anything more than an organic machine. (Biophilia, E. O. Wilson, 1984, p. 36.) It is difficult to know where to begin with this piece of disingenuous crap, it is too vile for words. What this man is doing after having taken on the persona of the supreme exponent of humans as biological entities, is fabricating the appearance of pushing this idea as far as he can go. In effect he is the American equivalent of our Dawkins, he is the supreme Gatekeeper of the theocracy, acting in the guise of religions greatest foe. How does this answer the question put ? Is he trying to say that when he looks at human society he sees something less mechanical than a Swiss watch ? Well, yes, he is. But clearly if a giant alien were able to bestride our planet as a huge colossus and peer down upon human life in a detached manner, such as Wilson does when viewing his precious leafcutter ants, then the mechanical effect would be identical. He is simply fulfilling his role in the clockwork order of Jewish absolute theocracy that constitutes the physiology of the living global superorganism.

VII Wilson as traitor to science and friend to religion All told, there was plenty of cause for cheer in On Human Nature, and plenty of evidence that E. O. Wilson was not a cold rationalist after all, but a sensitive humanist. To the best of my ability, I made allusions to literature, he told an interviewer from Omni magazine in 1978, the year the book was published. Ive used quotes from Yeats and Joyce and so forth. (Three Scientists and their Gods, Wright, 1988, p. 153.) This is utterly disgusting. Why would Jews praise Hitler ? Why would feminists worship at the feet of rapists and female traffickers ? These are things that do not happen of course. Why would a scientist show sympathy for emotional, arty drivel, purporting to reveal the true nature of humanity as divine ? This happens, we have it recorded here, and bragged about like a trophy, by some pathetic journalist. Here we find the most ostensibly uncompromising scientist in the world, showing his true nature in a world where science is forbidden all freedom of expression, as he is forced to kowtow to the brain-dead drivel of commonplace amusement, by apologising for his dedication to sublime science !! It is sick, and it says all we need know about our hero, Wilson, and the world we live in, which is an absolute, covert theocracy.

VIII Individuals as vortices of linguistic force Where does our powerful sense of self come from, given that we do not actually exist ?

We are objects of linguistic force. This means that we feel linguistic force, and are animated by it. This sensitivity is how this force creates superorganisms by controlling us. Like particles of matter in a dust cloud, that coalesce over time to form the massive substance that is our material world, linguistic force acts on us gradually, as gravity does on cosmic dust particles, to produce awesome effects that overawe our powers of comprehension, even as we are beguiled by the notion that we made these wondrous things ! The nature of these natural forces and their respective objects are clearly different, and yet there is something similar about the comparisons we can make, because each particle of dust must be a foci of gravity which, over time, gives itself up to form the mass that reveals gravitys presence as a major force organising celestial bodies. And we human persons must likewise be foci of linguistic force, so that as we express our linguistic capacity we express the linguistic force which animates us, relative to the living biomass of the superorganism to which we belong. When we express our individuality, we express a personal quotient of linguistic force, and this miniscule quantity is genuinely personal to us, and for this reason, what we say as individuals is always false in terms of absolute knowledge, being an expression of our place within the reality of existence as it seems right to us, in terms of our personal interests. This is how alternative ideas are formed. Yet because we are never unique we find our nuanced expressions tally with those of other persons, and so, like the particles in a dust cloud, we coagulate socially, like expressions with like. The situation is more complex, since we argue that ideas come to us and programme us, and so they do. But in so far as we do make individual contributions to the flux of linguistic expression, we may relate this behaviour to the wider picture in the manner described here. We are discrete particles of social form, and we express a distinct quanta of linguistic force, but an overall linguistic force derives from the foci of the social body to which we belong, and we are imbued with this influence which we experience as our own idea the more we are made to think we exist in our own right. Thus our sense of individuality and personal authority is key to making us slaves of this method of inner mental attachment to a central core of social being. Instead of dust particles in a cosmic cloud we could invoke the idea of gas molecules in a gaseous cloud. The dynamics of universal form seem to be built upon the particulate constitution of large scale uniformity. It serves the organisation of human uniformity that each unit of social being should know itself, as the source of what is in reality collective authority, which dynamic of self consciousness is the root of all deception. Being so deceived sounds bad, but it is what we exist for, and here we only need concern ourselves with describing reality, not judging it ; if we use judgemental terms like deceive, it is because those are the tools of thought that we have at our ready disposal. And the false scientists, people like E. O. Wilson, use this true scientific principle to give the appearance of validity to their religious dogma of Darwinism, as we find in a work consulted above : The sickle-cell trait puts a twist on moral reasoning that is worth a moments reflection. Natural selection, it reminds us, is ethically neutral. Malarial anaemia is balanced by hereditary anaemia through the mindless agency of differential survival. Those who die of malaria are victims of a harsh environment. Those who die of a double dose of sickle genes are Darwinian wreckage, cast off as the accidental side product of a chance mutation. The tragedy of the hereditary loss is repeated relentlessly in high numbers because in this case natural selection happens to have been balanced rather than directional. No gods decreed it, no moral precept emerges from it. The sickle-cell gene happens to be common in a few parts of the world because the haemoglobin molecule defeats a parasite through the agency of one of its conveniently available mutant forms, and it does so in an inept manner.

(Diversity of Life, Wilson, pp. 79 80.) And the same principle of science as being valueless and nonjudgmental in the knowledge it delivers, is what we provide above in relation to the human condition, which is something no other person has ever done in the history of human existence. Except of course where our science is perfect because it is based upon the correct principle of human corporate nature, Wilsons is not only endemically flawed, but even presentationally so, for here we see that he concludes with a value judgement, by saying that evolution manages an environmental problem ineptly ! The fact that a human superorganism is able to occupy malaria invested territory is all that determines the success or failure of evolutions ability to create human form. The fact that individuals are shed in this process is no more relevant than the fact that some persons have black skin and some white, the suffering and death of persons is of no relevance to the existence of the human animal, the superorganism. If human history, and life, does not teach us this, then pray what the hell does it teach us !! As I make this review in January of 2012, shortly after becoming aware of Charles Fourier, by way of Hugh Doherty, I just want to note that the above model of human individuality as an expression of an universal scheme of material organisation, played a fundamental part in Fouriers ideas, so that he eulogised the work of Isaac Newton as providing a key to understanding all forms in existence, including that of human social organisation. And it is from this root that he created a science of association, which led Doherty to give us a full blown organicist philosophy that represented society as a true social organism.

Chapter 5

Keeping it Tight

Last week I read an essay by David Sloan Wilson in Self-Organisation and Evolution of Social Systems, which mentioned Darwinism Evolving by David Depew, 1995, which has since arrived. From the way Wilson was talking I thought we had a piece of modern antiDarwinian science on the way, but with this lump of a book in my hands I can see that nothing could be further from the truth, surprise surprise. The preface to the paperback edition says that this book was an attempt to break the mould by speaking of complex systems dynamics as making possible new conceptions of adaptive natural selection (p. viii). Herein lies the key to what makes this book interesting. I only discovered complexity theory bearing on sociology a couple of years ago, through finding Goonatilakes book Evolution of Information, and here we find a 1995 publication examining the impact of complexity theory on Darwinism. But as we can see from this quote, the objective is to bring this new thinking into line with Religious Science, as established by Darwin. Nothing must ever be allowed to breach the theocracys hold on the jugular of science. So Depew is an enemy, of course. He is a professional academic after all. While we love knowledge for its own sake, and the fact that freedom must be defined by free access to true knowledge, these professional knowledge mongers make a living out of manufacturing and controlling knowledge in conformity to the established pattern. His item reveals the rise of a new science which is inherently anti-Darwinian, as Depew acknowledges by saying that their deliberate efforts to forge an accommodation were as yet unsuccessful. Complexity science was making its presence felt and was seemingly anti-Darwinian, and therefore it had to be brought into line with religious fiction, concerning the principle of natural selection. In the essays we have been looking at above that were only published a couple of years later, we see how sophisticated, elaborate, and hard science like, these subjects were. Just as professional scientists are determined to use this hard science to support their religious agenda, so we want to capture the essence of their scientific work and give it an atheist interpretation, exactly as we have done by applying Rochas reasoning to humans considered as superorganisms, whose behaviour is created by a genetically evolved linguistic system. Hard science simply refers to the exact sciences, such as physics, which have a very materialistic, mechanistic basis, but the term does evoke the idea of difficulty and impenetrability to the outsider, which is by no means inappropriate as regards the way intellectuals use this type of science to control knowledge and maintain their status as high priests of rarefied, inaccessible knowledge. The application of a hard science type platform to the human social domain is a perfect example of this artful method, but it is not consciously applied as such. This development of ideas is driven by linguistic force developing the potential of the linguistic identity programme, which inducts individuals into the fabric of organic being to which they belong, thereby enacting human corporate nature through the mechanisms of exoskeletal structure which process creates the intellectuals who manage information flow within the body of the human animal.

The second sentence in the passage quoted at the head of this chapter is also interesting, for the way it refers to a symbolic nature in the control of construction. This ties in beautifully with our refrain that linguistic force creates all social structure, alternatively known as superorganic physiology. This makes the point that any symbolising system must exist in relation to a structural objective. It has to be said that these remarks are being made within the framework of genetics, not human society, but we are making up the shortfall of these priests, whose objective is to work within the Darwinian mantra at all cost, since this has been proven to be perfect science, according to their brainwashing. The culminating significance of this paragraph is found in this statement of living dynamics :
a self-reproducing organism following this scheme is an entanglement of symbolic controls and material constraints which is closed on its semantics

from which we take the title of this chapter. For when applied to humans as superorganisms created by linguistic force, in which we well understand that the linguistic identity programme always takes the form of a religious identity, we can easily see that this model of semantic closure equates to the production of a linguistic identity, which equals religion. And since we always talk about the superorganism having one Jewish identity, made up of a tier of sub-Judaic identities, we can use this more technical description from Rocha to elaborate upon how these linguistic dynamics operate to produce social structure. This gives us the principle that symbols must have a system with a physical basis in order to enable creative action, and there must be semantic closure culminating in biological identity in order to form a unified living structure. What is especially nice about this model, is that it gives us a technical description of why identity is critical to life forms, something which has long been obvious to me as a result of my realization that humans are superorganisms, where identity is pivotal to our life story, but which I have never been able to explain in material terms, until now. Language creates the superorganism by offering a flow of information related to the superorganic framework, where social identity represents the unification of the linguistic order giving one uniform channel of being, realised in the living form of a superorganism. This suggests a resolution of the tricky issue of the superorganism being a living animal. Life is ordinarily defined in strictly material terms, according to the traditional mantras of Religious Science, without it ever being openly declared that our word for life carries this materialistic bias inherent within it. Here we find that a living entity can be defined in terms of that which defines life itself, Information that is, which makes perfect sense. A life form does not exist wherever information exists, but it does exist wherever information comes together to form one integral whole, in the form of a closed information system. These academics are using the phrase semantic closure, which means a closed meaning, which can be observed in life in the context of a genome, which can be seen to be a semantically closed information flux by virtue of its relation to a fixed living form, a species, which is a material reality created by nature. On this basis an individual would be a closed information system on one level, that of their individuality. Ecological ideas unite many species into one information area, making a territory into a life zone, and this may be the closest we get to affirming the Gaia notion of the earth as a living entity, though we cannot go that far because this makes the idea of a living thing too diffuse, as indeed it would be to call an ecological zone a living thing. But where living things are concerned we do have levels of closed systems making up a structural system, as with the superorganism to which the individual belongs, which constitutes another level of system closure about an information pattern, which in turn would be part of the species information closure of humans, established at the genetic level of information closure.

This genetic species system closure, would belong to the mammalian system, and to the global system of life. Both levels of genetic closure which might belong to a further universal system as yet unknown, only being hinted at by ideas of life on earth having been seeded by events that created the solar system. This reaches back to the pre-information stage, prior to life, where molecular orders of closure create complex levels of material structure, from which living orders of information closure arose along with a new form of matter : life. The above portion of this chapter was written as part of the original work, but yesterday, 28/01/2012, pulling a book from a shelf in my bedroom brought me to some material dealing with the nature of information and language which I had never taken notice of before, and it is by and away the best piece on this topic that I have ever come across. I say this because of the questions it asks, not the answers it gives, these conform to the theocracys requirements as much as ever. Dealing with the origin of language we have : I am willing to bet that language owes a large debt to kin selection, that one of the main reasons our mammalian ancestors started talking was because they spent so much time close to very close relatives. (Three Scientists and their Gods, Wright, 1988, p. 199) The man is nothing but a journalist, so this pathetic garbage is not itself official science, but it seems to remind me of stuff I was recording that was drawn from the work of men like Pinker, an elite voice of science on language, in America. We answer the question as to why identity is essential above, but why socialise in the first place ? This is no mystery for us because we regard the latent potential of any basic life engine, such as mammalian form, to produce a social species, as being akin to the same potential to produce an aquatic of aerial kind, having to do with the latent potential of life energy in an environment not occupied by a newly arrived life engine. Thus mammals had to produce a social form, and we are it. But in this book Wright actually asks this question directly, so we should pick up on this : The cellular slime mold is strikingly reminiscent of an ant colony. In both cases a cohesion of mysterious origin turns out to rest on tangible strands of information, every bit as physical as cinder blocks and carburettors. (The same is true of human society, although we, being in the thick of things, dont often pause to appreciate the mystery. We dont realize how inexplicable our collective cohesion would appear to a Martian scientist with a powerful telescope, who could only guess about the patterns of photons and sound waves that orchestrate our daily associations.) The slime mold parallels the ant colony in another way, too. Its communication system, while answering the question of organic coherence in one sense, leaves it unanswered at a deeper level : What is the evolutionary logic that drives discrete organic entities into social, and sometimes even closer, cohesion ? Granted that slime mold cells must communicate in order to cohere, why must they cohere in the first place ? In the case of ant colonies, a very plausible answer to this question turned out to rest heavily on the theory of kin selection. Even cursory consideration suggests that in the case of the slime mold this explanation is still more plausibleabout 33 percent more plausible. Since the slime mold cells are genetically identical, altruistic cooperation should, all other things being equal, make that much more sense than it makes for worker ants, which are related to their siblings by a degree of only three fourths.

Of course, all other things are not equal, so we shouldnt rush to embrace this explanation of the slime moulds periodic coherence. The evolution of cooperative behavior can be driven by a variety of things ranging from common threats (a hostile climate, say, or ubiquitous predators) to the prospect of greater productivity (such as efficiencies flowing from joint food gathering or joint reproduction). Indeed, these circumstances can be so compelling that cooperation sometimes makes genetic sense for entirely unrelated organisms. (Ibid., pp. 197 8.) And so the trash reasoning continues ad nauseam. But the questions ! The questions are to die for, superb, I have never seen the like of them before. The whole discussion is gorgeous. This priest has his mantra to obey however, and as such he knows that the key to understanding everything is Darwins natural selection rendered in its modern form of genetics. And this is why we get this gross stupidity by way of an answer to this superbly open and frank appearance of seeking an understanding of the very essence of human existence, our sociality and the communication upon which it is based. Prior to this section we had another passage too good to miss : So far as we know, our own cellular ancestors underwent the transition between society and organism in the sea. Nonetheless, it is likely that the evolutionary logic behind the periodic coalescence of the slime mold is the same logic that bound our once-independent ancestral cells into the distant precursors of us. And, for that matter, it is likely that this logic also motivated, in large part, the integration of more recent precursors of humans into the precursors of human societies. At these two different levels of organization, the impetus for integration appears to be essentially the same. If we can understand this recurring logic behind organic coherence, then we will have a clue as to the logic behind the origin of communicationcommunication among cells, communication among people, communication in general. For coherence, as Norbert Wiener noted, entails communication. Systems that defy the spirit of the second law tend to talk. (Ibid., pp. 195 6) This is exquisite, way beyond anything I have ever come across, this insight is as good as it can possibly get, he is effectively saying that there is a natural force associated with life that makes human society an imperative of evolution, not randomly so, but given that life has progressed to the point it had prior to the appearance of homo kind a million or so years ago. Not only that but he links this imperative to the act of communication, which he generalises as information, which is so close to realising that Information is the force of life, that it beggars belief that he avoided this one true insight. Tragic. The idea that an impetus for integration exists that is projected across levels of organisation is as good as reasoning can get on this subject, and yet this perfect reasoning bequeaths nothing more than abject ignorance in the hands of the slaves of Darwin. Too miserable. I have not read his material on information science, but jumping to the relevant passages by way of Weiners index entries, we find the idea of information being related to universal order, with entropy as its negative opposite. We ourselves have identified a link between information and energy flow leading to the creation of structure, which allows us to speak of linguistic force as the expression of the life force of information associated with social form. I cannot recall the second law off hand nor is their an index entry for it, and I

cannot be bothered trying to track down what this interesting comment on talk arising from defying the second law means, by ploughing through the text. It must be a reference to the creation of order in the universe where decay towards universal entropy is the presumed norm. Thus he is saying that any form of order equates to the expression of communication, so that a supernova speaks when its collapse creates higher elements ! What is interesting about such reasoning is that its excess confirms our attempt to fix the limits of information to the existence of living matter, for we can see that while the logic is consistent, it breaches meaningful boundaries when pushed so far as to make communication applicable to nonliving structural processes. There is a lot of talk about communication and this book is full of surprising material, enough to make me wonder if it is worth making this a project for the coming reading season. If these discussions seem to leave our main topic far behind, that is not so. Our whole objective of dealing with the existence of a master race derives directly from these very principles of lifes nature bound up with the nature of information and social structure, so nicely identified by Wright when he asks why society exists in the first place.

I Semantic unity in a global, religious structural triad The imperative of semantic closure inherent in any self-organizing living system, means that identities must emerge that subsume all structural elements to themselves by imposing the same basic semantic order, a closed semantics. Judaism thus ensures that only Jewish superorganic form is constructed by ensuring that whatever social structure is produced, under whatever cloak of identity, the same semantics of construction are employed. In this sense semantics can be thought of as the subliminal message, meaning, or bias, contained in languages. Hence it can appear from within, as if Christianity and Islam are very different identities to Judaism, despite their obvious connections and common origins. In reality, understood in material terms that recognise that human nature is corporate, the underbelly of the linguistic cultural form reveals a semantic order that is uniform, making these three identities integral aspects of one organic form. The delightful observation by Wright quoted above, regarding our blindness to these social dynamics because we are immersed in them, which we have spoken of elsewhere in terms of the idea that fish do not see the water they live in, as we do not see the air we are immersed in, is given substance by the observation we have just made. The ability of people sharing an inherently common religion, to be so completely persuaded of the alien identity of one another due to the most superficial shimmers of difference, is astounding to an outsider like an atheist. But that is how simple the human brain is. In functional terms it is no more complex or powerful than the information processing capacity of the brain of a slime mould or an ant. All brains have one job to do, and they do it. The human brain simply receives input and responds robotically according to the objective written into the information routine that the brain is attuned to, which always has a point of reference external to the individual, namely that of the superorganism the individual is part of. So much is this the case that once it suits the superorganism to drop the impetus towards heterogeneity of identity expression, the process is easily reversed so that now a host of religious identities are made one under a common mantra, through the programme of multiculturalism. This is a biological growth dynamic : expand biomass through heterogeneous multiplication ; then consolidate expanded biomass under a scheme of unified complexity. Manipulating humans en masse is as easy as

making a yoyo bounce up and down ! Nature performs this trick routinely countless times over the course of centuries and millennia, to create the magnificent world we call ours, today. Using the logic of Darwinism, which speaks of different species possessing common genetic material, such that humans differ from Chimpanzees by only one percent and from bananas by only thirty percent, we might see fit to argue that these shared linguistic materials merely indicate a distinct cultural species, evolved to be independent from, but related to, an inferior ancestor. This is exactly how the slave bodies of Judaism represent themselves, Christians freely acknowledge the primitive Jewish origins of their perfect selves, and Muslims recognise that their inferior forerunners came from good stock. All of which goes to show how modern science lends itself perfectly to the religious twaddle that rules our world. But humans are not differentiated into species, their structural delineation is not completed by genetic information, but by linguistic information, which is nonetheless a biological phenomenon with a structural endpoint in view that lies beyond that of any individual person or group of persons. Religions are semantically closed systems creating social structure specific to themselves. Judaism spawns sub-structural forms of itself that are internally segregated semantically, so that the Jewish, Christian and Islamic identity routines are represented as distinct identity forms. But all three linguistic patterns are enclosed within the same semantic framework, indicated by their common mythological basis. This shared origin is what delivers structural integration across a triadic structured superorganic being, which thereby possesses one uniform identity in structural terms. The constraint imposed upon any religious form by a physical substrate is the biological constitution, the genome semantics of human corporate nature. Once a major superorganic form has established itself it acts like a gravitational centre drawing all other religious forms into its orbit. So that while a potentially infinite variety of belief systems may populate a superorganic body, which do not originate from the same core pattern as the One identity to which they now belong, they do nonetheless belong by virtue of attachment and sublimation, and their ideologies are forced to conform to the main precepts of the core identity accordingly. Thus you might have Druids, cults of whatever kind, Eastern religions and so on, but all must obey the civil law, all must acknowledge all, and be one of the club. None can go it alone, if they try they will be wiped out, and none may challenge for supremacy, as the Nazis did, see what happened to them ; although of course theirs is another story since they were in truth a subunit of the core identity itself, created to serve a special purpose serving to preserve Judaism in the newly emerging modern world of science. We can refer to my 2012 document The Human Superorganism for more on triadic structure, and the material included therein only yesterday, 29/01/2012, from James Smith, 1854, dealing with the Jews as the point of origin for the global superorganism, is also worth having in mind when reading the above. We can see from the discussion of open ended but finite creative potential, that Rocha is thinking only of the DNA symbolism of life as a whole, whereas we have a very different context in view, that of human society subject to linguistic force. The same basic principles of symbolically generated creativity apply, only the area of containment will be a miniature form of that which Rocha envisions. Any discrete DNA package, a genome, in relation to its objective form, a species, will have plastic potential set within finite bounds. This is why species are highly stable, yet inherently plastic, to the point of being able to transform into new species. The same applies to genomes generating superorganic forms, hence all human societies are structurally identical and superficially diverse. This is the meaning of a physical substrate underpinning living form at the human level of existence. The genome of human

corporate nature obliges humans to speak, and thus project a core social authority into the supra individual space of social being. In this space a social structure accretes to form of a superorganic physiology, which evolves over time in strict conformity to the dictates of the physical substrate of genetic form. Human cultures always develop a cultural form that consists of a language of communication, and an identity component that culminates in what we recognise as Religion.

Chapter 6

True Atheism

Completing a run down of most recently arrived works, I just obtained a slim volume on atheism by a famous contemporary English academic philosopher. When I call a philosopher academic, in addition to being accurate, I also mean something derogatory, because academia is an engine of knowledge control, that trains the priesthood of covert theocracy that smothers us as free individuals. You must understand that my life is all about being a free individual, which is why I have produced a philosophy of enslavement to account for the predicament of our world in which freedom is promised, but never found. Against All Gods by A. C. Grayling, 2007, is fundamentally flawed, in the usual way. It treats its subject as if the human animal was the person existing as an end in themselves. Grayling is the philosopher of choice for parading on our TV screens, so that his smarmy affectation of a superior philosophical demeanour is a familiar thing, but this is the first I knew that he was one of our leading voices of atheism. As such, he comes out with all the right kind of noises, rubbishing and denigrating religion, just like Dawkins, his close chum. The egregious error which informs all Dawkins thinking, which treats religion as something bad, instead of natural, is the key theme of Graylings atheism too. This is inverted moralising, spewing forth moral invective against religion, where moralising is the functional core of any religious mythology, for it is moralising that enables a structure of us and them to be defined, which builds a superorganic form from socially differentiated individuals. Science does not moralise, it comprehends and explains in functional and structural terms. An interesting point to note concerning moralising, is that this word carries a positive invective, because the idea of moral superiority is built into our Jewish slave identity package. Understood properly, as a functional aspect of linguistic programming that delivers superorganic physiology, we can see that morality is anything but good. Thus homosexuality use to be vile, now it is wonderful, revealing an arbitrary authority at work determining moral standards with serious ramifications for malefactors. The state sponsored anti-Semitism of the Nazis was a moral agenda, from the point of view of those who both promoted it, and were programmed by it. Thus anti-Semitism is an example of moralising. We know for a fact that Grayling could not see this, but rather, he only accepts the religious meaning of moralising that uses the idea of moral action to define the establishment values he works to support. Any idea that we live in a world where abstract goodness defines establishment behaviour is nonsense, if it did we would be anti-Semitic too, because God does not exist and religion is therefore immoral, where instead the presumption of a right to be religious is the basis of our societys inherently evil moral posture. And Graylings atheist philosophy is blind to this obvious fact because he obeys the assumptions which make our Jewish society tenable. Coming upon a work with a most wonderful title yesterday, 19/07/2011, Who is to be master of the world : An Introduction to the Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche by Anthony Ludovici, 1909, my examination of the item threw up one intriguing idea in relation to

Nietzsche going beyond good and evil. Nietzsche argues that a peoples morality constitutes the spearhead of the struggle for the domination of all humanity, so that he declares Here is my morality, where is yours. Nietzsche makes the form of morality that any people develop, the foundation of their greatness ; or otherwise, presumably. It is easy to see how this poetically cum politically formulated idea matches our scientifically stated understanding perfectly, when we say that morality is a core mechanism of a religious mythology which is impressed into a person as part of a slave identity package. Judaism develops the master identity package under the test of social organisation, then this master identity spreads its influence as the Jews spread through all societies, drawing their hosts into one global world, leaving the Jews at the centre, as the master race. Clearly this is what makes Christians and Muslims into subidentity slaves of Judaism, they carry a differentiating identity package, a skin of identity, which nevertheless bears the identical moral core of Judaism underneath. This allows the Jews to occupy the same social structure, exoskeleton that is, as their slaves do, and to work the mechanisms of social organisation which the slaves now act in coordination with, in common with their masters, the Jews. This is how the Jewish slave culture works in obedience to the dictates of human corporate nature. I finished turning Ludovicis Jews, and Jews in England, 1938, into a word document ready to make a hard copy yesterday, and just at the close I found something vaguely useful. The book has two copies available in the world, at 250 each, (31/05/2012 one in America for 125) while two versions are available online, neither of which are suitable for printing off, but while turning them into word format I found the usual discussion of Jewish qualities, same old same old anti-Semitic stuff. The conclusion does not exactly veer away from this line, but it includes the unusual observation that we have been transformed into Jews, where the undesirable Jewish characteristics of exploitation and valuing wealth, materialism, and power, over all true values in life, has taken over our souls. What this idiot does not get, despite living in the age of the idea of the Social Organism, before the Great Cleaning, is that merely to be a Christian is to be a Jew. The early parts of the book were interesting in general, because he picks up important threads of the story as to how we became Jews, so he talks about the Roman dispersal and how we did not know the Jews before this event. But again, he does not put these ideas into a coherent model of human nature, as we do, so he just ends up giving us a political diatribe on the Jews as pests, and this is what makes this kind of work anti-Semitic, and makes it serve the needs of the master who must be hated, in order to rule from within. ___

Grayling condemns the deviousness of Christianity on page twenty four of his contribution to religious atheism, delivering a barrage of fine criticism that also happens to separate this slave identity from its master, Judaism. In the process the Jews are, without a word of condemnation, implicitly given the status of a valid people, existing in their own right, showing how corrupt this man is in his thinking, and hence why he is a leading priest of atheist philosophy in English society today. While transcribing my notes on the work of a leading voice of English atheism from a century ago yesterday, 31/01/2012, that of Chapman Cohen, in a an essay called Creed and Character, 1919, I found exactly the same bizarre line being taken, only here the Christians are reviled for attacking the sweet Muslim ! See page fifty and thereabouts. This seems to be a ruse used by these priests of atheism in their pretence of being enemies of religion ; all they are doing is working the artificial, physiological division between the master and slave, which is exactly what Christian anti-Semites do all the time in service of their master.

Thursday, 31 May 2012 Searching for Cohen works online I found some biographical material finally confirming that he was Jewish, as I suspected. There is something significant about the inversion of political dynamics where the slave takes on the appearance of being the master, it is very familiar to Atheist Science. The most obvious case that we have become use to discussing, is the extra special case of the Nazi would be master race emerging to oppose the Jewish actual master race, at a particular time of crisis for religion and hence for the Jews, brought on by the rise of science. Below we make the comparison between this modern political, religious atheism, and socialism, but this seems to be a general principle, a mechanism of superorganic physiology that sees the balance of power shift between opposite nodes of power within a social order. Social orders always have an all powerful elite opposed to an all powerless biomass, but the representation of this balance occasionally gets inverted as power flips from the master to the slave : from aristocracy to workers ; from Jews to Nazis ; from priests to atheists. It is of course understood that Nietzsche is associated with Nazis ideology, and we can see why from the sort of spiel he spewed forth. In this sense Nietzsche has an important place in our understanding of the formation of the Jewish master race in Nazi guise, for Nietzsches philosophy appears to have the attributes of a catalytic formula capable of interceding between the organicist science of the age and the Nazi ideology to come soon after, which made the Hitler Taboo that has capped off the real science of life that we need in order to destroy Judaism, allowing us to be free from slavery to natures whims, in so far as that is at all possible. It is as if the presence of the Jews feeding off their slave biomass by controlling the inner, nonviolent force of information as it pertains to social structure, as in linguistic force, eventually induces a reaction expressed linguistically in a form of anti-knowledge that identifies the nature of the power carried by the Jews, and seeks to take possession of that power for the slave biomass under its localised identity. This is Marxian communism personified, as it came to power in Russia, China and other places. This anti-knowledge however, still acts in obedience to knowledge, which is the power base of the master race, because the social structure is solidly Jewish, due to the fact that the local identity is subverted into a Jewish form, as in Christianity. The reaction against Judaism is therefore akin to a reaction against an infection in a somatic body, it is a way to cleanse society, the superorganic body that is, of the reaction against the knowledge of identity which empowers the Jews, and so returns society to a state of perfect subservience to the Jewish master race. Thus the Germans were represented as the super race by men like Nietzsche, and Christianity also took the same reaction unto itself because it saw itself as a separate identity from the Jews. This is why we see Christians always acting as a foci of Jew hatred, as noted by Grayling ; an observation he makes without any idea that there might be a naturalistic explanation for this in terms of human biological, corporate nature. As the intensity of the reaction against exploitation by Jews sets in and intensifies, it has the capacity to become a pure expression of the linguistic force that already exists as a pure expression in the guise of Jewish identity, thus it generates an anti-identity, or anti-Jewish identity. This is what caused the Nazis to appear as the German people took on the persona of the Jewish master race under another name, under a German identity, newly construed as something equally ancient as the Jew : the Aryan race. On the face of it this was all pathetic, but Nazism was as valid as any religious formula, and indeed, the Nazi transfiguration was a manifestation of linguistic force in a religious guise emulating the same force that created the Jewish religious form. This gave us Two expressions of linguistic force as master identity, existing in the same place and time, where there can only ever be One. War and mayhem was a concomitant of this occurrence, this cleansed society and returned it back to peace under Judaism. Thus the reaction against Judaism returned the superorganism to a state of health.

It is now Wednesday, 09 November 2011, and I am working through this item. Recently I came upon the name of the man who created Karl Marx ; there is always someone, but they are always hidden from public view by the academics who wish to preserve the mythology of original genius, and thus obscure the mundane process of continuity that reveals the true nature of history. I bought a slight volume called Moses Hess : Prophet of Zionism, Schulman, 1963, to get a quick insight into this new discovery made just last month. Reading the above reference to Marxs creation of an anti-knowledge reaction empowering Judaism by activating a new kind of social biomass, I thought I could slip a reference to Hess in here. Marx has long bothered me because he was a Jew that created a new Christian religion suited to the modern, scientific age, that was nominally atheist and anti-Jewish, but self evidently nothing of the sort when understood in terms of humans as superorganisms. No doubt students of Marx know all about his life story, but I do not. This biography of Hess indicates that Marx was embroiled in Jewish life, a fully paid up member of Judaism, contrary to all that we hear about this man. Not only that, but his colleague in proletariat revolution, Engels, was also a Jew ! Who knew that ? I thought he was an English entrepreneur, that is what he is famous for being, within the fame of his relationship with Marx. The picture Schulman paints of these people is one of ruthless, ambitious politicians, hell-bent on serving themselves at any price. But what was the agenda they served ? All politicians are self-serving, Tony Blair was a ruthless politician hell-bent on serving himself, but his agenda was the worship of Judaism. There can only of been one agenda behind Marxs ambition too, and that was also Judaism. Just as I always knew, but did not have any evidence of. All politicians everywhere worship Judaism, or else they do not get to be politicians.

I Linguistic creative force The gist of the discussion offered by Ludovici acknowledges that there is no such thing as good and evil, which he extends to morality, which likewise is said not to exist. Yet, as noted, Nietzsche says morality creates the master race. Using atheist science to give this pathetic philosophy meaning, we can apply the idea of linguistic force as a creative natural force, to this reasoning, and so make sense of it by saying what Nietzsche was intuitively grasping at here, which was the effect of linguistic force creating previously none existent form. That is, form which relies upon linguistic force for its existence. This form is superorganic physiology, or social form. Of course, in reality, there is no such thing as none existence as in the existence of none existent form, but the term comes into play in a true science of humanity because it discerns the fact that human nature is derived from linguistic force, and as such we only exist as the creatures that we are, courtesy of linguistic force, and this force is an attribute of genetically evolved human somatic form. In terms of essence therefore, we could say that what we call God, is in fact linguistic force. Ordinarily we say God is the superorganism, which, though difficult enough to get across to people, is still easier than getting straight to the underlying reality by saying God is linguistic force. But linguistic force, which is located in the existence of our somatic physiology as a linguistically empowered animal, creates superorganic physiology, so the link is clear to those who want to see it.

Because of the intimate relationship between ourselves as living beings and the linguistic force associated with us, all that we know and experience as humans is delivered courtesy of linguistic force. Thus everything that seems real to us, is heavily dependant for its reality upon this underlying linguistic force derived from our physical form, evolved to create a mammalian superorganism. When we apply a neutral scientific method to ourselves the inevitable result is the penetration of the effect of linguistic force as the creative force animating ourselves, hence we come to see everything that is familiar through the medium of our senses, as something else, and hence this idea of none existence comes to the fore. None existence is therefore a consequence of the effect of language as the medium of superorganic being that organises us as sentient brick units of superorganic physiology, by creating a material reality based upon the programming of our brains. Clearly, interpreting this natural process in a scientific manner is bound to decode the linguistic identity programme that unifies us all in one common cause. Books that I looked at on the net yesterday, after checking the list of works at the end of the New Atheism essay, included a title which expressly asked if scientific examinations of religion inevitably led to their destruction. This is a most interesting topic on the face of it, but it is old stuff, the topic was well chewed over last time religion felt the heat of interrogation in the Victorian era, and whenever anyone produces a work like this you can be sure it is religious propaganda and misinformation masquerading as the exact opposite. The truth is, obviously, that religion cannot stand any kind of rigorous examination that it is not in control of. We demonstrate this here, in our Atheist Science analysis culminating in the idea of none existence as an all pervasive effect of science examining human nature, because science recognises linguistic force as the creative drive behind all that we believe to exist, and then make exist in what we call the manmade world. In terms of the clash between forms of knowledge, as in science versus religion, this is a case of knowledge stops knowledge, which gives us the Gatekeeper subject where public atheists fill the void where true atheists would be in a free society, by providing a rabid but sterile form of atheism, which is promoted by the machinery of knowledge proliferation that rejects true atheism because this is forced to say things that are prohibited by taboo, being linked to the idea of human corporate nature creating a superorganism, which invokes all that Hitler evoked politically, but in a scientific sense. Thus a flux of information expressing linguistic force in a physiological form organises itself and creates unity by focusing on the individual as the end in itself, while expressly rejecting the true alternative, that the individual does not exist.

II Structural integration of sham secularism I dropped on a new sham organisation, created by the theocracy to defend freedom of thought from religion, just last week, today being Wednesday, 09 November 2011. This is the Center for Inquiry, which promotes itself thus in the opening paragraph to its website : CFI UKs primary aim is education, with the focus on the following three areas : (i) the application of science and/or reason to questions regarding religion and the supernatural (e.g. questions about the divine, parapsychological questions, etc.) (ii) the application of science and/or reason to pressing contemporary ethical dilemmas and social/political problems (e.g. stem-cell research, global warming)

(iii) the question of what is, and is not, good science (e.g. is intelligent design, or cold fusion, or magnet therapy, good science ?) CFI UK is concerned to defend and promote academic freedom, particularly from unjust legal threats, and to promote science-based policy. These concerns, like the name of this religious front organisation, sound very American, whom I guess are the covert sponsors of this sick charade. I see the usual Gatekeepers are supporting its efforts, Dawkins most notably. Its provost is Stephen Law, a Cambridge philosopher, to whom I fired off an email on 4th Nov., entitled Gatekeepers : Dear Mr Law, I just discovered your Centre for Inquiry organisation, and I want to fire off something for you that you will not of come across before. As far as I am concerned, we here in Britain live in an absolute theocracy, a society where there is no free access to knowledge, no freedom of thought, and no freedom of expression. People like you are crucial to this state of affairs, you are the Gatekeepers. You present yourselves as the voices of reason, science, and of authority in these areas. You even have special events examining conspiracy theories, just to show how perfect you are, and how flawed anyone must be who is not at one with your dogma. I am an atheist, I love science, and you do not speak for me. I am 56 and my life has been spent seeking an answer to the questions why religion exists, and what humans are. It took me completely by surprise a decade ago when I discovered the answers, for I had always thought people like you were at one with me, and you would provide these answers. But this is not so. Ooh, is it a conspiracy ? No, it is not, it is something quite different. Humans are animals, they evolved like any other animal, and what we are in life today is easily accounted for on this biological basis. But so called science does not provide the answer, why not ? Because the answer, that was known during the nineteenth century, after a fashion, is devastating to our existence, our existence being contrived by nature to ensure that the truth shall not be known. Humans are a mammalian species of superorganism, the superorganism is the human animal, and the individual, the person, you and me, we do not exist. This is blindingly obvious, once you have seen it, and utterly irrefutable from a scientific point of view, yet science fights this idea with all its might. Your organisation is not a defender of freedom, of knowledge, of science, of truth, or anything like it. Quite the opposite. You are the problem. Without you, science would exist and religion would be dead, and maybe humans would be extinct as a result ; but this latter point is irrelevant to the validity of what I say. And got this response on the 5th : The trouble with this, as it stands, is that its just a series assertions. To which I immediately replied : Thanks for the reply, it was only an email, so I hardly see the relevance of your response. I have been working on this idea for more than a decade, all on my little lonesome sadly, there is a mountain of work I have produced that is posted to Scribd. But, at the end of the day, all anything is, is an assertion, without authority. And that is what I said in my initial email, you people have authority, but it is all you have, you certainly do not act as the guardians of truth, science, etc. I believe my case is easily proven, the first evidence I would call upon is the total absence of this idea of

human corporate nature from science, at the very least it ought to form a leading aspect of the picture, as it use to do, before it was cleansed from academia. And there ended our conversation. Providing a perfect example of the priesthood at work, controlling knowledge by blocking it and refusing to engage with alternative views outside those of academia. Justifying this arrogance, half the home page was taken up with information about an event dealing with the subject of conspiracy theories. This indicates the arrogance of authority that knows it is untouchable, and can treat its detractors as a subject for analysis rather than engagement. The plethora of moronic detractors meanwhile, justifies this stance. But the two things, official sham knowledge and its detractors, knowledge and anti-knowledge as political power, work together to form a seal that cannot be broken by ordinary means, indicating why people with great wealth, power, and influence, should want to spew forth moronic ideas that confuse everything. It has been revealed that the American Central Intelligence Agency was originally responsible for disseminating the misinformation about aliens visiting earth in the middle of the last century, that has spawned an unstoppable conspiracy industry ever since. Appalling as this is in a supposedly free society, it makes perfect sense, this is what an intelligence agency is really all about, the control of ideas within society, within which objective misinformation is a most valuable tool. Official bullshit lines up with unofficial bullshit to close off all possibilities of free expression, leaving official authority standing before all, as the Gatekeeper of Absolute Theocracy. This encounter at the weekend, demonstrates this fact in real time. I wonder whether we might gain anything from considering the none existent nature of the nation state as the supreme example of structure created by linguistic force, because this is something we are all so familiar with that we know does not exist outside our own existence. We become agents of linguistic force in that we create things that we know are created by us, and thus linguistic force induces us to believe in a special power belonging to ourselves as individuals, so that we talk about things man made or artificial, but really, unbeknown to us, all these things are made by nature, through the agency of linguistic force that animates us in the social domain. This is only the same as saying that nature builds termite mounds or beehives, something no one would question, no one thinks that termites create an artificial world of their own choosing ! Yesterday, it still being 09/11/2011, I found this remark concerning those who have religion in their hearts, in a newly arrived item : He must further doubt the reality of religion when he hears a number of eminent scientists implying that there is no radical difference between a living organism and a man-made machine : that the difference is just one of degree, not of kind. (Science and the Quest for God, Hardy, 1951, p. 8) Sadly this snippet appears without references, but it is a delightful idea even in the teasing form of a beguiling hint as to what science could be, one that we can be sure will of been given severely limited expression, though quite enough, evidently, to cause this professional scientist to wage war upon such expressions of scientific reason, raised here in the name of protecting precious religion. Thus we find that nothing changed over the course of a century, from the time when overt absolute theocracy was undergoing transition to the present covert mode, when stalwart defenders of religion appeared in scientific guise, men like William Carpenter for example. What we never find, at any time, are defenders of science, save for charlatans such as Mr Law sets himself up to promote, men like Dawkins that is.

This item about Science and the Quest for God has quite a nice drift to it, as it really does express the notion that God is something that science might discover in a natural setting, and since that is precisely how science should deal with religion, the essay has a general flow to it that is pleasing. But these people are so devious. The cornerstones of sterile science have been firmly established since the mid Victorian era, and these people stick within them by virtue of their social programming and ensuing induction into the structures of authority. Thus, when Hardy speaks of science seeking God in reality, his target is psychological factors, not our biological nature. Which means he is adhering to the principle that humans are individuals, and God is therefore about satisfying or expressing our individuality, not our biological corporate nature that makes the individual nonexistent. I have had The Biology of God : A scientists study of man the religious animal, by Hardy, 1975, sitting on my shelves for years, and just took a glance at it the other day, which is why I was drawn to this mans work now. He was an Oxford professor who set up a society to study religion as a natural phenomenon, which sounds great, but it is the usual fraud, and still going strong by the look of it online. To think I was studying anthropology in Oxford in 1975 and I never had the first idea that these people were in business, pity, I would of jumped on that crowd with a passion. Would you believe it, after writing the above yesterday, 10/11/2011, Hardy only appears on a BBC Horizon programme called Is there a place for God ?, examining the war of religion against science through the record of its own programmes. They showed him saying he was a biologist interested in religion, and the narrator went on to explain that just as Darwins great breakthrough had been achieved through observation and the gathering of a mass of facts, Hardy believed the same could be done in relation to religion, and that was what he intended to do by gathering accounts of religious experiences. Thus this pathetic piece of religious propaganda disguised as science, showed the worst kind of religious minded people jabbering away, with the greatest regard being paid to them by the observant scientists ! This question of the states none existence then, may not seem highly significant, but when we consider the way the nation is used as a means of implanting identity into us, it becomes a major backbone of religious slave identity programmes, as we often say, the national structure formula for organising social territory, is a specifically Jewish exoskeletal feature. All nations must adhere to a Jewish identity programme or they are destroyed, though obviously this is only apparent to those who know Atheist Science. Individuals are consumed by their national identities, me included, it is how we are raised and it is very difficult to escape, not least because the very language we speak is generally known by the same name as our national identity. National identities are however now being submerged into a global uniformity via the ongoing agency of capitalism, which provided the economic basis for the national structure model in the first place, truth to tell, because capitalism permeates all social identities, those formed according to Judaism at least. Those superorganisms lying outside Jewish origins, the oriental in particular, were expressly antithetical to capitalism, hence the treatment meted out to China, Japan, and the like, which brought them into the capitalist fold, so much so that China is now lined up to become the next leading bastion of Judaism, taking over from America in centuries to come. So the national structure gives us a wonderful example of the flux of linguistic force laying down concrete structure at all levels of human existence, and transforming itself just like an organic form should do.

III Arrow of identity Any apparent shifts in the focus of core social power are of course a total illusion, which is why the apparent inversion always proves weaker than the permanent order it reacts against, and is therefore extremely unstable and temporary. The English republic, the rise to power of twentieth century socialism in Britain, European fascism, eighteenth and nineteenth century revolutions, and even rebellions such as the American break from British monarchy. You name it, every transformation of government, even the truly major ones from which there was no going back, like that brought on by Communism in nations like Russia and China, all did revert back to stable forms of government ruled by an absolute autocracy, of one shape or another, which ultimately remained a slave appendage of Judaism. What happened next is that the absolute rule adjusted itself following the convulsion that shed its outer skin, gradually it took on a gentler form as it grew a new expression of social authority to contain the population, the supreme expression of which is Democracy. And it did this because at its core it had one, covert objective : to keep Judaism in power. I caught the tail end of a discussion on BBC 2s Newsnight last night, 11/11/11, in which the presenter was talking about the Arab spring opening the way to democracy in former autocratic societies, while the current situation in Europe had capitalist markets forcing the replacement of elected politicians by technocrats in Greece and Italy, demonstrating that democracy cannot cope with social realities. The usual false explanation cropped up about the European Union being a project designed to prevent the unthinkable ever happening again, world war between First World nations that is, and some intelligent remarks were made on the implications of this, meaning that the EU was a political project, which meant an idealistic project, and herein lay its flaws as a structural arrangement catering to economic realities. But this is all knowledge fabrication suited to the absolute theocracys covert approach to biomass management, formulated by the priestcraft of a theocratic academia over time. In other words this is a mythical intellectualisation of historical events, identical to the way religious mythologies are concocted. The truth is that society is organic and at its core is an identity, Jewish identity, which has always been associated with a global project to incorporate the worlds human biomass, and these difficulties are part of the process of getting there, and always have been. If history were a science based subject, this would be how we would understand these things. Except such knowledge would change our interaction with history because knowing the Jews are the master identity would create a reaction against them, not anti-Semitic, but absolute. The truth is of course, that there is no such thing as Democracy, other than as a ficticious social structure mimicking an intellectual ideal designed to make autocracy more efficient. So that what these testing conditions are doing is providing glimpses of this fact, which the priests are trying to cover up by giving them a mundane explanation befitting the intellectualisation they serve. But no one was going to come out with the factual observations we offer here. That would be like saying there was no God because humans were superorganisms, far too real ! History recognises political shifts in power because history is an grand projection of the intellectualised idea of the person as an end in themselves, realised at the level of collective social being. History takes all events at face value and treats them as integral to themselves, invariably making the personalities associated with major historical events key factors in their occurrence. This is Jewish mythology in all its fullness. History in this sense is pure religion, just as Darwinism is pure religion in precisely the same sense, always breaking down the continuum of natural processes in order to maintain control over the knowledge produced by the examination of material facts. This is linguistic force at work,

producing knowledge that acts as the binding flux of information animating superorganic physiology. Imagine if scientists treated nature in this way, always regarding geological events as integral to themselves, so that it was forbidden to seek an explanation for the tsunami in Japan this March, or the aftershock in Turkey yesterday, 10/11/2011, following last weeks deadly earthquake, as being identical kinds of phenomenon. All explanation for these events would be made impossible, and any explanations offered would be absurd. That is what history does for human political events, such as that voiced on Newsnight last night, saying that the formation of the EU was conceived as a means of ensuring there would never again be a European war. Even if this was the momentum behind this movement at the time of its initiation, that does not mean that it is the explanation for the EUs formation, for this ignores the question why there had been a European war in the first place. The collective message accepts the political explanation as if it were a solid fact pertaining to the event, being self validating as such, and this is what history then treats as facts from which analytical explanations can be drawn to produce real explanations of events. History as such is a circular, self referential process, based entirely on linguistic constructions of reality. As ever, what a person says is taken to be an expression of the personal will, but this is never so, since there is no such thing as a person, there is only the superorganism and the linguistic force that animates it by creating a uniform message emanating from the consciousness of each person, in keeping with their programming, as Kirsty Wark demonstrated last night by coming out with this trite statement about the EUs formation so mindlessly. Of course historians do try and link events to causes, but these are always rooted in the person as the object of human existence, so that events are always given a human face in which an interplay of human intent and reason is involved. Events are never shown to be purely biological in nature, features of a superorganism expressing our corporate biological nature, that can instead be explained mechanistically by recognising the action of linguistic force creating cultural enclaves and structure through the medium of identity, which acts as the foci of social tension creating lines of demarcation along which major social events unfold, cultural lines that are akin to geological fault lines, so that we see Greece acting like a geological fault plane shifting away from its continental moorings as it faces the possibility of leaving the Euro. The illusion we have of real shifts in power, as from monarchy to democracy or to communism, is total, because the shift in power is never really from master to slave, far from it, it is merely the pretence of a shift, created purely by refocusing upon an alternate identity figure within the pantheon of establishment priesthood, within the order of political classes. We could therefore view these inverted phases of social anarchysocialism, fascism, atheismonce again, as bouts of illness, social instability that is, experienced by the human animal, the superorganism, producing a reaction that drives out the poison of linguistic flux running counter to its pure Jewish identity, that is soon returned to stability so that history flows ever onward, always focused upon religion, always appearing in the form of Judaism, even if disguised as something else, like Christianity, Islam, Nazism, Communism, or even, Atheism ! Thus instead of an arrow of time, we have the same thing manifested in human existence, as an arrow of identity. Christianity is a true representation of the Jewish religious identity, so that it became institutionalised and stable. To some extent Communism and Socialism are able to integrate into the institutional order of Jewish being, but not ideally, hence their temporary status as political orders, these social structures are too homogenous and do not lend themselves to the complexity of a global order. And fascism ? Well fascism is ever present in the natural state of a theocracy that always rules us. Atheism never has any role to play other than that of a disguise. Our usual analysis of this physiological dynamic bares out this account of historical representations, for we constantly find ourselves denigrating whoever is offering a public

voice, calling them priests always adhering to the core principles of priestcraft, and never telling the real truth as we reveal it to be, courtesy of modern science. We sum this up by calling everyone a slave of Judaism, even when they are represented by history as the arch enemy of the Jews, responsible for a modern holocaust supposedly seeking to eradicate Jews. We see the truth, that there has never been any greater friend of the Jews than Adolf Hitler. In discussing this dynamic of linguistic force, whereby the core religious identity is frequently obliged to manifest itself in contrary forms, we effectively provide ourselves with a mechanism lying behind the primary inversion of overt versus covert theocracy, which is such a key element of our explanation for the modern scientific era in which we live, that is not a scientific era at all ! The complexity of the political power structure is heavily over folded, like a human brain, allowing an intense powerhouse of information to manifest itself in a multitude of forms. Thus the upper echelons of society are always competing to produce individuals supporting any alternate idea from which power can be drawn, but always acting from within the establishment, exactly as Hitler or Marx, the greatest representatives of the alternates of Socialism and Fascism, did. This same mechanism then, was also responsible for producing the scientific fraud of Darwinism, and the grand fraud of modern, post cleansing Sociology, not to mention the great modern transfiguration of knowledge seen in Sociobiology. It is this constant pushing for knowledge always kept false, that allows the academic structure to do its work of controlling knowledge by being the one source of authority in any field of knowledge. And so we see that the creation of an academic structure is all about the superorganism producing an organ of knowledge control, to maintain its socially constituted body. The establishment of a modern education system sanctioned by the state, enforced by law, is an extension of that same institutional, physiological order.

IV Scientific historical method delineated Yesterday, 02/02/2012, I read The Position of Sociology Among the Sciences, by J. H. Bridges, published in 1881, this was a lecture given in 1878. This essay is the closest we ever came to the idea of science applied to humans, in England. In each of the twenty-five centuries I am speaking of, there are, by the usual computation, three generations, each generation exhibiting the features characteristic of all forms of the social state ; that is to say, a separation of functions among different classes, some form of family life, some form of government, some species of language, some form of religious faith. Assuming, therefore, that these generations, from first to last, can be regarded as continuous, a point on which I have a word to say afterwards, we have seventy-five of them to considera number quite wide enough to give free play to the full generalising power of the inductive method. We may remember that Kepler, one of the most powerful inductive reasoners that the world has seen, occupied himself for long years with the vagaries of five planets ; and was thought, and justly so, to have gained immortal fame by finding the three general facts to which they all conformed. The problem of the sociologist is more arduous, but not more hopeless, and the reward of successful effort is even greater. Note further that the problem, as I have now stated it, falls under two principal heads : the study of those aspects of the social organism that remain permanent throughout the series of generations ; and the study of the changes undergone in the course of development, with the view, if possible, of finding the general law of those

changes. It is this last point of view which is distinctively modern. The statics of sociologythe study, that is, of the permanent organs or functions of societywere investigated more than two-thousand years ago with much success by Aristotle, who pursued a strictly inductive method of research in this matter. Collecting together some hundreds of constitutions among Mediterranean communities, he examined the facts and attributes common to all of them. For the dynamics of sociologyfor the scientific study, that is to say, of the modifications undergone by society from generation to generationthe knowledge of the past possessed by Aristotle was too slight. That was reserved for our own day. We saw the first germ of it in Pascals conception of the human race as a single organism continually growing ; in Leibnitzs remark that the Present, child of the Past, was pregnant with the Future ; we have it brought out more clearly still by the great thinkers of the eighteenth centuryVico, Turgot, Kant, Condorcet ; and finally in the early part of this century we have seen it worked out in a systematic and detailed way by Auguste Comte. I have said enough to show that the sociological study of history is something widely different from history as a branch of literature. I will dwell for a moment upon some of the more salient contrasts. The history of Western Europe, from Greece and Rome to our own time, presents itself to the sociologist as a series of social states, each with its own organs and functions, each with its own mode of consensus, and each linked on to those that preceded and those that followed it, just in the same way that the successive stages in the life of an embryo are linked to one another. It becomes, therefore, necessary to look at each of these states as a whole, and not to limit our inspection to any part of them. Now I think that almost every one who looks back on the books of history that he may have read, will allow that overwhelming preponderance is given in them to narratives of campaigns, great battles, royal marriages, schemes of ambitious statesmen, plans for altering the machinery of government, and so on. In fact, events of this kind have come to monopolize to themselves the word political, whereas the word was really intended to cover all the dealings whatsoever of men with one another in the social state. It should include all the ties of custom and law by which the family is held together, the links that bind man to the soil, his arts and commerce ; above all, his belief as to his place in the universe, his science, that is to say, his philosophy, and his religion. How little do the best histories tell us of all this ! (Fortnightly Review, 1881, pp. 132 4.) This is as good as science gets, arguing for a proper treatment of human society according to naturalistic principles that remove the bias of political influences. We are told to seek generalities occurring amongst the specifics of our history recorded over the millennia. Seek permanent features recurring across the generations he says, and also study the changes that occur, with a view to discovering the laws that drive change. The overall principle called for is one of scientific monism applied to social life, rather than the usual narrow focus upon political representations serving political ends. We really do not see this kind of heavily organicist sociological view expressed in English texts, ever, this is truly unique, rare, and very obscure and hard to find. Bridges was a follower of Comte, a Positivist that is, and this is what we are seeing here. We would not want to lend too much support to Positivism as a philosophy, but it did contain the kernel of genuine science that was to be found nowhere else. Bridges argument presents a very continental view of social science therefore. The deepest error Bridges makes in the above, is to describe history as we know it as a facet of literature, whereby he removes all force from his argument as an aspect of the war

between religion and science. He should of spoken of history as a facet of politics, the secular face of religious priestcraft that science needed to destroy, in order that science could exist. But what we can derive from this error, is a hint as to the ongoing method of knowledge control whereby absolute theocracy, in its covert form, organises the presentation of supposedly secular knowledge to suit its own purposes. This is precisely the strategy initiated in science by Darwin, thereby updating the historical method for the new knowledge of the modern age, which gave us the sterile science under which we labour today. Our first objective when working today, is to make this deception known, so that we can clear the path for our true science of humanity. In effect the above is seeking to do just this, to denounce the worthlessness of history as science, and to call for its replacement by a proper scientific analysis of human existence. But Bridges follows the convention of polite society by treating the abuse of the theocracy as if it were a sincere effort at understanding. In this sense he is a Gatekeeper supporting priestly efforts, though we would like to think this is a failure on his part, an unwitting contribution to the enemies work, due to the immense difficulty of seeing through the opacity of cultural conditioning and its ongoing pressures. And of course, he was nearer to the time of emergence for modern science, he had a right to believe enthusiastically that the crusade for freedom that he was part of, was ongoing. It is only now that we may wonder what on earth happened, why this process ground to a halt, and is no more, except as a sham fancy of our academic priesthood. Or might we suppose that, in the above, Bridges development of the argument does eventually state plainly that history is nothing more than politics ? Yes, he does make this plain. But still he makes nothing pointed out of this, he preserves the decorum of social etiquette that leaves the priesthood free to feign an interest in truth when it infests scientific circles with nothing but malice towards knowledge in mind. For science to exist it must have institutions of its own that are avowedly atheist, from which all support for religion is forbidden as anathema to science. One must be aware however, that if such a move were initiated, it would be infiltrated by religious cells, just as atheistic communism was, and socialism, so that any movement towards freedom would be turned. This is so because religion is the soul of our superorganisms existence and it would not be allowed to die, and most tellingly, we can be sure that the Jews would play the critical role in this act of subversion, as they did before with regard to science, by inculcating the Hitler Taboo through the regular induction of a pogrom. It is the primary role of the Jews as master race, as the brain of the living superorganism, to protect the living beings identity.

And applied For this we need William Heitland, The Roman Fate, 1922. This item is available for free download from the usual online site. I am not now to attempt to add to these particular explanations, but to ask whether we cannot detect certain main causes operating steadily through the course of centuries, expressing themselves from time to time in differences of detail, but remaining all the time fundamentally the same. My aim is to reduce the sound particular explanations to a simplified form, and if possible to extract therefrom something in the nature of a generalized conclusion, valid as a statement of conditions applicable to humanity at large and not confined solely to the history of Rome. This may seem a large and over-bold undertaking, and perhaps the first thing necessary is to see clearly what it amounts to. Let me start by inquiring whether it may not be possible to discern certain great and unmistakable elements of strength in

political societies, the presence of which promotes growth and well-being, while their loss or absence entails stagnation and decay. No distinction between ancient and modern is to the point here. It is a question of what experience teaches us, and the most modern societies have behind them the longest range of historical experience. The lessons I propose to extract are very simple ; but it is the application of platitudes, not the platitudes themselves, that seem to me not devoid of interest. (Heitland, p. 10) This matches Bridges call for a scientific approach to history that renders history a true sociological method, and this generalised method offers immediate results for us : Difference of scale soon produces a difference in kind. In the course of ages this truth has gradually received recognition in the development of representative systems. But in ancient times no such solution of the problem of government was reached. Leaving aside mere tribal units, not combined as yet into any union worthy the name of State, we find only two kinds of states (a) a city with its territory, (b) great empires. In the former, power rests with those who are in the full exclusive sense the citizens, whether they are many or few in proportion to the population of the state. Their franchise is a definite thing, to which privileges and obligations are attached : its duties must be performed and its rights exercised by each citizen in person. Admission of aliens, resident or non-resident, to the civic franchise is normally rare, the civic bond being normally hereditary and religious in character. Under such conditions, states were inevitably small in area and lacking in numerical strength. As a system of political association, this plan was unsuited to survive, and in the end it failed. On the other hand, great empires built up by conquest rose and fell. But the overthrow of one empire by the superior force of another did not mean the extinction of a great self-conscious unit. Rather it was the transfer of so much human and territorial resources from the control of one autocrat to the control of another. The empire-units tended to grow larger and larger. Free Greeks might beat back the aggression of Darius and Xerxes : but their victories hardly shook the ill-knit fabric of the inorganic Persian monarchy. The Great Kings bided their time, and in the end profited by the internal antipathies of free Hellas. When the Macedonian directed the resources of a controlled Hellas against Persia, he did, and could do, no more than extend the system of great imperial units. Henceforth the large state, however ill organized, is the unit with a future before it : the small state, however well organized, is an anachronism. In the recognition of this fact, and in attention to the difficulties created by the rise of scale in political units, will be found a great part of the interest of the history of Rome. (Ibid., 11 12) Here we discover the background conditions that created our present superorganic dispensation under the auspices of Jewish identity. The general nature of the dynamics which created the Jews as a master race have made themselves clear to us previously, but in the above we have a description of the social conditions conducive to a master race identity of this extended, Jewish kind, taking shape. This describes the general conditions where national entities of a limited size proved to be unstable and thereby invited the development of more stable forms of global, transnational authority. This gave rise to the Jews as a stable social identity package surviving across the reaches of ephemeral states whose social structure could be transferred intact from one political authority to another, but not their core identity. With this development of a transferable identity not bound to any localised political

structure, the Jews came into their own as an incipient superorganic priesthood inducing the establishment of the Roman dispensation, which superseded the limited states Heitland talks about, and from this point all systems were go, as the Jewish dispensation gave rise to a true superorganic form by generating two offshoots of priestly authority to give the typical triadic hierarchy of human social anatomy. Of course we can see immediately that Heitlands application of this scientific, generalised method, lacks rigour, because he launches into it from the standard assumption of human conscious effort developing political strategies concerned with better governance, rather than developing an abstract principle of human nature delivering social order, where individuals are unwitting agents of the wider aspects of social life that an approach such as he talks of here is bound to deliver if done properly.

V False atheism A serendipitous event occurred yesterday, 17/07/2011, which delivered into my hands God is not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007, when my elderly, retired neighbour, Tom, offered me some of his wifes castoff books. Browns Da Vinci Code went in the trash, after I flipped it open and found some crap about attaining rank in secret societies by understanding subliminal messages, which tempted me to keep it, but not much. Dawkins God Delusion I handed back, as I have it, but what I am now tapping away at some new thoughts over, is this Hitchens stuff. The significance of this arrival is its historical timing, coming in conjunction in time with Graylings atheist missive, the effect is logarithmically incremental. I see a wave of Dawkinesque atheism building here. But this is not true atheism, because it is inspired by obedience to the false pivot of observation that says the individual is the human animal, which is not true. I knew nothing of Grayling and nothing of Hitchens, until these books dropped into my lap, yet atheism is what I live for, so why am I not hearing about these significant public expressions of atheism ? Because they are not made known to the public on the large scale media, the television, and how else am I going to hear of them ? My neighbour takes the Sunday papers, and one might imagine adverts alerting an interested person like his wife, allowing her to home in on such titles by that means ; or as a buyer of new books she may receive the book club mailings that offer new publications of this kind. I have looked at these means in the past. But these books and their authors, as atheists, do not make waves on the surface of the collective consciousness at its uppermost reaches. Except that is, in the guise of Dawkins, hence I speak of this form of atheism as Dawkinesque. The crucial point about such atheism is that it serves religion by acting as a Gatekeeper plug, filling the space where real atheism should go in a free society. The run of the mill person interested in atheism will find these works if they look for contemporary material catering to their feelings, thus the theocracy soothes them, letting them feel that they live in a free society, while religion gets on with its job of ruling the slave biomass for Judaism. Judaism is of course the identity of the superorganism to which we all belong. I have not read these books, having barely glanced at them, but both seem to kickoff by proposing a world without religion, suggesting they are going to outline the shape of such a paradise. What do you think they will be dishing up ? Humanist drivel, that is what. Humanism is religion without the godhead, usually extremely moralistic and deeply Christian, because it is produced by people with an unusually high moral standard that have been raised in a Christian society, people just like me who actually want truth to live by,

rather than garbage that gets the job of living done. Humanists do not get the truth, they just conform to the Jewish slave mantra of conformity to moral standards demanded by society, arguing that we can have the capacity for self regulation as individuals without the overtones of divine interest in human affairs. They completely miss the point of what religion is, which, from a personal point of view, is political power derived from the delivery of identity, that makes the global superorganism Jewish. This is why an atheist Jew is still a Jew, because they may of ditched the stupid religion, but they have retained the essence that really matters, the identity. There is no way that these New Atheists are going to talk about religion in an unbiased, scientific sense, where it is treated as perennial, vital, and eternal, because it is biological and society is a superorganic being. Any model of a post religious world, such as the ponsey idiot Grayling talks about, can be nothing more than an atheist equivalent of socialism, a concocted form of Judaism made for the moment in time when society needed that particular soporific to sooth its nerves. Socialism was needed because of the newly arrived industrial transformation of society, boosting the population and creating a working class on a scale like nothing ever seen before. Michael Palin was just quoting Marx during one of his old globe trotting films, speaking of the revolutionary advance of the proletariat being a law that was played out inevitably, independently of human will ! The transformation of human society associated with ideological expression is indeed induced by linguistic force, without any input from individuals acting as conscious individuals who know what they are doing. This contemporary wave of rabid political atheism is exactly the same kind of intellectual concoction as socialism was, a political contrivance serving Judaism that is now well and truly dead and buried. Socialism was a major movement, it has history, and as such it was a real phenomenon, some may say, but that can be said of any number of human social forms created by a surge of linguistic force, upwelling through a human biomass. This historical reality means nothing, it is the undercurrent of linguistic force that tells the tale, and right now, it is such a current that is forcing this pathetic brand of sterile atheism to spew forth over the skin of our living being, albeit in a very minor form catering to a peripheral interest of the main biomass. In saying this, we invoke the principles of scientific history set out by Bridges above, where he calls for passing events to be incorporated into a general theory of stability, and transformation. I found myself checking out an item yesterday, 19/07/2011, dealing with this recent flourish of vicious atheism, which deserves taking notice of here because it shows how these atheists fall off religion like water off a ducks back. The New Atheists, James Taylor, 2010, is not something I would wish to read, but it needs to be examined. I noticed while glancing at it yesterday, that this degenerate religious freak denounced the so called new atheists, who of course are not atheists at all, but Gatekeepers filling the voids where true atheists would be if they were allowed to exist in this absolute theocracy of ours, for not treating religion as valid knowledge : Since atheism continues to be a highly controversial philosophical position, one would expect that the New Atheists would devote a fair amount of space to a careful (and, of course, critical) consideration of arguments for Gods existence and that they would also spend a corresponding amount of time formulating a case for the nonexistence of God (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The New Atheists, Chapter 2, Taylor, 2010.) I would like to see these freaks try and undermine my Atheist Science in this farcical manner. What this kind of facile superciliousness on the part of professional philosophers

does, is show how utterly worthless this morality based New Atheism is. But at the end of the day this is a war for political power, there can only be religion or science, and in order for science to exist, religion must be erased from the face of the earth. This is not going to happen, so the most we can hope for is to have the truth, even though we cannot act upon it in real life. Obviously this is an untenable position, hence the world is as it is, filled with religion, which appears in atheist form as well as scientific form. Everyone is satisfied, everyone is religious. The suggestions for further reading gives an indication of the religious debate bubbling around this so called New Atheism, there is not much there worth buying that I do not already have, but I did just order The Religion Virus by Craig James, 2010, which this list led me to. This item applies Natural Selection to religion, and is obviously garbage of the worst kind, but, it is a novel exercise in knowledge perversion, and it has to be worth checking out for a tenner.

VI Another Gatekeeper formula I found another nice example of an atheist Gatekeeper of the Jewish theocracy, that led me to send a communication to the relevant person, which should explain itself :

David Aaronovitch, Hello fellow atheist, maybe. I noticed you on last Sundays Big Questions programme presenting the atheist agenda. I particularly liked it when you asked the Muslim Scholar if he accepted that were he born in India he would be defending Hinduism. He accepted this, but dismissed the point as meaningless. I would of liked that to be explored but the debate sped on. Searching for you online just now I glanced at a 2005 piece dismissing the boycott of Israeli universities. Then I found your website and the big impression coming off the page is an interest in conspiracy theories, we are offered a boast regarding your caustic rationality. You could be my man, I doubt it, but lets have a go. First off, lets be perfectly clear, if you are the ultimate anti-conspiracy theorist, then I am at the very least your equal. I would not deign to consider a book like your Voodoo thingy, anymore than I would wish to consider the ins and outs of any lunatic idea for myself. After watching the programme on Sunday, I came away thinking about the atheists taking part, why are they bothering to talk to these degenerates ? Do politicians debate with Nazis ? Do feminists debate with rapists ? Religion rules our world, so the idea of starving these people of the oxygen of publicity is not relevant, but still, what earthly gratification can you get from debating with such people ? I see from looking at the blurb offered on your book that you say that you discovered some kind of logic to conspiracy theories. You ask why people believe them, and you offer a true basis for scepticism. I doubt that. The question is, who are you, where do you come from, what are your beliefs ? I see nothing on that under your biography. ____________

So lets begin by thinking about this most important question that you put on Sunday. What were you driving at when you fired that telling logical shot across to the other side ? And what do you make of the fact that this attack meant nothing ? Another atheist stated the same point, or was it you, in another manner, by pointing out that there are a host of religions which claim infallibility, and each invalidates the other. OK, this is undeniable. You see it, I see, we all see it. But it makes no odds, religion continues to rule our world, why is that do you think ? If we let the infamous Dawkins answer for us, we are supposed to accept that people are flawed, in a recent appearance on Newsnight he told Paxman that it tore him up that so many Americans were woefully stupid. Now lets shift sideways a moment, responding to your essay on Israel. What do you think Israel is, where do you think it came from, why do you think it exists ?

Individualism In each of the above points we find a thread of continuity, positive and negative, but a common thread, and that thread is the idea of the individual. Consider this. One of the opposition launched an impassioned attack of his own on those with you on the atheist front bench. He had been communing with God and he demanded to know by what right the rationalist denied his personal experience. Do you see where this is going ? Of course you do, your not stupid. The integrity of the person as an authority in themselves is raised here in the attack you made, and the attack made against you, and in both cases the demand that the individual be treated as an end in themselves, was in favour of religion, in favour of stupidity, in favour of conspiracy, we may say. Whereas, your argument was implicitly denying the very existence of the individual. What else could of underpinned your assertion that the man facing you would be supporting another faith if he had been born in another faith zone, this was tantamount to saying there is no such thing an individual, as a person ! And that, my friend, is it, the end of it, it is all you need to know in order to understand all these things. But you do not know this do you ? Otherwise you would of responded by saying Because you do not exist ! There is no such thing as an individual existing as an end in themselves. As long as everyone adheres to the idea that humans are persons, existing in their own right, then reason will be doomed to wallow in ignorance, and religion will be left to perform its natural, biological, healthy function, of organizing people into social bodies which form the basis of political orders. It is this fact that gives rise to Israel, that is what Israel is, the political form of the Jewish identity, a religious identity. Religion is identity, that is all it is, and the person does not exist, except as a cellular unit of the social body which a religion allows to exist. And since you are so interested in conspiracy theories, let me explain them to you as well while I am at it. It is in the nature of life that information acts in a coherent manner to deliver continuity over time, that is evolution. An identity could be called a conspiracy on that basis, and genomes could be called a conspiracy to exist, if we liked. The idea of conspiracy is another means of making the individual seem real, when they are not, it is a political expression. The idea of memes carries the idea of genetic information forward to the social domain, and here the complex flow of information creates social structure. Life, species, religion, politics, conspiracy. These are modes of creative expression occurring in a continuum of information that runs from the genetic to the linguistic.

Freedom If what I am saying is true, why am I the only person to know this ? Why is it that the professionals dont know this, why dont you know it, why does Dawkins not know it ? If I say it is because we do not live in a free society, your ears will prick up and your brain will immediately fire up the programme that says incoming conspiracy theory. In other words, all the different strands of information pull together to allow a central authority to exist, but as I say, at rock bottom is the principle that individuals are authorities in their own right. Upon this false principle, the whole edifice of authority is based, which makes you think you know what is right, always assuming you give a toss, which is by no means certain, after all, you make a damn good living out of being one of the voices of ignorance that the rest of us have to listen to, or be disappointed. 18/01/2012 21:36

VII A remarkable book It is now Sunday, 13 November 2011, and I am continuing to review this work, so, finding myself prompted by my earlier inclusions, I have pulled James book The Religion Virus from the shelf, it is extraordinary. Amazingly, given what he has to say, he stays firmly within the parameters of individuals as ends in themselves. Jumping into the text just now landed me at a nice passage where the subject of anti-Semitism as a device protecting the Jewish master race, and the Hitler Taboo, scream at us from the page, though they do not actually appear on the page. This section is called The Underdog Meme. You can look that up for yourselves, I want to pick up another aspect of this priests wacky exclamations : The Underdog meme is religions way of ensuring that, no matter how well things are actually going, people have to think they are being persecuted for their beliefs. (p. 134) During the evolution of the modern religion memeplexes, one of the most successful memes is that religion should be an integral part of government. (p. 137) These two statements illustrate James theme, which concerns the application of memes (language that is) to human social life, according to a strictly biological, or at any rate evolutionary, Darwinian that is, mandate. I quoted them because they make Religion the object created by memes (language). Thus we could do with knowing what James thinks memes are, and what he thinks the objects they create are. If this were summertime and I were in my reading mode, outside in the greenhouse, I think I might just sit and read this book properly, it is such an unusual item, which treats language exactly as we would want science to treat language, as a natural, physiological aspect of human life, that creates all social form. Failing this however, we must use the contents page to find key points where the answer to our questions may be lurking, if we are lucky.

Before delving into James ideas, lets just note what the two quotes above mean from our point of view. The cry of impending doom so nicely observed by James, is something we take notice of from time to time, usually in relation to the slave nature of Christianity as a slave identity of Judaism. Christianity captures slaves from within, stealing their need for identity, or their souls, like a blood sucking vampire. The resulting identity is frail, being prone to the same tactic or liable to rapid degradation if left unattended. The maintenance of such abstrusely crafted slave identities therefore requires a continuous stimulus to prevent losing the slave biomass, and that is what the religious drivel James mentions here, is all about. Warfare for real, including such events as 9/11, add weight to this incessant chatter by the priests, and great historical movements such as the crusades can be related to the same imperative need to stimulate the artificial slave identity implant, thus making cries of persecution, immanent doom, and the threat from enemies without, seem real. But these calamities, like the religious myths they relate to, are all induced by the process of linguistic force to deliver the common end of creating a Jewish slave biomass. As to the comment on religions relation to government, this is too facile. We usually speak of religion as the expression of linguistic force that delivers a uniform biomass from which political orders can be organised. Thus we have a hierarchical structure rising up from somatic form represented by linguistic force, to superorganic consciousness seen in political life. Wait, whats this ? On route to a chapter on memes I hit a passage called Meme Stability : If biological evolution has reinvented itself in the form of memes, as a better way to pass information from one generation to the next, then we would expect the human mind to be programmed for reliability. (p. 113) This reasoning is completely self centred, focused entirely on the individual as an end in themselves, despite the fact that from a scientific viewpoint it is bursting with the idea of the individual being reduced to a unit of something extended by this invention of genetic information into a linguistic form, that has been clinically removed from language by being called memes, courtesy of the infamous Gatekeeper of the Theocracy Richard Dawkins no less. This bodes ill for our hopes of finding anything sensible here. Chapter three is Evolution and Memes, where we find a direct discussion of James idea as to what memes are as natural human phenomenon : cultural information, called memes, seems to be very analogous to genetic information. By stepping back from Darwins principles and looking at genes as information rather than as DNA, we learned how Darwins principles, under the right circumstances, can apply to other types of information besides genetic information in particular, to memes. (p. 53) This of course is the bedrock of Atheist Science, it is from this idea that we make information flow onward from the somatic genome to the superorganism, through the creation of a somatic form that acts as a robotic unit of a larger being, through its subservience to this new form of information flow. But what does this swine do with this fabulous knowledge ? He forces it to come under the yoke of Natural Selection, and nothing more. We have already seen that in order to proceed with this argument he had to give

memes an object to be directed at the formation of, and we have seen this expressed quite ludicrously in his discussion of Religion, as an idea left simply hanging in thin air. Thus a most important aspect of his argument is expressed because it must be, but entirely without the awareness of the man who is expressing it ! He does not appear to understand that information flows must create a unified form, and that this fact of informations existence, tells us what information is : energy paths delivering energy to structures that contain the information flow. Structure and form are the feedback loops that make sense of informations existence. I may of spotted something about creating a unified form without catching on to it, so there could be some material on this subject, but it should be a major feature of his argument about what memes are, not something incidental. Ooh! I just spotted chapter fives heading, Why Do Humans Talk ? Quick, this should be good. It begins with the subheading Is Language Adaptive or Accidental ? So we know this will not be good, but we knew that anyway. Now, over one hundred pages into the book, and he raises the question why memes exist !! What a twat. He says there are two best explanations. The first is vile in the extreme, and comes from one of the most contemptible people of our time, now mercifully no longer with us, and hence unable to continue flooding society with his horrendous excuse for scienceStephen Jay Gould. This says that our most precious, most exquisite, defining physiological characteristic, was an accidental by-product of an enlarged brain. What! These people are too sick for words, give me Christians, give me Jews, hell, give me Muslims ! These degenerates are infinitely superior to the rotten Yankee scientists, and ours too, whose duplicity is a disgrace to humanity. At least religious freaks are what they appear to be, which is disgusting enough. The other line, fed to us by the repugnant Steven Pinker, says language is adaptive, that language made humans more fit for survival. (p. 105) Well, isnt that nice. This stuff is so bad. Clearly we will find nothing of any use here, at the very point where sublime knowledge should burst forth, all we find is intellectual puss. There we have it then really. I guess I would not want to read this trash after all, yet it really is the most exquisite account of linguistic force creating superorganic form that I have ever come across, that wasnt, that is. I just wanted another stab at seeing what he might say about the memes object : The human ability to talk is nothing more than evolutions way of improving on itself (p. 114) We talk because memes are better than genes for evolution. (p. 115) It is however a futile desire. James object is the person, and in order to sustain this idiocy he must continually provide absurd objects like religion, or, as in these two examples above, evolution itself, as the objects of linguistic force. He makes the process of evolution a self existing thing, existing for its own sake. This is like Dawkins idea of the selfish gene, where the means is transmogrified into the end by switching the elements of a developmental process about turn, so that the force of information becomes the object that the force of information exists to create ! It is as if eggs were deemed to exist in order to create eggs, which they did by producing chickens, or dinosaurs even ! It is rather like saying that the reason houses exist is so that houses can exist, disregarding the real reason, which is that humans live in them ! His argument is about as childish as it is possible to get, a perfect example of religious style reasoning that we find Americans are nourished on, where miracles happen and good and evil bestride a world full of meaning.

In the same section he says : Memes have proved to be the most important adaptive trait in the history of life on Earth. (p. 114) Thereby relating this special ability to produce memes (to speak) to life itself. He continues by describing how this has made humans so special : No other animal comes even close to humans in terms of adaptability and rapid progress. (Ibid.) As ridiculous and contemptible as all this gush is, the thought must occur to anyone who reads it, as to why, if the sole reason for language coming into existence was to enhance the information process that is genetic evolution, why is this attribute reserved for humans ? Or indeed, is it reserved for humans, or can we see its manifestation in other species ? His eulogy to human greatness circumvents this last question, but a more sincere thinker would not allow themselves to be blinded by human exuberance, and would recognise the special attributes that are found in other superorganic species that have formed immense objects of life by projecting information beyond the confines of simple communication between individuals, to enable structural formation in keeping with evolutionary principles, not Darwinian principles, to form huge living objects of global significance. The first life forms of major significance, bacterial forms, achieved this superorganic form by appearing in colonial masses, like miniature coral reefs. These life forms dominated the biosphere for a billion years and gave the planet its oxygen atmosphere, without which no further large scale evolutionary development could of taken place, this is at least as significant as anything humans do, as it is the foundation of what we do. Corals form living objects that can be seen from space. Termites produce ecological terrains as surely as humans do, and they create huge complex societies, as do bees. All of these creatures and life forms are what they are because their somatic physiology has evolved to support modes of expressing information that binds somatic individuals into the anatomy of living objects. These external, none genetic modes of information expression, with a structural imperative to create whole forms, are memes as surely as our words are, since our words are by definition reduced to functional packets of information according to the meaning of the word meme. This mans work is not worth paying attention to when taken at face value, but, as we can see, it can serve a purpose borne of its exquisite use of the meme idea to provide a sterile conception of human nature, which enables us to say more easily what anyone adopting such an approach ought to say themselves, if their objective were really what it purports to be, a better scientific understanding of human nature.

VIII Americanism

Last week, today being Sunday, 05 February 2012, I got myself in touch with a Yank through the vehicle of a site callings itself Goodreads. A couple of days ago I sent this following a previous, initial exchange :

I just spent a couple of hours checking out your Margulis lead, and ended up ordering Spirit in the Gene by Morrison, 1999, which appears to offer a curious twist on the general idea I am interested in, namely the origin and nature of religion as a reflection of human biological nature. Margulis is linked to the Gaia hypothesis that people always refer to when I tell them humans are superorganisms, because this hypothesis says the earth is a superorganism. This is a completely different and entirely unrelated idea to that which I have in mind when I say humans are a species of mammal evolved to form a superorganism. There are a couple of books following the same line of reasoning but inspired, as you say, by the coming of global communications, such as Metaman by Gregory Stock, 1993. The only example of a book asserting that humans are a species of superorganism that I know of, is by Howard Bloom, The Lucifer Principle, 1995. But this is an inherently flawed representation of the idea ; still fascinating to see though. The best use of the meme idea I have hit upon for my purposes is where it inspires inherently atheist works seeking to account for religion in terms of memes, such as Religion Virus by Craig James, 2010 ; and God Virus by Darrel Ray, 2009. The theme presented by these books recognises that genetic and linguistic information can be reduced to the common factor of information as a natural force delivering structure, even if the authors do not quite recognise this fundamental principle for themselves. That humans are superorganisms, once you have seen it, is perfectly obvious, so the question becomes, Why does science not see this ? The quest for knowledge then revolves around understanding this reality, and hence I make the point that we do not live in a free society, a statement that has to be guarded against the usual attack that raises the spectre of conspiracy theory. The point is that it is either or, and cannot be both. So we must speak of two alternate pivots of observation, that of the individual versus the superorganism. The issue here concerns political power, as long as the individual is the pivot then political power is safe, but if ever the true pivot created by nature is used to understand human existence, then all alternate human expressions of this reality are made impossible, because we have the final solution in conformity to reality. You offer the same magnanimous response to my novel ideas as everyone else does, by conceding that there is much to be said for my position, but that for all that we are social the individual is still the end of human existence. And thus you dismiss the pivot of superorganic being entirely, and retain the false pivot of observation for understanding humans. It is either one or the other, it cannot be both. The earth cannot be at the centre of the universe and also go around the sun, and people cannot be formed to act as sentient brick units of a social structure and still be the end for which that structure exists, not if you want a coherent scientific model accounting for human existence in the usual abstract manner of scientific theories. In so far as you feel compelled to think of humans as individuals, I would offer this solution to the dilemma : existence is organised according to hierarchical levels, such as atoms, molecules, compounds. Cosmic order presents a level we can transcend intellectually, so that while we feel that we occupy a space that is flat and stationary, science has allowed us to know that this space is actually curved and moving rapidly. Applying this hierarchical logic to our nature as animals, we experience our individuality as integral living units and this is made the basis of our sense of existence, and now science tells us that we are but cells of a living animal. This science makes perfect sense but it causes immense problems because of the way our knowledge forming behaviour delivers social structure, which this science interferes with. So, if you want science, if you want to know what is real, then you must be prepared to accept this resolution of the dilemma : we experience a true capacity for

individuality, as we experience a real ability to stand still in space, but the greater order of universal being that is accessed through the modern power of science, allows us to understand that these personal experiences are particular to our location within a hierarchical cosmic structure This is a bit like thinking of the universe as an array of parallel universes, only this is better, for it is an array of structural levels that we can penetrate with the power of information processing that we call intelligence. Our linguistic based intelligence evolved to allow us to build hierarchical structure, superorganic form that is, and so it is natural that our intelligence has the capacity to identify such structure as it has been created independently of our coming into being as agents of the same ongoing cosmic process. As an outsider it is nice to receive an open response welcoming alternate views, however I do not construct ideas for political purposes, my ideas are scientifically correct or they are worthless. I would not presume to offer ideas that I was not certain are essentially correct. The difficulty is that these ideas are taboo, and no scientist will touch them. Faced with this fact I cannot afford to be so generous as yourself, whose adherence to a strictly conformist position allows generosity to be shown to the powerless outsider. As I stated in response to your post on Boyer, the idea I have rediscovered was the first idea thought of by the scientifically minded two centuries ago, and it has been banished by modern science because it is true. So discussing this idea is impossible, no academics support it, not your Margulis as far as I can see, and no one else. So I present my ideas as correct, and offer them to anyone who wishes to know what it is otherwise forbidden to know in our world. And in reply, the next day, I got the following : Well-stated perspective, particularly with the flat v. curved space analogy. Right now, Im in the dialectic camp we are both, not either or. Parts are parts of wholes, wholes dont exist without parts. What is a part ? That line of thinking. Your comments plant a fresh seed, though, and thats a good thing. Thanks again. This is not much to go on, it shows the usual resistance to the truth, and a complete disinterest in seeking to understand reality because of a self satisfied contentment with things as they are. The philosophy of Parts presented here by way of an alternative to reality, is not exactly new to me, but what on earth does it mean ? Its more of the same arse about face reasoning enabled by language, but certainly not reflective of reality. I found myself stuck with a real twat of a young man on Christmas Eve who is the worst example of a conspiracy theorist it is my misfortune to of met. When I said that we were sentient brick units of superorganic form, by way of explaining that we did not exist because the nature of the brick served the form the brick existed to create, he simply inverted what I said by saying that the form was contained in the brick. In poetic terms this logical inversion is no doubt a valid contrivance, but it is not scientific. This is the same as talking to a religious freak, or a politician, you are on a hiding to nothing. And that is clearly what I was getting myself by attempting to communicate with this fellow last week. However, he had posted a review of Boyers Religion Explained, 2001, and my real purpose was to use this posting to plant some of my ideas on the net where they may be seen, as he had received a couple of brief responses. I would of liked some useful discussion, but I may as well try and get blood out of stone as seek meaningful communication with people concerning the true nature of reality.

Chapter 7

Religion as the Manifestation of Superorganic Consciousness

We always define religion scientifically speaking, as identity, the biological identity of the superorganism, and we are right to do so. A book which just came into my possession offers a rare commentary on the idea of the social organism which prompts the further notion that religion is the consciousness, or mind of the superorganism, the title is Sociology by C. W. Saleeby. What might be called the collective or social mind, which has so often been denied any real existence, as is effectively the case in the example below. This denial of a collective mind was a very popular strategy for those intent on refuting the idea of the social organism, a strategy thought by its advocates to be beyond contradiction and merely needing to be stated, as it was self evident that where individuals have a consciousness, no such thing can be identified beyond the limits of the individual. It is however perfectly obvious that language exists externally to the individual who uses language to think and communicate. Language exists within the social matrix, from whence it is drawn spontaneously by the individuals physiology, to give it its mind. We might therefore say that language is itself the substance of superorganic consciousness, but we can do better than this abstract observation by giving this mental aspect of superorganic being a specific form, an identity. This identity comes in the shape of linguistic information, which is always preserved most securely in the form of religion, and this is why religion serves as identity, because of its constancy over time, religion not being subject to the vagaries of life, of reality that is, as true knowledge is, but rather being self sustaining, being preserved institutionally within the exoskeletal fabric of the superorganism, and in the form we call belief. Craig James statement that the human brain is made to take an impression in childhood and then preserve it, fixed for life, relates to this fact, but he subverts the logic of this fact by understanding it in terms of an advantage accruing to the individual as the object of memes, rather than seeing that the meme, language that is, has the superorganism as its natural object. We see this somatic stability as the basis of linguistic programming that inducts the person into a superorganic identity that enables a superorganism to be. This is reflected in the stability of religion over time, which is why religion must continue to exist come what may, and why even now we live in an absolute theocracy where there is no free access to knowledge of reality, as in science. Sadly no one ever thought to make religion the target of their efforts to understand human existence according to a naturalistic method, but, as we show here, if we incorporate religion into our naturalistic argument, it acts as the binding agent for our logic as surely as it is the binding agent of superorganic being in the real world, exactly as we would expect if our logic is a correct representation of reality. As to the dual definition this gives us for the natural nature of religion, that of collective consciousness or mind, and collective identity, these attributes of living sentience are in perfect harmony with each another. The seat of both individual consciousness and identity, lie within the brain, where identity is consciousness applied to the sense of self.

A further point may be made about the author of the item we are about to consider, since this item was evidently published as an inconsequential piece, and is not dated, so that a search of the internet aimed at resolving the publication date has thrown up some biographical details that may as well be communicated. Saleeby died in 1940, by profession he was a doctor, an obituary in the Times says that he was known as a eugenicist and a public health campaigner. We are told that his mentor, Sir Francis Galton, got him elected to the Council of the Sociological Society more than thirty years ago, before 1910 that is. This gives us a hint as to how he came to produce a popular volume on sociology, one that is wonderfully out of keeping with mainstream sociology that is always so thoroughly cleansed of anything that might nurture ideas of a truly scientific kind, however unintentionally ! My guess is that this item is a response to his election to the Sociological Society, and was produced before the 1914 event of social cleansing, epitomised by its eradication of the true scientific sociological idea of the social organism, which Saleeby most definitely did not support as such, as can be seen from the passages quoted below. We may say that as he did not support the idea of the social organism as real sociological science, then why should his little treatise not be post cleansing ? But the whole point is that this idea was eradicated from public discussion after 1918, as far as possible, and henceforth only discussed by its enemies, people like Saleeby, in the most circumspect terms, in order to ridicule it and dismiss it, as can be seen from the standard text of denunciation from 1928, there being a slight, pathetic, ignorant, dismissive discussion of organicism in Contemporary Sociological Theories by Pitirim Sorokin, to which any later references always defer as the supreme, brilliant, definitive denunciation of organicism. Knowledge is always controlled by this method of planting obstacles in the historical path leading to modern knowledge, that then serve as ultimate statements of truth to which later pundits can defer without having to elaborate on arguments that are banished from science by the academic priesthood, and must not be hinted at because they are true, and liable to stimulate new disturbances to religious conformity amongst the living generation, Darwinism being a grand example of this sort of obstacle. Saleebys discussion meanwhile, is far too fulsome, and this leads to his fuelling the subject by providing a detailed criticisma dangerous thing to do when you are talking mindless drivelwhich we easily turn against his, perhaps unwitting, religious bias. Finally, examining the latter part of Sociology, I have pinned its publication down to 1905, surprisingly in view of my calculation up to now (see below), but exactly what I would of expected on the basis of its free discussion of the idea of the social organism. He talks about two recent titles, which appeared in 1904, and on page one hundred and sixteen he mentions the creation of the Sociological Society in such a way that the date becomes quite narrowly proscribed. This ties in with a reference on the last page, to the upcoming congress of the International Institute of Sociology next summer, this sixth congress having been held in July 1906. The direction of these last investigations shedding light on the date of publication, have actually taken me into some very rare terrain, introducing me to the Sociological Society, that I had never come across before, causing me to order a copy of their first volume from 1904, which looks to be packed full of interesting details of sociology as it was about to burst into life in England for the first time, in the advanced form of the continental school where organicism was so much more integrated into the thinking of social scientists. Saleeby himself remarks upon how advanced the continental sociologists are compared to ourselves, despite the great names we have in the history of sociological thinking from early modern times. Sociology by C. W. Saleeby, arrived from America today, Thursday, 13 October 2011. It is a slim, inconsequential looking volume, but twenty minutes spent reading the first

forty pages or so has proven to be most interesting. No date is given (see above), but the authors Evolution the Master Key, 1906, is noticed on the title page so it is post this date. I would guess it precedes the Great Cleansing as it is highly effusive on the organicist idea of the social organism. There is only one copy available for sale today on the main book selling site in Europe, and the world, and it is described as bearing an ownership date of 1920. This would make its organicist discussion post First Cleansing, and as such unusual, but the author is not a professional academic and there is at least one other example of a lay person continuing to follow this scientific idea in this period, namely Morley Roberts. Saleeby is a big fan of Herbert Spencer and he says that we owe the phrase social organism to Spencers first use of it in his Social Statics of 1850 ; actually 1851. The phrase appears in Comtes Positive Science of the 1830s however, but I have found no earlier use of it than this, despite a considerable interest in doing so in order to see when the first scientifically informed view of human society as a natural phenomenon, was given to the world. The point of special interest now, is Saleebys argument as to why the social organism is only an analogy that breaks down in the final analysis. We shall take the whole of his short chapter on this topic :

CHAPTER IV
THE SOCIAL ORGANISM WE owe the phrase which gives its title to this chapter to Herbert Spencer, who employed it in his first book, Social Statics, published in 1850. The analogy between society and an organism had, of course, been frequently observed by many of his predecessors, 1 as the phrase body-politic alone suggests. But Spencers discussion of the analogy was the first to give it real worth, and some aspects of it must be discussed here, whilst special attention must be paid to one outstanding difference of cardinal importance that always obtains, and always must obtain, between the social and the individual organism. 2 A society is an entity with attributes like those of a living body ; and the analogy between the two depends on the resemblance between the permanent relations among the parts of a society, and the permanent relations among the parts of a living body. A society, like an organism, undergoes continuous growth ; and as it grows, its parts become unlike. That is to say, it undergoes an increase in complexity of structure. It not merely grows, but develops. The various parts become mutually dependentthe soldier upon the farmer, the farmer upon the soldier, and so forth. Hence the individual and the social organism correspond precisely in regard to the physiological division of labour. Every living organism is essentially composed of living units or cells. The unit of the social organism may be variously regarded as the individual or the family. 3 But the life of the whole is quite unlike the lives of the units, though it is produced by them. Later, we shall see the all-important distinction between the life of a society and the life of an individual organism. It is by emotional and intellectual language that the social aggregate is rendered a living whole. Each kind of organism develops systems of organs. The first differentiation, in the case of the individual organism, is into inner and outer. 4 The latter is concerned with the environment, the former with the internal functions of the organism. Similarly, in the evolution of social organisms we find the early appearance of the masters or warriors, who are concerned with the environment, and the slaves who perform the internal functions of the organism. And in each kind of organism there

must soon appear a distributing mechanism ; roads and traders, or blood-vessels and blood-cells and blood-serum. Similarly, each must have a regulating systemthe nervous system and its agents, the law and its administrators. Further analogies will readily occur at almost any length to the reader. We need not discuss them here. But we must gravely note the cardinal difference between the two kinds of organisms. In the one, consciousness is concentrated in a small part of the aggregate ; and is one, though the organism consist of billions on billions of cells. But in the social organism, consciousness is diffused throughout the aggregate, and is always multiple. All the units possess the capacities for happiness and misery in almost equal degree. Therefore, as there is no social centre of sentiency, the welfare of the aggregate, considered apart from that of the units, is not an end to be sought. The State has no consciousness of its own, and therefore the welfare of the State never means anything more or other than the welfare of the citizens. From the individual organism an entire limb may be amputated, without heed to its happiness, for the benefit of the single consciousness which it subserves ; but there is no such consciousness to consider in the case of the social organism. Thus, at the most important point, the analogy breaks completely down, and the fact that it does so must never be forgotten. Its relation to present tendencies in sociology is, as Mr. Benjamin Kidd says, probably fundamental. In the individual organism it is necessary that the lives of the units be merged in the life of the whole, but in a society, as Spencer says, the living units do not and cannot lose individual consciousness, since the community as a whole has no corporate consciousness. This is an everlasting reason why the welfare of citizens cannot rightly be sacrificed to some supposed benefit of the State ; but why, on the other hand, the State is to be maintained solely for the benefit of the citizens. The corporate life must here be subservient to the lives of the parts, instead of the lives of the parts being subservient to the corporate life. This assertion of Spencers is fundamentally opposed to the Greek theory of society, which is expressed also in Roman law. According to this, the citizen was nothing, except as a member of the State. His whole existence depended on and was subject to the State. The State knew neither moral nor legal limits to its power. This assertion of the importance of the individual and the absolute nonentity of the interests of the State, save in so far as they are the interests of the individual, is of the very first importance, because it is essentially a democratic assertion. In ancient States no more than in modern ones was there a corporate consciousness. The individual was not sacrificed to an abstraction or a theory when he was sacrificed for the State. Not at all : he was sacrificed for the pleasure and power and prosperity of other individualsthe individuals of the ruling classes. The reader may carefully consult Mr. Kidds attempt to amplify and correct Spencers theory of the social organism, and to account for this difficulty in the analogy ; but I doubt whether he will obtain from Mr. Kidds interesting writings any clear recognition of what I conceive the difference between the ancient and the modern theory of the State really to mean. The theory that the individual exists for the State means that he existed for certain other individuals. It was a theory of oligarchy. The fact that the State has no corporate consciousness was never denied either in Greece or Rome. The individual was sacrificed for the benefit of no such non-existent consciousness but for the benefit of the consciousness of a few more fortunate individuals. The Spencerian assertion of the rights of the individual against the State is essentially an assertion of the principle of democracy. It is an assertion that the welfare of the fewwhich is what the welfare

of the State really meantis not to be attained at the cost of the welfare of the many. Thus I hold that the real practical importance of the phrase the social organism lies in the fact, that the implied analogy breaks down so signally on the most important particular, and thus brings into prominence a principle which is the fundamental principle of democracy.
Notably by Plato and by Hobbes, the first of the long line of illustrious students of society which this country has produced. 2 See especially The Principles of Sociology, chapter xix. 3 According to Sir Henry Maine the unit of an ancient society was the family, whilst the unit of a modern society is the individual. 4 See The Evolution of Mind in the volume Psychology.
1

(Sociology, Saleeby, 1905, pp. 42 46.)

Reading this extraordinary piece of text a couple of months after first using it, the one thing that leaps out is this fixation on the political structure, the state. The real question should be what does the idea of the social organism imply in terms of our biological nature as individuals, to which there can be only one answer, it implies that we are cellular units of a living superorganic physiology. From which answer we assume that a whole form must arise as the object, or end, to which human corporate nature is directed by virtue of its evolutionary biological development, that produced our somatic, sentient brick form. Therefore, with a perfect understanding of the implications for individual nonexistence displayed in the above, we can see that we only need ask if there is any abstract whole to which the individual bears this nonexistent, subservient, self sacrificing relationship ? Above it is treated as a forgone conclusion that the state is the only possible object to which such a culminating obligation could be directed. But what about God, religion, or Christianity ? In Kidds famous work, Social Evolution, 1894, the major conclusion is precisely this, that religion is the basis of all social organisms. The only error then, being that each religion as perceived politically by individuals, is seen as being independent of all others, a truly facile conclusion if ever their was one ! How would Saleebys argument of progressed if he had bothered to consider these other potential objects of individual incorporation : God, religion or Christianity ? Could he have so glibly proceeded to dismiss the idea that individuals existed, by their own understanding even, and by the lessons of history, to serve these objects ? No way, is the simple answer. But he did not consider these things. Of the few denunciations of organicist sociology this by Saleeby represents the most clear refutation of the idea of the social organism, and no one ever picked up on his pathetic excuse for an argument against this supremely important scientific conception of human nature, to point out that clearly religion, and ultimately Judaism, was the embodiment of all that is understood as coming under the idea of the social organism. Had they done so, religion would of been doomed and world wide warfare would of been made pointless, except that is, in order to remove that revelation. Which is of course exactly what did happen, before the criticism was made, for surely, left as it was this idea of the social organism could not long be prevented from revealing its devastating truth, which we can see from Saleeby, everyone wanted to prevent. The absolute theocracy of Judaism could wait no longer, and so havoc was visited upon humanity. The absolute theocracy of Judaism is however none other than the being of the living superorganism, a thought that we will expand upon in the next chapter in relation to the work of Hegel, on the nature of history. ___

In the above Saleeby provides us with an excellent review of the state of affairs pertaining at the close of the era of the social organism. Firstly we see the key factor brought to bear on this topic, whereby the intellectual community contained this genuine science of society based upon the obvious realisation that society was a superorganism, by asserting that the idea was merely an analogy. The first thing we need to be clear about, is that this idea was no analogy, and to treat it as if it were was a deliberate device aimed at suppressing the truth. No one ever sort to promote the idea in any effective manner however, least of all Spencer. The only person who is ever spoken of as doing so is Paul von Lilienfeld, who produced a volume called Human Society is a Real Organism in 1873, in German. This has never been rendered into English, of coursesuch containment being another mechanism for controlling access to genuine knowledgeand as such it is hard to see to what extent Lilienfeld followed through on this conception. What I have translated of his work myself is not very promising, although it has some nice elements, such as an insistence upon the role of natural force in the creation of all things. He was a Darwinist, which must seriously handicap anyones ability to do genuine science applied to life. Saleeby says :
A society is an entity with attributes like those of a living body ; and the analogy between the two depends on the resemblance between the permanent relations among the parts of a society, and the permanent relations among the parts of a living body.

This is not so at all, and it is a most disingenuous statement to make given that this man discusses the wider nature of society and recognises that societies exist in nature, quite apart from those of a human constitution : In any general discussion of biology and of organic evolution, we are apt to devote much praise to the step which was taken when the first vertebrate appeared, and we are apt to dismiss the invertebrates as immeasurably inferior to any backboned animal. Yet it is the remarkable fact that when once we leave man it is amongst the invertebrates that we find the most highly organised and efficient societies. No mammals save man, no birds or fishes or reptiles, display any social structure that can for one moment be named beside the societies of the social ants and bees and wasps. 1 These afford us examples of societies of extraordinary efficiency, orderly to a degree which we have never been able to emulatethough many of their individuals are incompetent or neer-do-wells, just as amongst ourselvessocieties which exhibit a high degree of division of labour and of caste, societies some of which are even familiar with the institution of slavery. But fascinating and impressive as the comparative study of sociology doubtless is, its subjects are too remote and alien to be of any great value to us, who are chiefly interested, in this series at any rate, less with the study of sociology as an end in itself than with sociology and the sciences upon which it is based as the necessary preliminaries to any scientific study of the principles of morality. We leave therefore comparative sociology with but a passing word of regret.
1

See Ants, Bees, and Wasps, by Lord Avebury.

(Ibid., pp. 18 19.)

What can we expect of a would be sociologist who dismisses comparative sociology in order to treat sociology as the science of morality ! Nothing, which is precisely what we get ; aside from any unintended benefit he provides to us who come a century later, seeking to remedy the harm men like Saleeby did by betraying science when it still had life in it. The comparison between animal societies, even those with a highly dissimilar appearance and natural history, is not at all about the details of interpersonal relationships revealing similar social structures. Rather it is about the sum total of the whole, which implies a common nature, despite a wholly different animal physiology. That is what is so important about the comparison between insects and humans, the fact that both display true social forms arising from the evolved somatic form of their constituent individuals that are expressly evolved to produce social structure. Indicating that social form has the abstract quality of a dimension of life, akin to the other broad categories to which life adapts across a range of basic physiological types, such as terrestrial, aquatic and aerial. Hence once mammals came to the fore as the major basic physiological type following the extinction of the dinosaurs due to a cosmic catastrophe, it was inevitable that this new life engine would evolve life forms adapted to each of the broad environmental niches, which includes the physiological niche latent within each basic physiological type of life engine, whereby the somatic form evolves to create a super somatic form, a superorganism, which appears to us as a social form. If we look at what Heitland says on page ten above, No distinction between ancient and modern is to the point here., when talking about humans societies, we may extend this logic to the comparison between insect and human societies for the exact same reason, namely that we are seeking to discern general laws of social life. But Saleeby is seeking to subvert the science of sociology by presenting himself as a scientifically minded person with an opposite point of view. This makes science so vulnerable to the religious freak in scientific guise, like an insect cloaked in pheromones that disguise its true identity the priest perverts knowledge to further the social power base they are affiliated to. Saleeby begins this little treatise with an admirable assertion that sociology is a science like any other, due to the fact that society is subject to laws and regularities like any other aspect of existence, making all aspects of society accountable in strictly scientific terms. It follows from this fact that what makes society a social organism is the realisation that all life forms are a product of nature, and as such society must be a product of nature too. It was surely this fact that informed the thinking of Auguste Comte when he first used the phrase social organism to describe human society, he made sociology the highest science and appointed it an extension of biology. That Spencer usurped this phrase to his own ends and transfigured it into an analogical expression is a travesty of scientific logic, and Saleebys argument brings this home to me for the first time. Was Spencer the creator of this most antiscientific use of the true scientific conception of the idea that society is a product of nature ? It looks as if he was ! If so then this is a most important insight that we have just now discovered hidden in this rare account from a contemporary of the era of the social organism. As ever, it is the apparent friends of science, or of the most ardent scientific ideas, who always prove to be the really telling enemies of the same. The idea that a society is a superorganism then, derives from the realisation that human society must be a product of nature, and as such the comparison between human society and other animal societies must relate to the dynamics of superorganic order, how genetics have shaped the somatic forms to bring about the superorganic form and such like. Our true conception of this fact is what causes us to realise that information must flow from the somatic form to the superorganic, just as it does from the cell to the somatic form at the lower level of organic being. Thus we develop our ideas of linguistic force arising from somatic physiology by projecting authority into the social space, from which directive all social structure arises. This description is general and applies to any social entity, as we

would expect to be made plain in any true sociology. And we have recently discovered the work of James in The Religion Virus which uses this insight into the nature of information in relation to memes, in a modern form of intellectual delinquency realising the truth even as it subverts it, just as Spencer did in his day with the idea of the social organism. We must approve of the suggestion that it is by way of language that the whole being is made so, but we can be sure that this statement has no connection whatever with our meaning when we speak similarly of the way language creates the superorganism. Saleeby then provides us with a perfect example of this crass analogical method introduced by Spencer, bringing organicism into such ill repute, serving eventually as a major cause of its decay into worthlessness. The fanciful assertion that the rise of an elite has to do with the need to tackle the challenges set by life while plebes do the dirty work, is another demonstration of the vile corruption introduced into science by self serving priests who rule our world and corrupt all attempts at a true conception of human nature and life. The rise of elites equates to the centralisation of linguistic force in the shape of a core social authority, because linguistic force projects authority into the social space in the process of creating a superorganism, and this authority develops by becoming concentrated within an inner core body. Linguistic force is released spontaneously as linguistic expression is enacted by any social animal, ants, corals, humans and so on, as surely as the force of motion is released when creatures exercise their physiological power of flight. The differentiation into master and slave delineation is supported by our psychological makeup, predisposing us to form a hierarchical social anatomy. In other words : humans evolved to be slaves. This means that the role of the elite is that of a brain, existing to control the inner constitution of the superorganism, and yes, providing the motive idea to drive the superorganism to compete with other human superorganisms in obedience to the dictates of linguistic force focused upon the master core, where the foci of identity resides. Saleeby maintains that the ancient idea of the absolute right of the state was a conspiracy devised by elites to exploit individuals, but this is absurd, and it is most interesting that when priests make out this kind of absurd argument no one calls them conspiracy theorists. They always know how to have their cake and eat it when it comes to producing explanations for anything.

I Religion as the consciousness of the state, or state identity Now we come to the bit which prompted this chapter, where he deals with the absolute distinction between the individual and the superorganism. This is pure gush, absolutely identical in its nature to the religious drivel that pervaded the world before the scientific age began, where the name of the Lord was called upon and all that was claimed for this font of everything was proven true merely by the act of calling. This is all that Saleeby gives us here, there is no argument beyond the slightest pretence of reason, he simply indicates that individuals are ends in themselves and says that democracy is superior and so it must be true, because it must be. This is what we see whenever a rare criticism of the idea of the social organism is fronted. This is detestable, it makes no sense, it is pure fancy, the arguments are stated like any political diatribe asserting a bias position, where the conclusion is stated as a proof. In making this argument he guides our insight towards the elusive answer that we have long sort, thus showing why it is so dangerous for priests to take on the truth in this way. By making out the argument that consciousness is concentrated in one part of the individual, the brain, while it is diffused across the social organism, being contained in

a multiplicity of discreet brains making up the social body, he concentrates our attention on the idea that the master race, the Jews, are really the consciousness of the superorganism. We have of course recognised this is so in many ways previously, but with this argument constructed so badly, we have a model to utilise by way of making a correction. Therefore we can say that religion is the consciousness of the state, and this is why religion is so important to the state. This helps us understand how the development of state structures will of originally created the specially formulated Jewish religion adapted to such structures, by expressing human biological corporate nature in the advanced social context of city states and empires, so that a new identity will then, over time, of become the consciousness of choice, and hence spawned slave representations of itself, and so become the sole state of collective consciousness on earth today. This is why Judaism is the essence of superorganic physiology realised in political national structures and capitalist organisation. It matters not that this Jewish consciousness is not perfectly diffused throughout the biomass, possessing every individual brain, for it is concentrated in all elite political orders in all societies. These thoughts on the emergence of state consciousness can be related to our ideas derived from Heitland concerning the way localised state structures proved unstable and gave way to imperial social orders, as discussed in his Roman Fate, and worked on here above. So that irrespective of what people want, a tiny fraction of people in power can cause countless billions to follow the dictates of Judaism towards the ever increasing emergence of a global world with Israel at its core, exactly as has happened, and continues to increase in intensity. With this fact in mind we may dispute the proof provided by Saleeby when he says a limb may be removed from the somatic entity without compromising the seat of consciousness, whereas this does not apply in the superorganism. Quite the opposite is true, this is why we see the sacrifice of the Jews in the holocaust, and the same mass decimation of the biomass in the world wars, simply in order to support the physiological process whereby an arrow of identity is maintained by ridding the biomass of diffusely impregnated cellular units of identity allied to the core identity, so that the remnant is purified and the core identity of Judaism reinvigorated. The concerns of individuals regarding these horrors counts for nothing, and this is why war, endless poverty and individual degradation, is an eternal facet of human existence, even in the advanced stages of social development as we know them today. What we see with the rise of the Nazis is the realisation in reality, of the scientific logic that Saleeby elucidates by way of denial in the next paragraph quoted above. He once again makes his self serving conclusion the proof of his arguments. Unfortunately the reality is what it is, Judaism enslaves us in the Roman way, only it does it by deceit, by pretending to free us, by allowing us to be free, as Christians ! Science revealed the truth, and the Jews then manifested themselves as Nazis to show us what that truth meant as a practical manifestation of collective consciousness, so that we are now thankful to be slaves of Judaism by deceit, once again. We cannot be conscious of the true consciousness of the human animal of which we are a part. We must share that collective consciousness, not have it as a real impression of reality. We have been made by language to work by this means of deception, that is why religion rules. We have noticed this duplicity before, it is like the protection offered by gangsters who burn premises down and then collect insurance to make sure that such tragedies do not happen in the future ! That is what the Nazis were doing for Judaism, taking the part of social gangsters normally fulfilled by the Jews covertly, so that we could all be thankful just to get back to the state of normal abuse that we know and love. In effect Saleeby is presenting the argument that says the normal state of abuse is true freedom, but it is not, it is managed abuse. Managed through the device of religion created over millennia by the power of linguistic force projecting itself into the social space occupied by human individuals, to form the physiology of a living superorganism.

II Wonder of wonders ! Of all the galling things, Saleeby has the audacity to make out an argument saying that in ancient states the argument that all that existed was the state, was a device whereby the individuals thus dispossessed of their existence as ends in themselves, became the currency of social power for an elite ! Well you dont say ! How this fool can see this but not see that religion now fulfils this role of a self serving elite garnering power to a core, beggars belief. The problem is that he has no model of society to defer to for his understanding of social dynamics of this kind. But why does he have no such model ? Thats right, because he has just expressly refuted the actual models existence !! The model he requires is that which says human biological nature evolved to bring society into existence as the true end of human evolution. This means that a complex hierarchical superorganic physiology must take shape, and that results in the formulation of knowledge concentrating collective consciousness on a core body that lies within, but is distinct from the biomass. This pertained in ancient times in an overt, brutish manner, and it must pertain now, albeit in a covert, paternalist manner. Science tells us that we cannot escape the influence of our biological nature, though it is definitely the job of intellectuals like Saleeby to see that we think that we can, and have. We must just note that while we may judge the extraordinary history of the ancient world with its overt brutality as therefore being overtly unjust to the people of the time, I would imagine, given the blind ignorance we all labour under today in this exact same regard, concerning our own nature and hence the nature of our social world, despite our immensely greater privileges and knowledge, that the ancients actually thought they lived in a society that was free, just, and perfect, exactly as we do.

III Continental sociology We have referred to the far more advanced social science of the continent that was the main target of the Cleansing unleashed by the theocracy upon European society in 1914, and we might just sample a snippet accordingly. No works, not a single one, was ever translated from the various European languages in which they were written, into English, they were far too important for this. I always wonder why the seemingly radical thinkers, such as atheists, of which there were many highly active ones at the time, of a high social rank, or these people like Saleeby and his fellow advocates of continental sociology, never made it their business to recognise this great anomaly, and to do something about it. The man talks about the congress of 1906 coming to London being a great first move towards bringing advanced continental sociology to this country, so why did he not think of the importance of making the works of the many sociologists this thought must suggest, available to us ? How on earth, to put the matter the other way around, did the theocracy manage to prevent this from happening ? Translating works must be a supremely difficult hurdle to overcome, but there are plenty of examples of ordinary individuals taking the task upon themselves at this time, because so many were fluent in French and German. It is a wonder that no English person was ever captivated by organicism, you would think that Spencer would of inspired some, and there were examples, men like Saleeby, and like Henry Bernard who did translate a

useless physical anthropology book from German, but never went near any sociology despite his work being the closest thing we have to that of an organicist thinker in English, with his Some Neglected Factors in Evolution of 1911, which extended biological evolution to include human society, a unique idea even for a continental thinker ! So, we cannot examine any of the important foreign works of a scientific sociological nature directly, but I do have copies of lots of these books, which I like to collect, just to be near them ! One such is Conscience et Volont Sociales by J. Novicow, 1897, in which I have tucked a cutting from the dealers advert which says :

This work was devoted to an elaboration of his psychological interpretation of society, which is, in turn, based upon a modified version of the organic theory of society. His chief thesis is that the elite of society, and not the government, are the social sensorium the brain of the social organism.

Here then we see how the more free flowing use of the organicist science of society on the continent made the idea that consciousness did indeed exist externally to the individual, ensconced in a social organ composed of specialised groups forming an elite body, more easily formulated in a theoretical shape. Sadly the continentals were in the end as limited as we were. Novicow is not really very organicist, and in fact I do have a volume of his, War and its Alleged Benefits, in English. Tarde is another similar figure, and I have his Social Laws in English. But these are not organicist works even if they come from authors who did write works of a slightly organicist nature, where slightly still means vastly more so than anything any English speaking author ever produced. None of them as far as I know, ever strayed anywhere near the obvious truth that religion was the information flux creating social structure, by forming the social sensorium which constituted the mind of the superorganism, providing it with an identity and the sense of purpose that is always associated with any identity, that of seeking life for the self, as the Jews do, and as we all do in the name of Judaism. Because we are all programmed by the flow of this Jewish sensoriums information flux into our being, by undergoing the acculturation process that inducts us into the Jewish global superorganism. I got hold of an unusual item yesterday, 15/10/2011, as part of my splurge on Spencer biographies, Herbert Spencer : The Intellectual Legacy edited by Greta Jones and Robert Peel, 2004, offers a rare glimpse of the wonderfully organicist thinking of continentals, flipping open at page fifty five we find a description of the socialist Ferri, speaking of society as a natural living organism. Imagine living in a world where major intellectuals across all fields, would routinely come out with this kind of perfect scientific observation ! This is the most incredible statement, of the kind only to be found in my work today. Even more wonderful are the observations on the same page, noting how thinkers refused to recognise the logical consequences of the scientific revolution in the social domain, and continued to hold erroneous political theories simply because they aligned with their personal tendencies. The only problem here is that these modern authors fail to understand this situation according to the scientific revolution they are studying. Whereby it is understood that this conformity to political standards was a theocratic device operating across society, having nothing to do with personal ideas, because there is no such thing as an individual so there was no possibility of any freethinking on the part of anyone with a public voice, as they, Naomi Beck in this case, continue to demonstrate now.

IV Essence of the war between religion and truth Yesterday, 16/11/2011, a copy of Religion and Science : A Philosophical Essay, by John Merz, 1915, arrived from America, ordered on the back of examining a PDF copy last month. Merz compliments Saleeby in the same manner as our unusual item from contemporary times does, that of Greta Jones et. al., by demonstrating the considerable influence that genuine, free science, was having upon society, which came to a focus upon religion. Hence we have an essay on religion and science that aimed to help young people tormented by science, because of its impact upon their ability to accommodate religious beliefs in their world views. The aim was to formulate a compromise, as ever, a compromise that we labour under today, which is why science has become meaningless, while religion has recovered its usual state of omnipotence that people like Merz and Saleeby were horrified to see was under threat due to freedom of thought in relation to true knowledge of reality, the stuff of science. What is of especial interest about Merz, is that his opening comments, though they do not mention the idea of the social organism or sociology, are infused with the influence of this idea at its perceived worst, in its negation of the individual as an end in themselves. As such Merz implicitly rejects the idea of the social organism, and thus compliments Saleebys direct attack upon the same from within the sociological ambit. We can see from the combined arguments of Merz and Saleeby, that science was forcing the consequences of the idea of the social organism upon the collective consciousness to a major degree, demanding a huge effort from people in response, which often took the form of a conflict between religion and science, but on rare occasions was dealt with from within the confines of science itself. Only this response, in England, was always done by outsiders, by amateur scientists such as medical doctors like Saleeby who felt qualified to comment on social issues and such like, but who had no professional responsibilities associated with academia. Robert Morley was a fiction and childrens author who developed a personal interest in the idea of the social organism, and became a prolific writer on the same, only from a bizarre and useless angle which expressly rejected the relevance of both religion, and sociology ! The following is from Merz : The difficulty with which we have to deal presents many aspects, and can be approached from different sides. I will select one of these. It is expressed by the contrast of the Outer and the Inner World. The vast increase of scientific knowledge of the Outer Worldi.e., of things surrounding us in time and spacemakes it increasingly difficult to find a location for what we term the Inner World. The latter, so it is alleged, is confined to an abode in a portion of the universe which is infinitesimally small compared with the totality of existing worlds. It is relegated to the interior of living and sentient beings, and among these to a comparatively very small number. And even among the small number of human beings, it is, again, only a small proportion in and by whom what we may term the inner or higher lifethe World of Thoughtis represented. This is, in fact, one school of thinkers suggests, a mere epiphenomenon which can have no influence upon the Outer World. On the other side, the influence of the Outer World upon this infinitesimal phenomenon is overwhelming, and suggests that the laws which govern it make any

independent existence impossible or merely apparent. This view leads to what is usually termed Fatalism. The beginning of this tendency of thought in modern times and among the most highly civilised peoples of Western Europe is to be traced to the great change which followed the acceptance of the Copernican System of Cosmology. This destroyed the older geocentric view according to which man and human affairs formed the centre of interest. What James Martineau very finely said about the Grecian mind is applicable to a great extent to all European culture up to the age which witnessed the birth of Modern Science :
Fair as was the climate of that land, man was yet the spectacle most admirable there, and for the same reason that Eve, when gazing into the lake of Eden, beheld nothing but her own loveliness, though the whole of Paradise was reflected from its bosom, did the Grecian Soul, when bending over the depths of philosophy, feel itself attracted by the incomparable beauty of its own self.

The Copernican or Cosmo-centric view did not penetrate into general thought in all its consequences till it had been confirmed by the subsequent discoveries of thinkers like Galileo, Kepler, and Newton. But already at the end of the eighteenth century it had gained the ascendancy in French thought, so much so that what was termed the Newtonian philosophy was considered by foremost thinkers and practical reformers to be the very master-key in science which was to open the understanding of social order. Neither the extreme theories of Laplace, nor the Utopias of SaintSimon and Fourier, are now accepted as valid or practical ; but the general movement of scientific thought which depreciates the part played by individual human life and activity in the world was strengthened by a more recent theory which dealt exclusively with the living creation. This is the theory of Natural Selection, and notably of Inheritance, which, as generally interpreted, seems to leave little room for individual originality and spontaneity. In quite recent times a third influence has been added to that of Science, an influence which is only indirectly connected with the Scientific view, but nevertheless works in the same directioni.e., in the direction of minimising the importance of human effort in the world at large, or reducing it only to that of a small number of persons gifted, not through their own merit, with exceptional ability and power. The rest, and by far the largest portion of human beings, especially in the most civilised countries, are more and more reduced to mere instruments whose labour is regulated or utilised by large organisations, such as trading companies, trades unions, or the Government itself. Even the spread of popular education, which was expected to do so much for the enlightenment of the masses, has in many instances tended to discourage individual effort and to remove personal responsibility in the choice and prosecution of the vocation and duties of life. These three influences, of the modern spirit, of scientific methods, and of social organisation have, together with many others, tended in the direction of making the aspect of the World more mechanical, that of Society more artificial, and of minimising the value, at least amongst the larger proportion of human beings, of individual effort and originality. For where your activities, whether physical or mental, are believed to be under the control of inexorable laws of Nature, and your conduct, while supposed to be free, is really dictated by the order of Society, there is little room for individual choice and spontaneous resolution. And it is only where the latter exist that the individual person is thrown back upon his own inner resources,

forced to interrogate his own conscience, and, as it were, take his future and destiny into his own hands ; in one word, to form and appeal to some highest conviction. That this is so has been recognised also by thinkers who are primarily impressed by the progress of Science and by modern mechanical, cosmological, and biological theories, but who do not share by any means the interest in the older religious beliefs which this Essay is intended to uphold. An extreme and much-discussed representative of this class is Friedrich Nietzsche. What marks, however, his efforts, and the efforts of others who think like him, is the attempt to find a stimulus and outlet for individual energy within the limits of scientific doctrine itself, and this consists in placing the intellectual achievement of a small number at the service of the struggle for existence. By such means it seems to others that human beings would be reducedto use a phrase of Huxleysto the rank of Bipedal Cattle, only more ferocious and brutal by dint of their greater intelligence. (Religion and Science, Merz, 1915, pp. 4 10.) At first reading I was captivated by the term bipedal cattle, for obvious reasons, it being so well suited to my notion of humans as herd creatures, only more so. Merzs use of the term coincides with Saleebys argument that people in ancient times were reduced to tools of the powerful by the idea of the state being the true end of human existence, which is in effect the principle that Merz is saying Nietzsche was seeking to resurrect, as you can see. A search for the phrase on the net, led to a superb site on Huxley and we find it was used in a short lecture thus : Influence upon Morality of a Decline in Religious Belief, published in The Nineteenth Century (May 1877). The relevant section is : While no one can dare history, or even look about him, without admitting the enormous influence of theology on morality, it would perhaps be hard to say whether it has been greater or less than the influence of morality on theology. But the latter topic is not at present under discussion ; and the only further remark I would venture to add is thisthat the intensity and reality of the action of theological beliefs upon morality are precisely measured by the conviction of those who hold them that they are true. That such and such a doctrine conduces to morality, and disbelief in it to immorality, may be demonstrated by an endless array of convincing [530] syllogisms ; but unless the doctrine is true, the practical result of this expenditure of logic is not apparent. I have not the slightest doubt that if mankind could be got to believe that every socially immoral act would be instantly followed by three months severe toothache, such acts would soon cease to be perpetrated. It would be a faith charged with most beneficent works, but unfortunately this faith can so easily be shown to be disaccordant with fact that it is not worth while to become its prophet. For my part I do not for one moment admit that morality is not strong enough to hold its own. But if it is demonstrated to me that I am wrong, and that without this or that theological dogma the human race will lapse into bipedal cattle, more brutal than the beasts by means of their greater cleverness, my next question is to ask for proof of the truth of the dogma. I cannot see the connection between Merzs use of Huxleys phrase, and the use Huxley made of it, other than a general ring of derogation that smacks of reducing humans to an animal status. Merz does not appear to be discussing the loss of moral fibre, but rather the reduction of humans to the status of enslavement to the will of an intellectual elite, via the privileged control of knowledge. Which is precisely the situation we endure due to Judaism

making us into Christian slaves of its identity package, making the Jews the master race of earth, which led to the world wars, the Nazis, and the destruction of freedom of thought, as in science, which latter things Merz so laments the rise of. Huxley meanwhile, appears as the usual towering idiot savant of science, arrogant about truth and reason to such a degree that the fool is blind to that which he presumes to excel in, just like our modern day Dawkins. Huxley is simply saying that it is of no account whether a belief is effective in some way, what matters is whether the substance of the belief is true. What ! What kind of moron could ever come to such a conclusion, as a matter of understanding reality. Obviously as a moral stance this is perfect, but what the hell has morality got to do with it, isnt that the very point Huxley is seeking to make here !! Religion is effective, it is functional, but it is clearly nonsense as knowledge of reality, that is self evident, yet Huxley, just as Dawkins does today, denies this. Reading Merz we see that he is not actually dealing with organicism and its denial of the individual as an end in themselves because the human animal is a superorganism. He is coming to the same conclusion because of the overall impression delivered by science, that says human genius is a mere epiphenomenon which can have no influence upon the Outer World. because of the vastness of existence discovered by science. Given his bias towards religion and against truth, we cannot expect him to admit the finest science of all, that dealing with human nature, that of sociology. But his item is used because it shows the pervasive concern amongst the intelligentsia with anything that would deny human individuals their proclivity for being egotistical by believing themselves to be ends in themselves, with divine powers of creativity connected with universal divinity and creativity, which culminates in an argument for the Jewish mantra of identity, known to Merz by the subidentity of Christianity. As we continue further into the above passage however, Merz nicely indicates the origin of sociological thought derived from genuine scientific inspiration, identifying SaintSimon as a key figure in the origin of scientific sociology. He led directly to Auguste Comte and the origin of the modern, scientifically understood idea of the social organism. Merz indicates that although fanciful, the first men, that is Frenchmen who achieved this great insight negating the individual completely, did so under the influence of that purest expression of science that had announced the coming of the scientific age. So that sociology and the idea of the social organism do, very much, enter into the issue that Merz raises as the central concern of his efforts, in this attempt to nullify truth and so defend myth, that derives from his concern over the influence of science that negates the person as an end in themselves, and all that goes with this in terms of our ideas of genius and uniqueness, and the existence of religion. What we need to say is that denial changes nothing that is real. If it is true that human individuals are robots, or mammalian insects, then denying it cannot change this. Which must makes us wonder why this strategy is nonetheless the one that prevails ? The answer is that by interceding religion into the social setting by making God the object of adoration to which we owe all our acts of obedience, the individual can then be told they are free, self willed individuals, with the capacity to make the moral choice of believing in and worshiping God. This curious act of duplicity gives a face to the social organism that we can recognise and act towards as if it were the social organism itself, giving us an idol to worship in place of the truth. Which has the effect of enslaving us to the superorganism via a device that says we become free by believing in God ! Which then sets up the situation whereby we need the truth to set us free, in recognition of our true none existent status as units of superorganic being. It is all too crazy really. But nature has to work this way because the genetically formed base unit of superorganic form, people that is, begin from a state of total ignorance of such sophisticated ideas. They can only be organised through interceding images of reality,

which must always be complete and perfect from the outset, and at each moment in time, just as we often say of species : they are all perfect, always, no matter how much evolution appears to create ever more perfect forms as time goes on. Thus we find an excellent proof that religion is a natural phenomenon with a biological function, for it conforms to the usual requirements of living forms, that of being perfect at all times, no matter how developed religion may become over the course of millennia. None of which applies if we recognise the true object of our subservience directly as science does, for then we know what we are, however much we may feel or be told we are something different. Therefore this nuance whereby a false image of reality, an Idol, is placed between individuals and the true human form, the Superorganism, is the very essence of the war between science and religion. This is what the priests must subvert at all cost, if Judaism is to continue to rule the world.

V Godless dimension of Judaism Why anyone should think religion is compatible with the idea of the individual existing as an end in themselves beats me, from an atheist point of view this is self evidently not so, therefore the opposite view must be part of the act of belief. Believing we are ends in ourselves is part of the Jewish religious identity programme. We have always made the link between individualism and religion in our society, but here we are saying something more, we are saying that this view of the individual is an integral and distinctive part of the Jewish mythology of power. This would explain why in the end, religion always succeeds in possessing science by imposing an interpretation of reality that is seen through the prism of individuality, Darwinism being the supreme example of this process of religious possession of the collective consciousness sterilising science, by applying this bias logical principle at a subliminal level. The critical flaw in Darwinism is that its logic supports the existence of the idea of the individual, and fails to promote the idea of the superorganism as the true end of human biological nature. In other words Darwinism is inherently dualistic, rather than monistic, as it should be. We might call the idea of the individual as an end in themselves, the godless dimension of Judaism, an idea brought home to us in modern atheist Judaism, called Humanism. Humanism is a Christian atheist ideology based on the denial of God, whose presence is expressly supplanted by the idea of the individual as the ultimate source of authority. From this godless position, all the usual Christian moral imperatives are promoted on the basis of individual moral integrity, which is of course always shaped in complete conformity to standard Christian morality, with notable exceptions from the religious details that provide a secular nuance, such as ideas about homosexuality in the church. Thomas Huxley was one of the original humanist figures of note, and we can see in the snippet quoted above, how the idea of morality being integral to individual character, and not the sole possession of any belief system, appears in this passage. All religions are expressions of linguistic force that creates superorganic form by organising sentient brick activity. Religions are therefore the programmes lying behind the all pervading phenomenon of self organisation. With this in mind religious identity programmes must connect individuals to the body of the superorganism in a structural and functional manner. In terms of our insight into the religious mechanism investing authority in the individual, even as it denies the individual any such power by making God the sole authority to which the individual owes everything, this idea of individuality being the godless dimension of religious identity programming, the structural and functional factors apply here

because this idea singles out the units of biomass and then galvanises their energy by neutralising alternate influences by making each individual a unit of authority in themselves as it proceeds to apply a message that gives their behaviour a uniform social orientation, the totality of which results in the existence of the superorganism, called God by the uniform programme. Hitler taught us that there can be only one message, albeit appearing in an infinite variety of forms. A fact which derives from our biological corporate nature, this is how a superorganism is created, and it is the key to power for the priesthood, hence Hitlers interest in this knowledge, which explains why our rulers always obey the imperative to support unity above all other considerations. By doing this they support Judaism, because Judaism is the foci of unity in our world. The units therefore are indeed godless particles of God, because while they are the units out of which God is formed, they are themselves not God. Saying which, seems to enhance the idea that humans make God in their own image. This curious way of reasoning also brings to mind the fact that atoms are the units of mass, even though these units are essentially void of mass themselves, being composed almost entirely of empty space. In both cases however, what these unitary elements do, these atoms and persons, is project a force contained within their structure into the empty void that surrounds them, causing them to act in unison, thereby forming whole bodies which posses qualities the units do not. Or, more precisely, they bring forth elementary properties that only obtain their natural expression in the mass, the essence of the units that is. How self organisation beyond living structures must be related to the process in none living matter is a topic beyond our remit, but it must involve information as energy since information cannot, by definition, exist outside living things. Thus dry bones must be of living things, once living themselves, but they are not living. Likewise, words captured in stone are not information unless they are accessed by humans, their being information requires their being part of human existence, or having the potential to be. I can see this line of reasoning not being taken seriously, but if science treated humans as superorganisms, this type of problem would be inevitable to determining the boundaries of life. If we were to apply James mode of reasoning expressed so well in his Religious Virus, we would undoubtedly have to talk about the individuality mechanism of linguistic programming as the Individuality Meme. According to James method this meme would be represented as a linguistic idea that had emerged over time, coming to prominence because of its extraordinary power to support individuals as ends in themselves, who were thereby empowered to build immense societies on the back of this powerful meme. James however would not identify this idea as a meme, presumably, because it is not simply a linguistic representation for him, but rather a plain statement of fact, or so he no doubt believes. But that is because he is himself programmed by this most vital of Jewish slave memes ! We can see from this example how our idea of linguistic force allows us to think of linguistic influence in a uniformly consistent, biological manner, whereas Dawkins notion of a meme cuts into the natural phenomenon under discussion and makes language an artificial aspect of existence, that humans can use as they would anything else fashioned by their own actions. ___ Saturday, 11 February 2012 Newsflash : A high court judgement announced yesterday, went in favour of the National Secular Society, acting in support of an atheist former councillor for Bideford, in Devon, who argued that including prayers in the council agenda was illegal. Excellent. The establishment have complained that this is an attempt to remove religion from all public life, even coronations, the high priest suggested ! If only. This goes to show how utterly immersed in religion the machinery of power is in our so called secular society.

___ Merzs third factor, social organization, says it all, describing as it does, life as we know it. The error he makes here, is to think that this depressing state of affairs is a modern thing, when it is merely the ongoing nature of human life getting ever more intensified, and if he thought it was bad then, he should try it now ! The structural integration of individuals into the social fabric is immensely intensified in the new information age we endure today. But the really important thing, is that our personal experience of these negatives has not changed, and never does. We are eternally adaptable to this type of corporate pressure, it is what our somatic physiology evolved to endure, as surely as that of the fish evolved to withstand the weight of water pressing down upon it from all sides. This raises the familiar adage of the modern sociologist, who recognises that while society bears down upon us with immense atmospheric pressure, at all points, we are mostly oblivious to this pressure, only feeling it when we seek to resist social dictates. So that as each new infringement of collective power upon personal freedom weighs in, we shrug it off. We often hear the refrain in response to such developments, be it all pervasive cameras or new fangled identity cards, If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. This phrase was trotted off last night on the BBC One Show, 10/02/2012, regarding the subject of mini drones that can spy on people from above without them having the least idea. They demonstrated a model costing just 300 which they said was ideal for burglars needing to case someones property to check when the place was vacant ! Up to a point, this commonsense, trusting view, is indeed correct. Only this week, today being Friday, 18 November 2011, the news was full of a call from the medical profession to ban smoking in cars, even when drivers are alone ! Everyone was very much in favour, or, if a smoker, resigned to it. The powers that be can do what they like, we are infinitely adaptable to social pressure. And that is why, despite the lying representation of the ideal associated with imposing universal education on everyone, which had nothing to do with bettering individual lives, but was always about taking control of the biomass more efficiently in order to use people as machine parts, the end result was a reduction in freedom and an increase in slavish obedience to the needs of the state as an end in itself, just as Merz says. Another topical example worth mentioning, is the ongoing scandal over phone hacking, which is focused upon the Murdoch press empire and the News of the World Sunday paper, that it has destroyed. What would Daddy of said ? He spent years working for this rag. The application of social pressure is not the sole prerogative of the state. The espionage conducted by the press is all part and parcel of the same aspect of superorganic physiology. The press merely fills the void where the government is forbidden to go. This is why no one has stopped them before now, the dynamics of the situation having eventually caught up with them. It is a feature of current state organisation, that civil responsibilities are farmed out to private corporations. This tactic has arisen expressly to circumvent the constraints imposed by law as it governs democratic states, laws that apply to the government as an employer, and as the last figure of responsibility. Reasons for dispersing responsibility are cast in terms of economics, structure, and efficiency, but this is all hogwash, the real significance concerns allowing the theocracy to rule us as slaves, minimising individual freedom, this is the never ending driving force of social authority, at the core of which religion always remains in situ. I often think that those in power deliberately cause institutions to fail, like education and hospitals, in order to make the case for privatisation, which is the only way secular power can be brought down, allowing religion to slip in by the back door in the guise of charity organisations and such like. Naturally there is a bias in this accusation towards conservative politics latent in this suggestion, but I hardly consider socialist politics to be any better in the

long run, because religion undermines this libertarian, as in populist power base ideology too, in the same way as it does secular government and science, by infiltration. Taken overall, I value this piece for its evocation of the sentiment that lies behind all our contemporary intellectual knowledge, which is all about the struggle to deny the truth, that Merz calls for here. Merz implies that we can act as ends in ourselves, and we have allowed ourselves to fall into the trap of reducing our freedom to do so. This is Herbert Spencers argument, the man who is famous as the philosopher of Organicism ! It is also the basis of what we in the West take to be the ultimate nightmare societies, that of the fascist and the communist, of Hitler and of Russia. But all that anyone who invokes these individualistic ideals is doing, is denying the scientific truth of what humans are. Which is why this issue is an eternal one, even in our world, built as it is upon the principle of individuality reigning supreme. This is such an important point that it is nice to see it being made for us in such a transparent form by Merz. I sent an email to an American author the other day, in which I made this exact same point, accusing him of thinking brilliantly, but producing nonsense simply in order to preserve this illusion of personal being, without his having any real interest in true knowledge whatsoever. This is what a modern priest is, a pretender for science. Here is what I wrote : Mr. James, this is a fascinating piece of work you have turned out, brilliant in one respect, while still managing to be infuriatingly useless overall. How do you do that ? How do you manage to reason so well in detail, while remaining oblivious to the key to that which you have thought so deeply upon ? You manage this trick as a bird manages to fly, effortlessly, for that is what people are made to do. Your work is a brilliant exposition developing the latest ideas, but it lacks any original genius, exactly as it should, in order to be functional, as nature intended. I sent this to Craig James, author of The Religion Virus :

What I love about your Religion Virus You have really grasped the mechanical aspect of the meme idea, and applied it superbly. I can feel your brain acting as a logic converter transposing all that we take to mean something at face value, into something else. As a result you spoil us with a stream of linguistic mechanisms, such The Globalization Meme and The Abstract-God Meme. This insight you indicate comes from your expertise in computer programming. It is a delight. Simplistic, but as far as it goes, I love it.

What I hate about your Religion Virus Its mindless, robotic, as if someone had programmed a machine with a logical imperative and then fed it various scenarios and asked it to offer up its evaluations of them. It is, like the output of a computer, clever mindlessness. ___ You have made an original contribution to someone elses original idea. Today, Wednesday, 16 November 2011, a very slim pamphlet of local history interest arrived, dated 1893, it harks back to old philosophers and begins with a quote from Lord Bacon :

A learned English writer observes, We find but few Historians of all ages who have been diligent enough in their search for truth ; it is their common method to take on trust what they distribute to the public, by which means false statement once received from a famed writer becomes traditional to posterity. Turning to your chapter five, Why Do Humans Talk ?, this observation seems most apt. This chapter appears in your book, but what is it ? It addresses the most pressing question underpinning your whole argument, as indicated by the chapter title, but what element of originality derived from you, do we find here ? Nothing, not one iota of thought is contributed by you. Like a mindless drone you have recognised the relevance of the topic, and turned to official pundits for your statements of fact. This is appalling, it is precisely what Lord Bacon had in mind centuries ago, except now we find this egregious crime against knowledge being committed in the scientific age, in the name of science. By you Mr. James ! Gould, Pinker ; what ? Who cares what they say, what about you Mr James, what do you say ? Start from scratch, imagine knowing nothing of what is said about the question Why humans talk ?, and, in the light of all that you have said in this book, that is part of your original insight, ask yourself, bearing in mind that which cannot be denied, that we are evolved animals, made entirely by nature to be what we are today, Why humans talk ? Now that would interest me very much, to know what you think your insights say about this question. For if a person with your ideas about the nature of memes were to spend half a minute thinking about what language is, you could not possibly accept what science says language is, and you would be forced to think about this matter for yourself, and then your adventure would really begin. Sadly it would not take you to a place you want to be, not immediately for sure. But hell, you cant have everything, you have to ask yourself, do you want to be happy, as a gleeful moron, like a religious freak, or do you want knowledge of reality, as it is ? I just cannot be bothered telling you what is right. I got an email from another American this week, right out of the blue, after I had fired something off to him in the summer, and it was a waste of time my bothering revealing the proper scientific truth to him. He just does not want to know, I have never yet found anyone who does, so its not that much of a personal criticism. The truth is devastating, because we are not use to it, and that which we are use to, is insinuated into our being as surely as a junkies brain is shot through with heroin, and with equally telling effects. I was responding to The Last Individual by Trenton Fervor, 2007. The point is, you have made no effort, you have just swallowed the pap pumped out by the establishment, hook, line, and sinker, and if I were to tell you the truth, you would dismiss it, out of hand, as Fervor did, and I am no religious freak, I am your second type of atheist, uncompromising to a fault. I want the truth, come hell or high-water. The only bias I subscribe to, which is no bias at all, is that atheism is a precondition of science. I like your explanation as to why you wrote Religion Virus, it is simple and direct. But unfortunately we find in this very statement of purpose, the fatal flaw that negates this very purpose, like a person who says I am going to go on the greatest journey in the world, and Ill begin by sitting here, and never moving an inch.

Whatever decisions Id made, whatever directions my life had taken, those were my decisions. But why, I kept asking, had two intelligent, well-educated men fallen into the same trap, albeit in different ways ? The problem with this motivation, is that it is bias from the outset, and deliberately so. You are determined to make yourself the supreme authority, yet we have just seen that when it comes to the most important questions you could ever contemplate, you relinquish personal autonomy as freely as an adolescent girl swooning before some presumed divinity. I mean to say, do you mean to indicate that you hope to provide a scientific answer to these questions, an absolutely true answer, as judged from an unbiased perspective that seeks only to know what human existence is ? I do not think so, I do not think you mean to do this, for your terms of reference are too personal. And yet you presume to say the question is important to us all. But what use is it, if the answer you give is mere bias, as yours is ? Bias because it falls under the spell of the dogma that rules our world, and fails to seek answers based on unbiased reasoning. I do not normally address myself to strangers in this manner without stating openly what the true position is, since that is what I have to say, my answers are not bias, they are strictly scientific, they are correct, and they are unknown to anyone but me, as far as I can tell. I think having an answer to your questions in the abstract mode of ultimate knowledge, is indeed of importance to everyone, but I am thinking, after finally getting an answer from someone, I will now try obliging people to ask me what is true, so that at least they have been primed for this knowledge. 16/11/2011 17:04.

VI Nature of consciousness By way of random selection from my shelves during this period of review, today being Saturday, 11 February 2012, I want to say something on the nature of consciousness courtesy of Are We Alone ? : Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life, Paul Davies, 1995. This book throws up three fascinating observations in quick succession, one of which is of the first order of importance, while another is delightfully in keeping with our orientation. First lets snatch an initial passage beginning chapter five :
THE NATURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Most scientific discussions of alien life refer to the existence (or otherwise) of extraterrestrial intelligence ; for example, the I in SETI refers to intelligence. This is necessary because radio contact with aliens is possible only if the aliens are intelligent enough to possess the necessary technology. Philosophically, however, it is the existence of alien consciousness (or cognition) that is significant. The discovery of extraterrestrial conscious beings that did not qualify for the human definition of intelligent would still be a momentous event. After all, psychologists are divided about how to define and measure human intelligence anyway.

Conversely, we can imagine discovering intelligence without consciousness. While the possibility of conscious computers remains an open question, the drive to produce so-called intelligent computers on Earth proceeds apace. It is entirely likely that in a few decades we may possess machines that can fairly be described as intelligent in their behaviour, yet without any suggestion that they are truly conscious. We encounter intelligence without consciousness in the behaviour of social insects, such as ant colonies, while most people believe that there is consciousness without much intelligence in small animals such as mice. So the two properties are not invariably tied together. If we were to discover extraterrestrial intelligence of the computer variety, we would probably still interpret it as evidence for consciousness because we would assume that conscious beings had built the machines in the first place, even though those beings might now be extinct. However, it is by no means obvious that the evolution of advanced intelligence in the absence of consciousness is impossible, and it is as well to keep a clear distinction between the two. (Davies, p. 59) As I read the two passages my first thought asked how someone so clever could be so stupid ! This frustrating display of mindless stupidity does at least demonstrate the immense difficulty we have as individuals in dealing freely with knowledge as it is impregnated into our brains. There is a very simple solution to this whole problem Davies wrestles with here, obtaining this solution could be spoken of in the familiar form of lateral thinking, famously associated with the name De Bono some years ago, which simply means moving sideways and taking another approach to the problem in view. Davies notes relevant absurdities that allow him to go so far as to suggest Darwinism may be totally wrong ! Yet the one simple solution he does not think of, despite naming the key by referring to insect intelligence, is to invert the relationship between the dualistic factors causing him so much trouble. The dualism concerns intelligence versus consciousness, which he so nicely separates for us, in such a way that humans are presumed to be the supreme example of intelligence, proving its real existence. What simply never occurs to him, is that humans, while they are indeed immensely intelligent, undeniably, where intelligence is taken to mean capable of expressing profound information handling capacity, are in fact entirely bereft of consciousness, beyond the most limited range of precisely the kind that we observe in any other creature, such as ants, mice, coral polyps, bacteria, and so on, that is to say the consciousness associated with immediate stimulation. So that, in other words, there is NO relationship between intelligence and consciousness. This is why despite the exponential increase in our intelligence over recent times, as noted by Davies, our sense of self, of existence, of reality, has remained as abysmal as ever it was. There is no link between intelligence and consciousness, they are entirely separate phenomena. Consciousness is sensual based, intelligence is information based. Where sensual has to do with stimulation related to direct physical impressions ; and information has to do with distant, none physical communication performed by means of representation, or symbolisation, indicative of a creative biological system that is itself structurally coherent and self referential, not environmental. Intelligence is to do with self organisation, not external action or behaviour. We do not know this because we think we are responsible for our intelligent behaviour, but we are not, our intelligent behaviour is the playing out of a linguistic programme over which we have no more control than the body has conscious control over its expression of genetic information used in its own construction. Genetics is clearly an information based system of communication between genomes and target outcomes, where elementary units of communication deliver the meaning of genetic codes to a material form. So that intelligence is really how we experience our sense of the effects of linguistic force, that naturally feel different to us to the effect of sensual stimulation

that our information processing abilities execute. Thus we have a sense of religious feeling, and such like, and we confuse the subtleties of what it is to be alive. Intelligence is not a by-product of anything, it is the consequence of the force of information causing genetic evolution to create a somatic form empowered to create information that projects into a super individual space where social form can arise as a consequence. Thus intelligence is an information handling capacity, and its delayed expression over historical time arises from the delay that occurs in all cases of force acting creatively upon organic form, initiating a state of latent potential expression. Latent potential applies in all physical systems organised by force, from the formation of planets from dust clouds or the dispersion of technology around the globe. On the subject of conscious machines, the BBCs One Show discussion of cheap aerial drones for assisting criminals described above, showed two drones playing Ping-Pong with a ball entirely unaided by humans, it looked amazing, and was so clever that it was by any standard a display of consciousness, defined in terms of sensing a dynamic environment to enable a directed response. No we come to the superb, first order observation : One of the oddities of human intelligence is that its level of advancement seems like a case of overkill. While a modicum of intelligence does have good survival value, it is far from clear how such qualities as the ability to do advanced mathematics, create complex music or develop rich language structures ever evolved by natural selection. These higher intellectual functions are a world away from survival in the jungle. Many of them were manifested explicitly only recently, long after Man had become the dominant mammal and had secured a stable ecological niche. This raises the interesting question of when these abilities were selected for. Most biologists believe that the structure of the human brain has changed little over tens of thousands of years, which suggests that higher mental functions were selected long ago and have lain largely dormant until recently. Yet if these functions were not explicitly manifested at the time they were selected, why were they selected ? How can natural selection operate on a hidden ability ? Attempts to explain this by supposing that, say, mathematical ability simply piggy-backs on a more obviously useful trait are unconvincing in my view. If, on the other hand, higher abilities evolved recently (within the last few centuries), it is hard to see the hand of natural selection at work. The record of human history does not suggest that mathematical or artistic genius has produced more successful breeding populations. If so, then the emergence of these qualities would have to be considered as evidence for a non-Darwinian progressive trend in intellectual development. The case of the Australian Aborigines is intriguing. These people remained almost completely isolated from the rest of the world for 40,000 years until the arrival of the Europeans. Yet they are today essentially indistinguishable from Europeans in their artistic, linguistic and musical abilities and, when educated, in their mathematical ability too. This suggests that either the maths gene and others were selected for more than 40,000 years ago, and have remained hidden and unexpressed for countless generations, or that these higher abilities have developed in parallel with the rest of humanity as a bizarre form of biological convergence with no apparent use. Either way, there is a mystery as far as orthodox Darwinism is concerned. If human intelligence is just an evolutionary accident, as orthodox Darwinists claim, and its highly refined nature (mathematical, linguistic and artistic ability) a

very improbable bonus, then there is no reason to expect that life on other planets will ever develop intelligence as far as we have. In which case SETI via radio is a lost cause. Conversely, if we do detect the presence of an alien intelligence, it would certainly undermine the spirit, if not the letter, of orthodox Darwinism, for it would suggest that there is a progressive evolutionary trend outside the mechanism of natural selection. (Ibid., 57 8) We could ask for no better expression of the falsity of Darwinism than this, it is fabulous. The progressive evolutionary trend of course expresses the force of Information that creates all organic form, expressed in humans in the products of linguistic force that seem so miraculous to Davies, and so irrelevant to Darwinists. These are merely the means by which a genetically evolved mammalian form is empowered to create a living animal, a superorganism, by way of spontaneous self organisation, occurring at the level of social existence. These miraculous powers are all concerned with the delivery of structure by way of expressing information, all are encompassed in the basic mode of language, yet the mental machinery of linguistic expression delivers more sophisticated symbolic expression seen in art, music and maths. Even racial identity is an expression of linguistic force, for it tells individuals which superorganism they belong to. So it is not just the higher abstract expressions that linguistic force generates, it also delivers more base physical forms of communication. Our bias as objects of linguistic force prevents us from being able to understand this, ordinarily, because this force acts upon us, something we implicitly circumvent, or moderate, if we know this.

Chapter 8

Perfect Logic
Turning to a recently acquired book to see what may lie within that connects with matters of interest to us, as per my usual routine upon acquiring a new item, I was captivated by the translators introduction to this famous work. It has been a contention of mine that a desire for freedom is the ultimate expression of my reasons for creating the Atheist Science philosophy I promulgate, where freedom is judged in terms of knowledge, which means the ultimate authority of reality, that is acquired exclusively by science, and nothing else. Accordingly my attention picked up when I saw the assertion that the aim of any seeker after knowledge pertaining to human existence, must be the attainment of freedom, as defined by Rational Freedom. After which attention grabbing statement came a superb question concerning what freedom arose from. Writing about this a day and a half later I find myself inclined to differ from the suggestion that freedom implies a former state of bondage, indeed, such a suggestion seems idiotic. We may free ourselves of a burden, which might, in intellectual terms, be nothing more than ignorance experienced by one that would know something that they as yet cannot comprehend. Ignorance is in no way a state of bondage ; then again, lets not be too emphatic on that score. Simple ignorance is not a state of bondage, but contrived ignorance is, where the product of priestcraft such as religion or modern science, as in Darwinism for example, or sociology, these fill a void where knowledge should go, the object being to make the victim a slave of the system. This state of slavery is however physiological, and exactly what nature evolved humans for. This is why humans speak, have huge brains, and possess all their special qualities, in order to be enslavable, able to be incorporated into a biological structure. Words, words, words, and their oh so subtle meanings. Never mind, this mans simplicity is beneficial, and we will run with it, because it is his answer to what this bondage might be, that is so exquisite. He is dealing with this question at the highest level of knowledge, concerning what the nature of history is, and therefore what the nature of existence is, and hence, what human nature is. Accordingly he proceeds to discuss the superficial idea that once ruled, and rules again today, if it ever really fell out of favour, for it is the basis of political power. It is political power indeed that he proceeds to suggest people take to be the force driving history, so it is interesting to find ourselves affirming that believing that political power is the basis of history is essential to the existence of political power, this provides a neat circularity, a closed loop of mindless ignorance expressed in a pretence of profound knowledge. Political power naturally requires to be affirmed and cannot be contradicted by scientists, anymore than can religions arguments about the nature of reality can be. At the base of both these faces of social authority lies the principle that the individual is the human animal. But below we have an argument that veers towards the truth by recognising that this cannot be so, somehow social authority must derive from some ultimate, none personal source, that is none political in its nature, being superhuman in its origins :

It may, nevertheless, be of some service to the reader to indicate the point of view from which this Philosophy of History is composed, and to explain the leading idea. The aim and scope of that civilizing process which all hopeful thinkers recognize in history, is the attainment of Rational Freedom. But the very term freedom supposes a previous bondage ; and the question naturally arises : Bondage to what ?A superficial inquirer may be satisfied with an answer referring it to the physical power of the ruling body. Such a response was deemed satisfactory by a large number of political speculators in the last century, and even at the beginning of the present ; and it is one of the great merits of an influential thinker of our days to have expelled this idolum fori, which had also become an idolum theatri, from its undue position ; and to have revived the simple truth that all stable organizations of men, all religious and political communities, are based upon principles which are far beyond the control of the One or the Many. And in these principles or some phase of them every man in every clime and age is born, lives and moves. The only question is : Whence are those principles derived ? Whence spring those primary beliefs or superstitions, religious and political, that hold society together ? They are no inventions of priestcraft or kingcraft, for to them priestcraft and kingcraft owe their power. They are no results of a Contrat Social, for with them society originates. Nor are they the mere suggestions of mans weakness, prompting him to propitiate the powers of nature, in furtherance of his finite, earthborn desires. Some of the phenomena of the religious systems that have prevailed in the world might seem thus explicable ; but the Nihilism of more than one Oriental creed, the suicidal strivings of the Hindoo devotee to become absorbed in a divinity recognized as a pure negation, cannot be reduced to so gross a formula ; while the political superstition that ascribes a divine right to the feebleness of a woman or an infant is altogether untouched by it. Nothing is left therefore but to recognize them as fancies, delusions, dreams, the results of mans vain imaginationto class them with the other absurdities with which the abortive past of humanity is by some thought to be only too replete ; or, on the other hand, to regard them as the rudimentary teachings of that essential intelligence in which mans intellectual and moral life originates. With Hegel they are the objective manifestation of infinite reasonthe first promptings of Him who having made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on the face of the earth, hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation, if haply they might feel after and find him . And it is these , these determined and organic epochs in the history of the world that Hegel proposes to distinguish and develop in the following treatise. Whatever view may be entertained as to the origin or importance of those elementary principles, and by whatever general name they may be calledSpontaneous, Primary, or Objective Intelligenceit seems demonstrable that it is in some sense or other to its own belief, its own reason or essential being, that imperfect humanity is in bondage ; while the perfection of social existence is commonly regarded as a deliverance from that bondage. In the Hegelian system, this paradoxical condition is regarded as one phase of that antithesis which is presented in all spheres of existence, between the subjective and the objective, but which it is the result of the natural and intellectual processes that constitute the life of the universe, to annul by merging into one absolute existence. And however startling this theory may be as applied to other departments of nature and intelligence, it appears to be no unreasonable formula for the course of civilization, and which is substantially as follows : In less cultivated nations, political and moral restrictions are looked upon as objectively posited ; the constitution of society, like the world of natural objects, is regarded as something into which a man is inevitably born ; and the individual feels himself bound to comply with requirements of whose justice or propriety he is not allowed to judge, though they often severely test his endurance, and even demand the sacrifice of his life. In a state of

high civilization, on the contrary, though an equal self-sacrifice be called for, it is in respect of laws and institutions which are felt to be just and desirable. This change of relation may, without any very extraordinary use of terms, or extravagance of speculative conceit, be designated the harmonization or reconciliation of objective and subjective intelligence. The successive phases which humanity has assumed in passing from that primitive state of bondage to this condition of rational freedom form the chief subject of the following lectures. The mental and moral condition of individuals and their social and religious conditions (the subjective and objective manifestations of reason) exhibit a strict correspondence with each other in every grade of progress. They that make them are like unto them, is as true of religious and political ideas as of religious and political idols. Where man sets no value on that part of his mental and moral life which makes him superior to the brutes, brute life will be an object of worship and bestial sensuality will be the genius of the ritual. Where mere inaction is the finis bonorum, absorption in nothingness will be the aim of the devotee. Where, on the contrary, active and vigorous virtue is recognized as constituting the real value of manwhere subjective spirit has learned to assert its own freedom, both against irrational and unjust requirements from without, and caprice, passion, and sensuality, from within, it will demand a living, acting, just, and holy, embodiment of Deity as the only possible object of its adoration. In the same degree, political principles also will be affected. Where mere nature predominates, no legal relations will be acknowledged but those based on natural distinction ; rights will be inexorably associated with caste. Where, on the other hand, spirit has attained its freedom, it will require a code of laws and political constitution, in which the rational subordination of nature to reason that prevails in its own being, and the strength it feels to resist sensual seductions shall be distinctly mirrored. Between the lowest and highest grades of intelligence and will, there are several intervening stages, around which a complex of derivative ideas, and of institutions, arts, and sciences, in harmony with them, are aggregated. Each of these aggregates has acquired a name in history as a distinct nationality. Where the distinctive principle is losing its vigor, as the result of the expansive force of mind of which it was only the temporary embodiment, the national life declines, and we have the transition to a higher grade, in which a comparatively abstract and limited phase of subjective intelligence and willto which corresponds an equally imperfect phase of objective reasonis exchanged for one more concrete, and vigorousone which develops human capabilities more freely and fully, and in which right is more adequately comprehended. The goal of this contention is, as already indicated, the self-realization, the complete development of spirit, whose proper nature is freedomfreedom in both senses of the term, i.e. liberation from outward controlinasmuch as the law to which it submits has its own explicit sanctionand emancipation from the inward slavery of lust and passion. (Philosophy of History, (Hegel) Introduction, Sibree, 1900, pp. v. viii.) (Note : the Greek is made up by me, a best match from Words limited fonts, to make it look right.)

There is not much to be said about this passage, the idea that our drive to act socially is nothing whatever to do with us as wilful beings, but rather comes from some prehuman source, is so expressly stated here, that is enough reason to take this passage as a rare example of a true principle firmly stated. The discussion surrounding the blunt statement of fact however is largely worthless rambling, that can make no sense to any but the initiate into such priestcraft as this man evidently adores. Sibree says that religious and other ideas associated with our social unification cannot be the product of priestcraft because they are the

basis of priestcrafts power. Likewise for the idea of a social contract formulated politically. This reason is superficial. We constantly speak of the linguistic identity programme as the work of priests, even as we describe the same thing as being an expression of linguistic force. We thereby cover all bases, we give the none human origins in their prehuman biological form, and their behavioural origins within the resulting physiological structures of superorganic being, where the priesthood acts as the organ managing knowledge of all kinds and thereby acting as an accumulator of social power which is based on the control of knowledge. Meanwhile, as we discover where Hegel was coming from, it seems the voice of unmitigated priestcraft bursts forth in the cry of Gods will being the origin of our urge to be social, which is truly pathetic. The statement that : it seems demonstrable that it is in some sense or other to its own belief, its own reason or essential being, that imperfect humanity is in bondage. is particularly suggestive. We would say that humans are the slaves of their biological nature that has evolved individual somatic form to provide sentient brick units of superorganic being that are managed by linguistic force, that arises from their linguistically empowered somatic physiology. No sooner are these telling words of Sibrees uttered, creating a fleeting moment of connection between ourselves and this writer, than our paths fly off at tangents from one another. But the thought is nice to see, it is something no scientist would dare express, while religious people freely speak thus all the time. Religious people want to invoke God, but no scientist dare invoke their ultimate point of reference for all existence, that is nature, in relation to their understanding of humans. This is why we have to take notice of such gorgeous statements found in abysmal places like this. The following description that we are given of Hegels argument, is worth seeing, it is the same old pathetic stuff we are familiar with in everyday life, where we are taught that our Christian world is a higher state of intellectual perfection, vastly removed from that of the pagan. This idea transfers to the secular world of politics so that we supposedly live within a free society, based upon the principles of a social contract in which all see, and welcome, the present mode of social living. Yeah, as if ! Then we break into a stream of disgusting Christian dialogue, too vile for contemplation. Being several weeks on from the initial reproduction of this passage, performed because I wanted to record the discovery of this rare scientific observation that social life comes from a none human source, that is nature, I have forgotten why I headed the chapter Perfect Logic. I suppose it was simply the expression of this assertion that our social actions cannot simply pop out of existence as an expression of our creative being, they must have a none human source. In other words we have a biological social nature. This is such an important point in the scientific explanation of human behaviour, one always ignored, or if not it is only mentioned in order that it can be expressly denied, including by Sibree in the above, for he closes by saying that we come to live in a higher civilised state where we recognise the rightness of acting in a none animal manner, which sets us free from our biological nature as animals. It is all such pathetic gush. This is what goes on in science all the time, we are animals, obviously, yet we have become empowered to act in such a way that this fact is of no relevance whatsoever to how we live now, so they always say. Here we see how this degenerate reasoning is used in a religious context that seeks to transcend religion and operate within the secular domain of knowledge. This mechanism of knowledge perversion was given free access to science by the Darwinian dogma of biology, that decoupled biology from society by invoking the chance mechanism of natural selection,

which self evidently cannot reach social structure by genetic means. Except of course it does, because the force of natural selection is really the force of information, as indicated in James Religion Virus, and this force of information is carried forward from genes to memes. Thursday, 16 February 2012 Newsflash It was reported two days ago that Baroness Warsi (pronounced Varsey), a Tory minister without portfolio, was visiting the Rome to deliver a speech warning about the increasing threat from radical atheism. This vile Paki bitch is a Muslim ! Technically, by birth that is, a fellow Yorkshire person, but born to Paki immigrants and as such not British by nature, as we can see from her behaviour, delivering the poison of her nasty Paki-Muslim-Fascist culture into our advanced European culture of freedom. This comes on the heels of news showing how utterly corrupt our political system is, down to the finest levels of penetration, with the Jewish (Christian prayer) religious ceremonies practised at council meetings. A secularist MP appeared on Channel Four News and denounced Warsis religious activities conducted in the name of the state, and said how secularists were the greatest defenders of religious liberty. Indicating that in order to defend freedom for atheists in our society, you must first be a defender of religious fascism, thereby negating the freedom you defend ! There can only be freedom or slavery, religion or science, no accommodation can exist between these two antithetical conditions.

Chapter 9
Kastein on Making the Jewish Master Race

The History and Destiny of the Jews, Josef Kastein, 1933 (German edition 1931), arrived yesterday, 22/07/2011, on the back of my work on Ludovicis anti-Semitic piece, where he refers to this book and quotes a passage that was replete with Darwinian overtones, that made me want to take a look at the work in question. Kasteins book is based on the idea of the individual, where he emphatically portrays the Jews as an individualistic phenomenon, talking repeatedly in his introduction of the Jews as an individual force in existence. Even so the passage quoted is an interesting section dealing with the Jews as an evolving entity. Kastein as an academic priest talks in riddles, unwittingly, but as erstwhile scientists who know what humans are, we have the key to interpret his opacity. Thus he places religion at the heart of Jewish development, saying : The early history of the Jews was much more deeply and obviously rooted in religion than the later period has been, and unless this is borne in mind it is impossible to understand the forces that directed them. Those to whom the concepts God, Faith, and Religion are meaningless must inevitably fail to grasp the decisive factors which built up this nation. (p. 9) This is an interesting statement which, without the benefit and guidance of Atheist Science, would leave us feeling frustrated and annoyed. He is calling upon us to take a religious view of his account, to give expression to our religious faith. But since we know what God, Faith and Religion are from a purely scientific viewpoint, we can accept this statement with equanimity, and forge ahead in unison with this priests line of reasoning. He proceeds to talk about Moses as the founder of the Jewish religion who isnt, because religions are not founded, they are expressions of a force which individuals may be associated with through an act of release at a pivotal time in development. All of this is meat and drink to Atheist Science, which recognises that human corporate nature involves the evolution of a mammalian physiology that gives rise to a linguistic force that generates superorganic form. Linguistic force projects authority into the social space occupied by individuals, from whence the organisation of individuals takes place in association with a linguistic identity programme that is Religion. Advanced forms of religion identify individuals with the superorganism to which they belong through a Religion that talks about God and Faith. Kastein recognises the religious code words that have been crucial to the Jewish story but he has no idea what they are as natural phenomenon, as Ludovici had either. So it would appear that Kasteins book might provide a nice summary of Jewish development suited to our needs, that we can interpret through the prism of corporate nature that allows us to see everything Kastein sees in political terms pertaining to the individual person, in biological terms relating to the superorganism. We would have to read his work to see how this plays out in practice however, which is unlikely at present. All the more so since I started work once again yesterday, 17/10/2011. A few more scoops from his pages are most intriguing. He has this peculiar assumption that Jews are real, that they are something, offering us an unintended answer to

the first question I would like a Jew, any Jew, to answer, What is a Jew ? No Jew will answer this question however, and while Kastein is not exactly an exception, we can see in his argument an evocation of the assumption that makes the Jews a self creating social entity. This is in fact the answer of course. Linguistic force created the Jews, and like everything else arising from linguistic force, the product is self creating from our point of view, because we are creatures, or objects, of linguistic force. In effect Kastein identifies the unseen linguistic force of human physiology with the social power of the Jews as a people. And this is the correct analysis of what the Jews are. They are the possessors of a culture created by Linguistic Force to be the core identity of a global superorganism, the true human animal, that exists for real. He talks about the Jews believing in themselves as an individual force, and he sets the Jews up in opposition to the rest of humanity. Thus he sees Rome as the pagan world that Jews must oppose, and he sees the Jewish law as a law for all humanity to obey (p. 157), while talking about these facts placing an awesome responsibility upon the Jews. This is simply the unpacked idea of the Chosen People, and in his opening pages he refers to the fact, as he sees it, that the underlying forces behind the creation of a people are irrelevant, but we obviously cannot accept such pathetic, priestcraft-style bunkum. I have heard this line before from a Jewish teenager speaking on the radio some decades ago, saying how Chosenness was not a boast, but a duty to mankind. Viewed politically this is the purest essence of elite arrogance, we see it in all manifestations of master ideology, we probably have an abundance of it in the words of the butchered dictator murdered by his subjects in Libya the day before yesterday, 20/10/2011.

I The Jews shadow : antisemitism The basic history Kastein recounts, the existence of the Jews and their relationship with others, is straightforward enough, so that all we need to do is understand it in a scientific manner. Interestingly, in his chapter on anti-Semitism, he actually concedes that the Jews are the ultimate source of this bane of humanity : the fact that this problem of the non-Jew is to be found all over the world, though perhaps varying in form and intensity, and arising for different reasons, there must be something about the Jew and his characteristics which provokes this uniform reaction, and the very capacity to provoke such reactions forces us to regard Anti-Semitism as a passive problem, a derivative problem of Judaism. (p. 412) Well that is quite an admission ! He tries to express this simple truth in a distorted manner that absolves the Jews of any responsibility, while blaming the rest of humanity for this nastiness, as we can see, but it is a pathetic play on words that leaves the simple fact stated that we could never expect any Jew to concede properly. No wonder the virulently anti-Semitic Ludovici loved this Jews account of Judaism ; though he made much of the fact that Kastein was writing in 1931, not 1938, as Ludovici was. I am not exactly sure why, but obviously this had to do with the rise of Nazism in Germany. What an absolute arrogance, to make this confession, and yet to maintain that the problem lies with the Gentile ! In other words, saying that the Jew has a God given right to exist come what may, and no one has any right to react to their existence in a negative manner of any kind, where doing so is to make yourself a monster. Meanwhile no one else has any right to exist, all must become Jews, or

die, as in slaves of Judaism, as Christians or Muslims and their satellite cohort of submissive cultures. This is no joke. This is the evil that the Jew lives by, this is why they will not deal with the question, What is a Jew ? Because a Jew is simply a master race ruling by virtue of its special power as the core of identity within the living superorganism. So the Jew is saying We have the power, and that is all you need know., and of course, this is what causes antiSemitism to follow the Jew like a shadow. The fascinating thing is the way this awesome power of religion, of linguistic force that is, expressed in the Jewish identity, is so strong that it was able to destroy the Pagan world of Rome by creating the slave identity of Christianity, and then do the same for the rest of the world by creating the Jewish slave identity of Islam. All of this comes from the fact that the Jew has power in society, and this power is manifested in the writing of law and the establishment of fiscal rules culminating in Capitalism. These are the mechanisms projected into a sub-Judaic form cloaked in an alternate Jewish identity, to create the slave bodies of Christianity and Islam, allowing us to see these mechanisms operating under the skin of these slave religions. Reading Ludovici we find endless griping about the role of the Jew in society concluding, as we noted above, in the complaint that we had become Judaised by this relationship. But it beggars belief that these fools do not see that merely to be a Christian is to be such as this argument describes, with any differences between Jews and Christians being frail and illusory. Why do the rabid antiSemites never see this ? Because in reality they are Gatekeepers for Judaism, pretending to attack Judaism, as Hitler did, without ever really getting to the nub of the issue, because to do so would destroy Christianity. People like Hitler did not know they were serving the Jews by attacking them, we must assume, they thought they were defending Christianity, that Christianity could somehow be set apart from Judaism, but this idea is as stupid as stupid can be. History proves this point time and time again, so much so that we cannot help but wonder if these people are not in fact acting conspiratorially, knowing what they are doing, because you would have to be pretty bloody thick not to know. I often wonder if Hitlers corpse was never found because he was rewarded for his efforts secretly, perhaps being given a palace in Israel to live out his life in peace after his monumental service to the Jews, the master race. I see in the news yesterday, 23/07/2011, that the body of Hitlers lieutenant Rudolf Hess, is to be exhumed, cremated, and the ashes disposed of at sea, while the grave is to be erased to prevent it becoming a focus of pilgrimage for neo-Nazis, this in response to a planned rally at the grave. And so the Jews continue to cast a shadow across the face of the earth, as they must until religion is no more.

II Gatekeeper antisemitism Reviewing the initial text, today being Saturday, 22 October 2011, I want to mention some material I came across on David Ickes website a couple of weeks ago, to do with the idea that Hitler was a Jew ; an old idea it must be said. I just clicked on the link I added to my favourites, to remind myself what he was saying, and look at this, a schematic of the Jews as master race :

This is an intriguing diagram. Its message concerning Jewish shadow political influence is straightforward enough. No comment on the detail is possible without researching the names provided, but the subject has been brought forcefully to the fore by the scumbag Foxs exposure in the news this last fortnight or so. Fascinating how this disgusting excuse for a human being stood up in parliament and apologised for breaching the ministerial code, only to make out that he was a perfect being dammed by the evil journalists who hated

him for being so ! What filth politicians are, we need not doubt the gist of what Icke reveals here. Ickes approach is remarkably similar in kind to the general arguments we find in antiSemitic work of the pre Second Cleansing cusp of 1939 45, such as we see in Ludovici, where there is a concern to identify the covert links between the Jews and the English power structure. This is a political manifestation of the work we are doing as natural scientists of human nature, as we uncover the links between the master race and their slave biomass, showing how linguistic force combines superorganic fabric via a series of compartments, one containing another, forming layer after layer of social complexity. Yesterday, 22/10/2011, a superb print-on-demand item arrived, Annales de LInstitut International de Sociologie, volume four, 1898. This is a large book of an obscure nature for just 22, and while I have the PDF it is only by holding the book in your hands that you get at the material in a work such as this, without tedious labour anyway. Accordingly, I soon found myself translating a bit by my hero of organicism, Paul von Lilienfeld, which I had never even known existed previously. There is a great wedge of material on the idea of the Social Organism in this volume, and Lilienfeld makes a contribution : If human groups were not symmetrical bodies, their illustration by means of concentric layers, with layers superimposed one upon the other, would be impossible. It is only because all social hierarchies necessarily imply a grouping of cells in a bedding arrangement, stratified upon one another around a common center, that it can be illustrated by a symmetrical appearance, preferably in the form of a circle, divided into sectors and concentric rings. The graphic Method in Sociology serves therefore, under this description as under so many others, as confirmation of the inductions of positive Sociology. (Annales, p. 221) Imagine if sociology took this form today ! Impossible. Then items like the illustration from Ickes site would be part of mainstream science ! My attention was drawn to a modern American author just last week, by a book selling site offering me prospective books of interest, I cannot find his name now, damn it, I knew that would happen. He has produced loads of books berating the corruption of sociology today, which has been reduced to an exercise in Marxist anti-capitalist rhetoric, he seems to say. Just being able to assert such a thing is enough to show that sociology is no more sociology now, than alchemy was ever chemistry. Compare this travesty of science with the ideas provided by genuine sociologist prior to the first cleansing cusp of 1914 18. Lilienfelds argument, assuming my translation has the essentials of his intended meaning, are tailor made to accommodate the arguments of people like Ludovici and Icke as regards the nature of the Jews. This is further evidence therefore of the need to eradicate this genuine scientific sociology and replace it with something worthless, exactly as has occurred. It is not that sociology would itself be anti-Semitic or a supporter of conspiracy theories, of course not, it is that science would provide the arguments which were taken over by Hitler, and all the others of his kind. Thus science would nullify the possibility of making anti-Semitic arguments entirely, by revealing that the Jews were a biological phenomenon ; this the Jews could not allow, for that would mean certain extinction for them. It is in this manner that Hitler and his fellow anti-Semites, men like Icke, do Gods work by furthering the interests of the Jews in a counterintuitive manner that we are trained by our masters to misunderstand by taking horrific things at face value, such as the undeniable holocaust, while being swamped with misinformation about what hidden meanings might lie behind such horrors.

The fact is that we can only regard Icke as a friend of Israel in the usual manner of a detractor, as a Gatekeeper that is. The reason being, as ever, that unlike ourselves, he offers no positive account of the world he describes, his arguments are for the most part demonstrably ludicrous, just as Hitlers were. I tried to discover a link on his large website to some positive account of how the world should be, but the best I could do was to note a prompt to some blessed witch called Meria Heller, whose mug shot appears under the title Spiritual Guidance, of which Icke says Meria is the real deal. Extremely intuitive but with her feet firmly on the ground. Out there, but down here. No bullshit. Well, isnt that just dandy ! His site carries the subheading : Exposing the dreamworld we believe to be real. No, we, in Atheist Science, expose the illusion of reality borne of our corporate nature that makes existence appear as a linguistically formed mental image, that humans call consciousness. Icke raises all the concerns about delusion, manipulation, abuse, conspiracy and all that, but where does he offer an explanation ? All we get is a pointer to some spiritual guide, how is that any different to what we get from our established abusers ? When I tried to bring my genuinely scientific ideas to the attention of a young academic, studying literature at university and calling himself a keen atheist, just this summer, he quickly aligned me with Icke, showing the effectiveness of someone like Icke as a knowledge conductor, running any true knowledge of an anti-establishment kind to ground by virtue of his domination of the public media where a total denunciation of social authority is concerned. As I soon get onto the subject of the Nazis and the Hitler Taboo when offering anyone my account of reality it is all the more vital to the protection of the Jews from our genuine science, which explains things properly, that ideas evincing the same core sentiment should already be out there, but in a disgusting form that people readily reject. I have just been trying to locate the piece on Hitler as a Jew, but for some reason I cannot spot it, meantime I noticed a talk on this Heller women, which refers to the validity of horoscopes, that she evidently uses. That says it all about Icke !! What a tosser, what a freak priest. Not that anyone would ever need any extra insight to know this, he is a freak from start to finish. Frustrated I ran a site search for Hitler and it threw up the most surprising item : A Total Tosser Speaks : Hagee Hitler Was Fulfilling Gods Will For Israel., Sunday, 03 July 2011 10:54. We then get this : I think they call it symbiotic. Symbiosis : A close, prolonged association between two or more organisms of different species that may ... benefit each member. I thought we were going to be treated to some organicist interpretation of how Hitler was an unwitting aid to the Jews. What follows is a political video including a recording of a pastor Hagee describing how Biblical text foretold the return of the Jews to Israel by means of a fisher, Herzl, and a hunter, Hitler. Herzl was the nineteenth century father of Zionism, who can be regarded as forming the fishpond of Israel, which Hitler then drove the European population of Jews into, thus fulfilling Gods will. I like this interpretation because it makes sense of events in the unfolding of Jewish history by invoking a functional purpose to the holocaust, exactly as science does when properly applied through the prism of atheism, that understands that God is the superorganism, so that Hitler was a manifestation of ongoing linguistic force that creates all superorganic physiology, such that this force was directed through the exoskeletal form already created by Judaism, and directed onwards toward the end point of a global Jewish society. But why would Icke denounce Hagee for making this claim ? I suppose it does what our ideas would do. Hagees argument validates the Jews on a religious basis, whereas we validate the Jews on a scientific basis. But Icke, as a covert stalwart of Judaism, wants to keep anti-Semitism pumped up, anti-Semitism being his stock in trade, his claim to fame, the service he provides to the superorganism. So he does not want Hitlers role diminished in

any way, he wants the Jews to be known as exploiters, whom we can be free of if we will only worship him, David Icke, as the new messiah of truth. It is all a bit gobbledegook trying to swop these roles about in this casual manner, but we only mean to bring these various modes of expressing the Gatekeeper role of antisemitism to light just now. Fortunately, this time, I took copies of the items that had interested me, the essay in question is Was Hitler a Rothschild ?, David Icke, 2003. Ill not go into the stuff recounted therein, but if you want to take a peak for yourself you can now do so, it is full of the most absurd, opaque theorising, impossible to fathom, and obviously meant to be so. Such material is political in nature, though ultimately biological of course. It provides the basis for an alternate power base by forming a body of ideas by manipulating linguistic force, about which a core of elites who understand it can form, and thus accrete a biomass to themselves. This is precisely how Judaism formed in the first place, so it is a perfectly legitimate and natural response to the existence of Judaism, it being natural that would be alternates should make the true social powerbase of Judaism a mortal foe. This however serves the purposes of the Jews, in the same way that alternate political parties in a democracy do, by acting as known foci of power which are thereby easily managed by the greatest seat of social power, which is Judaism. Ickes diagram above rather indicates how these alternates are managed by a process of infiltration, so that each is linked directly to Judaism by an internal sect setting itself up to oversee each partys attitude to the Jews. Thus each party has its friends of Israel cohort, from which it is unable to protect itself because the law, created by master race influence at the core of political power, will not allow a political party to deny membership on grounds of race or religion ; this is what got the British National Party into trouble recently, trying to keep Muslims out, which put them at odds with the law. It is a master race version of the idea that all roads lead to Rome, only here all routes to political power lead to Judaism, or to Israel, we might say !

Saturday, 18 February 2012 Continuing this review, it happens that yesterday I moved a document called Showdown in Jerusalem, a digest by Gert Timmerman, introduction by John S. Torell. The best reference for this item I can give is The Flaming Sword newsletter, vol. 8, 2008, taken from the end of the PDF. This is a piece of Christian antisemitism, but under the heading Zionist Sympathisers it included this on Hitler : The Thule Order was a secret society created by Lanz. It later played a major role in the formation of the Nazi Party and the rise of Adolf Hitler. In 1907 Lanz hoisted up a Swastika flag over the castle in Werfenstein. In 1909 Adolf Hitler (a half Jew) met with Lanz and became his student. (p. 6) This might be the elusive document I refer to above, it states that Hitler was half Jewish, and lists the leading Jews involved in the Nazi movement. What kind of student we may wonder ? It is clear from Hitlers Mein Kampf that he based his master race ideology on an intimate understanding of the covert political power contained in the formula of Jewish ideology, modelling his own master race formula on that contained within Judaism, which he then sort to destroy and supplant, supposedly. Although the suspicion is always that this was a ploy orchestrated by the Jews to dispel the consequences of modern science revealing that

the Jews were in fact a biological phenomenon, a master race product of human corporate nature.

III Hitlers Jewishness ? Is the question of Hitlers Jewish origins a matter of any real interest to science ? At first sight this subject can only be a curiosity. We are drawn to it by our scientific investigations revealing that we are all Jews, and Hitler, in his most venal aspect was the greatest saviour of Judaism of all time, but in a covert manner that can only be known courtesy of science, it being the nature of scientific knowledge that it reveals facts that are not ordinarily available to us, there being no exception in the case of our own lives. Because of these scientific revelations related to human corporate nature, there being no such thing as an individual and the only real human animal being the superorganism, we are captivated by these assertions of anti-Semitic Christian propagandists that affirm that Hitler was a Jew, albeit a half Jew. Having noted this accusation above just a week ago, today, Friday, 24 February 2012, I dropped on a biography of Hitler at my local charity shop, Hitler 1889 1936 : Hubris, by Ian Kershaw, 1998. I do not know why biographies of Hitler are always built like a doorstop, I had one previously that I threw away when I dumped five hundred books a year or so back, but this new brick of a book got my hand in my pocket because it had a reference in the index to the supposedly Jewish origins of Hitler, and having recorded a dubious reference to this idea I thought it would only be right to see what a bona fide academic analysis of the subject would say about this. Kershaws discussion of Hitlers family origins is satisfactorily copious. The nature of Hitlers Jewish origins is seemingly tenuous, the strong assertions being drawn from weak sources. But Kershaw provides the required information we need to make sense of the suggestion that Hitler was a Jew, of whatever kind or degree. It must be worthwhile discussing this topic briefly in order to indicate that our assertions running along similar sounding lines are in no way similar beneath the skin of verbal expression, beyond the merest superficiality that is due to the same lexicon serving as the vehicle of expression used in relation to two alternate and mutually exclusive pivots of observation. What we must do now, is put this question in its scientific context by indicating what interest, if any, this personal identification might be to us. The answer is that the idea that Hitler was in fact some kind of Jew, even when taken at its most adamant, cannot be of any interest to us at all. For a persons Jewishness to be of any interest in their taking the part of an anti-Semite aiding Judaism by providing the essential defence this master race needs to farm its slave biomass by way of a Jewish slave identity such as Christianity, the person would have to of been raised as a Jew. Judaism is not a racial identity, it is a cultural identity. Being born of a Jew is meaningless unless you are inducted into the social identity programme of Jewish master race identity. The interest that most people have in this question is therefore political, being related to the cultural manifestation of Jewishness based upon the idea of a person as an individual acting as an end in themselves even in the act of showing fidelity to a cultural bloc, as if by choice. This way of thinking is normal and has no part in a scientific analysis of the human story, other than as an aspect for science to take note of and account for. It would of been of some interest if Hitler been aware of a Jewish ancestry and later to of studied under a Jew, but the name Lanz given above, though mentioned, is not discussed by Kershaw, being only loosely connected with Hitlers supposed conversion to anti-Semitism.

The point is that we are all Jews, anti-Semitism is after all a Christian proclivity, in the form we see it most, from the last century anyway. Christianity being a cultural identity based on the principle of individuality, so that the individual can be made the backstop for their implanted slave identity, inevitably makes the same superorganic identity phenomenon induced at the lower information level of racial identity, when expressed linguistically, appear as racism. Thus racism is a creation of Judaism that cannot exist without Judaism, or its equivalent kind of linguistic identity programming. Fanatical racism is the purest expression of Judaism, when social identity is based on race the effect of racial identity is subliminal, being immediate and taken for granted ; as it is indeed when based on language, for no Christian knows they are merely programmed into a superorganic animals being by way of their religious identity, they think their religion means something ! This sense of meaning is the product of being programmed to think we are individuals, hence the essential link between individuality and Jewish slave programming, or Christianity that is. For this religious illusion to take effect the linguistically impregnated individual must think they are an end in themselves, so that their religious identity belongs to them. To know their religion is an implant inducting them into a superorganism would clearly make this mode of attachment impossible to effect. Fascination with race is therefore a product of Jewish slave identity programming, which only arises in reaction to the breakdown of the Jewish slave identity programme. All this makes perfect sense in relation to Hitler given his Christian upbringing, his mother was a devout churchgoer and she, according to Kershaw, was his one real experience of love. I was raised a Christian and attended church, and when I first found myself in the presence of a Jew at the age of eleven, I was fascinated to look at the girl standing up at the back of the coach leaving Manchester for Switzerland, calling out I am a Jew ! So that is a Jew. I thought, because these people figured huge in my imagination due to my induction into Judaism as an identity slave, through Christianity. And the same thing must of applied to Hitler, as it must to all of us exposed to the same kind of upbringing. In short, Hitler was a tool of Judaism, obviously, as we all are, one way or another. This is how nature made us to be.

IV Natural selection and the making of the Jews A particular point of interest in Kastein, occurs where he talks about the creation of the Jewish people in terms of the creation of the theocracy that the people wanted, because they liked being led and having decisions made for them. I did not read this curious passage because it just seems like a load of drivel, but the idea is playing on my mind because of the fact that we live in an absolute theocracy that works tirelessly to make sure we are kept ignorant and happy by providing us with false knowledge, to disguise the fact that we are ignorant slaves. How much of this meaning would be discernable in Kasteins rendering of the formation of the Jews ? Not much I suspect, but even in these few statements we have the makings of the story, for it is certain that whatever the Jews are, so we have become, as determined by our biology. For some reason Kasteins book is not available on the free book site, but it was cheap to buy, a first edition was 8.50. Perhaps the most interesting point to come from Kastein, that has taken a couple of days stewing in my brain to make its significance felt, is that which applies the Darwinian principle of selection to the formation of the Jews as a special people. I noticed he makes this point early on and not too far into the text, where the idea involves the growth and development of the Jews about a core idea, the idea of the Jews as an individual force I think

would be right, without checking the text. So the idea is that the Jewish people had a core idea that was rooted in their religion, as they grew they diversified and then circumstances cropped them, so to speak, leaving only that group that held the purest essence of Judaism within their social body. This process of growing, developing, and then being boiled down to a purer cultural essence, happened repeatedly throughout the course of Jewish history, and this is why the Jews are the special people they have become amongst the peoples of the world. This certainly mirrors Darwinian evolutionary logic, evincing the survival of the fittest via a process of comparative elimination. But here it is applied to cultural phenomenon that can be reduced to a linguistic phenomenon, where doing so makes biological evolution apply to culture because, following Atheist Science, the linguistic force contained within somatic physiology evolved to create a superorganism. What struck me last night as I lay in bed, was that this idea matched the idea we use all the time to talk about the way we are kept enslaved to Judaism, via the slave identities of Christianity and Islam. We have frequently described this refining, cropping, and purifying process, in relation to the modern era, whereby we account for the two world wars in terms of a need to bring us back to our slave identity after a period of growth has induced a localised identity culminating in a break for freedom from Judaism, as seen in the rise of science and atheism in Victorian England. This decay of Jewish slave identity was cured by destroying the fabric of local, as in national society, and importing the vigorous Muslim version of Judaism. Yet this destructive reconfiguration of Jewish society applied to the entire global community, in that its core act of refabrication was applied to science, with the sterile imposition of Darwinism. So that while we are talking about England from direct experience, the results are seen in the Norwegian protesters massacre of politically active youth, for which he appeared in a closed court yesterday because the Jews are scared of allowing the truth to be spoken for fear of the resonance it will have amongst the slave biomass, which is being carefully nurtured back into full compliance with Judaism by turning the European biomass into an Islamic based body. So it is clear that Kasteins account of the way in which the Jewish master race was formed is mechanistically identical with the way the slave bodies of Judaism are formed, via a process of growth about a core identity rooted in religion, which leads to the dissolution of the identity programme as it disperses over time, that is then reduced to a purer state through the enactment of slaughter and social destruction making way for an enrichment and reinvigoration leading to a new round of growth based upon the enriched concentrate of cultural identity always rooted in the original core of Jewish identity. Last night, 25/07/2011, there was a third episode in the life of Mohammed on BBC 2, in which they ran quickly through the links between this slave maker of the Jews and his war conducted against the Arabs, of which he was one, by teaming up with tribes of Jews to wage war against the pagan religious centre in Mecca. He slaughtered an entire tribe of Jews after they switched sides. This is history that we could practically of written without ever hearing it. This rift between the Muslim slaves of Judaism and Islam is perfect, it sets up a boundary of social demarcation between the master and slave that allows the Jew to farm their newly captured biomass. But, as ever, the method of enslavement requires a constant round of warfare and destruction to keep the Jewish biomass, at each of its hierarchical structural levels, pure enough to keep the arrow of development through time fixed upon the Jewish idea of progress, which is, and always has been, the Zionist project to rule the world. The fascinating thing about Kasteins description of Judaism from within the master race body, is that it reveals that the Jews are subject to the same process as their slaves. This is exactly what we should expect to find if humans are superorganisms and nature is the creator of the human form in all its detail. It is so difficult for us to keep our minds on this fact as we discuss these things from the position of enslavement to Judaism, because the

language our brains are programmed with forces us to speak in political terms that set us apart from the Jews. Here then we find that really the Jews, masters or no, have no more choice as to how they live than we do, and they are subject to the same cruel process of making that we are. This is obvious from their history, as in the holocaust, but again, it is hard to keep a scientific perspective on these matters as we discuss the differential manner in which each segment of the superorganism is managed by nature. Lets sample this special discussion of the making of a master race entered into by Kastein, a member of that class writing at a crucial time in history for this race of super humans : A portion of this Hebrew group of the Semite race settled on the confines of Canaan. But a stationary and a nomadic existence are not only opposed as concepts, they also lead to different ideologies and different habits of life, and the Hebrew group was obliged to split up as the greater Semitic race had done. Owing partly to this process of cleavage, the tribe of the Bne Yisrael, the Children of Israel, eventually made their appearance in history as the outcome of a twofold process of selection, first from the Semites and then from the Hebrews. But the process of differentiation did not end here, and in Canaan and the districts adjacent to it the Children of Israel became split up into twelve family groups, known as the twelve tribes. Though intimately connected, both by descent, language, and customs, they soon separated and followed wholly different paths. Some remained within the confines of Canaan, others settled down along the great military highway of the East and in the neighbouring deserts and wildernesses, where they led a nomadic existence, while a smaller section, driven by hunger, finally succeeded in reaching Egypt, where the Pharaohs took them under their protection. Everything was calculated to make these bands of emigrants to Egypt become disintegrated in that country, or be swallowed up in other branches of the Semitic race who had also emigrated thither. The land of Goshen, formed by the delta lying between the eastern arm of the Nile and the desert, where they penetrated, was much coveted as a place of settlement by the various nomadic Semitic tribes in the neighbourhood, who either by means of slow infiltration or violent invasion had long been in possession of its extensive pasture-land. Yet no disintegration or intermingling took place. On the contrary, it was the emigration of these Hebrews into Egypt which first led to the development of a really promising and definite national character on their part. When Egypt wished to extend her sway as far as Babylon, it was imperative that stable conditions should first be established in the land of Goshen, the restless district on her frontier. The inhabitants of this area were therefore made Egyptian subjects. But, according to the social order of the Egyptians, subjects were not free men but slaves. Thus the Children of Israel were not treated in any way differently from the rest of the Egyptians ; but they reacted differently. They had entered the land of Goshen as members of a free tribe, and their love of freedom, including freedom to move about as they pleased, was still as strong as ever. A state of affairs which the native Egyptians took as a matter of course seemed to these immigrants, whose separation from their main body had proved them to be individualists, absolutely intolerable. This led to an insurrection and a demand to be liberated from the position of thralls and to be allowed to migrate to another country. Even at this stage in Jewish history, three factors may already be plainly discerned, which had a lasting and decisive influence, and which we must now make clear in the light of subsequent events. The Jewish people came into being only

through a process of progressive isolation lasting over centuries. This striving after isolation has in fact continued throughout the ages to the present day, and constitutes a spiritual characteristic of the race, a metaphysical factor. Fate furthermore imposed the law of selection on the Jews. At every turning-point in their history their numbers were reduced, the external husks being stripped away, as it were, from the kernel. If this compulsory selection led to the survival of the most viable elements in the race, it is not surprising that these people acquired a vital character which made them rise superior to any environment in which they happened to be placed. Finally, as soon as any signs of hostility appeared in their neighbourhood, they immediately discovered a means of resistance, either active or passive, according to the age and the place in which it arose. Such efforts were always fruitful, inasmuch as they invariably led again and again to further feats of self-determination and self-control, and constantly added strength to their will to live. Isolation, selection, and concentration are in themselves but the names of processes. They do not answer the question why things happened in this way (pp. 7 9) Indeed they do not. Jews are humans, and humans are animals. Jews have become unique amongst humans, and humans are unique amongst animals. This makes the Jews pivotal in understanding the human animal and its uniqueness, just as the understanding of the human animal is the only means of understanding the nature of the Jews. The above is a pathetic Sunday school style fairytale, made interesting to us because of the Darwinian principles applied to the sorting of the Jews as a special people, which gives us a lever to carry this mode of reasoning further, toward a truly scientific understanding of what made the global superorganism bearing the Jewish identity take shape. It is only a sliver of Kasteins work, and to do this simplistic account justice we would need to read all of his text, which is not possible. But our dismissal of his description is justified, because he is attempting to form a summary of his subject in these early pages of his account, and it reads like a Biblical story, all flourish and no substance. It is a political account, not scientific. The idea that the Jews are forged on an anvil of novel social circumstances where becoming settled contrasts with an urge to move which means freedom, is imaginative, but has no explanatory value to it in general scientific terms. It amounts to an observation that science might use to discover the underlying dynamics making it so, if it is so. This suggestion prompts a contrast between the Jews and the Irish gypsies forced from the Dale Farm site this week after ten years of illegal residency, at a cost of some 20 million pounds to the community in legal expenses, today being Saturday, 29 October 2011. These eternally moving settlers are criminal parasites on our community, exploiting us by habitually circumventing compliance with regular legal requirements and conventional standards. I know something about living under the radar. I have long exploited this method to live on the edge in order to be free, by running vehicles without any legalities for example, which is not a viable option these days due to modern spyware technology courtesy of cameras and computers, sadly. Another dodge is not to buy insurance for the house, not illegal, but against the rules of the mortgage provider, and an example of avoiding the expense of regular social norms. So this is about a mode of life enabled by a mode of life, where the top heavy structure of complex society creates interstitial social space for others to live within, untouched by the structure, by simply not taking part in mainstream activities such as regular employment, with all of its massive constraints, not the least being taxation, and other social commitments. Looking for some authors work yesterday, I found the subject of the social bond coming to the fore, from which I grabbed a couple of examples to

see what kind of nonsense academics used this excellent idea to further, and we have one of my finds here. The following is an abstract of the article named : Travis Hirschis control or social bonding theory argues that those persons who have strong and abiding attachments to conventional society (in the form of attachments, involvement, investment, and belief) are less likely to deviate than persons who have weak or shallow bonds. Later, Gottfredson and Hirschi moved away from the social bond as the primary factor in deviance, and toward an emphasis on self-control. In short, low self-control is associated with higher levels of deviance and criminality irrespective of the strength or weakness of ones social bonds. In this article I argue that Talcott Parsons AGIL schema easily incorporates Hirschis social bond into its broader analytical framework. Furthermore, from within the logical framework of Parsons system, Hirschis move from an emphasis on social bonds to an emphasis on self-control is wholly compatible with, and even anticipated by, the AGIL schema. The article illustrates, and argues for, the continuing importance of theoretical subsumption in sociology and criminology. Lastly, a set of testable hypotheses is generated based upon this theoretical reformulation. (The Functions of the Social Bond, James J. Chriss, The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 4. (2007), pp. 689-712.) Ooh, testable hypotheses, my doesnt that make this man sound like a real scientist ! Trouble is you first need a real basis upon which to begin your speculations about what any hypotheses might mean. This man offers no overt indication of what this basis is, though we assume it is the principle that the human animal is the person, evolved to exist as a lone individual who just happens to choose to employ all his naturally evolved social attributes to live socially, such that any deviance away from social norms is deemed perverse on the basis of psychological dysfunction, or some such self serving nonsense. This reads like the kind of political propaganda we associate with the Nazis, where science is crafted to support the political dogma expressed in the laws we are forced to live by, it is trite, ignorant, arrogant, nasty, crap. Exactly what we would expect to find professional academics churning out in an absolute theocracy from which all freedom of expression pertaining to science has been expunged.

V Evolving hierarchical social anatomy This sociologist bases his theory of society heavily upon psychology, implying that there is no such thing as society as a natural product, that it is entirely the result of the individual evolved to be an end in themselves, who may be regarded as suitably evolved for society or not, according to their personal mental constitution. The above also implies a role for socialisation, shaping the individual positively, to be attached to society. This uses the exact same observations as we employ to discuss the nature of the Jews and gypsies above, regarding a degree of alienation from within, but from an alternate pivot of observation, that of the individual as an end in themselves rather than that of the superorganism as the true form of the human animal wherein the individual does not exist at all. See the difference we get in results. No wonder the academics are all at sixes and sevens over their idea of how society works, and just what it is ! They maintain the state agenda which necessarily says that criminality is the responsibility of the person, and morality is in play here. Whereas we

show that criminality is a structural aspect of superorganic being, appearing as a manifestation of control and social bonding, due to the effect of linguistic force that creates all social structure. Criminality is therefore highly positive in terms of building superorganic physiology, being essential to the formation of a complex social structure it leads to formalised relationships between people that produce hierarchical structure that is not defined as criminal, even though in philosophical terms it clearly is. This is how inequality becomes an established norm, not called criminal, except by me perhaps. Our none judgemental approach offers the opportunity to show how social structure is derived from criminality occurring at a cultural level of social alienation, so that the development of social structure based upon linguistic regulation, law that is, increases its own complexity by driving social enclaves to compete for advantages relative to the law, and they do so by defining their own parameters of identity according to degrees of alienation from the system, as Jews or gypsies for example. This identity can be cultural, as in Jews and gypsies, but it can also be behavioural too, as in homosexuals and other somatically defined types. The disabled are a new group appearing in the aftermath of medicine becoming a major new facet of modern social structure. The medically disadvantaged have become a new privileged group receiving massive financial benefits from the state that we all need occasionally, as a matter of routine, which we are all made to feel we might need as the disabled do, sometime. There is even a disabled Olympic Games ! See, this is a new, parallel kind of person, of a kind that nature loves to find as a way of building new layers of social physiology. Providing for medical needs of this permanent kind gives the state a new clientele to appeal to, a new constituency, this provides a new tool for manipulating individuals along uniform lines of social order. This is why the powers that be are so keen to let the National Health Service become a runaway financial enterprise, demanding infinite cash and making the state essential in our lives as a means of procuring the same. It is a democratic justification of taxes suited to the new form of autocracy that rules on a populist basis. I think of the health service as an occasional need, and occasionally it has saved my life. But it has become an alternative way of life for many, a new reason for living, and the politicians have made it a touchstone of their reason for being, along with the police and education, two other bastions of false promise that only make sense as political touchstones once we know that this is how the human animal builds structure that binds individuals into it. There were some very strange cases of people wanting leg amputations reported a few years ago, for no medical reason. My assumption was that this was in order to obtain the special privileges of the disabled, an extraordinary indication of the idea that the individual does not exist and the desire to be part of a special group is the overwhelming feature of our individuality, of our psychology that is. Here then we have a view of the true nature of social bonding and deviancy, it has absolutely nothing to do with psychology as such, thought it is vital to the state that deviancy should be presented by academics as being all about the individual, so that psychology becomes the means of representation, as this can be made personal rather than an expression of human nature. The religious terrorism of Muslims can be related to the same embryonic origins of Judaism as a culture of alienation, developing an outsider culture, so that Islam is taking the part of the alien culture which thinks it is superior to the ruling powers in the newly globalised world arising after the two world wars, exactly as we see Kastein describes social dynamics giving shape to the Jews under similar conditions. This is how the modern form of linguistically based culture must of arisen from a social melting pot of cultures ruled by major political powers, the Jews being the primary example in our world, from which these other cultural expressions of the same kind have budded off. The gypsies bring trouble and exploit our society by treating it with contempt by disregarding its laws. In other words they live off the fat that our regulated social physiology

cannot help laying down as part of its settled structure. This social fat is the accumulated wealth of society that appears in a profusion of forms, its initial point of origin is seen in the establishment of agricultural life. The idea of living of the social fat is something that crops up in my reasoning where the conservatives come along and undo all the good work of the socialists. Socialists think in terms of owning public goods for the community and dispersing wealth evenly by suppressing the concentration of social wealth in private hands, this inevitably creates social fat ripe for the picking. Conservatives are all about minimising public wealth and maximising wealth placed in the hands of a minimum number of all powerful individuals. Hence we saw the sale of nationalised industries and council houses under Thatcher in the eighties, following the only period of socialist influenced governance this country has ever known, allowed as a sop to the hard done by population that had endured the Second Great Cleansing. So this dynamic of social exploitation of the biomass by a minor element of the same is a significant social phenomenon, that applies to the establishment structure at the core of society as much as it does to any peripheral element. Even so it is more readily identified with aliens like gypsies than aliens within, who exploit us as aliens by being our masters and owners. Jews evidently made this transition from alien without to alien within, and the Muslims are applying the same principle today through terrorism and the exploitation of law, as indeed are the gypsies on a less ambitious scale befitting their simple cultural identity, as opposed to the Muslims universal cultural identity based on Judaism. Muslims will always be slaves of the Jews however, as the current dominating power of Christianity is. An infuriating crime of late has been the stripping of metal from anywhere it lies exposed to wanton vandalism. Last night the local BBC news carried a story about a care home having to replace its boiler and put up a gate to prevent further incursions after the copper piping was torn out ! Incredible. The old standby victim in these cases, a church, was faced with a bill of 20,000 after some alien parasites removed lead from the roof, that could only of been worth a few hundred pounds at best. Power cables are another object of attack on the social infrastructure. Communications networks are trashed and railway infrastructure put in jeopardy by these terrorists of crime, who rip at the fat laden flesh of our settled communities like killer whales tearing a magnificent blue whale calf apart for the sake of a light snack. This sort of crime is classic gypsy work, whether or not they were responsible in these cases, and this is so because they are not an integral part of our society, but rather parasites within. I always recall the young Jewish criminals, middle class and well to do, that I met in my youth, who were into any kind of easy, lucrative crime, such as false insurance claims for example. This amazed me, I had never seen anything like it before, it was an example of the Jews acting just like gypsies, yep, they do indeed love freedom ! Freedom to do as they damn well please at others expense, living of the social fat, as the parasites they have always been known to be, but which they can no longer be called thanks to their great protector Adolf Hitler. Kasteins account of the Jews in Egypt would seem to make them out to be this kind of parasitic class of cultural exploiters, lovers of freedom that is, which is what they have become notorious for down the ages. Freedom to exploit the bonds that others endure as integrated members of a superorganic physiology. Yet Atheist Science finds in the Jews something very different, where instead of evading the law as outsiders they have come to make the law as outsiders, forcing the settled community to live in a way that suits the Jews exploitative ways. This has a depth of penetration making parasitism appear as symbiosis. But in fact this is simply the unfolding of human corporate nature, expressing what the human was always evolved to do. We have just identified a common attribute between the peripheral cultural alien and the core integrated alien, where both live off the social fat laid down by the collective biomass they occupy a place within, without being truly integrated

into the same. It is as if the Jew has migrated from the position of peripheral cultural alien, into the centre of the social physiology, becoming a peripheral alien living at the core of society. It is as if the Dale Farm gypsies were to of taken over the government and made the law of mainstream society suit their alien, parasitic needs, by operating outside our laws on the basis of a so called cultural difference, allowing them to live as permanent parasites within, never being obliged to become part of our society by having to follow the same regulations as the main body do. Now that does sound like the Jews. That is precisely what the Jews did within ancient civilisations, to the point where they turned civilisation into a form of themselves, as in Christian. A story this week on ITV, called Not in My Back Yard, looked at the gypsy problem. A councillor from Bristol explained how they spent a million and a half pounds building homes for these people, homes to the gypsys liking, which saved money compared with the cost of cleaning up after their encampments. This is about saving on the loss of social fat due to parasitic attack. We see from this how alien visitors who claim separate identity within, are able to force an organised structure to give it special privileges not available to the regular population. This is like a dispensation for the gypsies reminiscent of that which the Romans famously maintained as a cultural dispensation for the Jews, allowing them special privileges that the rest of their slaves did not have the benefit of. The Jews seem to of worked this trick to an extraordinary degree. Knowing that humans are superorganisms science can take Kasteins prompt and use it to understand how these dynamics of social physiology work out over time to produce elaborate social structure centred on one core identity. So that a privileged parasite may become an embedded master race by unwittingly following a simple principle, inherent in a social structure composed of a multiplicity of cultural identities, to its maximum degree of expression, turning a vulnerable alien into a seemingly vulnerable, covert master race. So the regulatory mechanisms necessary to create a stable global superorganism, establish the conditions for a master identity to arise from a minor identity not otherwise allotted an overtly powerful political position. This is what we are describing now, as we talk about the way these minor alien groups hold nations to ransom by virtue of their status in supra national law, forced upon national legislation as a result of Germanys war against the West, that Germany was part of. Only the powerless minor orders have benefitted from this war, while all the overtly powerful nations, including Germany, have paid the price. All this was ultimately made possible by virtue of the fact that what is being exploited here is the linguistic force which creates all superorganic form, through the medium of linguistic identity and the related process of knowledge fabrication. The pattern of inverted empowerment under law continues as recently, today being Sunday, 19 February 2012, there was a news story about some local people camped out near an illegal gypsy site, whose protest site was declared an illegal fixture, as the council threatened them with eviction while the gypsies remained sitting pretty ! The local people complained that all must obey the law and there cannot be one law for some and another for the others. Cultural privilege so important to Jewish power is however the main driving force creating law in our land today, as a means of pushing back the tide of freedom based on truth, to reinstate freedom based on privileged identity, since this latter kind of freedom is essential to the creation of political power, and the reason why religious identity based on a presumption of superiority was first developed as an expression of linguistic force nurtured in complex social settings. These effects require influence in the making of law at the core of social power, and this alien friendly influence stems directly from the political activity of the Nazis, and the aftermath which created the European Union that has set out to make laws that degrade national identity as a basis for social constitutions, and thus empowers lesser identities as if they were individuals within a social body unified at a higher level of identity.

Sunday, 19 February 2012 Contemporary report. Big Questions, BBC 1, Is Britain still a Christian country ? Richard Dawkins : I would not ban the burka because that would be illiberal. Tosser ! This is the man who hates religion with a passion and regards it as a terrible blight upon humanity. One of the most severe modes of subjecting people to the evil effects of this most hated thing, Dawkins considers vital to the freedom of all people !! This is just too idiotic. Clearly Dawkins is a weak minded, pathetic, cringing creature, terrified of saying anything that his masters, our religious leaders, have not sanctioned. The Gatekeeper of Absolute Theocracy speaks on a Sunday morning religious propaganda show. The debate had asserted that Britain was liberal thanks to its religious tradition, as can be seen by way of the ban on the burka in secularist France. This is just how religious fascists would portray this contrastas if France is anymore secularist than we are anywayas the atheist stooges fall in line behind the crafted political representation of these religious issues. A Muslim said that religion is often talked about as if it were inherently bad and in need of carful control, which is not true, he said. The fact that religion is by definition, at all times, fascistic and slave making, was not mentioned. The usual religious propaganda then from the BBC, giving a stage upon which to show off religion while denigrating reason in a sham display of freedom for rationalist thought, which is all the while contained in an invisible flux of linguistic force derived from law, taboo and political correctness, managed by priests, appearing here in the guise of simple audience members.

VI Culture of cultures : inevitability of social hierarchy Addressing Kasteins argument we may note that in the first place, all things being equal, a global superorganism had to come into existence. There are certain constraints on the realisation of the potential of human corporate nature, as proven by the retention of hunter gather lifestyles in profusion until the modern era. The latent potential of human corporate nature to go global is however proven by the rise of major civilisations in some half dozen places, independently. But the ability to attain global status has occurred only once, and almost certainly can never occur again, and was perhaps not quite certain even given the proliferation of the potential to produce major civilisations. Undoubtedly something extra was required to go global and the Jews are the focus of that something, they are very special humans indeed. Something approximating to this general idea, without the religious dimension, has been formulated by one modern thinker at least, The Last Civilization by Brough, 2010, is an odd proof of this fact. Only this week, today being Friday, 24 February 2012, a rather nice BBC 2 documentary series called How to Grow a Planet, dealing with the macro effects of plants as a geological grade influence upon the shaping of the earth, made a telling, although unwitting contribution to the subject of human natures latent biological potential. The presenter introduced the human story by talking about how a single mutation in one plant, a species of wild wheat, was of major significance for one animal. This presentation managed to combine sublime knowledge with crass interpretation by placing the attribute of random genetic variation upon a pedestal, while treating the evolution of human form as if it had not

happened at all, to produce a miraculous result whereby a single chance variation in a plant created human global civilisation. Enabling this annoying twat, with his irritating twang of persistent, and therefore artful enthusiasmwhat is that accent, some kind of Scottish ?to ask whether it was not the plant that had manipulated us, rather than the other way around. Hardly an original thought, but this professional scientist made it the fruit of a fabulous accumulation of knowledge, reduced to a miserable act of puerile propaganda for the ignorant, mentally dependant, manipulatively educated masses. But for those of us in the know, the gems of new knowledge strewn through this show made it exceptionally interesting, in what I could bring myself to watch of it that is ! This is priestcraft in a scientific age at its very best. Gorgeous to watch, impressive in the beauty of knowledge imparted, and yet all the while entirely corrupt, with a single object of maintaining the target audience as slaves of religion, who feel themselves empowered and their freedom made manifest by absorbing such exquisite material, whether they be deeply religious or atheists. Its perfect, the craft of these mammalian insects is awesome ! That is the master craftsmanship of nature in its act of forming a mammalian species of superorganism. No one knows what they are doing or what is being done to them, all are as happy as can be in a blissful state of functional ignorance brought on by the power of knowledge, that while correct in every detail, is yet wholly false by virtue of its gross interpretation, so orientated as to preserve a miraculous state of human autonomy from nature. This story of the wheat and the animal is a fine example of how, in the act of connecting humans to nature, the scientist is enabled by Darwin to decouple humans from nature. It is a very clever use of language which stems from the force of language, as it has delivered the programme forming the superorganism we are all part of. Though in the end, viewed personally, it is nothing but a dirty lie, a vile corruption of that which is most sacred, knowledge, for the sake of the superorganism that is formed by way of this act of individual corruption engaged in by all and sundry in order to obtain their position in society. This is how language manipulates us through the control of knowledge to act in unison towards a common end that is unknown to us. Clearly, properly understood, this simple mutation offering a means of establishing farming, can only make sense as a lynchpin of human civilization as we know it twelve thousand years later, if that mutation in wild wheat is seen as a catalyst of human corporate nature, just as catalysts are recognised as mediators of energy profiles in other scientific fields. Catalysts unleash material transformations in otherwise stable structural systems that are replete with latent potential, relative to the wider environment that closed systems form part of. Therefore the point of real interest here, is the evolution of human biological nature giving rise to a superorganic form, whose latent potential for growth was pent up to such a degree that all it needed was a trigger such as this wheat genes chance mutation, and the animal was off, erupting along the most extraordinary creative trajectory ever seen in the universe, one feels entitled to imagine. Did the animal exploit the plant, or the plant the animal ? Neither is the answer, this facile way of looking at things is the lame product of our linguistic programming forcing a political interpretation upon all facts involving ourselves. What really happened is that the biosphere unleashed a new expression of structural potential inherent throughout its existence. These related possibilities are undoubtedly as interlinked as the amazing energy cycles discovered in such things as atmospheric dynamics, concerning the carbon cycle and the oxygen cycle and so on, its just that we do not look at the life cycle in this way because religion will not allow science to exist in an area so close to our own nature. ___

There are two apparent factors that are critical to the development of a global superorganism. There is the ever present force of language driving the process, and then there is the environmental crucible within which the force is ultimately located. The question is, is the nature of the crucible critical, or would the expression of linguistic force always come through in the end, come what may ? The Jews are the material we must study to answer this question, and the account provided by Kastein is one Jews answer, of a sort. I have long been of the view that the Jews were a people that adapted to the existence of imperial type civilisations, such that they became the priests upon which highly complex social order relied. The civilisations were the physical bodies, but the Jews were the spirit within, the information component of living superorganic being that is, the focus of linguistic force. This is what makes them the master race. Today this is obviously the case, we see the Americans as being as downtrodden and debased before the Jews as it is possible for any social body to be under any circumstances. All the more so because the Americans seem all powerful, and revel in the power and freedom that goes with that alpha status. This is what humans evolved to be, slaves who know nothing of freedom, and this is what Jews have taken to themselves : the power to act as the focal point for this slave fixation, unbeknownst to the slave. That is what Kastein is really referring to when he talks about the foregoing of material, external power, in favour of commanding, internal power. The Middle Eastern regions served as the crucible of global civilisation, and they did it by concentrating linguistic force in such a way that a culture could evolve that specialised in being the repository of linguistic force : the culture or cultures. The people bearing this culture had to be mobile, and hence the stories of migration infused into the bones of the Jews. But the story must twist the truth in the usual manner, inverting the direction of flow of linguistic force, making out that the Jews were of nomadic stock so they always wanted to be moving and individualistic. This makes no sense, except according to a religious, political model of human nature. Any nomadic roots belonging to these people must be spurious in terms of what they have become, for the mobility of the Jews, known to us in recent history in relation to the Diaspora, has to be all about their specialised social function as a master race providing a precious core of authority and purpose, that no civilisation can exist without. Herein lies the clue. All advanced civilisations have to have a core of complex, specialised authority, so that for a culture of priestcraft to come into existence as a distinct social culture defining a people, it must capture and express this essence of political control at this level of imperial power. This is what the prophets of Judaism presumably delivered to the Jews in their codified identity rooted in religion. This is a linguistic identity programme refined into a pure identity form, allowing the people carrying this identity to exist anywhere that a suitable social power base exists to occupy. But nowhere without such a substrate of social nourishment, which is why the Jews are always known as exploiters and parasites, because that is how their cultural identity operates as a facet of global superorganic physiology, in terms of our personal experience of these social dynamics. A recent purchase threw up some observations I like, that are appropriate here. Although it does not say as much, the following quote indicates that society is not created by people, but rather it has a predetermined form dictated by the inherent nature of a true society. This is because a true society is, and can only ever be, a living, biological, superorganism, composed of individuals evolved to have the status of cellular social units : In 1915, Robert Michels, a sociologist and friend of Max Weber, formulated the iron law of oligarchy. According to this iron law, He who says organization, says oligarchy. The reason for this association is that any large-scale organization is faced with problems that can only be solved by creating a bureaucracy. A bureaucracy, in

turn, must be hierarchically organized ; the effective functioning of an organization requires the concentration of power in the hands of a few people at the top of the organization. In effect, this separates individuals from control over the decisions that affect their lives. All societies with any degree of large-scale organization are therefore elitist. Elitism is not the result of conspiracies, or general voter apathy ; it is endemic to social organization. While all societies are elitist, the power of elites varies across societies and through time. The fact that those on top of modem bureaucratic hierarchies can command vast resources in pursuit of their interests gives them great social, economic, and political power. To discuss the future without reference to the power and interests of these elites is to engage in an empty academic exercise. By its very nature, bureaucracy generates an enormous degree of social power.
Great power in America is concentrated in a tiny handful of people. A few thousand individuals out of 220 million Americans decide about war and peace, wages and prices, consumption and investment, employment and production, law and justice, taxes and benefits, education and learning, health and welfare, advertising and communication, life and leisure. (Dye 1983, 3)

While democratic theory has it that government is ultimately responsible to the people, government bureaucracies have grown so large, so numerous, and so complex that this accountability is largely illusory. The problem is further compounded in the West by huge corporations, economic bureaucracies that have a tremendous impact on our lives, an impact over which we have little control. (The Evolution of the Future, Elwell, 1991, pp. 31 32.) Within this naturally generated product of human biological corporate nature, that produces society, which is the living human superorganism, the Jews are the ultimate personification of the elite identified in the above passage. Elwell is to be applauded for taking such a detached mechanistic view of social dynamics ; but denounced for not recognising that humans are living beings, not inert matter, so that any mechanistic dynamics must be biological in kind. Hence we have here something nice, because it is suggestive of a true scientific outlook ; but terrible because it is just one more vacuous pronouncement void of any real value, because it is locked into the mindset of the person as an end in the themselves, who just happens to find themselves a hapless victim of their own efforts to make something good, which however is sadly, not perfect. Of particular interest here, is the express denial that what creates all powerful elites ruling over a powerless mass, is not a conspiracy. Emphasising this point is an ever present impulse that goes with our discussion of human corporate nature and its production of a master race, and such like structural phenomenon. So this is an indication that our lines of thought converge with those expressed above, more so than is ordinarily to found. Michels ideas on the need for power to be concentrated at the top of any social structure were nicely illustrated by yesterdays dramatic news, 01/11/2011, whereby the Greek prime minister scuppered a much vaunted plan to save the Euro, that had been painstakingly hammered out just days before by Europes ruling elite. One loose canon and the world is rocked. The only real solution to the problems faced by this major political project that is the European Union, is total political integration, a finer lesson in these dynamics of superorganic physiology there can never of been. This degree of integration was always implicit in the EU from day one, yet it has always been denied because it is understood that no one anywhere, save for those who rule us and farm us, would ever want such thing. Therefore we have to be led to it

gradually, step by step, until there is no going back. This crisis over the Euro is a perfect opportunity to provide a kick forcing us all over the hump, from which point total integration is sealed and individual European states become history. Last nights Newsnight on BBC 2 had a Greek MP talking about how the German prime minister was now the ruler of Greece, and this precisely evokes the reason why people baulk at such integration. It will however come if it takes another century to get here, for that is the inevitable outcome of human corporate nature driving us toward one global union under Judaism. Judaism is the only identity that matters, as all history proves, since all identities of however grand a kind, such as Egyptian and Roman, have passed into myth, while the Jew alone has burgeoned and thrived, so much so that all humans on earth are now Jewish, either directly under a Jewish slave identity, or under the force of obedience to universal regulation, even if they are known by another religious name. And it is noteworthy here that it was warfare that forced us over the hump of integration creating the EU, showing how precious war is as a physiological process of superorganic growth. What Elwell clearly does not get, is that as he traces the lines of social force by recognising their mechanistic inevitability as an aspect of the social object that is society, his partial recognition of inevitability should reach right back to human biological nature. We would therefore point out that the social power he identifies with bureaucracies is owned by religion, which corrals people under one identity and forms an eternal, unchanging hierarchy, that maintains its presence at the core of social power come what may. Judaism represents the absolute focus of religious identity in our world because it is the corporation at the core of Christianity and Islam. Beyond this religious manifestation of linguistic force we may identify an abstract biological force as being this linguistic force, which is rooted in our genetic makeup that defines our species with its corporate nature that makes it a superorganic species. Once a specialised culture of priests had come into existence they would be desired by each social power base, hence the Egyptians would want them, so would the Babylonians, and so would the Romans. Kastein gives us an example of this reasoning by talking about the importance of the Jews to the Egyptians, but he makes this significance due to territorial issues, whereas we have something far more relevant in mind, to do with the integration of these aliens within into the inner structural fabric of these great social structures. Our idea fits history far better. Today the Jews are focused in America because it is the dominant world power, or vice versa even, but you watch, in the coming centuries they will shift their base to China, this is implied in the rising star of China as the coming global power, as America heads towards the calamitous impact of its first debt default next week, brought on by rightwing fanatics who also happen to be the very people that exist more than anything for the Jews. It suits the Jews to exploit one society after another in this way, that is what they evolved to do, to make societies maximise their potential to generate power, and when that potential has been sucked dry, the carcase is left to shrivel as the Jews move on to the next focus of power that they have been building up over the course of centuries just by being Jews living in societies made to operate according to the Capitalist, legal, and religious principles, at the heart of Judaism. This is why the Jews were able to manufacture specific Jewish slave identities that became the major social identities of the world. Look what happens when we try to resist this process, as in Norway last week, the Norwegian people stand up and swear they will not be diverted from their path of self annihilation ! Ha, its just as the insect slaves of slave maker ants do when their masters take them into battle against their own kind from which they were taken as pupae ! Boy is it tragic. But this is what nature has made us to be, insect like slaves, never happier than when we are serving the masters who enslaved us by imposing a slave identity upon us from within.

It was reported in the news this lunchtime, Tuesday, 26 July 2011, that the Norwegian freedom fighter is insane ! We saw his lawyer explaining that the killer did not think like the rest of us, he had expressed regret that he had to do what he did, but it was necessary because we are at war. Seems reasonable to me. The real insanity is how we can just sit comatose while Muslims flood into our once beautiful atheist world, and poison it to hell, returning us to the status of miserable slaves of Judaism. Now that is what I might call insane, if I did not already know that we do this because we do not exist, but rather, we carry the programme our masters have implanted into us. This morning the BBC Breakfast Show had another item on happiness, what makes us happy, and the twat who appeared on the sofa said the number one thing that made people happy was having a job ! So the one thing that makes me wish I was dead, makes people happy. So presumably, I must be insane, because I do not think like Us. Imagine thinking like a lawyer, Id kill myself, that really would be the end, and a government paid statistician can hardly be a step up that ladder of mind numbing degradation.
Reading this today, Wednesday, 02 November 2011, after mercifully being returned to unemployment this week after a fortnight of hellish work in a fruit sorting factory, I see the same damn stupidity is in the news once again, with this idiotic drivel about the government wanting to discover how happy we are. Happy, why the hell should we be happy at all ? No one asked for this damn life, we are stuck with it, but fortunately, not forever. At least in death we escape the crushing grip of the state and its vile oppressors.

The evening report extends the drip-feed of information. Our hero mass-killer says that none of Europe understands him, but in sixty years they will. Sounds like a philosopher to me. His prediction shows a powerful intelligence with an exceptional grip on reality, that is what makes him incomprehensible and apparently insane, according to the priests who fear the people being awoken by his example. Oh, I get it now, Snow on Channel Four News just said we can see material on the rising stars of Norwegian politics on their website, that were killed on the island by this massmurderer. Well, so that is why the attack was targeted at the traitorous Labour Party. As a humorous expression I would be bound to say that this is just the kind of treatment that should be meted out to all budding politicians, everywhere. But this is not the time for humour. Still, you have to concede that this was a legitimate, as in a political target, assuming you concede that terrorists can have legitimate targets. In our society those who rule our world deliberately go out of their way to deny a voice to the moral majority, those who are forced to turn to the likes of the BNP to have their entirely justified hatred of aliens expressed, because, by their mere presence, these aliens destroy our culture, obviously. But the fascists of Democracy are such arrogant people that they see no problem with starving people of access to a public voice, and then complain when frustration bursts out in terror. They do this because linguistic force wants immigrants to destroy stable cultures as part of the growth process, so that supporting aliens gives power to the politicians and those who jump on the bandwagon of supporting fascism in the guise of all inclusive brotherly love. This is priestcraft, this is Judaism, this is religion, hiding behind the guise of so called Democracy, which is an utter nonsense. If Democracy really existed, really let the true majority have a voice, you can be sure that the people who call themselves democrats would be the ones waging civil war against us, and ignoring any idea of freedom of expression, as they always have in the past. We must understand that individuals do not exist, the superorganism is all that exists, and social institutions are the organs of this living being, so that as times change over the centuries the living being remains the same, individuals change, yes, but the human animal remains the

same. This is why religion always remains the same. We are aware of how evil religion has been in the past, yet the pretence continues that religion is all about goodness, because that is its propaganda line. This dualism is never ending, and we have seen an excellent reminder of this in the confusion the church has got itself into over the encampment on the steps of St. Pauls this last week or so, today being Wednesday, 02 November 2011, protesting against Capitalist exploitation. Initially causing the church to side inevitably with the fascists, until bad press caused a rethink following a number of resignations and some backtracking, in order to show a Christian face of love and compassion, thus covering up the true image of a real menace lying behind global hate and exploitationreligion. Its like a real life example of the 2001 movie set in Australia, The Man Who Sued God, starring Billy Connolly, where a man sued God because an insurance firm refused to pay up after lightening destroyed his boat. This reveals the true underbelly of Christianity, and shows that they have to be forced to show their false image under these circumstances, revealing what this image is really for, it is the face of the beast. Wednesday, 27 July 2011 I think the lesson from this cry of anguish at the destruction of European culture through the seeding of Europe with Muslims, indicates more than anything, that the seeding is complete. They just had a very fine looking young Muslim Norwegian MP, singing the praises of Norwegian society for its superior example proven by her own existence, the daughter of immigrants, aged only twenty eight, making the laws that all Norwegians must live by, and deciding how Norway should be. If Islam could be as modified as Christianity, to the point where it is a worthless dead thing, all well and good, this Norwegian Muslim women looked just like the rest of us, who then would care that she is a Muslim. But such a Muslim is not the test of what Islam in Europe is all about in terms of our culture. The issue is bigger, and far more complicated than these apologists for religious, not to say, democratic fascism, like to tell us, repeatedly, by using their iron grip on all media. We can see that the seeding of Europe with Muslims is complete, but we have yet to see the consequences of this seeding, which will be awesome, we will eventually become a Muslim nation, nothing can stop this because the immigrants keep flooding in, the population is twenty percent larger than when I was a child, and the birth-rate is booming now, and you can bet the primitive aliens are responsible for more than their fair share of that increase. The truth is that Islam seems well suited to densely packed populations of the kind we see in Pakistan, and as such for the Jewish farmers of the human biomass it must make sense to plant Europe with Muslims, as surely as it makes sense to use genetically modified crops to feed more and more slaves of Judaism. This fact will ensure the transformation of Europe into a Muslim continent in centuries to come, and it is what our masters, owners, farmers, want. As can be seen from the reporting of this atrocity in Norway five days ago, what we want is entirely controlled, as in suppressed, and hence irrelevant. ___ The Jews were made by nature, they did not choose their destiny, and they pay the price of selection to rule, as argued by Kastein. They cannot help being our masters, anymore than we can help being their slaves. The wonder is that in this modern age, a so called scientific age, a mythological, childish rendition of history is all we ever get, no scientific analysis of any kind is ever applied to the subject of human history. The simple explanation for this deception is the adoption of an alternative pivot of observation through which to interpret all facts. This is the prism of interpretation that says that the human is an individual, and to this end it is fascinating to see Kastein cast the Jews as a people of individualistic form acting as self determining ends in themselves. Thus Jewish mythology

takes the essence of this pivotal deception and places it at the core of its account of itself, and this is what history is, human existence seen through the prism of individuals existing as ends in themselves. In truth there is no such thing as history, because their is no such thing as an individual. But Jewish mythology makes the Jews into a super-individual existing for their own sake, with an objective of ruling all humanity. And this is exactly what their religion tells them, and it is true, as a manifestation of human corporate nature that has made a global superorganism take the identity of the Jews as its own identity.

VII A new monster of darkness discovered Just when you thought it was safe to enter a book shop, now Gould is dead, a replacement emerges. Its Sunday, 26 February 2012, and last Thursday I popped into a book shop and made a wonderful random hit on a new title, Super Co-operators : Evolution, Altruism and Human Behaviour or Why we Need Each Other to Succeed, by Martin Nowak, 2011. I had not found a moment to examine this work, but it looked hot, being bang on the main theme of our Atheist Science agenda. Before I could get stuck in however I ran a search for the author today, a Harvard professor, and what I found was disgusting. Wasnt Gould a Harvard quack too ? Before I knew it I had located material on a lecture Nowak gave at a Catholic university a Catholic university !! Can you believe that, its like having a meat eating vegetarian or a criminal police force, insane, how can you have a religious institution of higher learning ? Fuck me ! Of course I know they exist, but I dont often get the chance to blow my top about this nauseating fact. So, here we are, the book, we know is trash, without even opening it. Dropping it open today I hit a passage, page fifty two, dealing with the power of reputation as a force of human social evolution, what we would put down to linguistic force. The man is a total nutter, too disgusting for words. The only good thing about this garbage is that it reveals the pressing need right now to deal with the mystery of human social life from a scientific perspective, something that no official scientist of the post cleansing era has ever done. How can they when they insist upon forcing their ideas into a the sterile mould of Darwinian dogma ? Nowak says at the outset that : Scientist from a wide range of disciplines have attempted for more than a century to explain how cooperation, altruism, and self-sacrifice arose in our dog-eat-dog world. (p. xvi) Thus giving us a perfect statement as to how, come hell or high water, so called scientists are determined to preserve Darwinism irrespective of its worthlessness in all their attempts to apply science to the study of evolution. They never suspect that stumping scientific insight is what Darwinism is meant to do, as trained academics they just take the part of priests and do their duty to the church, only some of them, like this Nowak and the mercifully deceased Gould, do this dirty work with especial relish.

Chapter 10

A Crucible of Human Master Identity

Its summer time and the sun is shining at last, and mercifully I am still joyfully unemployed, yippee ! So I finally snatched half an hour in which to read the short essay it has taken me five years to get my hands on, The City as a Social Organism by Schnore, 1966. Doing so at this juncture, right after writing this piece on the Jews evolution from the crucible of Middle Eastern social faunas of the imperial type, has proven useful, as the city now becomes a candidate for the actual initial stages of the firing of the furnace which is the crucible from whence the Jewish master race emerged. A couple of days ago, today being Thursday, 03 November 2011, it was announced that the biomass of the Jewish global superorganism had now reached seven billion, and more than half of this mass lived in cities. If cities are the crucible in which the Jewish embryo of superorganic being originated, then this outcome would seem to be the inevitable end point of its mature living form. the city is simply not a self-sufficient or wholly independent entity. Rather, it is dependentdependent on other areas such as rural areas for food and fibre and (through most of history) for men, or migrants to the cities. When we say that the city is dependent on other areas, whether we are thinking of rural areas or of other cities, we understand it to mean interdependentespecially in an economic sense. Cities offer things in return for still other things received by cities, whether these things are tangible goods or intangible services. The city is caught up in a kind of web of exchange relationships, supplying goods and services of a wide variety, including, most importantly, direction, control, integration, and coordination. All of these things are quite evident on the external side, for the interdependence of the city with other areas is obvious. The internal counterpart is somewhat less obvious. But, interdependence does exist within cities as well as between cities and other places, especially in the contemporary world. There is a territorial or geographic division of labor between the sub-areas making up the city. Most broadly, the division is between homes and workplaces, producing and consuming areas, between which there is a continuous flow of commodities, information, and people. It is exemplified by the stream of commuters between home and work. On a finer grain, there is also a division between areas devoted to different land usesindustrial, commercial, and recreational. From the standpoint of interdependence, then, the city is a social entity par excellence, for it displays both internal and external forms of symbiosis. Simultaneously, it reveals itself as an expression of symbolic communication between men. (The City as a Social Organism, Schnore, in Urban Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 3, March, 1966, p. 60.)

Schnore quotes a passage from a notable historian of the last generation, Lewis Mumford, who, in his The City in History, 1961, gives an organicist description of the ancient city. Turning to the page Schnore draws on, we find Mumford contrasting the contemporary supernova like explosion of urban living fuelled by modern technology, dispersing modern lifestyles everywhere, to the initial creation of civilisation in its embryonic form : Just the opposite happened with the first great expansion of civilization : instead of an explosion of power, there was rather an implosion. The many diverse elements of the community hitherto scattered over a great valley system and occasionally into regions far beyond, were mobilized and packed together under pressure, behind the massive walls of the city. Even the gigantic forces of nature were brought under conscious human direction : tens of thousands of men moved into action as one machine under centralized command, building irrigation ditches, canals, urban mounds, ziggurats, temples, palaces, pyramids, on a scale hitherto inconceivable. As an immediate outcome of the new power mythology, the machine itself had been invented : long invisible to archaeologists because the substance of which it was composedhuman bodieshad been dismantled and decomposed. The city was the container that brought about this implosion, and through its very form held together the new forces, intensified their internal reactions, and raised the whole level of achievement. This implosion happened at the very moment that the area of intercourse was greatly enlarged, through raidings and tradings, through seizures and commandeerings, through migrations and enslavements, through tax-gatherings and the wholesale conscription of labor. Under pressure of one master institution, that of kingship, a multitude of diverse social particles, long separate and self-centred, if not mutually antagonistic, were brought together in a concentrated urban area. As with a gas, the very pressure of the molecules within that limited space produced more social collisions and interactions within a generation than would have occurred in many centuries if still isolated in their native habitats, without boundaries. Or to put it in more organic terms, little communal village cells, undifferentiated and uncomplicated, every part performing equally every function, turned into complex structures organized on an axiate principle, with differentiated tissues and specialized organs, and with one part, the central nervous system, thinking for and directing the whole. (Mumford, p. 34) While far from ideal as an expression of organicist sociology, this is highly evocative of the situation that we speculate gave rise to a master race in the form of the Jews. The idea of one master institution giving purpose to the whole is perfect, for it is the sublimation of this ever present and inevitable expression of human corporate nature, driven by linguistic force in the pressurised conditions described, that created the refined, abstract version of this master institution in the shape of a detachable, religious priesthood. What comes across forcefully from such descriptions is the real need for a biological, organicist mode of reasoning, in order to extract the correct idea of the Jews from history. Even Kastein uses the idea of community as a natural living being, albeit briefly in passing. This way of accounting for the rise of the Jews from nowhere, is very much in keeping with Kasteins idea of the Jews as a culture especially adapted to the expression of internal forces. That is, the force of implosion that manufactured the Jews in opposition to the external forces of overt power which the Jews have famously lost all control over, making them claim protection as helpless victims time and time and again, and to great effect, leading indeed to the very phenomenon of anti-Semitism. This is the ultimate expression of the

power of internal force as the internal force becomes the foci of all external power, allowing the flow of social energy to be flipped around, so the flow of energy reverses, making the external power into an expression of internal force that no one can see for what it is ! The power of internal force is very much akin to that which we draw attention to when speaking of the switch from overt to covert authority, as invoked in Aesops tale of the wind and the sun showing who is strongest by getting a coat off a mans back. The wind blowing is external force, while the suns shining applies an internal force because it makes the man act of his own volition. Anti-Semitism does the same for the Jews by forcing the huge biomass they live within to act as their protector and an aid to Jewish global ambitions in a demonstration of collective guilt, with immense consequences in terms of social structure, suggesting the guilt feelings of a husband bringing flowers and chocolates to the wife he just beat-up. We see this phenomenon in the response of the Norwegians to the atrocity inflicted upon them by a rightwing Christian just the other day, so that these sad fools are now scrambling to affirm their determination to destroy their own society in order that the Jews can rule them more effectively. Now what do you suppose the same people would of done had the Muslims just advanced upon their society all guns blazing, as the Nazis did ? That is right, then they would of resisted. There is no getting away from it, where the manipulation of human biomass is concerned the ability to shift that mass in a given direction by virtue of its own volition, by activating internal social forces, is the way to control it, and such mechanisms would soon of been learnt in the early setting of city life described by Mumford. It is from these lessons that the master priesthood would of been forged out of the trials and tribulations of the kingly master institutions. This is how we all come to be Jews today. A further example of Kasteins special insight runs thus : beneath all the menaces and warnings of the prophets an undercurrent of deep affection for their people may be discerned. They knew, since they foresaw the future, that the Jews were destined to bear an exceptionally heavy burden. They already understood the law of selection, and were aware that it would be unfailingly applied until the idea, of which the Jews were the servants and representatives, had taken final and definite shape. They were therefore convinced that the various exiles and dispersions, decimations and massacres, would result in the survival of a remnant that would be immortal. Shear yashuv, cries Isaiaha remnant will return.

THE ORGANIZATION OF A TIMELESS EPOCH

THE downfall of Samaria and the total disappearance of the majority of the
Israelites once again applied the law of selection to the Jewish community. The few who escaped death or captivity fled to Judah and joined the nucleus that still survived there, thus becoming witnesses of an extraordinary event that took place in that kingdom. They were once more confronted by the problem, why, with only a space of a few miles between them, the history of the two kingdoms should have been so different. The reply, based upon the spiritual influence of the prophets, was simple and impressiveexternal power and internal power are not the same. External power, which is violence, is temporal. Internal power, which is the absence of violence, is supertemporal. The whole subsequent history of the kingdom of Judah, until it ceased to exist as a state, consisted in exemplifying this fateful contrast. Of the Children of Israel, a people that had once numbered possibly six millions, only a fragment survived in the shape of an insignificant little state in Palestine, which was a vassal of Assyria and, on

account of its very minuteness, was left to its own resources. Nevertheless, it was upon this isolated remnant that all the powers of heaven and earth were now converging. (Kastein, pp. 54 55) This portion dealing with the authority ruling over the Jews, the prophets, is of interest, for here is the source of the power driving the master race, the idea telling them what their future shall be. We know we are dealing with the story of a mammalian superorganism created through the action of linguistic force, so we understand the true biological nature of the prophecies as expressions of linguistic force crystallised into a social form. And it is noteworthy that Kastein begins his account of Jewish nature with a chapter called Crystallisation, from which the first selection above, is taken. He is referring to the material crystallisation of the people called Jews, but he acknowledges the implicit existence of an underlying impetus that he explains in terms of religious forces, as noted previously, an explanation which only shifts the ground from one superficial social aspect to another, without discovering the true nature of the phenomenon of social evolution in humans. The religion he speaks of is a crystallisation of linguistic force, so the people are a crystallisation of religion, but underlying the whole process is the corporate nature of humans written into our genome which created a mammal with linguistic physiology to project linguistic force into the interstitial space lying between the resulting interconnected individuals, a projection of force occurring in the shape of social authority and all that comes to support and sustain authority through the agency of social structure. The prophets are the theocracy, the priesthood, the social structure, or superorganic physiology, which has been created by the projection of linguistic force into the environment of social being, that human individuals spontaneously engender by virtue of their existence as linguistically empowered animals. It is especially interesting to see this notion of the prophets being fully aware of the Darwinian theory of natural selection because it applied to the making of the Jews. We say that Darwinism is religion, not science, precisely because it imbues science with the politics of human political order, based upon the idea of the person as an end in themselves. In effect Kastein is unintentionally affirming our insight into the true nature of modern science, as it has been suppressed and subverted by the rule of Jewish logic over our knowledge creation processes. As the argument proceeds we can see that the priesthood has it as a matter of dogma that their power will ebb and flow, so that they know that any attempts at freedom amongst the powerless and disorganised seeking freedom from Judaism, are ultimately doomed, as proven by things like the Nazi inspired Second World War, that was an all round disaster for the Western World, announcing its end, and a triumph for our masters, the Jews, introducing their establishment as a nation state for the first time in history. The idea of semantic closure and self organisation can be usefully introduced into the discussion here, as a modern idea on how organisms are formed by the influence of information relayed through structures. When we see debates about the validity of organicist interpretations of society such as that conducted between the Americans Small and Patten through the vehicle of the American Academy of Political and Social Science journal of 1894, we can see a connection between the early professors of the organicist idea, where Small defends the organic structure of society by using a quote from Huxley on the meaning of the word organic, but finds therein the absence of a key factor, the understanding of the essence of lifewhich is Information. If only they had understood the relevance of information as the force creating all life. Coming to an item that I obtained only yesterday, 25/07/2011, The Religion Virus, Craig James, 2010, we find a piece which is avowedly based on Dawkins miscreant sublimation of the idea of linguistic force into a Darwinian materialistic form, in

the shape of the meme, which gives us a brief discussion of that most important of questions, Why Do Humans Talk ? After giving us a couple of disgusting answers coming from others, James provides his own solution : Memes are evolutions way of improving itself. We have emphasised several times that its the information in our DNA that is important, not the DNA itself. The act of procreation is, at its core, the act of copying information. Memes are just a more effective way to do what DNA and RNA have been doing for a few billion years : replicate information. Lets compare the evolution of memes and genes in more detail. Why are memes better ? (James, p. 109) Arrrrgh ! Can you hear me screaming ? For pitys sake, where do they get these vile freaks from ! What, what, what on earth is he talking about ? Yes by gum, this is such an important point to realise, information is what it is all about. But how can you take this precious insight and turn it into such pathetic reasoning as this ! We use this insight to reduce humans to seamless aspects of existence, he uses the same insight to reduce existence to an aspect of human divinity ! He makes the evolution of language the key to humans becoming possessed of creative powers vested in themselves as ends in themselves, so that we become our own creative determinants of how evolution will proceed relative to ourselves. We obtain thereby, literally, the power of God. I wanted to quote this passage because I love the recognition that it is all about information, which is such an important point to make, but in taking the quote I must first spit blood in anger at what this freak of knowledge creation has done with this sublime insight. The issue here comes down to what I was telling Katie over the bar on Saturday night, the material she had been reading of mine was the key to all knowledge, it provides ultimate knowledge. In just twelve pages ! she said. Yes. I replied, Because the pivots of observation are prisms through which all information is projected to create knowledge. Use the wrong prism and all that you get will be wrong, use the right one and your answers may be correct. And really, that is what we are seeing here. This man is determined to understand all insights through the false prism of interpretation which is the idea of the individual as an end in themselves, so that when he cuts to the essence of the subject and produces his answer to the facts correctly observed, he spews forth the most vile, false results.

I Essence of master race power I suddenly made a link between covert and internal, to give me an idea of the essence of master race power, as I walked to the pub to partake of the cider festival last night. Walking is a good way to bring out such connections, it occupies the body in an easy manner, meditatively one might suppose, leaving the mind free to wander. Kastein indicated that the essence of Jewish power was their relinquishing of external, physical power, in favour of control over internal, timeless power. The revelation I had last night while on the road to the ale house, sounds almost biblical, only my experience was real, concerned bringing together the ideas of internal, covert and information/knowledge. It

is all very well for Kastein to come out with so profound an observation, which declares that the uniqueness of the Jews amongst all peoples ever to of existed, making them the Chosen People with an awesome responsibility to bear, is to be discerned in the distinction between external and internal forces. But if we home in on this statement, we must recognise that it serves as a portal to the key question of all time : the nature of social power in human society. And Kastein just breezes over the matter, as well we may expect he would, for he undoubtedly had no idea what he was talking about, he was making an intuitive observation borne of his intimate knowledge of the subject at a mundane level of conscious existence. Our far deeper insight only comes from the fact that we already know all about the nature of humans as superorganisms, and the Jews as a key element of this life form. We have made much of the idea that the theocracy has the power to control knowledge under any conditions, so much so that it was able to shift from overt mode to covert mode during the pivotal period of transition to a scientifically informed age, during the first half of the nineteenth century. Culminating in the imposition of a theory of evolution upon the world, specifically made in the image of Judaism, being based upon the political idea, the linguistically generated idea that is, that individuals are ends in themselves, each and every one of them being an example of the human being. This method of knowledge fabrication and control leaves the living superorganism intact, and since the theocracy is the essence of the superorganism in material life, the interests of the shadowy theocracy and the unknowable superorganism are one and the same. So, refining Kasteins wonderful observation, we are able to distinguish between external power having to do with physical power, and internal power having to do with the control of information, by first recognising external power as the overt expression of power utilised by social authorities to control their own society directly, by physical means. This leaves the special power Kastein makes the province of the Jews, the internal power that we now recognise is the covert use of power seen in the way a theocracy like that which rules us now, shifts from physical oppression to sublimation, giving people what they want in a safe, or sterile form. Safe for the social authorities that is, by not really being what people are clamouring for. Thus the urge for knowledge, or freedom, is satisfied in a socially acceptable way, through fiction, lying that is, or deception, or, quite simply, through a biological process that language exists to engender. An argument might be that people do not know the true nature of what they want when they seek the truth, and must be protected from their own ignorance, hence it just happens to be best for people that they are left where they always were, under the cosh of Judaism, no matter what apparent changes take place in society. Covert, or internal power then, is all about the control of information, which amounts to the control of knowledge, that allows social transformation to continue while ensuring real change never takes place. Transformation without change, is in effect growth. The role of arbitrating this growth process is what the Jews came to specialise in as a cultural mode of existence, this focus upon the control of knowledge from behind the veil of linguistic meaning is the secret of Jewish power therefore, that Kastein calls the control of internal power. If hard evidence for such a claim is vague, we can at least note that in Christianity and Islam, not once, but twice, the Jews have managed to produce a slave identity able to go global. If this does not represent the control of information on the grandest scale of all, Id like to know what would. It is here, in the manufacture of slave identities, that Judaism comes into its own by exercising an internal mechanism of control buried within the brain of each person, by giving them their personal identity in common with the collective identity of the Jews. Once this hook is in place across a social biomass then all social dynamics will pull in the same direction, so that no matter what happens or how long a period passes, the world will eventually come under the spell of Judaism, exactly as has proven to be the case. This is because when people ask

themselves what they are doing they refer to the psychological hook of identity that is their slave attachment to Judaism, which draws them towards the same goal as the hook of identity that informs the Jews who they are as the Chosen People, destined to rule the world. This is the manifestation of internal power, the power of identity derived from the linguistic force which arises from our biologically evolved somatic physiology. And if we think about Mumfords description of the manner in which all the amorphous village populations were drawn into one enclosed social mass, inducing a supercharged social state that led to complex structure that unleashed hidden powers of human nature, we can see how Judaism does exactly the same in the field of abstract organisation, the field of internal force that is. Judaism draws the myriad of localised identities within the bounds of its one identity, and then, in precisely the same manner as we see operating in the material case of the city, we see the same material empowerment arising from this act of enclosure at the spiritual level, at the linguistic level of information that is. Linguistic force is that force which creates social form, and each person represents a quota of linguistic force. Quota of linguistic force always have a focal point of orientation determined by the point of origin of their linguistic identity programme, derived from their induction into existence as a social element of superorganic being. Thus, generalised, the argument above says that the Jews place themselves at the gravitational centre of social being by dispersing an identity programme that orients each quota of human existence, each person that is, towards the same focus as that which the Jews are oriented towards. No matter what happens in existence, no matter what time passes or how society changes, when a return to settled order occurs, as it always must periodically, that return to order must obey the dictates of internal programming which has the Jewish identity at its centre, because of the dispersal of Jewish identity values across the entire range of social orders. This in turn indicates why chaos and destruction is so essential to the creation of a fully integrated Jewish superorganism, because each fracturing of the settled biomass offers a fresh opportunity for a reconfiguration that can only ever increase the orientation towards Judaism, as history has proven an infinite number of times. The chaos of Jewish victimisation is a special aspect of this scenario, which protects the Jews from the destructive effects of external force that shatters all expressions of identity except that of Judaism itself, including its slave forms. Here we find a peculiar effect of information dynamics as they are associated with identity. The Jews are attacked for being Jews, and so they must act like the man in Aesops fable who hunkers down and resists, hanging onto their identity at all costs. Whereas belligerent social orders act against each other as equals, which means as alternative powers in a contest for social domination where only the victor might be expected to survive intact, so that the loss of power by one party is taken as given. Hence willing combatants are open to fundamental change at the level of self identity, including their own disappearance, which the Jews historical inability to take part in such wars precludes them from. It is an odd idea to get our heads around, but clearly something allows all identities to be plastic except one, that is Judaism, including the Jewish slave identities of Christianity and Islam. Hence we discover the very essence of Jewish master race power lies in this dynamic whereby control of information is the key to making all material power orientate itself towards a stable focus of identity. When the Normans conquered England in 1066 they set about subjecting English identity to a French character thus creating a new compound identity giving rise to modern day Englishness, that is now being submerged under the global pressure of immigration from deeply alien identities like that of Islam and other primitive African forms. Last night, 01/03/2012, Newsnight was discussing the widespread belief in spirit possession that is now endemic in London, in the aftermath of a horrendous murder of a fifteen year old lad. Two young black English women talked about devil possession as being real, and one said that is

what the childrens movie Harry Potter is all about, that she would not let her children watch Harry Potter because it was about letting the devil take possession of you ! Wow, that is how scary our once great nation has become, and we are supposed to think of this creatures as English, I dont even think of them as human. Yet these transformations are really the same, the Normans were a vanguard for Judaism, they had the power of the Church behind their mission and this is what both these acts of transformation are all about. It is so tragic to see our once great land becoming a home to the most animal expressions of human nature, yet this is what the superorganism needs in order to continue growing towards its maximum global potential under Judaism. It might be time for someone to write a new version of Leckys famous nineteenth century work on the advance of rationalism across Europein which the decay of belief in witchcraft played a central partin reverse. At the same time they might also deal with the crass idea so expressive of Leckys age, the idea of progress, with which all the priests were so enamoured as they rode the crest of an intellectual wave so high that it blinded them to the obvious historical fact that progress was by no means a characteristic of human social existence taken as a whole. We are plunging from the crest of intellectual prowess at a rate of descent which is terrifying, but no one sees it, except me. Amusingly, this sentiment exactly matches the eternal cry of the religious freak who bemoans the decay of their faith and raises a clarion call to the faithful to fight back. How curious it is the way false knowledge precisely mimics true knowledge in its dynamics, thus proving that knowledge is an expression of human biological nature with a purely functional nature.

II Monism overrules dualism To be scientific our ideas must be monistic, so that dualisms are anathema to our Atheist Science arguments. Yet we find a dualism here, in the delineation of internal versus external social forces that results in the formation of structural order, creating a master race ruling over a prone biomass. This contrast between monism and dualism is however nothing more than the contrast between information and structure, where it goes without saying that information is the only possible basis of unification, and structure necessarily involves a multiplicity of interrelated orders existing under the monistic rule of its related information pattern. Information is unity, logically this gives rise to knowledge that is monistic, where it is true to reality. The idea that people are individuals existing in their own right occupies a position where only monism belongs, arising from the structural order coming under monistic order. This abuses human reason by making a particular into a universal. The sum of structures contains the information that unites it, in the human case this means the sum of social structure must contain one unifying body of information. This information defines the human animal, the superorganism. We have said that Information is the essence of life, and where information exists, there is life. In the above contrast between information and structure we have disregarded this fact for ease of discussion, because we were concerned with pointing out the nature of monism as the logical expression of information. Information is simply energy flowing within matterthis is why linguistic force creates all social structurewhere structure is created by the flow of energy occurring under the dictate of rules of organisation inherent within matter. Thus information does not exist independently of life, when no life exists to read it. When matter reads the flow of energy by coming into existence as life, then information simultaneously comes into existence as the essence of life. As life evolves

information comes into its own as an expression of force, eventually giving rise to Linguistic Force, as a force of information. This allows us to discover truth in one of the most contemptible pieces of artful philosophy, that of Berkleys from the eighteenth century, which famously declared that when no one is looking at something, that something does not exist ! In the case of information, this is literally true ! But we can be sure that Berkley, while he may of unwittingly derived his ability to express this nonsensical idea from this true and important sense of what is real and vital to us living beings, would definitely not of had this idea in mind. He meant that structure, that is matter, disappeared from the universe when we were not looking at it !! Did he, is that right ? It is years since I came upon this vile idea and I hated it too much to check it out at source, but it sounds about right for a religious bit of freakery, these subhumans will say anything if it obtains applause. Now we have a further example of what Kasteins internal force might be seen as, still in the guise of information, but here understood in terms of information contrasted with structure, where information is the aspect of existence that defines existence, hence when applied to the human animal, the superorganism, information defines social power and makes whoever links to this facet of existence, information that is, the pinnacle of the underlying structure. We always want to drive towards a monistic, scientific conclusion, but the priest always wants to discern a dualism. Kastein the Jew does this, and I noticed a piece in Durkheim, the famous Jewish French sociologist yesterday, where he does the same. In some Selected Writings of Durkheim we have a chapter called Forms of social solidarity which says something about mechanical versus organic solidarity, that derives from his famous The Division of Labour in Society, 1893. Turning to the original is confusing, so I will stick with the selection, and keep it brief, just noting that this Jew makes a be all and end all of two types of social cohesion, the mechanical being indicative of the primitive social order that enslaves the individual according to an all embracing uniformity ; and the biological as the basis of civilised life derived from the division of labour that unleashed the potential for individuality, seen in the individuality denoted by occupational difference. The former slave type he called mechanical, and the latter free type liberating our individuality as ends in ourselves, he calls organic, for reasons he explains, that are just examples of priestcraft designed to appeal to our masters and overlords, of which he was one. It is such a piece of contrived drivel, no wonder Durkheim is noted as one of the greatest sociologists ever, he wrote such utter trash : There are in each of us, as we have said, two forms of consciousness : one which is common to our group as a whole, which, consequently, is not ourself, but society living and acting within us ; the other, on the other hand, represents that in us which is personal and distinct, that which makes us an individual. (Emile Durkheim : Selected Writings, Giddens, 1995, p. 139. First pub. 1972.) Nothing more pathetic was ever written by anyone on the subject of sociology. Talk about having your cake and eating it. This dualism is standard priestcraft, admitting what must be admitted and then without pausing to take breath, flying in the face of what has been admitted in order to continue the age old mantra of false knowledge which holds religion at its core. Yes, this says, there is only society, but within society exists the individual as the really sole existent thing. I am at a loss, I cannot believe that I cannot find a copy of Division of Labour online, but there it is, its not there ! The selections provide no references, none I can make sense of anyway, so I cannot locate the above quote in the original work. Never mind. We have this

little excursion into Durkheim, which feels out of place within the discussion of the Jews as a master race, but it simply offers a good example of how dualism is used to deny monism, and thus to allow the human to be separated from reality by making the person the end in themselves. Thus separated by a false conception of self, the individual is free to be bound under this fabrication of reality, which is religion, into a unified structural form, and this is the way our animal somatic form was evolved to function in the process of creating a living human animal, the superorganism, at the level of social organisation. There is a natural dualism involved in the delineation of a master race, self evidently, but this must be understood within the monism that is human nature, so that the master race observation concerns the structural order of the one existing whole, the superorganism. The master race is not an end in itself, only the superorganism constitutes such an end. ___ Our insights derived from the identification of Kasteins loose ideas with specific realities, does not end here. Having identified the essence of master race power, we may understand how Judaism builds the global superorganism by spawning slave images of itself that bear the same essence of power, but, because they have been stamped with a Jewish identity, remain under the initial source of covert, internal power, that created them, that of the Jews. Thus the Jews truly do become a superpower amongst cultures. What this means, is that the sub-Judaic priesthoods spawned in the likeness of the Jews, but represented as none Jewish, which have been agents of Judaism mainly through the application of external, physical power, also possess the same structural routines for controlling knowledge. In this way the Jews control everything, including the application of external power that they have given up any direct control over, according to Kastein. This is so because they have control over the controllers by virtue of making them slaves of Judaism, through the creation of a slave identity programme ! Awesome, at last we have the whole story, from beginning to end. I never thought this problem was resolvable by me. All of this makes perfect sense, and was theoretically predictable. Saying that the Jews are the core identity of the superorganism that achieved this status by causing the linguistic force which creates all superorganic, that is social structure and form, focus upon themselves as the core identity, is tantamount to saying that the culture of the Jews has evolved to control Information : the force of life. Information is the internal force, where structure is the external force, to put it at its most abstract. And this root dualism explains the express dualism seen in the manufacture of all ideas and knowledge about the nature of life as we live it. Our being objects of linguistic force is the reason why dualism in inherent in our mental outlook, even though monism is the sole means of understanding reality as it is. And this fact proves absolutely that language evolved to serve a biological function, not to enable the true representation of reality just for the hell of it ; an obvious fact, but one that, thanks to the dualistic imperative of our linguistically empowered sentience, is always denied. Even so, there is a difference between realising the nature of the Jews in logical terms reflecting our understanding of the biological nature of humans, and getting to the nitty-gritty of the power behind the Jews as the master culture of human cultures, in the way enabled by looking at this rather basic account of Jewish history provided by a Jew. I always felt that a Jew would have to be the source of such insight, since they are the only ones who possess the insider knowledge of their own culture. Kastein brings a different perspective to the Jewish story, which is perhaps seen in the use of the word destiny in conjunction with history in his title. He sets out to explain the nature and origin of the Jews, after a fashion.

III Linguistic authority and science As we get to grips with the idea of internal, covert force, as the basis of real power in society, because it represents the control of the natural power arising out of our evolved, corporate nature, that produces a living superorganism by organising individual behaviour through the medium of linguistic force, we can see a further opportunity to elucidate the relationship between ourselves and knowledge. We have considered the idea that consciousness is a projection of linguistic force, which acts as a screen upon which life it projected, making the products of linguistic force all that we can see. Obviously this applies specifically to our understanding of reality, and has a socially constructive bias that makes the social structure real to us. The general idea that theocracy creates science in its image, to serve as a sterile form of science that it is safe for religion to share the social space with, is a special case of this general principle. This allows us to examine this phenomenon of the linguistic projection of authority, in detail. We can see that the new concept of science is created according to principles that provide a definite kind of knowledge that is clearly true, this is the establishment of authority through the establishment of linguistically generated knowledge. With the basic principles of this new kind of knowledge production established, such as the reference to physical reality and proof established by experimental demonstration, the stage is set for the subversion of this new form of knowledge to suit the specific requirements of religion that is the knowledge upon which the theocracy relies for its place in society. The whole of science must be perverted therefore, in a methodical manner. And the people who do this are the priests cum intellectuals that have positions of authority in society. They were trained theologians in the formative years of science, who understood what science could be allowed to do and what it could not, without impinging upon their religious domain. Suitable exponents were selected for commendation, and the process of lifting a sterile but highly sophisticated form of new, secular styled knowledge, away from the base plate of theology, is gradually achieved as we move from true theologians to the first great scientists, men like Descartes, and onto fully fledged scientists like Darwin. With my introduction to the idea of the city as a social organism yesterday, we find the idea of the superorganism comes in so many different guises, lets consider the development of this idea in brief. Society would seem to be the first conception of a social organism, going back to St.-Simon and passing onto Comte. The development of this idea, still associated with society, was made more definite by defining the social organism as the State, or Nation. This would seem to of been a general, or common consensus occurring by the late nineteenth century. We then find the link made to a specific religion as the defining attribute of the social organism in Kidds Social Evolution of 1894, where Christianity is declared the most advanced social organism of all, thus Kidd totally missed the point of his own genius. We find Rene Worms almost developing this idea in his work on sociological method, when he ponders the question whether the reach of a religion exceeds that of a nation to define the social organism. Sadly he fails miserably to take the necessary step forward, and plumbs for the nation as overriding religion, presumably finding the in-your-face factors of national identity more convincing than the scientific logic of religion as the purest expression of corporate identity in humans. We should, for completeness, mention the Gaia hypothesiss suggestion that the planet is a superorganism, and in this connection we may note that various fantasists have

suggested the whole universe is an organic being, or a brain even. Society, nation, religion, city, planet, universe. We need to get a grip. The use of the organicist idea during the nineteenth century was called an analogical method, and we find a similar profusion of descriptive works employing this method in an alternative general guise, where instead of organism these various complex dynamic forms are likened to machines, so much so that the idea of the organism and the machine become quite interchangeable at this level of abstraction. The problem here, in terms of using this idea scientifically, is setting a limit upon this descriptive approach. Indeed, in terms of my work in Atheist Science versus that of all other thinkers who have used the idea of the social organism in one form or another, the critical factor is that I set a highly precise, fixed limit to the meaning of the term superorganism. I talk about identity, and I explain that there can only ever be one identity, which is Jewish, where the myriad of other identities all constitute structural aspects of the One, recognisable as such by the fact of sublimation under the same political, mythological, moral, legal and economic principles of the core Jewish mantra of social order. The human social organism, or superorganism, is for us all about religion, as we would expect to find in a philosophy of human nature calling itself Atheist Science, since such a science must stand in direct opposition to the religious science inevitably to be found in any society sustaining religion.

IV Paul von Lilienfeld : my hero Some half dozen years ago I suffered a great tragedy in the pursuit of my philosophical goals, and just recently, today being Saturday, 03 March 2012, that tragedy was finally resolved, though unfortunately the lost years can never be recovered, as this resolution proves this event was significant. In the early days of my success in discovering that people had formerly existed who knew that humans were superorganisms, as I discovered this fact for myself and spent two years seeking out the idea in the world at large, before I found a portal into that lost knowledge of reality, my guide, the only one to exist in fact, was Organismic Theories of the State by Francis Coker, 1910. This made Paul von Lilienfeld my hero, he was the only person ever to argue that society was a true living organism. In the eighteen seventies he wrote a five volume treatise on the subject called Gedanken ber die Socialwissenschaft der Zukunft, or Thoughts Concerning the Social Science of the Future. I must of been searching for copies of this work now, on a regular basis, for ten years ! Volume two was readily available, and it was not too long before I picked up volume one, both nice and cheap ; those were the days ! For ages I searched and searched and I really wanted the fifth volume, which focused upon religion. Then to my utter amazement one day, there it was ! I was so excited I jumped up from the computer and walked away, considering my strategy. I did not want to do anything to blow this purchase, the book was nice and cheap, it was in Austria, a country I had not purchased from previously. If only I had just used my head and for once chosen secure postage. In fact I placed the order according to my normal practice, requesting no special conditions or postage. Tragedy. The book went to wiping German arses, I suspect. The idiot of a book dealer decided to save me money, so he said, the postage had been about five pounds, and he sent the book via Germany at some super cheap rate because by hitching a free ride on the German postal system he knew a way of getting the job done dirt cheap ! Fing, bloody, stinking, sodding, arrrrgh, sob, sob. I could not believe it, of course the damn thing never arrived, and I have never seen another copy since. Tragedy.

Except, a couple of years ago, suddenly, the whole set was put up for sale, but now the price was sky high, people have long since given up flogging off books according to the old dealers knowledge of their being no interest in these old, obscure titles. Now they are attuned to the fact that the internet indicates rarity on a global scale and this means value, no matter how obscure a work is in terms of its interest to a modern reader. Not long after another full set appeared at the same horrendous price, over five hundred pounds, for books you could not give away when I first began looking for Lilienfeld. I even tried bartering, but to no avail. A year later and another full set appeared at about three hundred and fifty pounds, which was still too much given that I had two original copies and I had since bought a POD copy of the third volume. Three of Lilienfelds works had been posted on the free book site, which made one more available, and the paperback POD copy was nicely done. But now, just this year, finally the other two copies have made into digital format and I have them, so at last I have a hard copy of Lilienfelds fifth volume Die Religion betrachtet vom Standpunkte der real-genetischen Socialwissenschaft oder Versuch einer natrlichen Theologie, 1881. Loosely interpreted, this is an attempt to describe a natural religion based upon the idea of society as a living entity made by nature, I think. Would you believe it, thinking myself done with hunting for these works, I could not resist a search the other day and lo and behold, yet another full set is on offer, and this time at an affordable price, only two hundred and sixty pounds. Bloody hell ! Sadly the POD service has already descended into mediocrity. My POD copy of the fifth volume is massive, being done to a standard formula, with the bulk of a telephone book, and it is only available in paperback, so it is a horrible object, the product of economic efficiency determined by the profit motive of the publisher. No bibliophilic sentiments are lost on this exercise. I may yet have to treat myself to one of these full sets, although this last one is a late printing it is still an original set. But now, from the saga of the Lilienfeld search, to the point that really matters. By finally getting my hands on this most important volume by Lilienfeld, we learn that it turns out that he actually treats of Christianity as a social organism too ! This is perfect, this is just what we have always wanted from someone of this period, it is not quite perfect, obviously, for that would require realising that it is Judaism, not Christianity that constituted the superorganism, but that is never going to happen, people must of understood this, but how are we going to find published material stating the fact ? No, I do not think so, even in this freest of intellectual ages, now long gone, they were never that free ! What we do get from a unique piece of work like this one, is an indication of how far over the precipice of true scientific knowledge society had gone, indicating how clearly the whole body of our elite must of been imbued with a sense of the only place this development of science applied to humans could go, and hence, that this real science had to be stopped at all cost. This social movement could only be stopped by means of social cleansing. Academia always works according to this principle, it is a physiological structure of social cleansing, the cleansing, purifying, refining and stabilising of information which, once treated, is then called knowledge. But we can see from the likes of Lilienfeld, and later on, still being expressed by Kidd, that a physical act of cleansing had to be conducted. A major European, if not world wide war, was vital if Judaism was to survive as the ruling master identity. In fact it took two such wars, but the job was done most effectively, as we can tell from my little story of how I failed to get my hands on Lilienfelds wonderful works of genuine scientific sociology. Here we have a whole book devoted to the highest idea anyone ever came up with in social science, also revealed in a minuscule fashion by Kidd, the idea that religion is the basis of the social organism.

Chapter one is Die christliche Kirche als realer Organismus, that we can readily see means The Christian Church is a Real Organism. Thus we find that the title of Lilienfelds first volume, the most perfect title ever given to any work written in humanitys existence, Die menschliche Gesellschaft als realer Organismus, Human Society is a Real Organism, has been projected onto it most expressly required object of scientific attention, that of religion in the role of creative factor at the core of social existence, as determined by our biological evolution. Had I of obtained this book when I ordered it from Vienna, I would of laboured for months over it, turning it into text, in the process of which I would of translated important sections, such as this first chapter, as I did for his first volume, giving me immense insight into how Lilienfeld handled these ideas. It was from translating chapter one of his first volume that I got the early start on my clear idea that we must put force at the forefront of our thinking about what society is as a natural phenomenon, from which the idea of linguistic force eventually arose, that is so central to all our thoughts on humans as superorganisms. Who knows what I could get out of this latest acquisition from Lilienfeld ? But the intervening years have transformed society, as unbelievable as such a remark might seem. At present I am six months into a two year attachment to a private provider of the newly established Work Programme, I am three weeks into a four week City and Guilds employability course they have put me on. I hate to think what they will have lined up for me when this shit is finished with, I fear the next shove will be towards full on slave labour, that they call voluntary work, or work experience. There has been immense fuss about this kind of programme as it is applied to young people just this last fortnight. The social landscape since the 2008 financial collapse has put an end to my easy life on the dole, and this is a classic case of how catastrophe serves the objectives of the master race by allowing the naturally decaying substance of social order to be recycled through a mill of social enforcement to reconfigure it into a more rigid form, focused once again upon its core objectives embodied in Judaisms objective of One world under God. Their God that is, of course. Having found a point of entry for mentioning this newly discovered work of Lilienfeld, or newly accessed at least, I can only mention it at this point, for the days of endless months of relaxed ease when I could apply myself to the intensive study of a single work, are no more, and I have no thoughts of working on this fifth volume, as much as I would like to know what it says. We could use the digital version ready made and do some free machine runs, but German does not come out too well without a lot of work, and this is not the place. So we can just note that it goes to show what was out there in nineteenth century Western civilisation, that we simply have no means of knowing about today, because we get all our knowledge courtesy of the utterly corrupt academic priesthood, that serves the absolute Jewish theocracy to which we all belong, as members of the Jewish global superorganism. 06/03/2012 Channel Four News Benjamin Netanyahu, Israels prime minister, met Obama today and captured my attention for the remark he was shown making, that used the Iranian world view to make a curious observation. He said the Iranians considered America as the Great Satan and Israel as Little Satan, and that the Jews were the Americans and the Americans were the Jews ! This is remarkable, it is half of our Atheist Science mantra, though it misses out the all important fact that the Iranians, like the Nazis, are just as much the Jews, as are the

Americans. This of course our masters are not going to say, because that would reveal the true nature of this curious fact of everyone being Jewish even when they are not ! The Jews are expected to bomb the Iranians some time this year, maybe after the American presidential elections, they have done it before. This is because the Iranians are expected to obtain a nuclear weapon by this time next year.

V Amateur v professional science Last night, 08/03/2012, I caught some of the Sky at Night programme, which can be damnably hard to catch, and it was all about amateur astronomy and the important role it has in aiding the professional scientists. Substituting philosophy for astronomy I found myself loving what they said about the nature of the contribution made. While the professional tends to find themselves constrained towards certain areas of interest, the amateur, acting simply out of love and passion for knowledge, goes where that urge leads them. This tends to take the amateur into areas the professional never thinks to go. This would certainly describe the nature of my philosophical work. However, the difference between the two fields of endeavour is evident. The physical material that forms the basis of astronomy is spread all around in great profusion, making its availability open to all who can access good equipment. We see a similar phenomenon in archaeology where the use of modern technology, as in the metal detector, has seen the professional forge links with the amateur out of necessity, so that societies have been set up around the country to encourage responsible metal detecting that allows the professionals to extract the history from the finds recorded by amateurs. This amalgamation between amateur and professional is based upon the principle of science as a hands on investigation of material reality. On the face of it the same principle cannot apply in other areas of investigation where the amateur may have a considerable interest, as in sociology, but where the material basis of professional work is not dispersed freely all around for anyone to examine and come up with compelling finds demanding the attention of professionals. Or is it ? I have found my way into a seam of past knowledge that was immense, and which is now completely buried in oblivion. It continually amazes me how I keep on and on finding new organicist works ! An extraordinary book arrived from America just last week, Treatise on Sociology by Henry Hughes, 1854. This is a unique piece of work, its agenda is the defence of slavery as it was operating in the southern states of North America at the time. What is fascinating about it is the way it utilises a form of organicist logic that is reminiscent of the mechanistic social organicism which we find in Hitlers Mein Kampf, where the individual is made to exist for the sake of society. In Hughes piece there is a curious logic to this argument whereby the justification for societys primacy over the individual, is that societys first reason for existence is to ensure the existence of all individuals. What we have here then is a flavour of organicist logic that reduces the individual to a unit of social order, and Hughes develops this principle by talking about the inevitability of a social structure which requires a hierarchical framework, emphasising in a rather Hitlerian style, that all people must work, a principle which the British state is now trying to introduce, from America, today, in the shape of the Work Programme which nudges towards the idea of working for your benefits. This is simply another way of extracting the essence of slavery from the biomass, indicating possession or ownership of the biomass by the omnipotent state, for as Hughes says, the beauty, and moral superiority of slavery, of Warranteeism as he

calls it, is that people are always provided for whether work is available or not. Warranteeism is a concocted phrase adapted to the context, being Hughes alternative for slavery, and meaning the sovereign authority of society to order peoples lives for the benefit of all. In effect this is a normal political argument adapted to an extraordinary set of political circumstances, that were of course soon removed by the Civil War. The trouble is, this kind of material is far from having been forgotten by our professionals, on the contrary, their whole body of official knowledge is concocted in direct response to this true scientific principle of the individuals nonexistence. Professionals exist to ensure these early, pure scientific ideas, are never seen again ! This science is not lost, it is deliberately suppressed. But what the relationship between professionals and amateurs in other fields tells us, is that professionals are by their nature a specialised body with an agenda which constitutes a specific role in the official structure of society. So that indirectly, we learn something of the nature of professionalism which supports our attack on academic work of all kinds that bear on human life, whereby science is completely perverted in order to protect politics, at the heart of which is religion. Only yesterday, 9/03/2012, I finally decided to order a first edition of a book I had my eye on for ages, another American work on its way across the Atlantic. Arthur Lewis An Introduction to Sociology, 1913, only cost a tenner, but I finally decided to purchase a copy when I noticed the emphatic statement in the PDF copy I was checking out yesterday, that said religion must be erased from science before sociology could exist ! Yes !! Superb. The student who approaches sociology through this book and this will probably be its function to most of its readers may as well be told the plain truth here at the outset. Theological ideas, in this, as in any other scientific field, are as so many heavy weights hung to the waist-belt of a foot-racer rapid progress will be impossible until they are thrown aside. The immense superiority of the sociological works of Lester F. Ward to those of, say Giddings, for example, is largely due to Wards rigid adherence to the scientific spirit when theology is in question. As we shall see presently, the acknowledged founder of the science, August Comte, saw clearly that the laying of the theological ghost must be the initial step in the scientific interpretation of social activity. Happily, in this respect. Sociology is heir to the labors of the giants who toiled in the fields of physical and biological science. All that is necessary for her is to adopt the method and weapons which crowned with success the epoch-making labors of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Kant and Laplace, in astronomy and physics, and Darwin and his colleagues in organic sciences. Theology, driven from one field after another, makes its final stand in the science of society. Here it is in its last trench, and while it is discouraging to note that the oft-fought battle must be waged again and again, there is some compensation in the reflection that when it is vanquished here it can never again rear its hoary head to mock the upward struggles of the marching hosts of men. (Lewis, pp. 19 20) Wow ! Imagine living in a world where such ideas could be expressed, I have lived all my life for such an experience, its magnificent. Its just nice to know that once upon a time people were that free. The horrible thing is to think this was only yesterday, it announces the coming of the age which is now in full flower, the age of science, the age of true freedom. But it is the ghost of freedom shown above, a freedom captured by the bloodsucking monster of Judaism. Now all we have is the nightmare of life as insects. The beauty of this tragedy is

that it does at least show how our Atheist Science is correct, how we are made to pick up a uniform message of conformity. Unfortunately we find Darwin appearing as the last great figure in the war against religion, and this lets us know that the theocracy got its act together and realised that in biology the great challenge had to come from one of their own. So that Darwinism was fake science and religion would never die, as science could not be applied to the final outpost of science, Sociology that is. This tragedy has come to pass, and worse yet, by speaking in these naive, triumphal terms, before the goal had been attained, before religion was dead, these advocates for science become sciences worst enemies, the Gatekeepers of Absolute Theocracy no less, men who rule science today, as we can see from the school of New Atheists led by Dawkins. I also recently acquired The Level of Social Motion by Michael Lane, 1902. The title of this book is deceptively meaningless, for the work itself is truly incredible from our point of view, being replete with the organicist idea that society is a natural phenomenon, a social organism indeed. The man hammers home the finest scientific message I have ever come across, he is utterly uncompromising, in principle. This is by far and away the best book I have ever found on the idea of the social organism written in English, by an American. Sadly its driving logic comes from Darwin, and my skipping through the text has so far failed to spot a simple statement as to the great revelation that this author claims to of discovered concerning the nature of society. On page one hundred and sixteen we find this : As we are dealing with man as a social animal only, we can dismiss discussion as to the origin of his characters in this respect. The long time required to prepare the human individual for a freely moving, independent life, in which he can in turn propagate the kind, necessitates the existence of the family. In remote ages parents educated their adult children to remain associated with the family group, and from the family group rapidly evolved the tribe. (Lane, p. 116) Wow, what the hell is being said here ! Despite the most forthright scientific statement ever, we find this man is the supreme enemy of science applied to humans. He achieves this duplicitous status simply by coming out with a decoupling method that Darwin established with his great work of duplicity. Clearly, recognising that humans are social animals, the next thing that must be done, is to identity the method used by nature to achieve this outcome. How did nature create the family, the tribe, the nation ? The answer is by evolving the power of speech, obviously. But this twat scoots around this fact towards which his whole argument directs us, by farcically claiming we only need ignore it because the outcome we are interested in is the social form that has occurred, so that society is our starting place ! This method of establishing an artificial starting point from which logic henceforth operates, is the supreme mechanism of linguistic force used in all dealings of authority. Thus warfare conducted against the state is terrorism because, before engaging in legitimate warfare, there must be a state seeking to defend its legitimate interests. This is bias, self fulfilling logic serving the powers that be. And so it goes on, and here we see the same principle being used to control scientific knowledge. These books then, although fundamentally flawed, as ever, do offer proof of the ongoing influence of an organicist consciousness concerning the nature of society at this time, which had to be eradicated, and was eradicated by the Great Cleansing of 1914 18. Before leaving this consideration of recent wonderful finds along organicist lines, I must just

record another item, tragically lost, although still available for free download. This is The Life of Society : A General View by Edmund Brown, 1885. I decided this was a nice organicist work that bore out the implications of its title, and to my delight I found an original copy with the super cheap American book dealers I often find myself using, this is an American title. Tragically, after proceeding some way into the sale I got an email cancelling, and after some toing and froing it transpired that this wonderful book had been consumed in a flood and I was deprived of yet another prize find. They just keep on coming ! Almost, anyway.

Chapter 11

Big Questions Bullshit

Is the Bible still relevant today ? 08/05/2011 10:49 This show is running now, Richard Dawkins is chewing my ear at this moment, saying There is nothing special about the Bible. A Humanist has said our moral behaviour comes from our evolutionary development, and we are developing these moral instincts so the Bible is not the source of moral action. A lady historian said we are social creatures who have moral codes without any dependence upon books, a point that is being reinforced with regard to tribal people. Why do we give the Bible a privileged status as if it was true, unlike Greek myths, for example ? Why not revise it ? Why keep it ? They ask. The one thing no one has come out with, which is pivotal to Atheist Science, is that the Bible is key to Christian identity. We are social animals, as has been said, and this critical point needs to be expanded and made fundamental so that we can see that this question about the Bibles significance today, is all about identity. That is the answer to all of these facile questions, that is why the Bible must be retained as it is, its authority kept intact, as is. What is more, the Bible provides the trajectory along which the arrow of identity travels from Jew to Christian. So the Bible is not about Christian identity at all, really, it is about Jewish identity, which means the Bible exists and is of critical importance to Christians, because it is the basis of the master races existence. Christians feel themselves to be the master racethe highest expression of moral developmentbut this is only because they do not know they are Jews, because they do not know humans are superorganisms and there can only ever be one identity per superorganism. The same applies to Muslims of course, who also think they are the master race to whom all should kowtow. The historian said that most academics would accept that Jesus did exist, as a real person. That is a fascinating idea since it was proven over a hundred years ago that he did not exist. Commonsense tells us he did not exist because there is no historical material suggesting otherwise, as there is for Islamic origins, only mythical hearsay. The Christian brand of Judaism has all the hallmarks of being a manufactured creed cooked up to serve the purpose it does serve, that of providing a Jewish slave brand for the dispossessed none Jewish masses of civilisation, in order to unfold the advancement of the Jewish master race programme that was expressing human corporate nature, exactly as it has done since the Jesus mantra was unleashed on the poor helpless people of the world, to produce a global superorganism unified under Judaism. This declaration about Jesus goes to show how corrupt academia is now that real science, sociological organicism that is, has been destroyed. Where is there a modern academic text offering this argument that Jesus did exist ? All the work on this subject was done in the nineteenth century, yet this women blurts this out on TV as if that material had now been controverted, it has not. What modern academics do set out to achieve however, is a rewriting of anti-theistic history, so we that find apologists for the church talking about how there was no suppression of knowledge in the past, people were just plain ignorant, for perfectly good reasons. Yeah, shit, not like today then, eh !

Despite having Dawkins there as a scientist, what this representation of ideas lacked, was any scientific base. No one was able to offer a scientific evaluation of the discussion, even though the key idea, our evolution as social animals, was freely raised and prompted no reaction because it was such a simple truth for all present ! Yet properly understood this is a horrific revelation, for it tells us that religion exists as the means of controlling social order, and specific religious are the basis of social power. A black man was very articulate on the use of Christianity to enslave people all around the world, and he said that having been used to enslave black people in America it was then used to free them ! Bleeding idiot, this is not what the emancipation of blacks under the Christian hegemony in America means. Their emancipation was a sign of their total enslavement to Judaism according to the method that religion is intended to enact, by enslaving from within, by imbuing itself into the flesh and superimposing itself upon an integral organic identity, that of racial identity in this case. Organic identity is derived from genetic makeup, a racial identity that is. The Jewish rabbi, a women, called herself modern, and explained a nasty story in the Bible as being about humility, saying the message was I am God, you are not. The intension being to suppress ego. This was a perfect point to make in terms of Atheist Science, because this deals with the reality that individuals do not exist, only the superorganism is real, only God that is, has any real existence. So the meaning of the Bible is to represent the superorganism, it is preserved because this meaning was constructed over time by a priesthood skilled in managing social power, this is the Jews, and by this means they became the master race. The second portion of the Hebrew Bible, they did not like the name Old Testament, was an extension of this Jewish method of control, and the Koran is the third extension. So we come back to the principle of identity for the special status of the Bible today, a truth which cannot be given openly for the exact same reason the Bible was created in the first place, to provide the basis of a superorganic identity which obtains its real power, expressing linguistic force, by containing the psychological colour of identity which each person can acknowledge. The Humanist spokesperson, labelled a Manchester Humanist, came out with some statement about a secular piece of writing that was equally sublime to how the Bishop described the Biblical texts. Being local I decided to visit the Humanist meetings and have a bash at these humanists. Searching for Manchester Humanist online gave a BBC link, and they had a page by this stooge from the regular Sunday morning propaganda slot we are discussing now. This refreshed my memory about what Humanists are, that is deeply religious, Christian atheists ! I hate and despise them, they are a gatekeeper organisation, so it is most appropriate that they should take part in a religious show with the gatekeeper supremo, Dawkins, in the cast. I still had it in mind to hit Manchester and I checked out the meetings schedule, this Wednesday there is some Paki sounding git giving a talk on the challenge of multiculturalism. I fantasised about having it out in the pub afterwards and telling these people what reality was, and what they were. The meeting was 7.30 to 9.15, then you have to sit debating in an ale house, drinking God knows what, and drive back out to the country. Nha, no chance. I soon remembered who and what the Humanist really is. Setting these people aside as worthy interlocutors, seeing them for what they really are, just another form of Jew slave, we can utilise this encounter at a distance to remind ourselves of the basic strategy of linguistic force in keeping all forms of the One message, as Hitler said must be done, in tune with the core message, Judaism that is. Hitlers message was perfectly in tune with Judaism, only in obverse format, a mirror image of Judaism which substituted the German national identity for that of the Jewish identity, but he still kept the

Jewish slave identity of Christianity perfectly intact. So these humanists are the social face of the process of subversion instituted by the theocracy as it manufactured an atheist form of Jewish slave identity, and of course, aside from comments on the BBC website saying they had no problem with religious people, there was a picture of the humanist Jewish godhead Darwin, and a comment on the worship of Darwinism expressed as a recognition of evolution cast in this form. These humanists are the face of the deception, and as such an interesting aspect of social form to take account of, but not people to try and talk to. I found humanists to be the most horrified by my hatred of religion when I bothered to try and communicate online a decade or so ago. They are just religious freaks of another hue. Thinking about the humanists last night, I really sensed the way they were the slaves of Judaism, they were able to come out as atheists, and yet they were completely accepted by the religious establishment. How weird is that ? But it is easier to grasp the point that these people would be created by a modern absolute theocracy seeking to preserve itself while developing a pluralistic front, to accommodate difference that could not be conveniently managed by brute force, the preferred method, always. And once we have this more readily appreciated idea of sublimation to provide a get out for people, allowing them to oppose from within, we have the makings of a conceptual bridge allowing us to understand how science was subverted to the same end. The subversion of science, as can be seen from the immense scale of the Darwinian enterprise, is ginormous, and near impossible to believe, so it helps us to see these pathetic, snivelling, so called humanists, revealing the true nature of this outsider within, accommodation dynamic. Darwinism is not science, it never was, it was a political accommodation of the rising tide of scientific knowledge to religion, designed to allow religion to survive at the cost of sterilising, and therefore thwarting the existence of science, completely.

26/06/2011 10:28 No Big Questions propaganda this morning, on Sunday Morning Live they are asking : Should religious insults land you court ? The discussion suggests this is on the back of the Galliano case in France, where a famous man used anti Semitic insults in a bar while being secretly filmed. The host asked if public opinion was so disposed now that hateful language should be prosecuted. She should be asking if public opinion is now so disposed that religious teaching should be outlawed, but of course, this obvious question, is not even imagined. The arrow of linguistic force only ever moves one way, toward authority, toward identity that is. ________ What relevance is this to this piece of work on the master race ? It is my style to introduce material from life on an ongoing basis, and it should be self evident that in a general sense at least, this is what my philosophy is all about, the integral influence of Judaism on the detailed animation of our world, right now.

Chapter 12

Self-Organisation and All


A clutch of books arrived yesterday, 10/05/2011, amongst them was SelfOrganization in Biological Systems, by Scott Camazine et. al., 2001. This work is both horrendous and fabulous at the same time, as is so often the case from an Atheist Science point of view, where we must rely upon science produced within an absolute theocracy, within which we all live. The book is immediately worth introducing into this text because it is the best general piece on self-organization I have seen, so that it makes lots of suggestive comments that are worth picking up, while simultaneously indicating an extreme ultra Darwinian attitude, reinforced by a total absence of any real references to human social complexity. At the beginning there are some indirect references to human social behaviour, used as examples of self-organization that isnt ! While the concluding summation discusses higher mammals, but not humans, by way of indicating that self-organization reaches only so far, then something else takes over !! This is therefore a horrendous piece of deeply perverse religious, pseudo scientific trash of the worst kind. Straining itself to pervert science while protecting religion, but doing so without declaring this intention, but rather, by expressing the new covert tactic developed in the early nineteenth century, and established upon the foundation stone of Origin of Species in 1859. Self-organization is a facet of complexity theory. Complexity theory has become of interest since my focus turned to Information theory in relation to sociology during the last couple of years, beginning with The Evolution of Information by Goonatilake, 1991. Thus we have a compound of ideas concerning information, complexity, and organization, that we wish to apply within Atheist Science. This means applying these ideas to the reality of human superorganic being, where society is regarded as a natural object like any other in nature. Clearly, when we turn our attention to the core organ of superorganic being, the Jewish master race, these subjects come into their own.

I Memetics While reviewing the initial writing of this work, new items have been acquired, like The Religion Virus, which have been based on Dawkins meme idea. This idea is yet another example of the same kind that we have just taken notice of concerning self-organisation and complexity theory. These three brand new ideas are all redolent with the idea of Information as an evolutionary force creating living structure, of exactly the kind that we insist upon in Atheist Science, and describe in relation to humans when we talk about Linguistic Force creating all superorganic, or social form. There are several basic features of this projection of science into the evolutionary domain in these new forms, that are interesting. Firstly, no one ever diverges one iota from

the bedrock of Origin of Species that is sacred, proven science, and therefore it is impossible to go anywhere within these new intellectual fields of exploration without remaining connected to the Darwinian touchstone. Consequently no new evolutionary theory has arisen from all these profound new insights into the process of evolution, and Darwinism has not been set aside, as we might of expected since it was the first validated scientific account of evolution. We are stuck at a moment in time that is 1859. No new ideas of any kind can ever change that, for authority rules over reason, always, and the Jewish theocracy will never allow its great new idea to be destroyed. The reawakening of the Arab spring in Egypt, into an Arab autumn, makes me think of this kind of thing, where the core authority has the ability to resist massive social upheaval, to hunker down and shed bits of its skin, as in Mubarak, and then re-emerge unscathed. The Egyptian people speak of having had faith, now shattered ; I had nothing but doubts, you do not shift people like those that rule us so easily, its never happened before, it did not happen in the French Revolution even, so why should these fools think it would happen now ? They understand nothing about the nature of themselves and what the human being really is. Even if democracy were to be implemented, which is pretty unlikely, it means nothing more than a technical advance in the way our masters rule us, which we feel as a major improvement for sure, but there are no absolutes here, we remain slaves to the last. James Religion Virus is, as we have said, an amazing application of Dawkins meme idea, but it is not a scientific piece of work, it is a popular exposition, where the author applies Dawkins principle imaginatively, to derive a fair representation of the idea applied to everyday life. When he comes to the basic scientific questions, such as the nature of language, which the idea of memes must drive our thoughts towards, he simply hands himself over to a couple of extremely pathetic leading American academics, Gould and Pinker, in order to express his ideas on what language is, and hence where memes come from. There is no science here, and no intention that there should be, so just what does an author like this think he is doing ? It is obvious, he is being an author, which means engaging in a high status activity with all of its associated rewards, which is nothing more or less than a writer of fiction does. He is what we routinely call a priest delivering the message, which is why he expounds upon Dawkins and defers to Pinker, but never contributes anything new himself. It would appear that even Dawkins, who most certainly is nothing more than a priest delivering the Darwinian mantra, contributed nothing new when he created the new idea of memes, since a hint of this idea was already present in his divinitys work, as we note below. With my attention drawn to The Religion Virus just last week, after having bought it a few months ago, the God Virus came to mind next, a title I was sure I had seen. A search revealed that there is a God Virus from as early as the mid nineties, but this a religious work denying that God is a virus ; only a religious freak can produce works with such misleading titles. A couple of days ago The God Virus : How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture by Darrel Ray, 2009, arrived. From attempts to evaluate it online, it promised to be rubbish, but at least it appeared to be an exposition upon the subject invoked by the title, which is a start ! In his introduction Ray credits Dawkins as being a major influence upon him as regards this work, but Ray wants to show how Dawkins ideas apply in everyday life, which is what we have just said James Religion Virus does. Ray also credits Daniel Dennett with being a co-inspiration, in his Breaking the Spell : Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, 2006, which title does chime with this talk of religion as a virus taking over the mind. The most obvious thing to say about this effort by Ray and others to apply the meme idea to real life, is that as an intellectual trend it reveals a glaring omission, as in : Where does the meme come from ? We have seen that James at least thought of the relevance of this most important issue, as indicated in his chapter asking why humans came to have language, even if he may as well not of bothered for all he has to contribute by way of an answer.

Pardon me a moment while I reach for Dennett, lets see what the nature of his bent is. This is a proper book, unlike these other offerings which cannot be bought in hardback editions, Dennetts book is a fine looking item, and its contents are well written, get this :

Like Wilsons more radical group-selection theory, this hypothesis can in principle account for the excellence of design encountered in religion without postulating rational designers (the religion-as-corporation route). And it can account for the fact that individual fitness is apparently subordinated to group fitness in religions. According to this theory, we dont need to postulate group-replication tournaments but only a cultural environment in which ideas compete. Ideas that encourage people to act together in groups (the way Toxoplasma gondii encourages rats to approach cats fearlessly) will spread more effectively as a result of this groupishness than ideas that do a less effective job of uniting their hosts into armies. Using the memes-eye view, we can unite the two opposite poles of theory ant colony versus corporationand explain the R & D of human groupishness as a mixture of blind and foresighted processes, including intermediate selection processes of every flavour of knowingness. Since people are not like ants but really quite rational, they are unlikely to be encouraged to invest heavily in group activities unless they perceive (or think they perceive) benefits worth the investment. Hence the ideas that maximize groupishness will be those that appeal, just as Stark and Finke say, to rewards for which there is a general and inexhaustible demand. An unexpected bonus of this unified perspective is that it makes elbow room for an intermediate position on the status of religion that modifies one of the most troubling features of the rational choice model. Stark and Finke and the other rational choice theorists of religion like to portray themselves as defenders of those with religious faith, saying in effect : Theyre not crazy, theyre smart ! However, this deliberately cold-blooded rational analysis of the market for religious goods deeply offends many religious people. They dont want to see themselves as cannily making a sound investment in the most effective purveyor of supernatural benefits. They want to see themselves as having set aside all such selfish considerations, as having relinquished their rational control to a higher power, The meme theory accounts for this. According to this theory, the ultimate beneficiaries of religious adaptations are the memes themselves, but their proliferation (in competition with rival memes) depends on their ability to attract hosts one way or another. Once allegiance is captured, a host is turned into a rational servant, but the initial capture need not beindeed, should not bea rational choice by the host. (Breaking the Spell, Dennett, pp. 185 6)

Oops! I missed something there. I have had this book a few years and never taken to it, but look at this exquisite, direct comparison between ants and humans, expressly related to the formation of superorganisms (societies), via the influence of information, in this case concerning the nature and function of religion. Wow, this is great ; but also not, of course. Right in the middle of this excellent bit of verbal mumbling, we have the moronic declaration that humans are not what they so obviously are, because, unlike ants, they are in fact quite rational. What a tosser. The better they seem, the worse they arethe taller they are . . . But I do at least love to see the comparison considered, even if it is only to be rejected out of hand on a whim.

II Political interlude on corruption towards power It is Saturday morning, 17/03/2012 08:30, and I have just returned, yesterday, from a three day stint at my mothers home where I had to leave after the thorny issue of my brother robbing me fifteen years ago came up in our pub conversation, where he explained, with intense fury, how the reason he robbed me was to show that I was not always right ! In other words my habit of insisting that I am always right, which I am happy to let stand as stated for now, was taken as an expression of power which he counteracted by robbing me. I had lent him 200 pounds while he was visiting me, a visit I did not want since he is the vilest of human beings, in an insidious, nasty way. He would not dare be openly nasty, besides, that would be counterproductive as regards his primary gift, which is manipulating people to his own underhand, self serving ends. No wonder he stood as a councillor last elections. I got him a job and gave him lodgings at my fathers request. After we had a bust up where he decided to leave rather than obey my demand over some issue of 10, I insisted he pay me a cheque for what he owed, and he bounced it when he got home. I could of had the cheque cleared for 8 but I did not want to suggest by such an action that such human filth existed in this world, that I knew personally, as would require my doing that. That was a bad mistake, making the last time I had seen my father alive the last time, and the cause of immense hatred. All of which suited Geoff perfectly, for it left him home and dry in the seat of family power, where the money was. But, coming at this topic this morning I see that this explanation of my brothers behaviour is as good an example of the fact that knowledge is all about power. And the urge towards power as it is enacted at the micro social level of the individual, is always fuelled by greed expressed towards a real source of desire. It is true that I adore truth as an absolute quality, hence my hatred of religion. Indeed this impulse comes from being taught to be religious from an early age, only to have grasped that religion is the greatest falsehood imaginable. So this habit of mine towards seeking rightness in morality and truth in knowledge, is well recognised by my nasty brother. He does not experience this gift for reason and knowledge seeking as something beautiful, as I do, he experiences it as competitive, political, and downright evil. Which, given the real nature of knowledge as a biological phenomenon evolved to create social structure, is just how he should experience it, it is how all people experience me in the end, and anyone else seeking to impart true knowledge of reality. His reaction is the reaction I get generally when my ideas reach a crescendo. The conscious reason, that he gave voice to in the pub, is that everyone wants to be able to state their own position of power in society, which means stating the ideas to which they are attached via a group identity. Thus everyone has a close, personal, vital interest in lies, and garbage knowledge, and an instinctive and deeply intense hatred of the truth, for the truth negates all such social power and apparent self interest. This is a principle we have long recognised and debated. Knowledge is social power. That is why religion exists, and this boils down to linguistic force forming social structure by imparting identities to people, which take the form of ideas, towards which people are attuned according to various social circumstances. But there is nothing like intense, real time life situations to hone our appreciation of the awesome biological dynamics that we live within, as units of a superorganism. Geoffs act of theft, thefts indeed, over the years, I now understand were acts of violence, reactions against my assertions of authority against which he was powerless because, like almost all people, he has no intellectual acuity. We now live in a reactionary age, one of rising religious dominance, with the oppression of the individual at the most intense it has ever been in human existence, so deep within us this oppression applied that the

person has no idea of the pressure they succumb to spontaneously. Yet ever was it so. I was born at the tail end of a time of liberation topped off with the 1960s cultural revolution. Today, adhering to the principles of freedom I was raised to admire, I find I am, undoubtedly, an extremist. What I cry out to say, is to everyone else excruciatingly vile and evil. I ripped into a politician friend of my brothers in the pub, a liberal councillor, I was smashed, my brain becomes supercharged when I smoke weed. I denounced the existence of Muslims in Britain and called all who allowed their presence and who support it, traitors to our nation. In response to something he said I told him I was the most socialist person he had ever met ; he use to be a member of the Labour Party, under Blair ! All he had to say about Labours disgrace was to whinge about Cheri Blair, fucking idiot. He said I could not be a socialist if I came out with things like that, my rant against the Muslims. On the contrary, one cannot be a socialist if one is a Christian, as Blair was, of the most fanatical kind indeed. Herein lies the manner in which our great revolutionary rebellion never really was, it was always simply an ongoing readjustment of the fascist religious establishment to the ongoing radical change in structural conditions, as history more than amply proves. All of which vindicates perfectly, the principle that humans are superorganisms and the social fabric which these life forms are composed of are made entirely by nature, the formation and activity of which is directed by the linguistic force expressed in culture, that is knowledge revealed in social forms that people express empathy with from within themselves, as surely as any insect ant does within its slave nation setting, within a Slave Maker ants superorganism. Letting religious people into secular institutions, such as a political party, signs the death warrant of that institution as a free body serving a secular end. The reason is purely biological, being related to the biological corporate nature of the human animal. The living human animal is a superorganism and it must have an identity. To speak of secular social institutions is absurd, it is done because secularism is a ruse of the theocracys priests, who apply linguistic force through language to shape social form. The problem with trying to build social structure without identity is that it is anathema to the animal we are, which relates to those discussions we have had on the impossibility of having the knowledge we impart in Atheist Science. If Christians enter a political body they turn it into a religious body by giving an inert organic structure an identity that links it to the ruling religious authority of society. This is why a Blair became leader of the socialist movement after it was destroyed by Thatcher. On BBC 2 last night, 17/03/2012, there was the most disgusting piece of crass religious propaganda, called How God made the English. It began brilliantly, by exposing they deep seated Jewish religious identity at the core of British political power, the sort of evidence that explains how and why Darwinism was fashioned to make science sterile and safe for the theocracy to share society with, by virtue of the immense power of the ruling order in British society. He showed an eight pointed star tiled into the centre of the Palace of Westminster, bearing a Latin inscription declaring that to build a nation without God at its centre, was to build in vain. Of course this was an unspoken reference to the Jewish God. He said this star had originally been a Jewish symbol ! Twat ; if it was originally a Jewish symbol of identity then how could it ever be a symbol of any other identity ? If black skin is a symbol of identity, which it is, can it later, when no longer confined to Africa say, become a symbol of white identity ? After showing more Jewish dogma he asked why this stuff dominated the halls of power in England, whereupon, to illustrate his answer, he went off to a Jewish circumcision ceremony taking place in the Jewish capital of our land, London that is, where he intended to show what it meant to be part of a group identity. His ruse decoupling Christian, English identity that is, from Judaism, involved extracting the principle of chosenness from Judaism and making this the essence of identity that that the English

people had grasped and ran with, not as Jews, but as Englishmen, as Christians ! The programme was nice because it presented all the evidence we would wish to use ourselves to show that we are all Jews, but being Jews by another name, makes us unwitting Jews, slaves of the Jews who call themselves Jews and maintain a strict distinction between themselves and their slave hosts, the gentiles. This is the stuff of an oppressive, reactionary age, as opposed to what we were nurtured on just half a century ago when we all looked forward to a free world cleansed of Jews and Christians, and the whole bagful of fascist politicians that wreck our world and make living so worthless. In speaking of corruption in this way then, we are making identity the essence of social corruption. This is correct, but political, whereas the final assessment has to be that the rule of identity by penetration into ever fibre of social existence, the One message of Hitler, is a law of nature created in the making of our species by biological evolution. ___ A copy of Studies in History and Jurisprudence by James Bryce, 1901, arrived from America yesterday, 19/03/2012, which sets out to compare Roman and British empires in terms of their dispersion of cultural modes across the world. This immediately sets up an accord with the religious propaganda discussed above, where the English are shown to be transformed into the chosen people of the Jews. We recognise that the British empire was an agent of Jewish master identity imperialism, with the baton passed onto the British colonisers of North America today, and the Chinese being lined up to carry the baton in the centuries to come. It is also clear that the Romans were the first great agents of global enslavement acting on behalf of the Jews. This we often talk about, but always find tricky to substantiate. This work by Bryce looks tailor made for the job. I suddenly feel prompted to reach further, and make the Greeks a possible precursor of the Romans in this respect, but that is stretching the principle. The manner of Jewish advance as a master race prior to the Romans was more basic, involving the usual pattern of implantation within a ruling biomass and becoming its directive force maybe. With the Romans it appears something new arrived, a political biomass actually manufactured by the influence of the Jews, creating a social order possessing the quality of Chosenness in their character, making them behave like psychopathic criminals of the worst kind, seeking to rule the world as gods. Bryce specifically sets out to compare the nature of Roman and British law and the dispersal of their methods of constructing social order, their politics in other words. Of course the Americans are unabashed about waging war against the world in order to deliver freedom to all, that is democracy ! So the game goes on today, and the Jews get ever more powerful accordingly, as the biomass of humanity becomes ever more degraded at the level of the person, as all of us are forced into slavish obedience to Jewish ideology. Also yesterday, 19/03/2012, another frenzied racist outrage hit Europe, after the one in Norway last year. This was in Toulouse, France, a Rabbi and two of his small children, plus another young Jewish girl, were slaughtered outside a Jewish school. Aside from our disgust at such behaviour, our first political reaction must be to ask What Jewish schools are doing in Europe ! These vile institutions should of been eradicated long ago. On BBC 2s Newsnight last night this exact question was asked by a Jew, in reverse ! He said this behaviour was a direct consequence of the recent political campaigning drawing attention to the depraved religious practices of Jews and Muslims, regarding the killing of meat and such like. This Jewish leader immediately set about milking the perennial godsend of an event made for such political purposes, in order to allow the Jews to crush the will of their slave host. The representative of the French slave host meanwhile, was having

none of it ; if this had been Britain the mouthpiece for the slave population would of been grovelling to his Jewish master for forgiveness and calls for us to intensify our degradation to religious fascism would be echoing all about, as they were in Norway last year ! The French however are more virile about their own identity, having a powerful rightwing faction, estimated at some quarter of the population ! Speculation has revolved around lunacy, terrorism or conspiracy, but no one has asked if this behaviour was orchestrated by Jews in order to provide the tool they use all the time to control their slave population, that of anti-Semitism. Yet this is a most pertinent question to raise, but in a more sophisticated manner that recognises there is no such thing as an individual, hence no such thing as political motivation, no such thing as anti-Semitism. All there is, is the superorganism composed of people, organised via the expression of linguistic force, which builds superorganic anatomy by creating organs of social identity, from whence political actions arise. Thus, the Jew creates these outrages by being a Jew, they are inherent in the Jewish position of alien within, and an essential tool of social power and control expressed in religion as medium of corporate identity. This lone killer seems to be a disgruntled soldier, he is responding to the linguistic flux which the Jew was complaining about, as surely as he was expressing the same element of that flux overtly created by Judaism. This incident nicely illustrates the manner in which the Nazis were created on the back of social wide anti-Semitism, fuelled by the decay of Christian belief and the rise of scientific knowledge. These protective responses defending the Jewish master race are derived from human corporate nature, and this fact would be voiced by social scientists if the reactions of the past that destroyed sociological organicism had not made this scientific knowledge taboo in order to ensure the continuance of the Jews, and hence the continuance of these essential, healthy physiological reactions. This is the Arrow of Identity in action. The horrific event carries a barb which allows a collectively defined victim to cry foul, this is the Jew or Muslim or other minority category in this unfolding story, enabling aliens to be impossible to get rid of, as the massively overwhelming host body reacts against the alien presence, only to find itself forced into silence by the reaction to horrific acts, while the core authorities who engineer these social dynamics, ensure that aliens can cry foul while natives must behave, be tolerant, and must never object in any intolerant like manner, because of these periodic outbursts of terrible, vicious violence. This indicates that those in power are aliens by nature, and indeed, that is precisely so, the Romans placed Jews, that is Christians, in power in Europe, and there they have remained ever since, aliens within, existing by virtue of another name, Jews as our masters in disguise. This coldblooded murderer of children was a Muslim, twenty three years old, a thief who had spent two years in jail for thieving. He was shot in the head yesterday, 22/03/2012. Dead. He killed the soldiers because of French involvement in Afghanistan, and the children because of the killing of children by Jews in Palestine. We must sympathise with the latter point of grievance, although it was hardly any concern of such a toe rag. Then again, it is a feature of our society that individuals get on their high horses about popular issues and make them the reason for their existence, be it fighting inequality, lung cancer, cruelty to animals, or whatever. The arrow of identity is a manifestation of human corporate nature captured by a biomass of people identified within a structural social setting allowing this higher stage of human biological nature to be expressed, that type of social structure being the civilised state. This is why Jews came into existence empowered by the arrow of identity, making them the ultimate expression of human corporate nature expressed in reality, via the social products of linguistic force realised through the evolution of human somatic form. This somatic form was driven to evolve as an expression of the latent potential of mammalian

form as a new engine of life energy, exploiting the force of Information creating all living forms by directing the flow of energy available to life, where all such engines have a capacity to exploit all zones of latent potential energy, of which the superorganic is one such zone, the one humans evolved to occupy as an expression of the mammalian life engines latent potential. Yesterday, 22/03/2012, I happened to be casually reading a book I have recently felt compelled to regard as the finest work I have ever found on the science of humans, because of the perfect manner in which it treats humans as animals, or purports to. The section I was reading dealt with the making of modern humans through the coming of civilised life. This material is to be found on and around page one hundred and thirty of The Level of Social Motion by Michael Lane, 1902, where, for all his fine exclamations about humans as part of nature, thanks to Darwin, whom he worships, the whole effort is scuppered. We find material factors like the use of fire, farming, and slavery, coming to the fore, but nowhere does this idiot think to discuss the nature of humans as animals evolved for the creation of social form. Previously indeed, he specifically rejects any need for such penetrating enquiries ! This is as good as science ever got, and it was infinitely better than science is now, at least they speculated correctly. But thanks to their touchstone of false science misdirecting their efforts, thanks to Darwin that is, all efforts were but pissing in the sand.

Chapter 13

Free Will
I Conscious will is an intersection within a flow of corporate information Before going any further, that heading above is quite a gobful, so we might just translate it into plain English before proceeding any further. When we speak of conscious will in this way we clearly are speaking of something that is not what it is said to be, we are referring to a commonly used idea of being self-willed. We are saying that this sense of being a wilful, decision making being, is taking place in a social, behavioural landscape, where the illusion of decision making is an artifact of our proximity to our own contribution to the overall pattern of behaviour which is the behaviour of the human animal, the superorganism. Our behaviour then, is not ours, at all. The first portion quoted from Dennett in the previous chapter is rather delightful, I do not think I have ever seen anything quite like it, and by that I mean to say that its reasoning is incredibly close to the core reasoning of Atheist Science, which recognises that the human animal is the superorganism, this being the pivotal insight into what humans are as natural entities, and as such, precisely what Dennett needs to understand if he is to explain religion as a natural phenomenon. The way Dennett speaks of ideas competing with each other about a focal point organising people into more effective social entities, could hardly be bettered anywhere, including in my own work, it is perfect. But this insight gets Dennett nowhere ! How on earth can we envisage his mind working ? He sees that ideas win out by engendering victorious armies, fine, but what comes next ? This is so close to a common refrain of ours, where we speak of linguistic force creating social structure, but our refrain is part of a well rounded scientific idea, at the heart of which is the principle that human nature is corporate, so that our linguistically based somatic form gives rise to a sentient brick unit evolved to bring a human superorganism into being at the level of social organisation. Whereas Dennetts approximation to our key ideas amounts to nothing more than a loose thread flaying about in the currents of thought that he produces under the principle of the meme as a self serving entity of information, an extrapolation from the idea of the gene as an identically self willed entity forming the material basis of evolution, all of which reasoning connects to nothing coherent because he has no basic principles regarding what humans are as natural entities. For Dennett, humans are, in biological, material terms, none existent as far as their having a natural nature goes, they are fluke productions of evolution whose existence comes into its own in the realisation of the individual, mysteriously empowered by rationality, we must suppose, although none of these meme freaks say as much. The idea that humans break away from nature, as my brother Brian retorted in utter disgust at my statement that humans were superorganisms exactly like ants or bees in the pub on Friday night, today being Sunday, 25 March 2012, as we celebrated his sixty second birthday, is all we get from the refined professional intellectual. Science here has no more to say than the average plonker whose reactions are purely emotional, and free from any degree of reasoning whatsoever. This conformity of view between the totally ignorant and the most highly informed is no accident, the

professional scientist merely echoes the layperson in fancy terms, because the layperson is given their crude ideas by the priest in the first place. No principles of human nature are stated by Dennett, and the failure to state any such basic principles of human biological nature means that such a nature is assumed, unwittingly even. And indeed, Dennett does follow the established principle found in Jewish mythology, which makes the human animal the person existing in their own right, where the power of sentience serves the individual. Judaism only imposes this nature upon humans in order to disempower the individual, in preparation for the individuals enslavement to the figurehead of divinity that embodies Judaism and is the representative of superorganic being that exists for real within our everyday lives. Dennett falls into line with this religious dogma of individuality, presumably quite unknowingly. He is well under the cosh of the religious dogma that he is presumes to tell everyone how to be free of ! A fine example of the blind leading the blind. Dennett continues to emphasise the central importance of social behaviour, but then we find his mode of expression levers us away from a naturalistic interpretation of social development. This leverage is however quite sophisticated, deliberately so, but what it boils down to is a familiar refrain that we meet with all the time when we insist that humans are superorganisms and individuals do not exist. People always accept my argument at firstnot my brother Brian because he is too familiar with and familiarity breeds contemptbecause our social nature is undeniable, but they insist that this facet of our existence runs in parallel with our individuality. And that is what Dennett is saying here, albeit in a more subtle, undeclared manner. Blind and foresighted are similes for superorganic and individual, for example. So that this passage is saying that two modes of consciousness contribute to the creation of social life, both are centred on the individual as an end in themselves, but the individual does not necessarily fully comprehend all that influences them, though in the end they have the final say, because they must give the seal of approval to the ideas that win out, by accepting those ideas. That is the gist of what Dennett is saying here, and it is the same old twaddle that priests have been pumping out forever, only here it is taking on a very subtle, naturalistic form, as befits a pseudo scientific phase of social life occurring under the rule of a covert absolute theocracy. The argument that follows is perhaps the most important that can exist for us, because Dennetts well presented case gives us the opportunity for a reply that makes our argument most likely to be clearly understood as we deny the existence of the individual entirely, just as much as that of any robotic ant, and insist that the superorganism is all and everything in human existence. How are we to make this point most tellingly ? The answer is, by saying that all of these behaviours are a direct consequence of our highly complex, elaborately formed, somatic physiology, which obliges us to act as we do, irrespective of any elements of consciousness, will, or rational compliance, as surely as wings oblige a bird to fly rather gallop, or legs mean a horse must run rather than fly. See the passage taken below from Szczesny, and the following discussion, for a further notification of this fact. This is the point, and the whole point. People cut into the flow of information creating social form at a point of consciousness that constitutes an intersection, linking the individual to the corporate being they belong to. In actual fact, rather to my amazement, Stephen says exactly the same thing in his Science of Ethics, 1882, in principle, as we shall discuss below, something I have only just become aware of. He indicates that the person is simply an element of the social body, only his language is far too simplistic for the job, so that he uses words like personality as the key elements of his reasoning. This simply will not do because such everyday words as these are themselves linguistic mechanisms forcing us to think of the person, of ourselves, as free willed entities, and the destructive effect upon the application of his perfect scientific principles, of this subliminal imperative imbued as

meaning into everyday language, is all too obvious, as he fails to treat individuals as nonexistent and the social form as the living human animal. The key to grasping this principle is understanding language as a natural biological phenomenon, with no personal significance. I only just became aware of Samuel Butler yesterday, 25/03/2012, thanks to Metz, and it turns out this man appears early on in the story of Richard Dawkins meme, that has become the closest thing to a conception of language as such a phenomenon, but now it is too late for such insights to be of any use because the understanding that individuals do not exist has been erased from public knowledge. Dennett attributes a vital significance to the individuals compliance with outcomes of cooperation with ideas that engender social form ; another idea that Stephen also expresses loud and clear. But this is a bias interpretation. We can be absolutely certain that Dennett has not considered the alternative at all, for this comparative analysis contrasting ant society with human society, though I have not read the preceding part, is clearly not worked out in any detail, he merely chooses to regard human rationality as something special, distinctive, and hence functionally unique, being of a completely different nature to that which allows the insect to form complex societies. If he did try to reason in depth about this subject he would soon realise that rationality is nonexistent, how could it be otherwise when the whole basis upon which cooperation exists, religion we mean, is ludicrous, the very antithesis of rational. You cannot get to a rational end point via an irrational route that vindicates rationality as the vital characteristic of the whole process, and the only reason to do so, is in order make the person the central object of the exercise in understanding, since the word rational is, in this setting, a pseudonym for the individual existing as a unit integral to themselves. Such logic is like saying the use of frail components is essential to the creation of strong structures, put together according to elaborate geometrical designs, such as triangles made of wood united to produce an extended rigid frame. The comparative fragility of wood is neither here nor there, wood is what wood is, it lends itself to construction for various reasons, but it does not decide to comply with the geometry of construction, and neither do people. This analogy awakens us to the view that religion is akin to the geometry of social space, which is produced by language, and which applies to humans, as opposed to say wood, because we have linguistic physiology that evolved expressly for the purpose of enabling structural outcomes constituting social form. What the individual unit of linguistically fabricated organisation thinks about the geometry of social order, or the product of such geometry, is neither here nor there, that is why so much mayhem, as in warfare, and so much regulation, as in organised civil authority, not to mention religion itself, are essential to the creation and maintenance produced through linguistic social geometry. If it be said that people may as well be wood in that case, then the answer is yes indeed, and that is what they are, social lumber that we have thus far been in the habit of calling sentient bricks, because the brick simile is more fitting to the unitary form of the somatic individuals status as a unit of social form. Language capability must be explained in terms of creating a superorganism, and we can see that Dennett, like other aficionados of the meme, recognise this in their manner of reasoning, but they stubbornly resist the inevitable implication that the human animal is a superorganism and the individual but a unit thereof, even though their discussion of memes acting as a linguistic programme organising social form, screams this idea at the reader. As Dennett proves, this is simply because they are fixated on the sanctity of the individual, which position they occasionally deign to vindicate by throwing in loose remarks about free choice and rational decision making, none of which are ever backed up by any analysis of how far such superficial assertions means anything. It makes no sense whatsoever to talk of ideas organising people socially, as in the prosecution of war, such that ideas take on a life of their own whereby cultures arise under

the banner of leading ideas. What on earth is this kind of argument supposed to be ? Why would you think in such a manner, it is ridiculous ? Our equivalent line of reasoning to this explanation of social life is that the leading idea in our world is religion, Judaism in fact, and this specific, advanced religious idea, rules by working in the background of cultural dynamics, where it avoids the conscious understanding of those it acts upon, which is why most Jews are called by, and know themselves by, other names, such as Christians or Muslims. Which means the true significance of this ruling idea cannot be revealed without destroying its power to organise a variegated swathe of the human biomass, and so it isnt, it is avoided, and hence what Dennett is giving us here is a further expression of the Jewish message, even as he pretends, most of all to himself, to give us a detached analysis of the same. And from this we can see that this is what a meme really isif we must use such a term as memeit is a message underlying all cultural expressions pervading a social space which is unified by the influence of this meme, even though people are totally oblivious of the connection. As long as anyone seeks to understand human activity from the pivot of individuality, they will perforce, always be in accord with the Jewish message of identity. Only by becoming detached from ones own individuality and analysing humans from the abstract pivot of superorganic being, which implicitly denies individuality, can we give a true answer to what humans are, and what humans do. There is a very important idea contained in the above reasoning about the way a meme such as Judaism organises unifies social structure subliminally. This comes into its own with regard to warfare, thus we have Western powers united in warfare in Muslim areas at present, in a fight against the global terrorism of Al Qaeda. This results in a unified social structure created by the underlying meme of Judaism, which manifests itself to us in the most intense expression of disunity ! The true meaning of warfare is however an expression of the impulse towards unity which constitutes the essence of human corporate nature, that is most commonly seen in modern times in the form of consolidating processes integrating the already united biomasses of the world, where unity has taken the form of different expressions of the one identity, most apparent to us in the shape of global capitalism and related global political structures such as the United Nations, World Bank, and so on. All we are doing in Afghanistan now, or Iraq recently, is coming together in a more intensely social manner that we call war, which forces unification by way of religion, namely Judaism, at a higher level of integration. Each superorganism, according to this definition of a meme as a message occupying a uniform social space, must have, and can have, only one meme, our meme being Judaism, and therefore a meme is simply the identity of the superorganism. The message is the core expression of language, what language capacity evolved to create, which ultimately is Identity. The possession of a common identity by all individuals is what makes the superorganism real. The message is identity, the meme is identity, identity is the sum product of linguistic force, which exists even before language itself, as seen in racial identity as a meme. Thus, working backwards, it follows that what Dennett is giving us here, is an expression of identity, Jewish identity. All of which is perfectly obvious from an Atheist Science point of view, where we understand that the human animal is a superorganism created by linguistic force which projects authority into the social space that we live within, where authority takes the shape of a cultural identity. I realise that this definition of a meme as all embracing, corporate, or as social identity, is not at all what meme freaks consider a meme to be, a meme to them being a discrete unit of speech, a position they arrive at because their inspiration for the meme comes from genetics, as it is worked into the Darwinian mythology of natural selection. I have been led to the above definition just now, in spontaneous response to reading what I wrote a couple of days ago about Dennett. The meme is not a term I would use, I only think about language

in this way at all, because I know the human animal is the superorganism and the person is a unitary structural element of that animal. Therefore language must be a programme organising individual behaviour, it can be nothing else. So my tendency is not to shift toward the discrete particle, but towards the unified whole, and so I find myself spontaneously defining the meme in exactly these terms, in direct opposition to the approach used by those who make memes their business ; there being no surprise about such opposition between myself and the public face of knowledge. But of course the reason I have been led to this definition now, is because of this elaboration upon the meme theory which treats religion as a virus, and thereby proceeds to view each religious formulation as a single unified whole, or grand meme, competing with other like kinds of embodied memes, which is encapsulated in the notion of a viral idea. This practically forces me to rationalise this unifying idea of the meme into that expression of linguistic force which identifies the superorganism, since that is what we always consider religion to be doing. Hence I find myself unavoidably driven to use Dennetts, James, and Rays idea of the viral meme, as a guide towards the definition of a meme as the unified underlying message behind all public voices, giving the meme the nature of a medium of corporate identity, which is really what Dennett is saying the viral meme is, if he only knew it. Having taken our examination of Dennetts work this far, and reminding ourselves of the title of his work, we cannot resist the appearance of a wry smile upon our faces, surely, as we realise that his Breaking the Spell is what we have just explained he has failed to do, by demonstrating that he is Under the Spell as much as anyone could ever be ! In this case the spell is the illusion of individuality, the breaking of which requires experiencing the revelation that human nature is corporate, and individuals do not exist as ends in themselves, but only as sentient brick units of a biologically constituted corporate being. What is obviously lacking in Dennett, is any consideration of where our proneness to memes came from, what it is ? Why did evolution create an animal that generates memes, and finds its life wholly taken up with them ? In other words, what is language, and why is there an animal such as ourselves, thus formed to use language ? The contents pages are fulsome, lets see what there is that looks like a potential point of entry regarding the roots of biologically given meme nature Asking what pays for religion ; The raw materials of religion ; The ant colony and the corporation ; Does God exist ? ; The academic smokescreen. None of his chapter headings are very inspiring, and none of the subheadings suggest he is about to head in the opposite direction to the everyday application of meme theory personified in religion, by asking where memes come from, even though his books subtitle indicates that this is precisely what the book is all about ! However, while checking the contents pages I have selected those subheadings which look worth following up, with the one on ants and corporations being a favourite that I do want to read in full. I made a note last February, on the blank pages at the front of the book, asking how Dennett could write as he does on page one hundred and eighty six about the selfish gene, without thinking about persons as robotic agents of superorganic being. The preceding material addressing the question of ants compared to humans, suggests he did consider this question, but not really, only superficially, in words, without any depth of thought, hence the immediate, unjustified dismissal of any equivalence, because humans are rational. This topic comes up all the time in my thinking, and I answer it by asking this question : If we wish to get someone to help us commit a crime, which method will be most effective, getting someone to help us deliberately, for payment say, or getting someone to help us unwittingly ? This is akin to asking which method gives us a total that is closest to six, the sum of six ones, or the sum of two threes ? So the initial point we are driving at here, is that it is irrelevant in

terms of the outcome whether people knowingly or unwittingly act towards a given end, whereas the consequences of this fact are of immense importance for the organisation of social structure via the control of linguistic force through the management of ideas. I will of made this point from time to time in my various works, it is an obvious point arising from any genuine effort to consider the implications of the idea Dennett considers here, though of course he never comes near suggesting a resolution of the problem that preserves the comparative status of humans to ants as robotic agents of corporate being, made so by language, personified in religion. We see the answer to this question appearing in life, in as grand a form as it is possible to have, that of democracy itself. Democracy is all about allowing an absolute autocracy to rule in the name of the individual, and it achieves this end because all that is required in a democratic system, is that a tiny enclave of power should be set in stone, such as a religious identity enclave that can be relied upon to always vote one way, exactly as always happens. Once you have a tiny percentage of the whole biomass voting for an extremely narrow, unrepresentative elite, the jobs a goodn, everyone has to follow the core. So, all we need is an elite that are committed to a fixed idea, such as religion, and they act as a priesthood, which gathers to itself a small committed following, which then pulls the unwitting followers along, and thus we shift through gradations of commitment to an irrational idea, until the momentum fixed in a complex structure, ensures that a solid unified social block exists. Without going into the contents, I noticed last night, 28/03/2012, that a politician of my youth wrote a book entitled The Dilemma of Democracy, Lord Hailsham, 1978, in which chapter twenty is called Elective Dictatorship, which says it all about the real nature of democracy, that our public pundits nonetheless talk about in sacred terms as if it were the door to Nirvana opening upon a land of individual equality and perfect freedom ! All of this is obvious. If you asked a group of stupid, badly educated nine year olds, most of whom could barely read, to work on the problem we find Dennett working on here, and they failed to grasp the implications as we have set them out, you would be inclined to batter them round the ear for gross stupidity. But Dennett blithely marches along on this course of blind ignorance, bold and brash as you like. No matter how pretty the book looks, no matter how sophisticated the language and presentation of depth, we are not fooled for one moment This is mindless trash, and we have to ask why this man is writing such stuff ? The answer is that he is one of the core who drags along a following who are as thoughtfully committed to trash science as he is, who then drag along a mass of unwitting dupes, and so the job is done, science is subverted and religion preserved. By this means Nature, via the power of linguistic force, maintains the living superorganism. So I guess this shows why I have disregarded this book that looks so impressive when first glanced at, as in parts where ants are compared to humans in terms of their social lives. As usual, it is just this kind of work that makes me more mad than ever, where the voices of science and atheism at their apparent best prove to be nothing of the kind upon examination. I often consider why highly intelligent people, Tony Blair being my favourite example, are so religious. This expresses the question Dennett poses concerning the mindlessness of religion, that is nonetheless said to be embraced in a highly rational way. But the next obvious question is, where does this benefit derived from adopting stupid ideas derive from ? Clearly it enables a social coordination to arise, but wherefrom in biological, evolutionary terms ? Dennett treats the person as the human animal, as if he is what he is, and there is nothing more to consider, so that he begins by asking, given that humans are what they arethat is intelligent, independently minded beingswhy do they act so perversely in terms of adhering to religious nonsense ? He then proceeds to show that this stupidity has advantages, but he does not try to explain where this fact derives from, beyond the reach of our apparent rationality.

Such a clever and thorough examination of this topic, which fails to tackle any of these obvious questions, indicates a wilful intent to keep on the side of absolute theocracy, of social authority, and no intention of reasoning freely about these subjects, even though these works are all about giving the impression of being the most aggressive examination of religion ever. Having drawn a blank in the contents pages, our next port of call is the index. On route to L I hit Judaism, where I found an abundance of entries, none of which are promising, but still, they must be considered. At L we find language does in fact have a major presence, would you believe ! Some of these entries look mildly positive, but they wont be, still, like an astronomer seeking life elsewhere in the universe, our search for truth, reason, and honesty in science, must go on. If only our task were as easy as that of the cosmologist ! Speaking of which, I caught a snippet on Newsnight, BBC 2, last night, 22/11/2011, talking about how scientists have been adopting an overtly political stance in their work, undeclared, skewing their language to favour climate change arguments, and counter those who refute manmade climate change. It is worth knowing that scientists have been forced into this position by bias political opposition to their science, and interesting to see that no one ever makes the same argument about religion, that is by saying universities must be cleansed of religion in order for science to exist, and religion must be eradicated and such like before science can exist, all because of the bias political agenda that fights against science. There are certainly some interesting passages in Dennetts book, but beginning with Judaism we find nothing here of any consequence, save for one small point where Jews are described as recognising the irrelevance of passing down orthodox knowledge, or right belief, instead they settle for orthopraxy, right behaviour. (p. 224.) As long as the formulas get transmitted down through the ages, the memes will survive and flourish. (p. 224 5.) What we can enjoy about this observation is the way it exudes the truth that religion is an expression of linguistic force that creates all superorganic physiology, and expresses itself in religion as the identity of the superorganism, which, as stated, only requires to be transmitted reliably in terms of retaining the integrity of the living animal, the human superorganism. Rendering this observation in terms of the survival of memes is so ludicrous it beggars belief. How can anyone say this kind of thing without wondering what language is, and why it exists ? This brings us to language. First though, memes do make a major appearance in the index, again, as with Judaism, to little effect, but one section does touch on the nature of memes. This section is interesting, and worth copying for a closer examination : Words exist. Do memes exist ? Yes, because words exist, and words are memes that can be pronounced. Other memes are the same sort of thinginformation packets or recipes for doing something other than pronouncingbehaviours such as shaking hands or making a particular rude gesture, or taking off your shoes when you enter a house, or driving on the right, or making your boats symmetrical. These behaviours can be described and taught explicitly, but they dont have to be ; people can just imitate the behaviours they see others perform. Variations in pronunciation can spread, and so can variations in cooking methods, doing the laundry, planting crops.

There are vexatious problems about just what the boundaries of a meme are is wearing a baseball cap backward one meme or two (wearing a cap, and putting it on backward) ?but similar problems arise for word boundariesshould we count copping out as one word or two ?and, indeed, for genes. The boundary conditions are crisp for single molecules of DNA, or their constituent parts such as nucleotides or codons (triplets of nucleotides, such as AGC or AGA), but genes dont line up cleanly with these boundaries. They sometimes come apart into several separated pieces, and the reasons that biologists call the separated strings of codons parts of a single gene instead of two genes are very much the same reasons that linguists would identify tickle [my, his, her] fancy or read [me, him, her] the riot act as salient idioms, not just verb phrases composed of several words. Such yoked-together parts raise problems for anybody trying to count genesnot insurmountable, but not obvious, either. And what is copied and transmitted, in the case of both memes and genes, is information. (Dennett, pp. 80 81.) The concluding suggestion here affirms my point that in reality the idea of a meme can only refer to the overall effect of linguistic communication, the sum total of its meaning, or function. Dennett however cannot even begin to think along such lines, his thought process is split into an infinite myriad of fragments in this respect, like the sociologist who would understand society according to contemporary dogma, who must treat society as a product of so many cooperating individuals. Perversely, Dennett recognises the difficulty of treating linguistic fragments as memes, but insists upon trying, when all the while, if a meme is anything, it is not a fragment of pronunciation, but rather, it is the underlying impress of the linguistic genome, the superorganic identity as we define it above. It is a real delight to see the same culminating point realised, that language and genes are information, as we have also seen in other works heavily influenced by Dawkins meme idea, in James Religion Virus for example. Unfortunately no one has yet realised that this point is the most significant piece of knowledge ever to of emerged in the effort to understand humans as natural phenomena, an observation with the capacity of unleashing absolute knowledge of human nature, revealing that language is a purely natural, biological phenomenon, creating social physiology as surely as genes do somatic physiology. The fixation on human will, as in our rational capacity, acts as a logical guillotine preventing this idea from appearing in anyones consciousness, apart from ours of course, but then we approach these matters from the position of one hell-bent on using reason to challenge authority, because we are making atheism the bedrock of science, of knowledge that is. Getting back to the nature of memes however, what do we have of interest ? Well, firstly we have a concise statement as to what memes are, on first skipping over, this looks pathetic, but lets read it and identify the reasons why. To begin with Dennett broadens out the meaning of memes to include sentience itself, which is typical of the uselessness of these meme freaks methods, instead of getting the essence of important ideas, they explode them into disorganised chaos. At the same time, there is a kernel of Yes! waiting to erupt from this blind confusion. Whether it is body language or true language, what he recognises these phenomenon do, is to create action, behaviour, structure ! Linguistic force creates social structure, and information creates life structure. He is unwittingly recognising this point, but without a valid model for understanding these facts, he just blurts out nonsense and sense in a seamless stream of verbal wanderings, that we alone can make heads or tails of by virtue of our organised model of human biological nature.

I should not really of taken the next section, it is such a load of worthless twaddle, however if I had not, I would never of noticed that precious culmination wherein genes and language are unified into one more fundamental natural phenomenon, that of information. But I see no point in saying anything about this waste of space discussing the boundaries of words and memes. For him, sure, it is of critical importance, like some abstruse aspect of Christs divinity, since he is making memes out to be things existing in their own right, but only an out and out lunatic, a priest, or a slave of authority, would debate the subject of Christs divinity, or a memes self serving existence ! Before we leave memes, we can just note the observation that it was Darwin who first imputed their existence by speaking about the similarity of words and languages to life forms, in terms of the manner of development and proliferation according to the same apparent principle of natural selection. This goes to show what a nonsense the idea of natural selection is, since it indicates that this mechanism is a feature of material structures, and especially those structures of life which are driven, that is created by, the essence of evolution, which is the natural Force of Information, which is therefore not a chance process consisting of an infinite series of fluky miracles, as natural selection asserts. These remarks can be found on pages three hundred and forty one and two. I wonder if these observations by Darwin were the source of Dawkins original decision to promulgate his meme theory. The basic idea of the meme occurred to me quite readily once I had realised humans were superorganisms and language existed to create the superorganism, so I was delighted when I first came across the idea of the meme some years ago. Dawkins clearly does not come at this line of reasoning from his atheistic attitude, and maintaining the religious science of Darwinism is obviously the be all and end all of his intentions, whether he knows it or not. Nothing could shift this man from Darwinism, talk about bigoted, as religious freaks love to say of Dawkins, he exemplifies the demeanour of stubborn arrogance. It would not be so bad if the man took a positive stance and told us what religion is, how to prove God does not exist and the like. But no, he just exudes hatred and contempt. But his hatred is of the usual religious freak kind, because he is not an ignorant bigot anymore than the vicious religious freak is, he is a priest defending religion from science for all he is worth, and having a jolly good life on the back of it. So now we come to language proper. Once again, not much here either. We have some bizarre discussion about the origin of language. We ripped into James for his pathetic use of establishment ideas on the origin of language, which made him appear to be an utter moron, and wasted all the genius he showed in cooking up his Religion Virus. Here we find more novelty, but even less sanity, if you can believe that, Id not of thought it possible to get any more stupid than Gould and Pinker. The origins of language and religion are conflated, not unreasonably, in a discussion on pages 101 and 102 of Breaking the Spell. The discussion here is lame, and hard to get a grip on in terms of bothering to discuss its awful failings. He talks about the idea of language as functional, as being a bad idea that so many people allow to distract them ! Ha! Can you imagine that ? Then he tells us what kinds of functional nature have been envisaged, and we see how this is all too bad. This all assumes, without ever bothering to discuss the matter, that the human is the person. The only thing we have pertaining to this most important issue of pivots of observation from which to view human action, is his fleeting observation that we are not ants because of our obvious rationality ; not much, but at least it is something ! The only way to judge the function of language is to understand that persons are identical to ants, since functionally speaking they too are units of a superorganism. From that point of view all becomes easy. Then we come to a passage where he says Perhaps language is just a bad habit that happened to spread ! (p. 157) I cannot read this, I refuse, its too much. More positively, on

the previous page he says religions are like languages : they can pretty much take care of themselves. I like the sound of that, but it is supposed to of been the main point of the previous chapter, and I have not looked at that, and sadly I feel no inspiration to do so, just now at any rate. Like James Religion Virus, Dennetts Breaking the Spell is so on the button for the purposes of Atheist Science, just like Blooms Lucifer Principle was in terms of its overt use of the idea of the superorganism, that these first two books are surely worth sitting down and reading from start to finish. A lot of infuriating rubbish would have to be ploughed through, but it would be fascinating to see how far these people were forced by their own principles, to invoke the idea of human corporate nature and the nonexistence of the individual, even though they clearly refute any such thing. As with Bloom, it would be a matter of seeing how closely James and Dennett approach this black hole of perfect knowledge, while somehow managing to veer away, back into the vacuous depths of ignorance from which they hail. I just want to note a fascinating snippet of information coming from The Wright Stuff on Channel Five a couple of days ago, when they were discussing home schooling, 24/11/2011. Wright threw into the conversation the statement that the Swedish government was considering banning home schooling, because they fear that it facilitates individuals passing on their prejudices. There could be no better display of the master-slave relationship that exists between the state and the people, exemplified in Sweden because of its more openly paternalistic stand, but we are the same in Britain, just less honest about it. Such a blatant piece of arrogance concerning the nature of values, speaks volumes about how any ruling authority manages to embody a sense of utter, intolerant superiority. This is meme expression at its pinnacle of expression, where linguistic force is at its most intense, at the core of social power, where Judaism always resides, under one name or another, even that of its antithesis sometimes, as in the Nazis.

II History of memetics What we are about to offer here is a casual discussion of the historical origins of the meme idea, not a properly organised historical statement. It is Friday, 30 March 2012, and to my joy and amazement I have continued to discover ever more new authors and their books of immense interest to the idea of the social organism in the nineteenth century, and later related ideas too. Thanks to the work on British philosophers by Metz that I picked up a fortnight ago in a bookshop in Kirby Stephen, on route to my mothers, I have been led to several new exponents of ideas worth taking cognisance of. One of these relates to the story of memes. Samuel Butler came to my attention a few years ago, before the days of internet archives I went to a lot of trouble to get a copy of his first essay via library services, Darwin Among the Machines, 1863, but I never found anything more of interest about him, until I found him described in Metz last week. The wonderful facility of internet books has allowed me to obtain a number of his works, and I already had a couple of items taken in 2009, indicating that I had certainly come across the man. What Metz has drawn my attention to is his interest in evolution from an unorthodox position, it turns out that Butler was an immense critic of Darwin, despite being delighted with the idea of evolution. A book that just arrived yesterday, Unconscious Memory, first published in 1880, would appear to be the first modern piece relating to the meme idea of Dawkins, whether Dawkins knows this or not.

In connection with this book Metz describes the work of Richard Semon, whose book The Mneme was published posthumously in 1921, having been completed at that most awkward time for some, of 1914. In this work Semon credits Butler with developing some initial ideas concerning the nature of memory as a universal attribute of existence, from which his own more refined idea of the mneme is developed in order to give it scientific precision and develop the ideas validity. I thought I had seen a comment from Dawkins acknowledging his inspiration for the meme idea coming from Semon, but if we look to the work Dennett identifies in association with Dawkins and the meme idea, The Selfish Gene, 1976, then we find no mention of Semon here. Where Dawkins introduces the idea of the meme and explains its origins, he speaks of imitation and seems to indicate that the idea is all his own. Derived from a Greek route he says he abbreviated mimeme to meme in order to make the word for a cultural replicator sound like that for a biological replicator, a gene that is (p. 192 ; 1989 edition). He says meme could be thought of as relating to memory, thus unwittingly indicating his connection to Butlers ideas. He then goes on to expound upon the nature of a meme in exactly the same uselessly fractured terms we find Dennett replicating, as discussed above. This Butler fellow is an absolute joy to behold, and to think I knew of him half a dozen years ago, it is so frustrating. He seems to of been the greatest antagonist of Darwin, of the kind I would of liked to know about last year when I was getting up a head of steam against Darwinism, courtesy of an interest I had developed at the time in Erasmus Darwins work. Butler also followed the same line of criticism, berating Darwin for his abject failure to either understand, or pay due attention to his predecessors in the realms of evolutionary theory. Butler not only criticised these important, not to say suspicious failings on Darwins part, but he went on to point out crucial flaws in Darwins version of evolution, and thus he wrote several works that I have just taken off the net and ordered from dealers, dealing with evolution from a proper scientific perspective, one more in keeping with atheism, or so it seems to me at first encounter. More than this commensuration between Butlers and my own interest in opposing authority in relation to the official science of evolution, there are a couple of factors concerning Butler that are of more interest still for ourselves. Firstly this man was there, right at the time, he was a young adult, in his prime, at exactly the time when Darwin published his masterpiece, though it appears he was living out in the sticks somewhere in the wilds of New Zealand at the time. Secondly, he was as I am, an outsider to the establishment, a keen amateur, and as such a poignant critic who followed no rules and paid no heed to formal graces, while coming out with uniquely telling arguments against the establishment. It makes me wonder how he got published. But, he was evidently a man of talent, he must of been a man of some substance, and he was not concerned with the figure of authority as an enemy of science manifested in the guise of absolute theocracy, as far as I have seen so far, since I have not as yet had a chance to really take a look at this work. In his day there will of been far more publishers available too I would imagine, trying to get published today is a monumental task, the establishment has locked down that avenue of expression long ago. This lockdown is a natural ongoing process of superorganic physiology whereby the social fabric is consolidated towards the foci of social power. We see it occurring in the name of economics, the formation of corporations forever swallowing up independent players due to the regulation of wealth favouring this outcome, which is why capitalism, the engine of incorporation, is the at the heart of Jewish globalisation. This is always bad for the individual, as it disempowers them as individuals, while simultaneously making increased wealth available for those in the right place, closest to the core of superorganic power. This mass increase in wealth however is not an option, we are financially better off by shopping in

supermarkets, but we have no choice about this. The manipulators who want to farm us only present the freedom and benefits image of this process, never the true nature of it as the basis of centralised power. This shows how political power is linked to the natural power of human biological nature, and why as thinking individuals we are powerless against it.

III A little Ray of thought We began by addressing ourselves to the latest arrival, Rays God Virus, before he directed our attention to Dennett, so we ought to pop back and see Ray before getting on our way again. Finding a useful point of entry from the normal searches made of contents and index pages has proved unhelpful, but taking a hint from our search of Dennett I looked up Judaism, and found a couple of entries relating to the Jews in the index, and these were just the ticket ! Yugotta love these meme boys, they are the biz ! Chapter three, American Civil Religion, begins with a nice quote from a figure from ancient times, then it opens with a summary of its contents, which introduces two key ideas : the dualism of social order, consisting of religion and culture ; and the idea of cultural coupling. I was quite amazed at coming upon this section last night, shortly before slipping into town for some Friday night ale. The ideas expressed here are astounding. As we have been saying already in this chapter, these meme freaks are so bound up with the core principles of Atheist Science that their deep thought on how the meme idea plays out in real life, applied to this critical subject of religion, makes the result of their ponderings remarkably good approximations to the truth, without their ever actually getting anywhere near the truth, because they observe reality from a pivot of observation that prevents anyone from seeing anything that is real. But this toying with the truth so adventurously is in itself a remarkable thing to see, explaining just how the force of language manages to create so elaborate and well ordered superorganic physiology by way of linguistic identity programming. The following sections of Rays work are exquisite :

Religion and Culture Culture and religion are different, though related, entities. Culture exists at a broader level than religion, especially in modern societies. Earlier societies, like the North American natives, aboriginals of Australia, Brazilian Amazonian tribes, and others, all had culture-specific religions. That is, the culture and religion were so closely tied together that they could not be separated. For example, it would be inconceivable to an Amazonian tribesman to convert to the Iroquois religion. Religion is a function of being a tribal member the way the tribe lived and worshipped. Thus, tribal religion is like a virus that can only live in one species. The virus may prosper in that single species, but if the species gains total immunity or goes extinct, the virus is eliminated. On the other hand, if a virus can mutate to a form that allows it to survive in other species, it can expand and survive in new ways. HIV is a virus that appears to have jumped from apes to humans several decades ago. The leap allowed the virus to go from a potential of a few hundred thousand apes to hundreds of millions of humans. (God Virus, Ray, 2009, p. 58.)

We can certainly see how this idea relates to the manner in which religions have gone global, and what a fine analogy this description provides between viruses and religious creeds regarding this specific point. It also comes very close to thinking about religion in the way that we speak of it in Atheist Science. But how peculiar it is to think of someone reasoning thus about human society, and all the while adhering to the commonplace political view of human life, where the world is made by us, as we see fit to make it, to please our personal fancies, it really is incredibly insincere. They treat human activity in a totally abstract manner, while persisting in thinking of people as distinct authorities in their own right. A greater degree of absurdity could not exist anywhere, and as purveyors of such nonsense they are oblivious to it. And there is a whole school of these people at work within the very core of our intellectual world right now, the scientific core that is. These intellectual miscreants do not constitute a mirror image of academia in the obviously exploitative and imaginative way of a Von Daniken figure, who parasitized archaeology by stealing its findings through a process of knowledge subversion that involved adopting a populist pivot of observation that projected the observers viewpoint onto an alien individuality coming from out of space, rather than the usual individuality resident here. This meme stuff is the cutting edge of official science, as much anything else on offer, and it is therefore meant to be taken seriously by the pundits who are pushing it. This is the art of contrivance applied to knowledge at its most cynical, the person who wrote this could quite easily of been the author of the Jesus myth ; they could of been Mr Smith, the founder of Mormonism ; or a double glazing salesman ; or a journalist working for the Murdochs, or even a Murdoch themselves ! Look at how this man presents his argument. He creates a subheading suited to the point he wishes to impose upon us, and then sets to work. He tells us that :
Culture and religion are different, though related

This statement is justified because :


Culture exists at a broader level than religion

The two facets of social life cannot therefore be the same thing, since they can be separated, is the implication. What follows is comprehensible, but unconvincing to anyone who cares to think about this specific idea with any intensity. There is only one material, that is scientific fact, introduced here, and that is the observation concerning the comparative distribution of religion and culture within a given social setting. As to the rest of his spiel, it merely sets out to vindicate the initial assertion that religion and culture are distinct, by repeating it in a bloated descriptive form. As a technical explanation of human social phenomenon, all he is doing in the first place is expounding a definition, that is to say : culture is everything found in society, while religion is a circumscribed part of that everything. He appears to make his observation meaningful by explaining how simple human societies differed from modern ones because a division had arisen between cultural and religious phenomena in the latter, that could not formerly be discerned. But there is a subliminal influence at work here, derived from the language that conjures up our ideas of reality. The basis of his argument is prompted by the verbal definitions of culture and religion, that by definition makes them two distinct things, which he then observes vary in their distinctiveness from situation to situation, proving their distinctiveness to be significant in some absolute way. The flaw in this reasoning is fiendishly hard to spot to any casual reader, and this indicates how linguistic programming controls our consciousness. On the face of it he is thinking perfectly

reasonably, using the gift of language to drive his thought processes, and because all our brains are programmed in an identical manner, by the same verbal routines, we think, as he does, that what he says is indeed perfectly valid. But nothing could be further from the truth. This is a fine example of language as a physiological force using us to deliver a message, rather than a person using language. This use of language builds castles in the sky as its internal meaning constructs representations of reality that have no depth, or very little, beyond the verbal representations themselves. In other words we spontaneously take words at the face value delivered by their meanings, so that culture and religion are readily taken to be different just because we can manipulate them linguistically in this differentiated manner. In science, matters should work the other way around, reality should inform our verbal descriptions to the maximum degree of structural penetration, often spoken of in terms of tracing cause and effect, but because this topic deals with the world that is projected through our own being, as units of superorganic physiology organised by linguistic force, we, as both agents and passive receivers of linguistic information, are oblivious to this process of manipulation by linguistic force, that is concentrated in the actions of specialists in linguistic control, priests that is. Merely identifying two social phenomena, culture and religion, and recognising that they have distinct evolutionary histories related to different social forms, does not justify the simplistic treatment of these phenomena that Ray proceeds to elaborate upon. These are important observations, but on their own they are worthless in terms of explaining anything. The whole nature of society is massively transformed in the two cases compared. A typical point of emphasis for those considering the nature of civilisation is the appearance of specialisation, so that a multitude of roles appear that formerly never existed. In other words, the backdrop to these remarks on the nature of culture versus religion is one of hugely increasing social biomass and associated social complexity, represented in major structural transformations that can best be likened to the emergence of a living form from its undifferentiated embryonic beginnings. Ray gives no thought to such matters, they are of no interest to him, he has an agenda to promotethat of the memeas part of his priestly duties in this world. For those who actually want to know what humans are, the total picture is everything. If we consider the points made by Ray in the wider context of the differences between a simple tribal, hunter gather society, and that of a modern industrialised nation, it is obvious that the simplistic conclusions Ray draws are laughable. The comparison between extent cannot be important where huge structural differences have occurred that make the shift of power towards a massively intensified elite organ of social authority, matched to a vast attached body of amorphous, powerless attendants, that rather inclines us to think of the nature of the shift in extent between culture and religion, so that religion becomes more focused and less broad, is a reflection of the vastly increased mass and its ever intensifying focus upon centralised, omnipotent social authority. Under these conditions it is no longer relevant what the great swathe of people think about anything, all that matters is what a tiny, all powerful select few think, and they adore and treasure religion as never before. This is how to understand the growing differentiation between the extent of cultural and religious forms across society, as compared to earlier times. But this interpretation is entirely informed by our understanding that there is no such thing as an individual, be they anonymous minion or highest elite. And this correct view of humanity, which explains why these conditions arise that Ray talks about so glibly, is something this man has no notion of, and about which he cares not one jot, acting thereby, just as the priest should.

Uncoupling From Culture A religious revolution occurred about 600-400 BCE with the mutation of nonculture-specific religion. Once religion was uncoupled from a given culture, it could spread to any culture. The revolution has occurred several times around the world with similar consequences. For example, Buddhism swept India and China in a short time, wiping out hundreds of local gods. Christianity swept Europe in the same way, eliminating much of Germanic and Celtic religion and culture. Islam swept the Middle East. Zarathustra, founder of Zoroastrianism, may have been the first to uncouple from culture around 600 BCE. Beginning in Persia, Zarathustra pioneered the concept of a universal battle between the forces of good, Ahura-Mazda, and evil, Angra Mainyu. Not surprisingly, the concept of Satan comes from this period. Zoroastrianism spread rapidly throughout what is now Iran and Iraq, eliminating many local gods and religions. Shortly after, the Jews were taken into the Babylonian captivity right in the heart of Zoroastrianism. Judaism was a highly tribal religion until the Babylonian captivity exposed it to Zoroastrianism. After their captivity, the Jews returned to Judea with a fundamentally different understanding of their own religion. From 538 to 330 BCE, the Jews were also under Zoroastrian suzerainty. Zoroastrianism profoundly influenced Judaism. Jewish understanding of its god changed after the captivity and, with the addition of the concept of Satan, began taking on some of its modern trappings. This set the stage for the complete uncoupling of Judaism and culture by St. Paul almost four hundred years later. If you are familiar with the Christian New Testament, you will recall the conflict between Paul and Peter over the status of gentiles in the new Christian sect. Much of the conflict between St. Paul and St. Peter (and other Apostles) was around the issue of whether Christianity could be uncoupled from Jewish culture. Peter and others believed new converts should be circumcised and perform other Jewish rituals and rites. Paul strongly disagreed, arguing that gentiles not be obligated to become Jews before joining the new sect. St. Paul won the argument. The result was a dramatic uncoupling of Christianity from Jewish culture. This freed the Christian virus to go wherever it could penetrate without the trappings of Judaism to contend with. Binding to the Culture While cultural uncoupling allows a religion to spread, the religion seeks to take over a given culture to ensure its survival. The deeper the religious infection, the more secure the religion will be in a given culture. If the religion is able to infect the target culture sufficiently, it becomes such an integral part that it cannot be separated. Thus, Zoroastrianism became the state religion of Persia, supplanting hundreds of local gods and ensuring a secure place for itself for hundreds of years. One cannot imagine the Middle Ages without Catholicism. How could Saudi Arabia be separated from Islam ? Each of these religions coupled strongly to the new culture. In contrast, it is easy to see the conquests of Alexander the Great in political and military terms without recourse to Greek religion. The Greeks may have taken their religious ideas with them, but they did not impose them on the conquered people, as did Islam and Christianity. At the time of Alexander the Great, Greek religion had not completely uncoupled into a universal form. Once a religion binds with a new culture, it has a tendency to latch on like a parasite and direct cultural development in ways that ensure security of the religion

and propagation. Religion embeds in the culture as a rabies virus embeds in the brain of a dog or raccoon. Successful binding creates the illusion that culture and religion are one, and followers come to believe that the culture could not survive without the religion. Further, other religions cannot easily dislodge it since it is bound up in so much of everyday life. This is the status of Islam in most of the Middle East. For example, Egyptian civil law makes a change in religion a simple administrative procedure, if you are converting to Islam. If you are converting from Islam to anything else, it is legal, but is made practically impossible by the government. Many religious political groups in America see the United States and Christianity as inseparable. They believe the wrath of a god will come down if we dont adhere to their interpretation of religious texts largely based on Old Testament ideas imposed upon current political movements. They see everything from hurricanes to the 9/11 terrorist attacks as gods judgment on the United States. (God Virus, Ray, 2009, pp. 58 60.)

As indicated by the bold subheadings, we have three key aspects of linguistic force portrayed here in terms of the manner of organising sentient brick activity, to produce macro scale social effects resulting in social structure, otherwise known by us as superorganic physiology. Firstly Ray sets the scene by delineating between culture and religion, then, in the second section quoted he backtracks from this founding principle of the coming logical analysis, by indicating that religion and culture are one and the same thing, and entirely inseparable, initially that is. Then he proceeds to make the extrapolation from his founding principle by invoking the idea of religions potential to develop a viral nature, which causes the cleavage between the hitherto inseparable social attributes of culture and religion. All of which demonstrates an imaginatively inspired application of the meme idea, that is rationally absurd and totally illogical, as our description already indicates by pointing out how he asserts a dualistic principle only to indicate its invalidity in his next breath. This is cackhanded reasoning presented to a bias purpose. The final section completes the train of logic, and is a lovely refrain, indicating as it does the unification of viral religious forms with none original, or alien cultures. I absolutely love this passage, it is so good I scarcely believe it exists. Yet this is just the sort of result we might expect when people try to apply the idea of memes to religion as a social phenomenon. Obviously what we need to do is to run through this passage and convert it to a true perspective, based on an interpretation of these observations according a pivot of superorganic being that denies the existence of individuals, and only recognises the superorganism as real. We began with such an interpretation spontaneously, but we must treat this whole piece scientifically.

IV Origin of the Jewish master race status In the above we find a delightful representation, albeit unwitting, of the origin of the Jews status as the global master race. It has obviously often occurred to us to wonder about this, but it is a question that only a professional academic could answer with any authority, and since they are all oriented towards a false pivot of observation, that is not possible under present conditions. It is nonetheless interesting to come across a false interpretation of exactly this point, as provided by Ray above. He says the Jews were a tribal type culture

prior to the experience of transportation to Babylon, which exposed them to a universal identity formula in the shape of Zoroastrianism, that informed the development of Judaism, allowing the Jews to preserve their tribal character while taking on the power of a globalising identity ; this is the gist of what Ray is saying. I have interpreted Jewish history slightly differently, starting from the position that the Jews had a special political significance as a tribal people in the region, a bit like the Swiss have a special national status in modern Europe. This idea was not conjured up within my brain, I saw a programme on some queen from those regions who is supposed to of sort help by visiting a noted wise people that the presenter said was likely to be the Jews ; it may of been the story of the Queen of Sheba, but I did write about it at the time because this was clearly a significant idea for our purposes. It suits major powers to have a minor power able to act as a neutral player in their political relations, and we have discussed the idea that the Jews played such a part in the Middle Eastern region, suggesting they were known for their wisdom and had the sort of prestige that we find oracles had in ancient Greek culture, as when all members of the Greek dominated world would turn to one central oracle for advice. This special status, I surmise, was the reason for Babylonian authorities taking possession of the Jews in the strange manner recorded in Jewish history, where Jews were preserved and then allowed to return to their homeland several generations later. It was only the elite who were shipped off to Babylon, not the entire population, obviously. This has been how my speculations have ran their course. Informing my reasoning has always been the idea of the Jews as the master race, which Ray of course is completely oblivious of. Such an idea is nice because it tallies with our general understanding of how political order is maintained under the format of a civilised regime, as just described, thus it normalises master race status in general and projects the master race status of the Jews backwards in time, and thus makes sense of its preservation through to the present. There are no jarring inconsistencies needing to be explained, everything is part of an orderly developmental human process. The proximity of Rays thinking to our most important ideas continues to be of value when he discusses the way the Christian identity broke loose from Judaism, to become an independent religion existing in its own right. He describes the manner in which Judaism was cleaved along the line of Christian identity to produce this entirely none Jewish religion, but again, we see the same basic details of the historical events, while interpreting them in a vastly different manner, because we know that the Jews are the master race, and Christians are their slaves, so that Christianity never split away from Judaism at all, it remains to this day an entirely Jewish religion. So that all Christians are Jews in reality, even though, because they do not actually exist as end in themselves, they have no idea that they are Jews, indeed Christians do think that they are Christians ! Only by knowing what the human animal is can this true knowledge of self be known, and Ray has no idea what the human animal is, no idea therefore of what he is, and hence no idea what anyone is. No better example of the difference between the two pivots of observation, that of the individual versus the superorganism, can be found than this one provided by Ray, because his argument so closely relates to our own ideas, his views being a pseudo scientific interpretation of religion as a natural phenomenon, made worthless by its total failure to address the primary question of what the human animal actually is.

V Science of freewill I belatedly turned some text previously serving as a continuation of the last chapter into this chapter entitled Free Will because my attention was returned to one of the greatest thinkers of organicist sociology ever to put pen to paper, this upon purchasing a book called A Hundred Years of British Philosophy by Rudolf Metz, 1938, from a shop in the English book town of Kirby Stephen last week, today being Sunday, 25 March 2012. I took a PDF copy from the net and ran a search for social organism and obtained three hits, one of which led me to Stephen and his Science of Ethics, 1882. This book has been in my possession for some time and I certainly admire it, but Metz describes Stephens central idea in this work being a view of ethics as existing to serve the interests of the social organism, as the true end of human existence. A truly impressive idea. The great problem with Stephens is his complete devotion to Darwin, wouldnt you know, once again showing just how appalling Darwinism was as a subversion of science, it really stole the heat of scientific insight away from the movement of free thought as it was rising to a crescendo in the nineteenth century. Pulling my copy from the shelf last night I began to examine Stephen with Metz insight in mind, and this unearthed an early statement on the issue of free will, which came instantly to mind as I sat down this morning to conduct my routine editing of the work in hand and found our discussion of Dennetts ideas making it worthwhile introducing Stephen on the subject of freewill. Stephen sets out to show that the idea of free will is an irrelevance to the question of a science of human nature, but what chimes with Dennett is the way Stephen discusses the subliminal influences coming from social causes and those conscious influences acting on the individual. Stephen is extraordinarily good, but sadly his approach skips off the surface of the subject without penetrating it, even though he looks as if he really sort penetration. Then again, he describes himself as a moralist, and therein lies the true problem I suspect. He really should of ditched the idea of morals altogether, the title of his magnificent book is indeed a turnoff for any scientific thinker. Once he got to the point of scientific reasoning that he reached, why maintain the idea of morality and ethics at all, why not pass over these linguistic terms and reach for the scientific heart of the subject by producing a work entitled The Science of Human Nature ? That would of transformed the result, one might imagine. That said we do find some exquisite ideas in this magnificent work on the science of human, biological corporate nature :

II. Difficulty of Moral Science 8. I shall only touch in the briefest way upon one objection to the possibility of a scientific treatment of moral questions which would be fatal, could it be sustained. I refer to the objection founded upon the doctrine of the so-called freedom of the will. I must decline to enter upon a controversy already thrashed out to the very last fragments of chaff. It is enough in such a case to indicate ones own position, and to refer for the arguments by which it may be supported to the innumerable writers who have considered it at length. Hereafter, indeed, I shall be obliged to say something of the questions under another aspect. For the present, I may observe that the theory of free will is relevant so far as it affects or is supposed to affect what has been called the universal postulate. In all reasoning about facts, this postulate, whatever its true

nature, must be invariably assumed. Whether we speak of the uniformity of nature, or of the principle of sufficient reason, or of the universality of causation, we are adopting different phrases to signify the same thing. To me, indeed, it appears that the theorem, in whatever form it may be most fitly expressed, is not so much a distinct proposition, the truth or falsehood of which can be discussed, as an attempt to formulate the intrinsic process of all such reasoning. Unless we assume that identical inferences can be made from identical facts we are simply unable to reason at all. The alternative to making the assumption is not to admit some other possibility, but to cease to think. If there is something arbitrary in nature ; if a thing can at once be and not be ; or if the same cause may produce different effects, the very nerve of every reasoning process is paralysed. We can no more argue as to phenomena than we can make a formal syllogism if we suppose that contradictory propositions are not mutually exclusive. Further, I can see no ground whatever for excluding the case of human conduct. I infer a mans actions from his character and circumstances, or his character from his actions, with the same confidence as I infer the path of a planet from the known determining forces, or the forces from the path. If two men act differently there must be some corresponding difference in the character or circumstances, as if two bodies produce different reactions there must be some corresponding difference in their chemical composition. Now, if the doctrine of free will be inconsistent with this theory, I must simply say that I reject it. If it be consistent with the theory, I have at present nothing more to do with it ; for it is only in so far as it is inconsistent that it affects the possibility of a scientific treatment of ethics. I shall only add that, in any case, to reason about conduct is to assume that it is determinate. If actions be intrinsically arbitrary, or in so far as they are arbitrary, a theory of action must be a contradiction in terms. And thus, as it has been said, that whether we are or are not free, we must act as though we were free, I may say that whether conduct be or be not determinate, we most reason about it as though it were determinate. (Stephen, pp. 9 10.) This emphasis upon character as a distinct feature of a person is a serious obstacle to making sense of Stephen scientifically, it is such a weak, loose term, but such was the frame of reference for people at this early stage of social science. I suppose that if you are going to treat ethical behaviour rigorously then you must have some such notion of a fixed moral structure related to each individual, and its variability. But that is a major problem when your argument is that morality serves the social order, not the individual, it follows from this principle that morals must exist in a super individual location, namely within the cultural flux created by language that constitutes the social body. Having owned a copy of Science of Ethics for maybe ten years now, and appreciating the fineness of its contents, while still feeling it lacked the real insight of a true science of human nature, a flaw all such brilliant have, I was delighted to find a new view of this work courtesy of Metzs introduction to it, and we can see how Metz opens our eyes to the magnificence of Stephen that I had overlooked, from the following : The implication of the moral life with the facts of society is of special importance. Stephen attemptsand in this he goes far beyond both Utilitarianism and Spencerto free morality from individualist limitations and conditions and to incorporate it altogether into the social fabric. The first thing, then, to be done is to determine the relation of individual and community. The outcome is that we are to understand neither the individual as a self-subsistent atomic unit nor society as a mere

sum or aggregate of such units, but that what obtains is an organic relation, such that while society as a social organism includes the separate single being as a part of its own body, the latter cannot be thought of at all outside of this relationship. In this sense Stephen uses a happy and vivid expression to designate the individual, social tissue, and he applies this term also to the social whole, so that the single individual is to be represented as woven into this whole fabric with every thread of his being. The upshot of this for the conduct of man is that, however much a man appears to be pursuing ends and purposes of his own, he is yet always to a definite degree under the pressure of society, and is taking cognizance of its interests even though he seems to be actuated by egoistic motives. For even acts that only intend the good of the agent, i.e. the satisfaction of an individual desire for pleasure or personal good, originate in the mans character which is their basis ; and character is demonstrably in very large measure a product of the social fabric, almost wholly determined and shaped by factors in the community life. The moral criterion resulting from this position is neither the individuals personal endeavour for happiness nor the demand of the greatest happiness of the greatest number, for all hedonistic and eudaemonistic theories involve ultimately the underlying assumption of the individual as a social atom. It is rather the health and efficiency of the social organism. That act is morally good by which the life of the community is genuinely furthered and enhanced, and that community will preserve itself best in the struggle for existence in which the moral norms determining individuals are the presupposition of the social health of the whole. The final goal of all morality is the health, power, efficiency, and vitality of the social tissue, and conduct only fulfils the moral law in so far as it is directed to this end. A social system proves itself the more vital the more it is brought into and kept in a state of equilibrium, and therefore a further goal of ethics is the achieving and maintenance of social equilibrium. Expressed in terms of historical development this means that moral principles come to be adopted through a process of natural selection, and that the moral type which overcomes the others is that which is most effective, has the most potent life, and shows the best balance. (Metz, pp. 137 8.) This summation is exquisite. Being so good makes it easy for us to see what is lacking, and that is the culmination of this neutral idea of morality being all about the superorganism. We need it to be pointed out that under this regime morality becomes a meaningless distinction. Good and evil become equally functional, and the object to which all human action is directed, that here is evasively called equilibrium, needs to be given a proper, substantial form, which is identity. The preservation of identity, the Arrow of Identity, is indeed the essence of human nature in the flesh. Equilibrium needs to have some point about which to coalesce, and that is the identity which is given substance in an elite class, defined by a master identity. It follows that such an elaborate and rigorous model of social order as we have in this description of Stephens ideas, should give us a definitive description of the world we know. Thus identity can be seen as religion, and so the whole charade of linguistic programming must fall away from our consciousness, and the true nature of Judaism and Christianity becomes plain for all to see. But you can be quite sure that no one ever leaves the realms of philosophical reasoning and enters the real world, thus. There is a final lesson here. This kind of argument gives us everything but the application, and anyone could of seen where this must go, and this is why these ideas had to be eradicated, and the only way to achieve this end was through a major act of cleansing, which came in 1914, with its follow-up in 1939.

Evolution, finally, carries with it a further consequence. If certain ways of acting acquire a stronger moral weight than others through the working of natural selection, and thereby become preferred, i.e. approved by the human community, it is evident that what matters is not a single isolated action but the character from which it springs. It is therefore not only certain ways of acting but also specific characters that are bred and fostered by evolution. The training of a firm character represents a higher level of moral development than the training in this or that way of acting, This is the advance made in passing from the morality of external practice to the morality of inward habit. The more highly organized the typical moral person is, the more will he have a fixed determination of character. And the highest ethical law is therefore to be expressed not as do this but as be this. (Ibid. pp. 138 9.) The object of including this passage from Metz is because it stimulates nice thoughts about the robotic nature of the individual. However, the truth is that humans are what they are, nothing essential has changed since we first walked the earth. This is observation is about human nature as it appears in life, and we have always been the dupes of the social body. As such we are as a round as wheel, no matter where that wheel rolls, on a chariot in Rome, a donkey cart, or a space shuttle, it is simply round, and always will be. Getting further into Stephen is rewarding. At one point he expressly uses the example of ants as a comparative life form serving his analysis of humans in society. This is too fabulous for words ! Even so, as good as he is, we find critical flaws. Eventually he comes to the most important point, the question of language. Here he begins just as we would want him to, yet in the midst of this brilliance he manages to subvert all the good he has done by letting the individual in. It is too tragic. He describes the process whereby individuals are programmed to become units of superorganic being, but fails to think of this, his own near perfect account, in terms of biological programming. The truth is that people of these times did not have the ready example of computer programming, not to mention the discovery of genetic programming, to inform their interpretative logic. Had they done so, they could not of failed to finally discover the truth as we represent it in Atheist Science. Further indicating how vital it was that science of this kind was eradicated from society before it became too late. In recent years the slack has been taken up with the new meme idea, but always with the sanctity of the individual to the fore, thus delivering the bit that was missing from Stephens time, while that which was there in his day remains discarded and suppressed by taboo. Note Monday, 02 April 2012 This evening on BBC 1 I caught part of an item on a popular science programme that showed some work using a brain scan to indicate areas of the brain stimulated when asking questions designed to test conformity versus rebelliousness. The gist of it concerned proving there was a physiological basis to the bizarre urge psychologists have long known people have to conform to group pressure in contradiction to all reason. Asked why the bias towards conformity, the tosser of a scientist said it was because the group decision is usually the best !!! What a PATHETIC answer, making sure the primacy of individual intelligence was preserved even though this inclination to form a group consciousness was hardwired into the every brain ! Too sick. But it is good evidence that we evolved to conform in order to create a superorganism, hence the absurdity of religion in no way compromises its ability to act as a social bonding agent.

Chapter 14

Reason has no Reason


Wednesday, 21 March 2012 and this morning edition of the Wright Stuff on Channel Five had a debate about whether verbal abuse of many years could justify a physically violent response. A women caller explained how after a decade of verbal abuse from her husband she lashed out at him, and felt immediate remorse. She had been driven crazy by the fact that he was more intellectual and she did not have the verbal tools to oppose him, but nonetheless she did not agree that violence was ever justified. This story comes to my ear just after reporting the case of my brothers act of sublimated violence against myself, in the form of theft, and I see myself very much in this role of oppressor by virtue of intellectual and verbal prowess. This is an immense problem in the very heart of my philosophy, for I live to be right, that is the whole point of seeking to understand reality and, upon discovering the truth about reality, seeking to leave this knowledge behind. At the same time, an all pervasive hatred of truth is displayed by everyone, and I mean everyone, most especially those people who have the professional job of truth seekers. I have never questioned the rightness of my attitude, nor doubted the wrongness of the attitude of everyone else, but, as with my reasoning about the functional nature of religion, I have likewise been keen to understand the natural hatred people have for knowledge that is true, while they themselves always want to be able to express ideas that are reacted to as true by others. All of this makes sense, but the sharpness and proximity of brothers declaration last week has brought this difficult topic to a point of focus, and this TV programme has expanded the reach of that personal focus. This topic is at the very bedrock of social life. We often refer our philosophy to the historical phenomenon of the war between religion and science as the great manifestation of the eternal problem that is the reason for the existence of our Atheist Science. The manifestation of this great, eternal social conflict, is rooted in this contrast between knowledge of a social kind versus knowledge of a real kind, and the possibility of this conflicts existence has its derivation from this natural disposition of people toward knowledge, that we see expressed in these deeply intimate events brought out by my personal experience and that of people given a momentary public voice on television this morning. As with the terrible events of this week noted above, in France, it cannot be the object of our reasoning to resolve the existence in life of terrible conflicts between people, it can only be our purpose to understand and explain the natural, functional nature of these horrible things. As such, for my own part, I can hardly fault myself for insisting upon the rightness of true ideas. I have been made more than amply aware of the difficulty of expressing my ideas which run counter to prevailing ideology, they simply meet intractable resistance, which I identify with the physiological phenomenon of taboo created by linguistic force in its role of structural organiser of superorganic form. I often rack my brain for a resolution to this problem. Others have suggested formulas of a routine kind for the same purpose, such as writing fiction, or satire perhaps. This however is simply not my way. The nature of the problem is not like that of a scientific project. A fundamental part of the Atheist Science agenda is the denial of other peoples

claims to knowledge. Can we expound such a programme without denying other people ? I suppose so, we could just say what we have to say, and make no comment upon what others say, even as we deal with what others say according to our own ideas. But really, that is what we do anyway. There must be a lesson in here for me somewhere, something to do with being less provocative about those subjects which have been especially protected by taboo in order to prevent someone like me from speaking . . . and therein lies the exact problem, and I have always known it. My disgusting way of speaking about others is not a consequence of my being disgusting, it is a consequence of these others being disgusting in their attainment of power backed by oppression. And this is what a taboo, or an arrow of identity is, it is the application of linguistic force to the creation of a social class which rules, and suppresses criticism. My brother is certainly no saint, quite the opposite, he is able to be reasonable about other peoples unreasonableness because he shares in the bounty through his own acts of self serving unreason. And so it goes. The cases raised by Wrights programme this morning are of a rather different nature, notwithstanding the story about an overbearing prig of a man that drove his poor women to distraction. My own experience is lacking in relationships, but I have experienced being such a swine, from a partners point of view, and provoking her accordingly. In short, there clearly are problems related to having the personality I have, and it is beholding upon me to take note of this fact, albeit a bit late in life. The general principle arising from normal human behaviour expressing hatred of truth is that reason has no reason, and I simply do not hold with this principle, which is another way of saying I am an atheist. As it happens I only just took a passage from Stephens Science of Ethics which addresses the exact same point by insisting that there must be consistencies in reality for us to reason at all, as quoted above. He too was a none conformist veering towards atheism, and hence had to face the same infuriating phenomenon of self righteous arrogance about bullshit ideas on the part of conformists.

I Rationality Despite this ever present hatred of knowledge experienced in everyday life, it has always been apparent to me that the competition for social power which leads to the formation of a priesthood or elite, as dictated by human biological nature, means that there is competition to make false knowledge convincingly true. This is why someone like me is especially hated of course, because I wont accept the ludicrous, albeit elaborate bullshit of modern priestcraft, and instead I offer knowledge that no one has access to, which is overwhelmingly powerful. As an uncompromising atheist I always did offer this antiauthoritarian stance, which is what always infuriated my brother and made him hate me with a passion, the overt expression of which he effectively kept secret until last week. With mother nearing the end, denoting the end of the family and the twilight of our lives arriving, there is no point in maintaining the pretence, he has won everything hands down anyway. Evil always wins, hence the world we live in, that is how nature has ordained life should be. Given the supremacy of falsehood one might wonder why real knowledge has ever arisen ? Two answers exist. Power needs it tools, and science is constrained even now to meet that need, as seen in the official definition of science that confines science to the laboratory where physical proofs are the basis of science, which obviously relates science to

technology, and in turn makes science a target for priests who say it is an evil thing, the source of the atom bomb for example. But the other answer is the one of real interest. This concerns the development of the lies upon which power is based, and is responsible for the grandest of all perversions of knowledge, that of Darwinism, so that science was made to serve false knowledge in its most offensive setting, by being made to act as its own enemy. This evokes the idea of the conquering empire who sets up puppet rulers to give an appearance of authority while in truth the strings of power reach back to the real alien master. So it is with science dominated by Darwinism, whose puppet form is shaped by priests, Jews, that caused the horrors of war and Nazism to put science in the dock while placing Judaism on a pedestal, all by perverting knowledge. So the point is that the priestly caste need to keep abreast of real developments in knowledge. The ancient interest in astronomy shows this. The skill and dedication of the ancients in this department is the equal of our own best abilities today, and shows immense dedication to the discovery of truth. But this truth was both made the basis of lies, the religion, and where intended to be literally true, it was disabled at its core by subverting the essence, the key to a true rendering of facts. This is exactly what Darwinism does today. So it is that nothing changes. We continue to be ruled by cultivated falsehood needed to create social power, while at the same time real knowledge is sort and applied across the board. The sick priest represents this as their depraved ideology being adaptable to modern times, but in reality it is nothing of the sort. Instead it subverts the essence of modern knowledge and adapts itself to the sterilised product in order to preserve a unity of knowledge across the whole social domain, which allows religion to remain inviolable at the centre of all that we do, exactly as nature dictates must be the case because our existence is the product of linguistic force creating social form.

Chapter 15

Shallowness of Memes

None of the meme freaks show any appreciation of the deeper reaches of their chosen subject. They take their cue from Dawkins as if he were the point of origin for all ideas that can be related to the meme. Obviously there is a great gulf between ourselves as real philosophers of science interested in human nature, and these professional scientists and commentators with an official role in a society which is a covert, absolute theocracy. They have no desire to connect with a past that has been methodically severed from the intellectual present, they are utterly unconcerned about producing genuine knowledge. Concerning the point made above about Rays failure to contextualise his observations about the nature of culture and religion, we may take a book devoted to the structure of society The Origin of the Inequality of the Social Classes, Gunnar Landtman, 1938, which offers a particularly relevant model of structural social development, in that Landtman has much to say about the interaction between tribal stage societies, leading onto more complex social forms. In the process of elaborating his argument the emergence of a priesthood plays a major part in his exposition. This is a fascinating work to turn our attention towards at this juncture, an interesting feature being the way he discusses the development of extended, hierarchical social structure, composed of a complexity, or multiplicity of races. This is the exact point we took so much delight in seeing in Howard Blooms Lucifer Principle, tallying as it does with the formation of the Jewish master race via a process of conquest and the ensuing slave identity implantation of captured biomasses. A delightful observation is to be found in Landtmans work where he talks about the ubiquitous appearance of triadic macro physiology in the unfolding social evolution of human superorganisms, initiated through the enforced amalgamation of racial, tribal or cultural forms that stabilise into entirely new cultural entities over time : In studying the many miscellaneous ranks and subgradations, into which the above-named and other peoples are divided, we come to the conclusion that they can be classified into three main orders. One of the best defined strata in any community with a plurality of ranks seems to be the lowest order which performs the greatest part of all manual labour. Where the position of this nethermost class is particularly degraded it is spoken of as slaves. The uppermost layer of a community forms another more or less distinct class which by law or tradition occupies a privileged position. In typical cases this rank can be styled the nobility. The intermediate station in society between the lowest and the highest class is held by the commonalty or the middle class. We believe that these three great social strata, the nobility, the free commonalty, and the slave class, include all the various ranks and sub-orders into which peoples with a developed class system are divided. Out of the great number of classes and sub-classes existing among various peoples there are, as a matter of course, some which occupy an intermediate position between nobility and commonalty on the one side and commonalty and the slave class on the other side, or which constitute some form of combination of the chief orders. The universal

prevalence of the gradation of communities into the three divisions named above, is illustrated by the fact that a great number of peoples, in different parts of the world, are expressly stated to be divided into a nobility, a free commonalty, and a slave class. Fahlbeck has expressed the same opinion, that since the beginning of class systems the existing rank-classes have been three in number, the nobility (warriors), the common free people, and the unfree. A fourth class, with characteristics of its own, is the priesthood. With reference to the cultural community of the present time Cooley writes, It may be well to divide the population roughly into three classes : the wellto-do at one extreme, those in actual want at the other, and the vast intermediate class who come under neither description. (Landtman, pp. 107 8.) Here, as with Ray, we find a strict obedience to linguistic meaning as the reality to be acknowledged, where the author is oblivious to any need to think about what actually lies behind the words he uses. This is akin to the way science was applied in the age of the magicians, the alchemists, where magical properties were sort without any rigour or guiding principles based upon the physical properties of the materials in hand. He talks, for example, about slaves being a particularly degraded lower order, and the significance of this error whereby verbal meanings take precedence over actual realities, becomes very clear when shortly afterwards he says this : Within the higher and highest civilisation of our time, with a slave class non-existent, the corresponding three orders are the upper class, the middle class, and the class of manual labourers. (Ibid., p. 109.) What is wrong with this, it seems as perfect as perfect can be ? And so it is in terms of comprehension according to common usage. But this only goes to prove how the words we use are loaded with the bias called meaning, that we take to be neutral and hence treat as being literally true, whereas, what this truth consists of is nothing more than the meaning attributed to a given word ! This is the great trick of language. And this equivalence of truth and verbal meaning explains why we find ourselves living in a world of political correctness and constantly lying authorities, because it is the use of words that matters, and the deliverance of the meanings they carry. Action and reality counting for nothing most of the time, so that nothing else is of any account for the most part. On a BBC 1 programme about restoring a manor house last night, 01/12/2011, a black women in Bermuda, I think it was, talked about how everyone was touched by the infamous slave trade, so that there were even a few black slave owners, freed slaves who were obliged to own slaves because the worker class were property and that is how servants were supplied. This says it all, slavery was not an evil engaged in by people, as in individuals, it was a social institution, a physiological process forming part of the superorganisms behavioural physiology. Today I am the property, in all but name, of a private company set up by law this year, to take possession of the long term unemployed. This week I have been told that I would be put forward for a job with the supermarket Tesco, based twelve miles form my home, even though I objected that I could not afford such work at the minimum wage, the women said it was not necessarily the minimum wage, and so she would put me forward as it was mandatory. A couple of days ago I told one of my owners there were no jobs, and like the politicians on TV, she said there were plenty of jobs. Yesterday a bloke phoned me about another job a dozen miles away where these people are based and have all their contacts, and when I asked about the wages he had no idea, it was of no concern to him how much I was

being paid, he just demanded to know if a colleague could phone me about the job. I said yes, and I believe that this is what the call was really all about, a trap to see if I was complying with the rules on seeking work. These people only get paid if they put people in work, the law setting up this arrangement reduces me to a piece of property, to be bartered accordingly, and that is as close to slavery as anything the slaves of Bermuda ever endured two centuries ago, in principle at least. The colleague phoned, and was very pleasant, I was not forced to apply for anything, but still, the institutional arrangements are there. Everyone in society thinks this is perfectly reasonable, they work, we must all work. Fine, but why, where does this imperative come from ? It comes from our human, biological, corporate nature, that makes the superorganism, not the person, the human animal towards which all individual effort is directed, hence we must all work, and hence slavery is inherent in our world. What we see here is how language is used to construct social structure. What we have in the Work Programme that I am forced to enter, as compared to legally established enslavement, is an architectural design contrast applied to the form social structures take. At rock bottom the dynamics of human corporate nature apply. There has to be a triadic macro physiology which rests upon a massive worker class, and it is merely a question of how the structure is presented in its finished form. Essentially, though words like slavery and manual worker denote something very different at the level of personal experience, for I am certain that to be a slave as such would be horrendous, the differences are not all that they are made out to be. The difference in detail is significant to life as it is lived, but certainly not to the academic understanding of what the nature of that animal life is. A further consideration that may seem to be unconnected with the definition of status in the lower orders, concerns the question of purpose, something very much to the fore in the world right now for the following reasons, if not acknowledged to be of any importance. A long standing issue now, has been environmental degradation coming to a head in regard to climate change, which is such a global threat to established societies. Recently economic crisis has been added to the list of global concerns, and the other dominant issue of major significance today, is the transformation of third world countries into Western style economies. There was a report on Channel Four News last night, still December 1st, talking about the problem China faced due to the slow down in Western economies, which meant we were not buying their goods. Could the Chinese people be trained to become consumers as we are ? the journalist asked ! The reply was that, happily, Chinese people were now on a par with their American equivalents in this regard !! Are these people insane ? It would certainly appear so. The social mass moves according to its own rules, we are mere onlookers, is the lesson of such things. Judaism realised the potential to unite the whole biomass under one mindset, that of the Jewish drive to exploit society and amass wealth, and this has inevitably brought us to the point we are now, living in a worthless society, in misery, degradation and ignorance, a world still ruled by the oppression of religious dogma. This is not the misery of want, it is the misery of life without purpose, without control over everyday life, without anything interesting to do. No wonder people are destroying their livers with stupid drinking habits, and becoming so obese that they give whales a run for their money on the fatness stakes. There is a passage in Creeds and Character, a book we look at below, that debates the general idea that individual life is at odds with social life, which Cohen refutes as logically incoherent. The habit of talking up the joy of massive industrial development, which forces millions into abject misery, a life of worthless existence as a machine part, bears the hallmark of this conflict of interest between individual and social form, which was a live philosophical issue in the pre-cleansing world. Nowadays we only ever hear people talking about the need for development, with occasional interjections from intellectual types like ourselves, whose

focus is not on being animals, but on being thinkers, not consumers, who consume for the sake of consuming. So the point is, that the status of individuals is an illusory topic of interest, not surprisingly, given that there is no such thing as an individual. All such subjects are about the one thing that is real : the physiology of the human superorganism, created by the evolution of human somatic form, as an expression of human corporate nature.

I Knowledge continuum In many ways we could say that science is the separation of language from reality, in the sense that our normal use of language creates our reality, where science sets out to deliberately circumvent this power of language by making physical reality its object of authority, which then feeds back into our use of language. This presupposes that knowledge is a continuum with a physical presence, which the idea of linguistic force creating superorganic physiology, within which knowledge is a vital part of the living body, confirms, telling us that knowledge is the information constituent of super-somatic being. We are oblivious to this real nature of knowledge, we think we make knowledge and use it, but in truth linguistic force creates knowledge that controls our activity. Hence we live within a flux of knowledge, some of which pertains to what we call reality. This means that we have always known reality, just as we still do, but a special way of knowing has developed which breaks free of this flux of knowing and accesses reality directly, and then incorporates its findings into the flux. But as it is, the flux of knowledge is still an all enveloping bag within which we are contained, as ignorant as ever we were, when all is said and done. Science is not permitted to apply its method to humans, not in their social aspect. Hence the word slave is taken at face value, and thus an otherwise intelligent man is able to say that slaves do not exist today, when we are all slaves, as much as anyone could ever be. The problem here, is that this man has not bothered to ask what a slave actually is, he simply takes the political definition imbued into the language he speaks. And Ray does pretty much the same thing, only he is even more superficial, and primarily concerned to elaborate upon the idea of the meme, so he does not ask about what society is and how people have thought about the appearance of social structure in the past. All of which shows how superficial the memeological approach is, with its exponents acting as if they were promoting a new departure from any former intellectual history, which is clearly not so. Since writing this Samuel Butler has come to our attention, and Richard Semon too, and these people need to be taken notice of. Butler it turns out is also a major figure in the story of evolutionary theory and the recognition of Darwins flaws. Landtmans piece takes a structural view of society, without the benefit of Memeology to aid his thinking about where structural form and unity come from, and he does not apply any ideas about language to the task either. The discussion of a ubiquitous triadic macro physiology is especially pertinent to what Ray has to say about viral religion, because this structural observation holds the secret as to why a type of infectious, globalising religion comes into being, giving us the modern social form, as in the Jewish triad of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Ultimately the relation of these facts to a human biological nature tells us that the development of a Jewish nobility class, is the ultimate expression of the latent potential of human biological nature, and thus we have a clear, scientific understanding of what all these different phenomena areclasses, slaves, religions, languageseverything

pulls together into a coherent representation of what exists, and this indicates that humans are a species of mammalian superorganism. To illustrate the point more directly, concerning the nature of memetic influences in society, by pulling another book off the shelf at random, we can provide ourselves with more readymade examples :
The formation and reaction of the general mind have been admirably described by Lewes : Further, the experiences of each individual come and go. They correct, enlarge, destroy one another, leaving behind them a certain residual store which, condensed in intuitions and formulated in principles, direct and modify all future experiences. The sum of these is designated as the individual mind. A similar process evolves the general mindthe residual store of experiences, common to all. By means of language, the individual shares in the general fund which thus becomes for him an impersonal objective influence. To each it appeals. We all assimilate some of its material and help to increase its store. Not only do we find ourselves confronting nature to whose order we must conform, but confronting society whose law we must obey.Problems of Life and Mind, p. 161.

(The Social Mind and Education, Vincent, 1897, pp. 14 14.)

Every scientific book is, on the one hand, the product of cooperation by many individuals, but, on the other, it represents in its final form the unified consciousness of one man which may be reproduced in the minds of many others for whom the symbols have a definite meaning. 2
A compilation or undigested mass of many individual ideas is a purely mechanical social product without real unity, which is secured only by the fusion of the materials in one mind.
2

(Ibid., p. 15) These are not the neatest examples to use, they have just fallen into my lap and mostly consist of quotes by an author. But they are so bang on subject that we may as well use them, dealing as they do with the formation and nature of the social mind. The title of the book they come from is exactly the kind of thing we are thinking of when we talk about the failure of our contemporary meme freaks to acknowledge past ages, as if we were perfect today and all that went before was not of the same order of knowing because where once we had myth, imagination, and speculation, now we have science, even more than science, we have Darwin ! When I use the word freak to identify someone I mean to disparage them as mindless advocates of an idea. In common parlance, or street language, the application of this term of abuse refers to a person who is fanatically obsessed with something deleterious, or else to a degree that is deleterious. Initially I applied this to any religious person, but now I like to extend this usage to similarly mindless expressions of attachment to grand, but facile ideas, Darwinism and memes being two cases in point. Vincent is no scientist, nor even a true exponent of the organicist idea that we wish to present, he is in fact a forerunner of our despised contemporaries, but as we use them with relish because they are all we have, so we use those who performed the same task before them. Today scientists can ignore true science altogether, but in Vincents day this was not possible because science was out there in the public domain, hence his title about the Social Mind. But see how he wants to view the collective mind from the pivot of individual being, not that of the social organism, which you think would lend itself most rightly to a social

mind ! Saying that a mass of individual ideas is a mechanical product of peoples behavioural interactions, secured only by the fusion of the materials in one mind., is classic priestcraft attacking true science during the period of free science, that existed before the work of the Great Cleansing was done. The person was the only thing that was real, was the refrain of the priest, which in a simplistic sense is obvious enough, just as we know we cannot live on a rotating ball, even though we do !! The beauty of this statement for our purposes in the midst of examining the modern meme freak, is that our contemporaries present the exact opposite argument, they are saying that language generates forms that are substantial, and as independent of the body to which they belong and the matter which holds them and operates with them, as can be. And the point that the above passage is meant to indicate for us, is how any proper exponent of memes would want to refer to such past work to show how people dealt with the effect of memes that they knew was there, but at a time when they did not have genetics to give them a clue how to think about the creative, functional nature of language. Our contemporaries however, do not want to see this, because they are not remotely interested in giving a true scientific account of memes. The social mind of a century earlier was a fad suited to the organicist science of the day, and memes are just the latest fad suited to the present moment of deception, which rolls forever onward, shape shifting down the centuries to keep a safe distance between science and religion. If they were interested in science, they would place their argument within its historical context, rest assured, for these people are well informed, and as clever as clever can be. Their sole interest is in promoting the sterile science of Darwinism, and that is what they are really doing by extrapolating from genes to memes. There is no bigger Darwin freak than Dawkins, the originator of the meme meme.

II Scientific fads on religion Through the letter box today, rather than grabbed randomly from the shelf, came an item which has prompted the present subheading. Prompted by the catalogue of Freethought and Secularism. I bought a copy of Creed and Character : The Influence of Religion on Racial Life, by Chapman Cohen, 1919, at a cost of 8 it was cheap enough, I could not access it short of buying it and its title had a certain appeal, so I nudged my credit card a notch further along its elastic limit ; what the hell, the entire world is wallowing in a debt crisis, why shouldnt I join the party ? As it turns out the book is strictly Darwinian, just as the meme theory works are that we have been talking about. Only Cohen uses a different focus of intellectual distraction that was as much the rage then, as memes have become now. Here Cohen uses the fad for eugenics that was derived from Darwin precisely in order to apply evolution to society, just as memes are derived from Darwin for the exact same misdirecting motives today, by Dawkins, via the idea of the gene as the unit of evolution. Seeing this has made me think in terms of scientific fads borne of Darwinism, that disseminate an endless series of misinformation type notions of scientific sociology informed by Darwinism, which is all about protecting Darwinism from any reaction from within scientific circles, due to the total failure of Darwinism to apply its nonsense to society. In a piece I wrote for Hanson and posted yesterday, 06/04/2012, I developed a principle whereby this cleansing and reinvigoration process in knowledge, was recognised as ongoing, where false knowledge arose from pivots of observation, as in Darwinism, and were periodically refreshed via newly formulated ideas drawn from the initial false pivot, such as memes, or the one used for

Hanson was methodological individualism. This model of knowledge control relates to the process of social cleansing outlined to Katie last autumn, regarding the manner in which warfare controls the social fabric by the exact same method of establishing a core body and letting social dynamics breakdown all but this core. When we are told that natural selection must be vigorous, and that the interests of the individual clash with the interests of the species, it is evident that natural selection is thought of as operating with reference to individual fitness. But in human society, even in group life among animals, this is never the case. Fitness must mean fitness in relation to some given environment. If we are dealing with a non-gregarious type of animal, it will be individual fitness to persist against all antagonistic influences. But in group life, the conditions of survival must be differently expressed. The all-round capacity of the individual to carry on a lone fight against Nature becomes subordinated to a fitness that enables the individual to persist as a member of a group. In other words, the group itself acts as a selective force. It emphasizes the value of certain qualities and promotes their development. It deprecates other qualities and makes for their elimination. It is group fitnessthe capacity of the individual to form a working part of the social structure that becomes important ; and it may easilyin fact, does happen, that an individual altogether undesirable from the breeders point of view, is quite desirable from the point of view of the community. As a mere social investment one may safely say that Charles Darwin, poorly though he might have ranked in the mind of a breeder of animals, was of infinitely greater value to the community than a champion pugilist. (Cohen, p. 9) This is a nice passage in that it veers towards our organicist line of reasoning that makes the social milieu the environment to which human form is adapted, except, he doesnt, does he ? It is the individual as an end in themselves whose individuality is more or less better adapted to the social environment which exists to serve him, that Cohen is constructing here ! Despite pointing out the error of emphasising individualism Cohen persists in doing just that, merely shifting the nature of the environment, not the person as an individual. This line of reasoning is a direct product of the ludicrous idea of natural selection, exactly as the meme is. Both eugenics and memes are devices for applying natural selection to human social nature while still preserving the integrity of the individual as the end point of evolution. With eugenics the trick involves using the fact that the individual is not an end in themselves due to the influence of social factors as an explanation for individuals becoming seriously degenerate, which problem it was the purpose of eugenics freaks to resolve. His argument becomes incredibly stupid at the point where he talks about those people we find highly deleterious being just the people society treasures, while he inverts this logic to say that the people Nature values, he means nature when he uses the term breeders, are not at all those that we, he means us as reasoning individuals when he says community, value. This mode of speaking presents a tangled web of ideas that are little short of crazy, but that is exactly what suited the priests of the day who were working tirelessly to protect religion from science, whether they knew it or not, just as the modern equivalent of Cohen do likewise today, men like Ray, James and Dennett. Like his modern counterparts in the fight against science conducted by purporting to write science, Cohen too was a leading figure in the atheist movement of that era. Finding our way to making this point about the Gatekeeper role back in the precleansed era, as compared to now, we might note that Cohen evinces a similar actively

atheistic motive to his modern counterparts in the Gatekeeper role serving the eternal, absolute theocracy : When one considers the practical universality of religious beliefs, the extent to which they have dominated human thought and absorbed human energy, it would seem that some biologic influence these beliefs must have had. All religions have striven to control social institutions, and it would be strange indeed if their influence were destitute of eugenic significance. And in truth it is not so difficult to assess the general nature of this as it is to get it considered. Religion is still a subject good to let alone for one who is seeking popular applause or an easy time. Speak naught but good of the dead, becomes in general life Speak naught but good of religion. If one cannot say something good say nothing at all, appears to be the usual rule. One may easily be forgiven for suppressing the facts, it is when one determines on speaking the truth, and when that truth runs counter to established prejudice, one is made to feel that one is breaking bounds. (Ibid., pp. 6 7.) If we think of Dennetts idea focused upon breaking the spell of religion, which comes from the influence of memes generating structures that organise us socially, and persist against our will, requiring us to try and free ourselves from this biological dimension of religion, we can easily find a common vein of thought running through the above selection from Cohen. And Cohen complains that while science can easily explain how religion acts on human welfare deleteriously, by encouraging us to preserve the sick and worthless amongst usthis being clearly what he has in mind by invoking eugenicspeople are prevented from speaking thus about religion, giving religion immunity from reason, as the memologists, fond as they are of their viral analogy, might say. In effect then, though not at all similar in substance on the face of it, Cohen provides an excellent example of the modern meme mantra, seen in the nature of his argument. Given this, we might ask if the substance in both cases is not in fact far more alike than we would think without having identified the common nature of these arguments. As we have said, both lines of reasoning are strictly, and overtly Darwinian. Both are concerned to project Darwinism into the social context, and both are doing so by focusing upon the all important social attribute of religion. So we have clear points of comparison here. But while the meme school are keen to link their Darwinian argument to genes by raising the subject of information as a continuum shared between genes and words, this detail is understandably lacking from the immediately post Great Cleansing piece. So it is this omission that we might find worth addressing. The fact is that although eugenics does not raise the subject of language at all, by seeking to draw the influence of religion into the picture of eugenic influences, and given our modern openness to the nature of language as a natural phenomenon related to social life, as seen in the warm reception given to Memeology, we can see that the idea of a linguistic influence is inherent in the association Cohen seeks to make out between religion and somatic physiology. I have not looked at the rest of his piece, but I think we can be pretty sure that although there may be some interesting remarks therein, there will be nothing about language as such. In fairness to Cohen, as we might be equally fair to our contemporary deceivers if we cared to be, he was only jumping on the peripheral intellectual bandwagon of the day. Eugenics, though always absurd, and now thoroughly discredited thanks to Hitler, is an exact analogue of the selfish gene idea that has been projected into our contemporary social domain as the meme. Given the combination of natural selection and the ludicrous idea that

individual persons are human animals, the eugenics idea was inevitable, it was first championed by Darwins own cousin, Francis Galton, early on, so obvious was it. And given the role of religion in promoting the sanctity of life, it can scarcely be denied that the kind of argument Cohen presents here was also inevitable. The surprising thing is that we have no other examples of this attack upon religion, but that is where the complaint about the suppression of attacks on religion comes in. The truth is that all of this absurdity, then and now, is due to the fundamental absurdity of assuming that individuals are the objects of human evolution. Cohens argument actually deals directly with this absurdity, but it does so via an elaboration of the Darwinian principe of the environment as the selective agent of fitness, and then forcing an interpretation on human circumstances viewed from the perspective of individuality vested in the person. No matter what, this man, living in the thick of the age of the social organism, was not going to consider for a moment, the idea of the social organism. He is a priest working tirelessly against truth, and he was a leading freethinker. No wonder I have never yet found one atheist tract linked to organicist sociology, despite the fact that it is organicism related to society that is the key to unleashing the power of science against religion, which, had the link be made, might of sounded the death knell for religion ; except the theocracy would never of let that happen.

III Naked clothing Talk about arse about face : Language, dress, customs, beliefs, ideas, are all ultimately products of group-life. (p. 10) No, they are not ! Group life is the product of our genetic evolution, and these aspects of group life are physiological components of the same. This is an entirely different thing, like saying that the cosmos goes about the earth versus the earth moves within the cosmos, a simple adjustment changing nothing in terms of what is seen and experienced immediately, but a massively different conception. Therefore it would be truer to say that group life is the product of language, dress, customs, beliefs, and ideas. In reality group life is a given for our species, so these features are also a given, even if some of them only emerge over time, such as dress. The latent potential for this attribute lies in the evolution of nakedness, which is an aspect of the original genetic template of superorganic being. In this sense, though it seems contradictory to us, nakedness is natures way of dressing us. And when we say dressing in this context we are not being poetic, we mean the word to carry the exact same meaning as when it is used to refer to the opposite of nakedness, so that we mean nature clothes us in nakedness, in bare skin that is. And this is why our skin takes on the role of providing a corporate identity which we see in racial form, which later evolves into religious identity of a purely verbal kind, that incorporates racial forms and represents itself, often, by way of its own dress codes, such as the Muslim womans hijab. So that religion then can be said to clothe, or to dress us, through the medium of language. The validity of this argument appears in the way religions are so concerned with appearances, with dress, and the wearing of symbols. This is one of the reasons I hate and despise the alien religion brought to England on mass since the last Great Cleansing of 1939 45, because they have thrown us back to the days of such extreme religious formulation, an unbelievable thing to a freeborn atheist such as myself ; or such as I thought myself to be. It leads me to think about Western

modes of dress, with suits and ties being a religious suit in secular mode, best indicated by the high white colour and bright silk tie, looking like a priests fancy garb. I have never worn such clothes voluntarily myself, the message of conformity always disgusted me ; but once our thinking runs along these lines we could likewise see the head to toe, usually black garb, of such evil appearance, the burka worn by particularly primitive Muslim women, as a form of nakedness, to invoke its biological nature. There is a subtle, powerful point, buried in the above idea of nakedness as natures way of dressing us, taken literally. Cohen makes a very nice point when he says that just because minds are involved in developing social life, it does not mean they are responsible for social life, but rather that they only discover that which they are preordained by nature to discover. The fault, again, is that of taking a too superficial view of the nature of social processes. Society moves from ignorance to knowledge, but it does not follow that the human mind creates the conditions under which social life exists. It merely discovers the conditions, but it yields to them in practice long before it acknowledges their existence in theory. (Cohen, p. 13) Applied to our habit of wearing clothes, we can see how this subtle idea works. In essence the principle is that being clothed or naked is, in terms of human biological nature, identical. So that when we dress in clothes we are not doing anything that we are not doing when we go naked, as all humans always did prior to the coming of large-scale, complex, superorganic human animals. Obviously what we have just said is not exactly true, and that makes the real truth of the statement more tricky to see ; as they say, any exceptions only serve to confirm the rule. Eskimos wore clothes even though they still constituted tribal peoples. And likewise, we could not live as we do today without clothing ourselves. In other words, clothing has a practical dimension that goes beyond the idea that clothes are only an elaboration upon the evolution of naked skin, which clearly evolved to make our appearance the basis of our induction into the superorganic physiology of the superorganism that individual somatic form evolved to create. Becoming naked gave our whole being a sensitivity of touch that I like to suggest formed the basis for an intimate unification of individuals into an embryonic form of social combination, when our emergence as a fully superorganic species first arose and the nascent linguistic force contained within human physiology needed to act on a small number of individuals to induce deeply cohesive behaviour. So the skin served as a primary communication medium between individuals, and as a major sense organ of our social nature as dependants upon the group, therefore we are to think of communication relative to the skin as both external and internal, galvanising thereby, a true organic form of combination that is called social. This effect is still present today in the wearing of clothes, seen in the fashion industry, religious regalia, military uniforms, and many other such symbolic modes, and even the power of clothes to serve as sexual stimulation and be reduced to the basis of sexual expression, as in fetishism. This is communication on a massive scale. The fact that feathers serve as the functional basis of flight does not stop them also carrying a major component of identity and communication, and the same general idea applies to human nakedness, which forms the functional basis of our incorporation into a superorganic physiology that includes a major communication component, so that when dress is added to human behaviour as a functional development, it continues to carry the informational component too. The evolution of white skin being the major occurrence it has proved to be, must be linked to the adoption of dress, for we can hardly imagine people

becoming white while still going without clothes. Unless it was due to their adopting a subterranean lifestyle, or something emulating the same conditions of detachment from normal exposure to the environment, such as living permanently inside, as we might imagine occurring in the case of an elite class occupying a temple like space which they never left, where the main population provided the wherewithal for life from without. We have evidence of an early attraction to subterranean living amongst the earliest Homo Sapien populations living in Europe, where white skin evolved, presumably. Prehistoric cave painting indicates a priestly caste exercising elite power in a hidden space, but it is hard to think that a white race could evolve directly from such specialised behaviour, and then become the basis of a terrestrial population. Yet this practice of painting in caves has long captured my imagination, ever since realising what the true nature of humans is, and hence the critical importance of a priestly caste being created through the expression of human corporate nature, as an organ of human superorganic physiology. Cave art is certainly an expression of the religious impulse driven by linguistic force, and atheist science tells us that religion exists for one reason only : to give the superorganism its identity. Why did people delve into caves to create their art ? Academics unwittingly informed by the idea of the individual as an end in themselves, who are programmed by social induction into worshipping the myth of democracy, usually suggest that simple hunter gatherers were seeking magical powers over the subjects represented, the animals shown being hunted in cave art. Whereupon academics invariably suggest that the art will of been accessed by everyone as a shared expression of collective will, a view encouraged by the way surviving modern hunter gatherers act communally and live in undifferentiated societies. However, once we know that human corporate nature seeks to create a complex social physiology driven by linguistic force, we understand that this art work is as refined an expression of linguistic force as the Bible, and as such it must denote the existence of an elite, exclusive, priestly class, even if it only occurred at this stage in a nascent form of exclusivity, obtained by entering the labyrinth below. We know that white skin evolved, and this requires a special explanation which prompts us to exercise our imagination, given the opportunity. If we imagine a priestly caste living out their lives in underground caverns transformed into temples by the creation of works of art, we may imagine that this behaviour imposed a selective pressure on the priestly caste due to the unhealthy consequences of being deprived sunlight, especially in childhood. Any paler offspring might of faired better over time, and the inbreeding so typical of a priestly caste based on the passing on of special skills, such as painting art and the knowledge of secret passage ways, would tend to enhance the process of whitening remarkably quickly, it being subject to human selection rather simple evolutionary processes. The results of any such changes would be quite incredible to witness, and very empowering to the newly evolved white race, and over time this racial elite could of left their cauldron of creation below the earth and dispersed as a new racial group. The whole population of Homo Sapiens had, in evolutionary terms, not all that long ago moved from tropical Africa into temperate Europe, and was still in the process of adapting to that shift, so that a drift towards whiteness might of been occurring naturally, aided by the adoption of clothes, and our little story might just be a hint as to how it may of proceeded towards the production of full-blown whiteness and a new kind of superorganic form which eventually gave rise to the Jewish global superorganism. When discussing racial identity was not taboo, as it is now, people use to speak freely of their being five main human varieties which, off the top of my head, were Negro (black), Caucasian (white), Mongol (yellow), Asian (brown), and American (red) skin colours. So that in the divergence form an originally black African stock, ending up white was not inevitable, and its occurrence demands a particular explanation because being white has

special implications in terms of the role melanin pigment has in guarding the health of the body. In other words there needs to be a good reason for turning into a bleached, maggot skinned form. Our suggestion is speculative, based on the principle of human corporate nature generating physiological complexity through the action of linguistic force upon sentient brick organisation, and it makes for an interesting thought exercise offering a fascinating idea as to how the originally black naked somatic form, became white. I suspect it is more fanciful than fact however.

IV Informations image Thanks to the recent arrival of McCabes Biographical Dictionary of Modern Rationalists, 1920, I ran a search for an author that led me to purchase Elements of Physiophilosophy by Lorenz Oken, 1847, at a cost of only 22 ; very nice. This is a strange book, it makes me think of an ancient philosopher trying to come to terms with early insights into the nature of existence, informed by the first fruits of the scientific age. We find the mention of electricity, and Galvanism is made the essence of life. The format of the book is extremely user unfriendly, being composed of numbered entries creating the effect of considerable fragmentation of ideas, and a limited continuity of the same. However, as indicated in McCabes entry, the work is a solidly evolutionary treatise, and that is something of importance at this time. It is one long exposition of biological evolution which runs from the origins of life, right up to the arrival of humans. He recognises the principle of the cell as the fundamental building block of life, and then he envisages a gradual release of lifes potential, realised in the ever increasing development of the senses. This model is more conducive to a true scientific model such as we espouse in Atheist Science, where we recognise Information as the essence of life, acting as a creative force that releases its potential over time. The emphasis upon an ever increasing development of sensory organs does in fact accord with the principle of Information as the essence of life, where the appearance of perfection in sensory apparatus denotes an ever increasing expression of informations capacity to create life forms made in Informations image. Okens ideas are distinctly weird to read, but there is a passage where he speaks about the jaw being an extension of the arms, as the skull is an extension of the vertebrae, and following on from the arms, the teeth become a transformation of the nails. That may strike us as very odd, but one of the most fascinating ideas I ever heard of came to my attention some years ago when the extraordinary, and very annoying, and seemingly unnecessary potential of the teeth to give pain, was accounted for by the idea that teeth were evolved from the scales of fish, which are hypersensitive to temperature and such like, because of the primary role scales play as mediums of environmental information in the aquatic setting. Clearly this logic is very much in keeping with a key part of Okens ideas. As it is we cut into this work here because last night, 12/12/2011, I noticed a list of the five colour categories of humanity, which I thought I might as well provide here as I gave my own recollection of such a list above, though I think Okens colour coding varies slightly from any I have seen before : 1. 2. 3. 4. The Skin-Man is the Black, African. The Tongue- is the Brown, AustralianMalayan. The Nose- is the Red, American. The Ear is the Yellow, AsiaticMongolian.

5. The Eye- is the White, European. (Oken, p. 651.) In order to illustrate the thoroughly evolutionary nature of Okens work, we may take this passage : What holds good of the classes holds good of the orders and families also. The lower animal of a consecutive family is again more rudimental than the upper one of the antecedent family. Thus the Ornithorynchus is more rudimental than the Beaver, the Shrew-mouse more rudimental than the Opossum and such like creatures. In the highest families the equiponderance is first restored, and the lowest Man is still higher than the uppermost Ape. (Ibid., p. 653) We can see that people are fully incorporated into the pantheon of life, and the link between humans and apes taken as given well before Darwin so shockingly launched this idea upon the world, indicating how much of Darwinian history is myth manufactured by the state, to allow an absolute Jewish theocracy to continue its dominion in a so called modern, scientific age. The item I have is dated 1847 but Oken was publishing work from the first years of the century, and his views therefore reach back towards the time of Erasmus Darwin. The fact that such ideas pervaded society before Darwin is of immense importance to the story of evolutionary science, because the strategy of the priesthood has always been to make Darwin appear as an inspired genius, bringing perfect scientific knowledge to the world for the first time ever, right out of the blue. All Darwin did was to introduce the idea of Natural Selection, which made superiority vested in the individual the supreme value of life. This is a highly political idea tailor made for religion, and an absolute anathema to any scientific idea of evolution, which is far better represented in Okens curious model of lifes development. Even so, as we can gather from the above quotes, Oken manages to make superiority a primary aspect of evolution too, which culminated in the white European, of course. Always, what we want from any true science of humanity, is a levelling, which alone is found in our Atheist Science, where we reduce humans to biological entities, denying individuals every last element of uniqueness or wonder, which they so love to immerse themselves in courtesy of the lying ideology of the priests who supply the masses with their knowledge of self.

V Pulsation Our little spin on how the white race evolved through the expression of human corporate nature nurturing a specialised core, which became the embryo of a new continental superorganism, suggests the principle of pulsation, where human superorganic development occurs through an infinite series of pulses of this kind, involving a concentration of linguistic force upon an isolated segment of a unified human biomass, building up its social potential, which is then unleashed upon the extended biomass, or breaks away to form a new superorganism in its own right. In actual fact my earlier works extolling the idea of force driving evolution on the basis of information, expressed an identical dynamic, particularly developed in relation to

Bernards work. Biological evolution was discussed in terms of life forms evolving under localised conditions, which raised a life engine against an energy gradient, where life forms exploited the latent potential of the basic physiology of their new life engine to produce an entirely new kind of animal that defines a kingdom, not just a species, such as mammals. Once perfected such life engine based life forms rested atop of the gradient of potential life energy relative to the whole planet, automatically reducing all other niches to a lower energy gradient by comparison, and setting the scene for a new dominant kind of life to disperse and take possession of the earth. From this point all a life form had to do was descend the gradient by evolving new expressions of its basic life engine plan, as it dispersed across the range of available niches. This view of evolution is all about energy flow, as all good science must be. This model of evolution has the basic impetus of pulsation about it, but it does not suggest pulsation because the process of new species formation occurs in a series of waves from a point of origin, so the pulse here is on too grand a scale to be foremost in our thinking. When we come to the unleashing of evolutionary potential contained within one species, which is the special condition applied to the superorganism, which explains why so remarkable a creature as the human form should come into being, the matter is otherwise. Here the transformation is contained within the closed informational space of one species structure, and the resulting development, once we have a handle on it, appears much more concentrated and results in the idea of a pulsating internal development that has become associated in our minds with the idea of social cleansing, where core bodies of superorganic being are formed and all changes, all around, constantly, as growth takes place. The essential principle of pulsation is that a core element of the human biomass constituting one superorganic physiology, becomes structurally isolated, giving rise to a structural physiology with a definite dynamic preserving it and making the extended biomass a slave body of this focus of linguistic force. The focus of linguistic force creates a definite material expression across the social form, giving it its culture, which denotes the biomass coming under the aegis of a core authority. The superorganism then grows, empowered by the focus of linguistic force upon the exclusive core, whose influence has been infused throughout the biomass. Leaping forward to the present we find this is exactly how we account for the dominance of Judaism across the entire planet today. The pulse causing everyone to become white, to the global limit then denoted by the continent of Europe, has been followed, eventually, by the pulse causing everyone to become Jewish, this time embracing the whole earth. The Jews have famously constituted an isolated pocket of humanity and however this is deemed to of happened it is primarily due to their self containment through a linguistic force field consisting of dogma and regulation, and from this position of exclusivity they have the turned the whole world Jewish, thereby capturing the principle of pulsation to perfection by giving linguistic force its highest expressions thus far. And the process goes on. At this very moment in time, Friday, 09 December 2011, there is a calamity building up in the ongoing process of developmental pulsation as Europe threatens to collapse, which makes it look as though the process does not exist as described, because this reverses the pulse. But this negative interpretation is misguided. The process can only go one way, so that no matter what happens, if it takes another century, another world war, Europe will be united, Judaism demands it. The transformation of the world into a first world order, as we see the third world becoming equal to the first world in its material status, shows how the core pulsates outwards to include all, and so the process goes on, and will continue to do so until humanitys bubble bursts, deflates, and we become a remnant of our former self, and then die out. It is not for nothing that this description sounds like that of a stars life, it is because we are now applying an energy based principle to human existence.

The elaboration of such an argument as that preceding, prompts the question, if an isolated core of humanity produced a continental superorganism denoted by the Caucasian dressing, and we understand the original unity of the Negroid cloak, what foci brought about the three other continental skin categories, assuming they were real, seen in Oriental, Asian and American form ? Our easiest route into an understanding of these three broad categories is the definite knowledge we have of the peopling of the Americas, which had a focused point of origin due to the arrival of people from one point source, where Russia meets Alaska today. Here then no preordained elite acted as the blastosphere of an embryonic form, but rather the unique circumstances of a territorial vacuum served to draw out the first wave of human occupants into a unified superorganic form giving a weak expression to human corporate nature, rather than the forced expression we have just imagined may of created the white identity. The arrival of the Jewish globalising superorganism in America occurred before the resident human biomass had time to differentiate, as all populations were at a lower level of development, giving them a semblance of racial unity. What of aboriginal Australia ? It reverted back to the African type because continental conditions here only sustained a lower level of superorganic expression, or the negroid expression was retained on route and evolved its unique expression once settled into the new continental space. Note 04/04/2012, A BBC 2 documentary on mammoths stated that the major glaciations of two and a half million years ago locked up so much water that blue skies over the northern hemisphere became the norm, causing a verdant belt of vegetation to appear beyond the southern ice limits. This served as a huge potential food resource for any animal able to take advantage of it, and the mammoth did just that by evolving for northern climes ; mammoths and African elephants had a common ancestor six million years ago. The significance of this account is that it portrays a latent life energy potential in the form of the newly arrived food source, delivering a new energy gradient into the global life energy regime, thereby inducing the evolution of tropical elephants into a form able to exploit the energy source lying untapped. The evolution of a new form of elephant represents the ascent of the verdant pool of life energys gradient. This energy led process is how we represent evolution as always taking place, where competition would merely be a reversal of that process, resisting the descent down an energy gradient, towards extinction, inducing new species to arise on the negative slope, as it were, but still a force based process. This statement coming from Alice Roberts documentary unwittingly supports the idea of evolution driven by force and the latent potential of life energy, not by way of natural selection acting competitively to select the best adapted, thereby causing new species to arise by chance. Here we have a process that is teleological, where the latent potential, wherever located, be it in the environment or within an already evolved physiology, acts as a purpose towards which life forms are drawn. Purpose in nature is therefore just latent potential energy of life, which pretty well matches purpose in everyday human life, if we bothered to look into the matter at all. The mammoths evolution was not therefore a product of chance mutation and selective pressure, but one of natural variation being drawn out to suit a newly available pool of life energy. Discussing the evolution of species in relation to the ebb and flow of planetary systems like this, brings to mind the way deep time weather systems are described in terms of shifting energy regimes producing varying effects on the ground, such as glaciations or desertification. This makes species look like the condensation of living energy patterns, cooling here causes large life forms to condense out there ; while warming over there brings about the evaporation of all large scale species here. Given the dependence of life on water it is amusing to reduce life forms to elaborate drops of precipitation !

VI Cohens principle expanded Cohens little piece is rather impressive, and it is of a rare nature, despite the frailties of its ideas due to its enslavement to Darwinism and the consequent idiocy of eugenics forming the basis of its argument. I think I will turn it into a PDF and produce a commentary on it and then post both to Scribd, as it is otherwise not in the public domain. Having established the principle of human activity guided by our biological nature in terms of clothing being an elaboration on nakedness, not a break from nakedness, lets up our game and cut to the chase, by applying the same principle to religion. There is something I want to do first, that has just cropped up. Notice how the idea of clothing as an expression of nakedness jars obtrusively with our mind set. This is the neatest example of how language works as a means of creating our consciousness of reality, bearing on the question, How does linguistic force create social structure ? Nature has evolved an animal, ourselves, whose form is constructed so as to generate a superorganism, and it has done so by making language the primary expression of information projecting somatic form into a superorganic, or social extension. The effect of this linguistic method upon the conscious person existing as an object of superorganic being, is to make them feel as if their consciousness is literally theirs, when in fact it is nothing of the sort. Individual consciousness, the mind, is an artifact of the linguistic process which exists to generate a living animal, the human superorganism. This example concerning dress neatly demonstrates the point in a highly forceful manner, sensed by the utter incongruity of calling clothing, a mode of nakedness. We are handling this idea entirely linguistically, as we must, but in adopting our novel approach we are caused to make language run against its own grain. The grain of language exists as our sense of consciousness, thus by making clothing a form of nakedness, we are acting against the grain of our consciousness, forcing meaning to clash impossibly. This gives us a good idea of how our mental awareness is not under our control, but rather it is controlled by the language which programmes it. The existence of words that name things and conditions, forces us to see structure that is actually not there, that has been created by the existence of the words that shape our ideas of reality, as we can see in this example of being clothed equated with nakedness. We may imagine that we are often faced with such incongruities and we simply adjust our understanding accordingly, and this is true, but such adjustment does not come naturally, it requires a conscious effort, which is usually performed by a specialist in knowledge manufacture, management and control, so that a politician, priest or academic of some kind produces an idea that is then programmed into us all. In the case of so monumental an adjustment as that which we atheists propose, which has the weight of collective mentality stacked against any such move, our efforts are puny so that collectively we remain stubbornly entrenched in a deep state of ignorance induced by the structures of mentality created by language over millennia, most notably fixed in religious identity programming. Nakedness will not of existed before clothing came into existence, how could it ? So in actual fact the arrival of clothing created the idea of nakedness, through the power of linguistically induced consciousness. Before clothing people were simply as they appeared, and as such their nakedness can of induced no linguistic response, and without a linguistic response there can of been no consciousness of being naked, it simply was, as it was. We are not aware of everything in existence, and that is why the vocabularies of different languages are so varied, or use to be, each having their own characteristic focus of consciousness. The

resolution of the conflict we have created is more sophisticated than a simple change of meaning, and this is because the new attitude derives from an entirely new discovery, that of our of true biological nature. Just as moving takes on a dual meaning when we think about it on two levels of reality which have become known to us where we formerly there was only one, as in our personal motion and our motion as part of the planet, so nakedness takes on a similar dual meaning for the exact same reason, with the discovery of another level of existence simultaneous to that of our immediate sense of being. Nakedness still has its personal sense, that of wearing no clothes, but it also has the meaning associated with our biological nature, which denies our personal existence as ends in ourselves, where nakedness then refers to a special condition of our evolution befitting our role as cellular entity within an extended biological form. Here nakedness is not about bare skin, but rather about the communication of identity and the integration of individuals into an organic whole. As such our naked condition can be seen as an early phase of linguistic expression, more akin to that which we are familiar with in other animals like birds with their displays, and insects communicating with pheromones. The genome has been investigated with a view to determining when our prehuman ancestors became naked and I think it was long enough ago to support these conjectures, but I have not got the details to hand. Here then we see something of how language creates structure through the creation of consciousnesss form. And that is what has happened to us over time, we have become the heirs to a consciousness which includes an awareness of nakedness because we wear clothes. So our consciousness comes between ourselves and underlying reality, and by discovering the true nature of the human animal, and thus negating the existence of the individual, we have found a way around the barrier of consciousness placed before us by linguistic force delivering knowledge to our brains as part of the social process of engendering a living human superorganism. And so to religion as a product of Cohens principle, concerning the reality lying behind our superficial view of social processes : Considering the manner in which the prophets condemn ceremonialism, it is assumed that between them and the priestly class there was inevitable antagonism. What the prophets condemned was not so much the system of sacrifices as giving them undue value, to the disparagement and neglect of morality. The true view is that both prophets and priests were co-workers in one great mission. The mission of the prophets was to bring the people back to the monotheism of the Mosaic age. The mission of the priests was to preserve the purity of the monotheistic conception by erecting a barrier of minute regulations so as to prevent the entrance of idolatrous ideas and practices. Both prophets and priests had one common aim, to burn into the minds and hearts of the people the conception of One God, the embodiment of holiness and justice. And then, when a pure religion was stamped indelibly in the Jewish mind, the national system was broken up, and the Jews were sent forth as pioneers of a theism. To the Jews the destruction of their nation was a calamity of the first magnitude. To humanity it proved a blessing far-reaching in its sweep, and momentous in its issues. It meant the death knell of paganism. In the words of Renan, the Jews lost a material city ; they opened a region of the spiritual Jerusalem. For their great providential mission, the Jews were prepared in Exile. (The Jew in History, Levison, 1916, pp. 32 33.) This is a nice passage for our present purposes, in the first place we are talking about the origin of the religion that has consumed the whole human biomass. The author is treating the subject in reverse by talking about the mission of the Jews being to achieve just this end, but that is not how this end came to be. It came to be in precisely the way Cohen describes,

by human capacity discovering the destiny written into their evolved, biological nature. In this passage we see a Jew describing how the Jews developed the slave identity of the human species, but all this is, is the expression of human corporate natures potential, fulfilled. So we develop the principle enunciated by Cohen, to understand how clothing is an expression of nakedness, from whence we proceed to argue that global religion develops the knowledge that provides identity and unity giving the superorganism its constitution in a similarly introverted, self referential fashion. So religion forms the essence, the informing dynamic, and this projects the mental equipment identified in Cohens principle, into a social environment where the process of unification continues to augment through the operation of a feedback loop between the social environment and the mentality that both creates and perceives this creation of linguistic force. For the Jewish knowledge of identity and unity to evolve, there must of be an associated structural development. The object of a globalising knowledge flux must generate appropriate structure. The knowledge exists, we know it, it is our religion, so the associated structure exists too. This is the national structure forming the basis of international warfare and trade. In effect the global structure is a super tribe generated by linguistic force, the expression of human corporate nature. It is the cleansing nature of warfare brought home to me by writing my history oriented piece for Katie, that reveals this process of social development. War is what makes the process work, while national structure acts as the consolidating form, the web of nations acts like a sieve shaking out the unwanted biomass and its associated structure, while preserving the pure of identity. This is precisely what the above quote describes, only in a more deceitful manner suited to the process of purification itself. With our attention turned to Landtman previously, we suddenly find an awful lot more therein than we had expected. The passage we took from his Origin of the Inequality of the Social Classes comes from chapter seven, Social Inequality Caused by the Amalgamation of Tribes, which also includes a reference to Gumplowiczs late nineteenth century piece on race war as the basis of social structure. I ran a search for this work, that I have tried to find for years, and a copy is already on its way to me from America, at only 18. Superb. It is German, but that is par for the course. Gumplowicz was a Jew, like Howard Bloom, and it intrigues me that Bloom should of presented the idea of the human superorganism very much based upon this essentially correct, though rarely stated idea, presented by a fellow Jew a century previously. Where did Bloom get his ideas from ? Just getting to grips with a recent arrival I find myself in possession of a truly marvellous book on Spencer, quite the best ever. Peel, in his Herbert Spencer : the evolution of a sociologist, 1971, has a chapter called The Organic Analogy, which is excellent, better than I ever of dreamed of finding. He does a brilliant job of locating Spencers widely dispersed use of this idea, something I had hoped to do myself, but felt I could not accomplish, and indeed could not of done so anything like as well as Peel has. There is a perfect passage describing Spencers views on the manner in which society came to be organised by the state about a supposed ideal, and this ties in so perfectly with the above thinking derived from Cohen on the way human intellect obeys an imperative without knowing what it is, and our ensuing development of this principle to give us the dynamics of pulsation focused upon a core authority that rules an attached biomass : Sometimes Spencer emphasizes the impotence of politicians to affect society, sometimes the damage they may do. In addition he says that the social organism is so complicated anyway that they cannot know how to effect their wishes :
Wonderfully constructed as it ismutually dependent as are its members for the satisfaction of their wantsaffected as each unit of it is by his fellows, not only as to

his safety and prosperity, but in his health, his temper, his culture ; the social organism cannot be dealt with in any one part, without all other parts being influenced in ways that cannot be foreseen. (Over-Legislation, in Westminster Review, July, 1853.) That connexions among social phenomena should be so little understood need not surprise us if we note the ideas which prevail respecting the connexions among much simpler phenomena. . . . How abundant are the proofs that human nature is difficult to manipulate ; that methods apparently the most rational disappoint expectations ; and that the best results frequently result from what common sense thinks unpractical. . . . Is it not probable that as in Biology so in Sociology, the accumulation of more facts, the more critical comparison of them and the drawing of conclusions on scientific methods, will be accompanied by increasing doubt about the benefits to be secured, and increasing fear of the mischiefs to be worked ? Is it not probable that what in the individual organism is improperly, though conveniently called the vis medicatrix naturae, may be found to have its analogue in the social organism ? (Study of Sociology, 1873, p. 4) My general purpose . . . has been that of showing how utterly beyond the conceptions of common-sense . . . are the workings out of sociological processes . . . such that even those who have carried out to the utmost the scientific use of the imagination would never have anticipated them. . . . My more special purpose has been that of showing how marvellous are the results indirectly and unintentionally achieved by the co-operation of men who are severally pursuing their private ends. (Specialized Administration. in Fortnightly Review, December, 1871.)

This Smithian picture of the self-regulating economy does not logically entail the necessary ignorance of complex causes and effects which is for Spencer the proximate justification of laissez-faire. The British government, he goes on, familiar with the classics but ignorant of social science, cannot know the mutual dependence of the many functions which taken together make up the social life but yet, by telling people what to believe by means of the State Church, by relieving distress caused by improvidence, by controlling books in state-schools, and by censoring literature, they aim to control and direct the entire national life. . . . If some social process does not seem to them to be-going on fast enough, they stimulate it ; where the growth is not in the mode or the direction which they think most desirable, they alter it ; and so they seek to realize some undefined ideal community. (Representative Government : What
is it good for ?, in Westminster Review, October, 1857.)

This normative role of the organic analogy, to promote laissez-faire in Spencers own society, makes it hard for it to be applied to earlier societies in which lawgivers and controlling governments were much in evidence. Can one argue that the Solon- and Lycurgus-figures of the past were either superfluous or harmful in their own day, as they would be, if Carlyle had his way, in the present ? Spencer wants the future to differ from the past, but a naturalistic argument expressing what seem to be constant truths of human society inhibits the explanation of variation. In fact he has two distinct societal models, made explicit in the militant/industrial distinction. There are (a) societies where the laws express the natures of citizens and consequently are virtually superfluouswhich is, in fact, stated as a general proposition ; and (b) societies in which laws and great men play an exactly opposite role, serving not to express the social nature but to evoke it because it is of itself lackingand here, interventionary actions are normal and, apparently, not to be taken as infringements of the organic character of society. Spencer shifts from maintaining

that all societies are alike in this respect, and only differ in that the present generation is coming to realize their eternal nature, to maintaining that they differ in respect of the role played by law and political coercion ; or rather, that though all societies may be organic, industrial society is the most so. The militant/industrial dichotomy is assumed too in an implicit classification of actions into those which infringe the society is an organism (qua growth) thesis, and those which do not. Some, such as the actions of tradesmen making contracts, buyers and sellers of labour and goods, technical innovators, middlemen, artisans, organizers of voluntary associations of all kinds, linked together in very complicated ways, are the social organism growing ; while others, such as the actions of national legislators, political rulers and overall social improvers like Sir Edwin Chadwick, are the token of an attempt to treat society as if it were not an organism but an artefact. The classification is quite clear, but not its rationale. For growth is not defined in the metaphorical context of society, merely contrasted with another, rejected, analogue, manufacture. There is no clear indication of where the line is to be drawn between growth-actions and manufacture-actions. Spencer does not seem to notice that, if what he says about the superfluity of lawgivers is true, his own preachings must be superfluous also. His ethical purposes would have been better served by a non-evolutionary theory of the health or sickness of societies which would not have involved him in the logical circularities of evolutionary necessitarianism. But then he would not have been able to explain social differences. As it has turned out, the chief use of the organic analogy has not been in social ethics, where it means all things to all men, nor in the explanation of social change. It has produced, not a theory of society, but a language of social analysis, useful in comparison because so unspecific. (Herbert Spencer, Peel, 1970, pp. 175 7) The passages quoted by Peel are fantastic, and entirely new to me. They are also perfectly suited to the general point we are seeking to make above, as we indicate the manner in which human corporate nature, biologically evolved, unleashes its potential over time through a process whereby an elite body act as the brain of the superorganism, providing its purpose and direction, where the elite act as if they understand but which, as Spencer so rightly indicates, they cannot possibly understand. The tragedy of this, in the end, is that Spencer himself is equally oblivious to the true nature of that which he seeks to draw everyones attention to. We may suppose from the above quotes that he did not think he had grasped the real essence of what was going on, only the mystery of it that others liked to think they were the arbiters of. Peel says this much of Spencer, but Peel certainly was in the class of those which Spencer criticises here. The last sentence quoted is an example of that principle enunciated by Cohen, regarding the way human mentality discovered the imperatives of human social action long before they ever rationalised the existence of such principles. Our own corrective inevitably involves pointing out that it is religion which is the key to understanding this scenario, by recognising the nature of religion as the end point of linguistic force which creates all superorganic physiology. So that when Spencer speaks so well of the manner in which the state controls us by insinuating the purpose at its core into our beings, by controlling what we can think, in his essay Representative Government, the critical essence of this whole way of thinking about political authority from which his argument could hang coherently, is missing. All we get from Spencer is the recognition that the modern state clearly has some definite objective that allows it to discern the desirable from the undesirable, the differentiation of which aims at an undefined ideal community. How can anyone get so

close to the scientific truth, especially when the whole purpose is to avow the reality of the social organism, without realising that this ideal community is religion, which in our case means Christianity, which in fact means Judaism ? Peel rightly condemns Spencers idea as localised in space and time, being society specific, but this is because Spencer fails to use his scientifically empowered imagination to good effect by realising that the central issue is all about religion. So that as long as the continuation of identity is preserved then time and place is irrelevant to the social process, that he has otherwise so beautifully described. And as we can see from Peels superb account, Spencer lived this idea, he devoted his life to it, so why the hell did he not get it himself ? It is so frustrating. I do not believe that with a display of this much insight that we have any knowledge today that allows us to see reality that Spencer could not of seen then, if he had wanted to, or dared to. The fact is, as has always been obvious, and as Peel indicates, and as Nietzsche, for example, proclaimed of all philosophers, he was simply a political figure in philosophical guise. Spencer never was a philosopher seeking the abstract truth of reality, presented in a form of scientific knowledge. Other than myself, there has never been any such person in existence, from any walk of life, none that I have seen hide nor hair of anyway. The only caution we might add is that which we identify above, the problem being that in order to state the truth one had to attack religion mercilessly, and there was an immense social pressure prohibiting such honesty, as noted by Cohen above. Could Spencer of said Christianity was a Jewish slave identity and got away with it ? The nub of the problem is, that it had to be understood by any commentator that Christianity was a slave identity of Judaism, something no commentator ever stated, to my knowledge, though a great deal of writing skirted all around this idea, which did crystallise into the deeply negative form whereby the idea of a master identity emerged in the idea of a parasitic race. This is the best material I have ever come across on Spencer, and it allows us to see very clearly how close nineteenth century ideas were to revealing the truth, and how precious the world wars were, and the holocaust, and how much we owe to Hitler for saving us from this most sublime truth, and the freedom and perfection in life that it would of delivered to us by destroying Judaism for good. The one part of Spencers critique of the states moulding of the biomass to its own agenda that we really want to see, is a description of the war of religion against science, conducted subversively through the agency of academia. Here is something I dropped on only yesterday, Monday, 12 December 2011 : Sometimes the author conveys the impression that he writes merely with a view of destroying belief in generally received theological dogmas. I cannot think this impression to be well founded, and the list of his published writings will show that M. Vogt has really been a hard-working scientific student. Scientific men naturally have a contempt for those who study theology with a view to attack the deductions of men of science : but it is equally contemptible for a man to study and write on science with the view to overthrow theological dogmas. The search after truth is the only object the scientific student ought to keep in view. (Lectures on Man, Vogt, 1864, Editors Preface, p. xiv.) The above is an important find, indicating as it does the express principle that science must be tolerant of religion and only seek the truth. This despite demonstrating that religious people work tirelessly to undermine science without any concern for the same principle of truth based upon the authority of reality directly observed. This policy is fatal to science and as such an utterly absurd proposition for any scientist to avow, since it leaves science prone to whatever political power religion can muster, which is always far more than science can

ever dream of. Of especial importance, is the fact that this statement is in total contradiction to the first principle of Atheist Sciencethat science must be based on atheismnoting which maximises the justification for our insistence that science be built upon an atheist foundation. For we can see that here religion, promoting its interests from within a scientific work produced within a powerful scientific society, is proclaiming that science must be tolerant of religion, and as such religion was doing what Atheist Science seeks to do now, long ago, that is religion was making science build its foundation in conformity to the religious status quo. The success of this Useful-Knowledge Society, it is true, only dates from the period when Neufchtel, having ceased to be a Prussian principality, became a canton of the Swiss Confederation. It is very probable that, in that happy period when a Prussian general, with a few knights of the red eagle governed the country, the lamentations of those, who condemn every result of science which does not agree with the ancient Jewish lawbook, would have prevailed and suppressed this society. (Ibid., Authors Preface, p. 1) This second snippet merely indicates the natural state of authoritarian opposition to science, based upon religious prejudice, albeit we find a window of opportunity has opened due to a shift in political figureheads. From this sample of material published in the midst of Spencers period of work, we can see the central importance of the war of religion against science carried out under the aegis of state authority. While we have an indication that this war was ameliorated, the general principle that science must seek the total annihilation of religion because of religions central role in the maintenance of political authority, should of made an appearance in any broad critique of state control of the biomass such as Spencer produces over a period of some years, or even decades. Clearly Spencer did not understand this, something we might relate to Peels observation that he believed in a better future, as he failed to understand that if his naturalistic analysis of society were at all valid the present must be as perfect as the past, and only required to be understood, exactly as we do in Atheist Science. We prognosticate no improvement, merely an ongoing state of misery under the thumb of an absolute theocracy, this being all that can be logically validated by science. Had Spencer really understood the nature of the states interest in controlling knowledge, the effect of which he describes himself, then he would of realised that in a scientific age the only way for the state to prosecute its inherently religious agenda, which is always informed by the requirement to preserve religion, would of been for the war against science to be prosecuted by any means possible. Whereupon it is obvious that science had to be made in religions image, since it could no longer be suppressed directly. Hence Darwinism had to be a sterile science created to be safe for religion to rub shoulders with, since this was the formula chosen as the sacred mantra of science, to be avowed by academia henceforth. Spencer sees none of this, and as such he was a perfect stooge for the state, aiding its effort to control knowledge, whether he knew it or not.

Chapter 16

Daily Philosophy

I want to insert a note on recent happenings in the everyday world of my life as a philosopher. I received a nice catalogue of Freethought and Secularism, number seventeen, from the dealer R. W. Forder, and set-to looking for interesting titles online, of which I bought a few, two having just arrived an hour ago, it being 26/11/2011 13:34. Lectures on Humanism :With Special Reference to its Bearings on Sociology, by Mackenzie, 1907, which I have been after for years, which puzzles me since there were lots of copies and I only paid 7 for this one ; and The Future of Unbelief by Gerhard Szczesny, 1962. I also took a fresh batch of items from the internet, including The Science of History by Zerffi, 1879, from which the following wonderful passage is taken : More than 127 years ago the Germans recognised the possibility of a scientific treatment of History, and yet we find in English publications such passages as the following : The Historian, who is also an artist, is exposed to a particular drawback from which his brethren in other fields are exempt. The mere lapse of time destroys the value and even the fidelity of his pictures. If this were the case, the writer could certainly have been no artist, and least of all a Historian. In other arts correct colouring and outline remain correct, and, if they are combined with imaginative power, age rather enhances than diminishes their worth. But the Historian lives under another law. His reproduction of a past age, however full and true it may appear to his contemporaries, appears less and less true to his successors. This is poor logic ! If statements are full and true, they cannot possibly become less and less true. Chemistry is a science, notwithstanding the fact that the four primary elements have been dissolved into some seventy-two, which may perhaps be augmented in time to 140. Anatomy, zoology, botany, &c, have had their phases of development, their inaccuracies, and exploded hypotheses, yet they are admittedly sciences. Surely it is unreasonable that, whilst every branch of human knowledge is allowed to have a scientific side, History should be denied the same privilege. The fact that the social organism continually grows and receives new additions, cannot possibly prevent the study of the past, if we are honest, and apply the same logic to History, as we are forced to use in any other subject. The theological cloven-foot is perceptible in all false reasonings of this kind. Doubt must be thrown on profane Histories, in order to maintain sacred History in its integrity and truthfulness. But do such writers not feel that their aspersion of profane History must in the end recoil on their own self-chosen Histories, which they consider full and true for ever, though they were written at periods when Historiography was in its childhood ? That the Historical development of Humanity is still in progress, can be no excuse for not studying the mutations, phases and evolutions through which it has passed. Should we cease to occupy ourselves with meteorology, because the clouds continuously vary, and unexpected showers, storms and electric shocks interrupt our calculations ? The mighty genius,

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729 1781), boldly attacked all antiquated traditions, prejudices and fallacies, especially with regard to sacred History. He proclaimed the grand doctrine of TOLERATION, not as a mere emotional element, but as a necessity for the higher culture of Humanity. He taught us to honour all religions, in whatever shape, and to look to mans moral actions alone, not to religious brain-crystallizations, formed through outer-influences. Mans unalloyed and true human nature was to be the essential ; and on this basis alone History, from a general point of view, became a possibility. (pp. 752 4.) Its now Wednesday, 11 April 2012 and reading review is in progress. Before proceeding, I do not see any mention below of the fact that in the above Zerffi directly blames the war of religion against science for the subversion of science this passage describes. He does this in a somewhat artistic manner, by calling religion the theological cloven-hoof, but aside from such obscurities the accusation is plain enough, and delightful to see. It is confined to history however, history being a considerable aspect of the Bible this is not surprising, but it ought to of been broadened out to include all science, wherever any friction could be conceived of between the rulers of society and the scientist. I hit upon this passage by conducting my usual search phrase social organism, which I was delighted to find far into this large volume, and this time it led me to a remarkable declaration upon the necessity of history as a true science. An idea which is far and away from anything any historian could of conceive of today, which shows the contrast between the world as it was then, in the pre-cleansing era when free science existed, and how it is now. In an essay I sent to Katie a couple of months ago, in the second year of her history degree, I freely used the idea of being a scientist in the practice of history, if I see her next month I will find out how this registered with her. Since writing the above, as of last weekend, today being Friday, 16 December 2011, I have decided, with sadness but resignation, after a long effort to keep going, to give up my life long passion for pub going, forever, this age old English way life is now dead. Reading the above quote reminded me of a troubling remark in a recently acquired work of sociological sociology : The criticism and transformation of society can be divorced only at our peril from the criticism and transformation of theories about society. (The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, Gouldner, 1970, p. 3) This opening statement to a book equates sociology to politics, and asserts that the two things are absolutely indistinguishable, since by social criticism he has in mind that which political commentators engage in all the time. Gouldner was referring to the rise of socialist oriented, anti-establishment ideasmy time, the seventiesand saying that this hippy generation were disconnected, in their ideas about society, from the science of sociology that was necessary to any proper understanding of politics. Wait, I have made a mistake, this was not what the above quote from Zerffi reminded of, it was this passage expressing the same ludicrous core principle of sociology in a different context, taken from another recent arrival : Every ages sociology, our own as well as Spencers, is irretrievably specific to its problems, both practical and theoretical. Despite its ambition to produce a universal

theory of society after an a priori ideal drawn from natural science, it is necessarily attached to those models, metaphors and theories which best seem to capture the complex actuality which is each period of sociologys chief subject-matter : contemporary society. Spencer is superseded, as is his contemporary Marx, not primarily because his theories are wrong about society (though insofar as each made universalist claims, each has paid the penalty), but because they refer to a very different social reality from that which confronts us. (Herbert Spencer, Peel, 1971, Preface, p. x.) Thats more like it, what a superb passage to come upon, this really evokes the crusade of absolute theocracy against scientific sociology which exploded into life in the 1970s, precisely when I was of college age ; though I was entirely oblivious to sociology then. Gouldner may of been a slight error of recollection, but it is nonetheless perfectly suited to the occasion, and over the page he expatiates on the way sociology had become a major facet of culture at that time, exploding into the mainstream popular culture with thousands of publications, many of which had been made available to the public at large. This denotes the extreme effort that the theocracy was making after the conclusion of its cleansing exercisesthe two world warsthat were mandated by the rise of a truly scientific, universalist, organicist sociology. As I have said elsewhere, it was a matter of common knowledge amongst my fellow young contemporaries in the mid-seventies, that sociology was the supreme doss, a guaranteed ticket to a degree, paid for entirely by the state, especially for the poor working class person who was the very candidate in need of such an easy academic route into university, because they lacked the natural advantages of better off family life. Sociology offered them a privileged status in a post cleansing world without having any natural intelligence or ability of any kind whatsoever, nor any cultivated inclination towards priestcraft, but merely a desire to doss, smoke pot, fuck, drink, and make merry, to be a student in other words, while strolling though the rigmarole of getting a sociology degree, a ticket to a better life all-round. For the more aggressive, whose personalities were especially criminal in nature, who had no care for truth, but who were ravenous for social status, they could take PhDs and go on to become the sociology professors of the future, a truly high priest status in the new age of post scientific society. In this sense the new anti-scientific sociology was a bit like the rise of Communism in Russia, it opened the way to the subclass to become the oppressive elite class, and of course, the stampede unleashed by the onset of any such opportunities is always on the scale of a tsunami. We see the result of such developments in the two quotes above, expressly attacking the only possible basis of a genuine scientific sociology. A more criminal idea could not exist within an academic setting, and yet this criminality is the official norm accepted by everyone to this day, such is the power of religion to pervert anything and everything. That is linguistic force acting at the behest of human corporate nature for you. What setup could be better suited to the corruption of sociology ? The ever present mass of a power hungry, status deprived youth, coming from social nothingness that always resides in any civilised society, ever ready to serve the purpose of the master race as a tool of rebellion or oppression, this was just the kind of candidate the absolute theocracy needed for its newly fabricated sociology. People who were starving for status and could not give a toss about knowledge, truth, sincerity or anything else, but who were in fact little politicians in waiting, as we all are for the most part. As I once read in a late piece by H. G. Wells, there is an inexhaustible supply of people waiting, and willing, to become priests ! Too right, and that is precisely the dynamic of social life and human nature that we are seeing revealed in this management of the structure of knowledge manufacture and control in the field of sociology, as we illuminate

it here. As we often say, all an academic is, is the modern embodiment of a priest. This is proven by their total commitment to authorityas seen in their slavish subservience to Darwinismtheir utter disinterest in truth, and their delight in status and privilege which is the hallmark of their trade, as it is the eternal hallmark of priesthood. This new form of politicised sociology is a nasty and cynical expression of the way priests undermine knowledge at its core, by subterfuge borne of their utter control of all state machinery, everywhere, throughout the world, always, and forever. The importance of an inexhaustible supply of people hungry to obtain status cannot be overemphasised in the effort to understand how society manages to develop a rigorous degree of control across so extensive a reach. This can only be done by galvanising individuals into a deep seated and highly motivated allegiance to authority, the key to which is oppression, usually of an economic kind, which puts people under a heavy weight of pressure to conform and to value any opportunity they have to make a secure, if poor living. It is when society has people under the thumb that people become little fascists themselves. It is a mystery to me, a born radical and enemy of authority, the way working class people are so servile and so antagonistic towards anyone in their orbit of social action who is not, but I have eyes to see, even if no disposition to comprehend intuitively. It is a normal proclivity to accept privilege by paying homage to authority that allows the terrible effects of authoritarian rule to be so typical of our world, where no shortage of individuals willing to commit atrocities is wanted whenever it suits the Jewish theocracy to adopt such a method of proceeding. How could the Germans do what they did to the Jews ? Yes it is a mind-bending question, but only because the people responsible for such behaviour work tirelessly to ensure that we are deprived of the knowledge to understand this aspect of ourselves, in order that this aspect can be put to use, as and when required. How can people be police officers, teachers, politicians, religious priests, academics, the same question applies throughout life, our society is as vile and corrupt as can be, but in a refined way, imbued into our social structure. Look at the case of Jacque Chirac which concluded in France yesterday, 15/12/2011, by finding this former French President guilty of gross corruption and large scale theft of public funds, in order to build a political machine to get himself elected. And the reaction of all the senior people in French society ? They wanted the whole thing hushed up. Any day of the week the ongoing reality of human nature expressed in this way, can be demonstrated somewhere. And really, although he does not know it, that is all that Zerffi is saying of his own time, that religion insinuates itself into every facet of knowledge creation, with a view to preserving itself at all cost, by suppressing truth, by any means necessary. Hence the condemnation of religions attack on any aspect of intellectual life that might impinge upon the preservation of religious myth, is nice to see It is easy to see why my mind was directed amiss in connecting my present reading of the above passage from Zerffi first to Gouldner, and only after some pause, to Peel, as the two works, close in date, both recently arrived, also evince the exact same sociological principle that where sociology is concerned science is not possible, and this because it is inseparable from issues of the day, of which it forms an integral part. Thus according to our modern sociologists politics is not to take its ideas from science, but science must recognise that it is, literally, politics ! What a vile, ignorant and disgusting idea, no soviet propagandist ever produced anything more twisted and sick in the name of science, than this all pervading idea of Western sociology. Of course it is precisely this bias theological, cloven-hoofed approach, that Zerffi is seeking to denounce, except now we find it applied in sociology rather history, so that here it is sociology which is made impenetrable to science because it is always only ever specific to its own time.

However, it could hardly be otherwise. It often occurs to me since discovering the true science of society, how peculiar life would be if this science had been permitted to continue its existence as a parallel line of thought relating to society. I often imagine political programmes, the news and Newsnight commentary for example, having the same political debates they do now, and then inviting a resident sociologist to explain the biological function of the ideas expressed by politicians. Can you imagine, do you get what I am saying ? It is unthinkable, politics could not be the bag of lying crap that it is, which means quite simply that politics could not exist, and without politics there is no such thing as civilisation. It really is that big a deal, and this is why we see these deeply offensive, utterly depraved ideas presenting themselves as the accepted face of post cleansing sociology. This is how the covert management of knowledge has proceeded since the day of Zerffi, when the method of control was largely overt, although, as indicated by his criticism, always involved in a subversive support system of knowledge production designed to run alongside any none religious ideas that might rise up to confront religions power and authority as the basis of political order. In last nights BBC news, 16/12/2011, it was reported that our prime minister, David Cameron, had given a speech to a religious body declaring the importance of Christianity in this Christian nation of ours. The priest presenting the item, a journalist, caste this piece in the frame of a politician breaking with the norm that British politicians, unlike their American counterparts, do not do God. Thus he concluded by saying that some people would consider this a brave speech ! Sick bastard. Of course most people with any decency, would consider such a speech the mark of a depraved, criminal mind, but somehow, this fact was missed by the BBC, oops! how did that happen ? If a true science of sociology existed of course, setting aside the fact that this would inevitably make religion impossible to sustain, we would then of seen a sociologist called on to explain the prime ministers speech. This would of been done in terms of human corporate nature, whereby Judaism was the identity of the human animal and as the representative of a Christian enclave of Judaism, forming part of the exoskeletal fabric of the Jewish global superorganism, these portrayals of religion as precious to England were a necessary part of the politician-priests job.

I Demise of a New Atheist One of my recent acquisitions from the New Atheist school has been God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens, 2007. His death from cancer at sixty two was announced yesterday, 16/12/2011, and various obituary commentaries were given. It seems he was an arse bandit, gleaned from the report that he once boasted of having slept with two men who were now members of the cabinet. Under Tony Blair a third of the sixteen members of the cabinet were queers, as I remember it, though I never knew who, Peter Mandelson was the famous queer of this crew. I wonder if he was one of the two, ugh, what an unpleasant thought, dont queers make you cringe when you get to thinking about them, yuk! I do hate them, not in a homophobic way, they are just such revolting people to see on TV, to meet in life, to see, to hear about, or just to think about, in everyway possible. It is also a fact that the National Secular Society was taken over by queers, which eventually caused me to leave as I was sick of their love of forcing themselves on others. As it happens, or maybe not, there was a queer atheist on a regular Channel Four religious slot last night, Forethought TV I think they call it, I never watch it, but I did last night, Is religion a private affair ? was the gist of the slots title. It lasts only a minute, and the bloke last night said that he was raised a Catholic but

being an arse bandit he was told this was bad, when he knew it was good, so he became an atheist ! He objected to the saying of prayers at the opening of official political meetings, such as in parliament or at council meetings. Who cares what some arse fucker thinks about these things, what has that got to do with freedom of knowledge, which is what atheism is all about ? I hate queers muscling their agenda into the atheist idea. But homosexuality did evolve in order to create a separate elite, a priesthood created genetically, forcing a hierarchical structure on society. So this sort of ingress of homosexuality into a peripheral area of anti-authoritarian authority, is exactly where we would expect these types of person to be found concentrating within the social physiology. A feature of any priestly caste is that it seeks to insinuate itself into all facets of social power, for it knows there can only ever be one message, so that it must have a voice in all variations of expression in order to ensure that every mode of expression conforms to the central identity which is its exclusive identity of power. In this sense of course a genetically created priestly type is drawn into the orbit of Judaism, as the core authority of the global human biomass. Friday, 13 April 2012 Finding my mini tirade on homosexuality which mentions the Channel Four religious propaganda slot, I thought Id just note the line I caught on an edition of this unpleasant pretence of freedom of expression this week, where a man described himself as a professor of theology at some university and said he used to be an atheist, but he lost faith in his atheism ! Well, thank goodness for that, with people like that representing atheism the more of them that jack it in and go where they belong, the better. He was clearly never an atheist in the first place, just a sham, as he undoubtedly is now, but now in a place where sham people are welcome. While we are inserting ongoing material from life I want to note a report on Channel Four News last night about Mel Gibsons anti-Semitism. He was accused by the script writer Joe Eszterhas, that he was doing a movie with about the Jewish hero of the revolt of the Maccabees, of various indiscretions, but anti-Semitism is the only one picked up by the media. Gibson had been in hot water in 2006 after saying Jews had caused all the wars in the world. to a police officer who was arresting him for drink driving. He later explained this behaviour as the stupidity of a drunk, saying he did not want to be thought of as such a disgusting person. I commented on it at the time, he is a Catholic, I think, and this might be the source and nature of his antagonism towards Jews. We will never know what exactly he meant by his defamation reported by the policeman, but I like its insight, even if there wasnt any really. Reports like this give us insight into the nature of the Jew in our society, or American society, which is almost the same thing. A pundit said Gibson was being foolish because the Jews are such important people in Hollywood, holding many of the senior positions, and you do not insult the person who pays you. He likened the interest Jews have in movies to the cultural association Germans have with beer, which is such a typical bit of priestly manipulation of the propaganda message, admitting the glaring truth of the master race ruling over us, while dismissing it as nothing, some mere happenstance. So they admit the form that cannot be denied, while ignoring its essence and meaning, which is what we are revealing here, and what any true science would reveal if it existed. They also had a priest figure from the Jewish Chronicle saying that if the accusations against Gibson were true it was outrageous that he might play a heroic figure from Jewish history. On the face of it this seems reasonable, but we gentiles are not even allowed to know who the Jews are, that they are the master race and we are their slaves, and the Nazis are the greatest ever saviours of Judaism, their insane evil making no sense except as an act of service enabling the Jews to come before us and make such complaints as these.

Earlier in the day the Wright Stuff on Channel Five had a discussion about changing street names in order to spruce up the image of neighbourhoods so that capitalists could sell expensive properties to discerning clients. Wright mentioned the social cleansing carried out routinely by the Jews in Israel against the Arabs, by changing street names in order to cleanse areas of their ancient Arabic history. The Jews are the masters at social cleansing, and yesterday was an excellent one for picking up on this fact. Ooh! While Im at it, a book arrived this afternoon, still Friday, an unexpected piece of unusual Jewish propaganda, being directed towards the control of academia. The Decomposition of Sociology by Irving Horowitz, 1993, suddenly makes sense as a direct attack upon this fake science that exists to serve Judaism, namely because the masters were doing the attacking ! I havent looked at it save to open a page where I see a paragraph beginning What inhibits full-blown emergence of sociological anti-Semitism at this time . . (p. 92), which immediately drew my startled interest. There is some mention of this sciences early association with anti-Semitism around the early 1900s, so I am looking forward to seeing what stuff this miscreant Yankee Jew comes up with here. A fascinating item it must be, although it is unlikely to aid our genuine sociological sience which makes Nazi antiSemitism look like the sweetest Jew loving creed ever to of existed by comparison, which is precisely why the Jewish superorganism spawned the Nazis of course. Saturday, 14 April 2012 Yesterdays news of the moment was Camerons visit to Burma, which has suddenly emerged of its own freewill out of a dark age and into the light of political entente with the West. An interview with an author of a book on Chinas new political ascendance discussed the reaction of China to the move, and asked the general question of what Chinas modern development was ultimately aiming towards ? The man had no answer, and this void is of some interest to our philosophical position, for it raises the question of what power is for and where political motivation towards supremacy comes from. The answer is of course is from Judaism. Chinas emergence is the usual ongoing impulse towards global power impelled by Jewish master identity programming. No one can see this because they do not see beyond surface political appearances manifested in overt expressions of identity. Nonetheless a nation like China is unavoidably part of the machinery of global capitalism which is and always has been a tool of the Jews, hence all the fuss over the Jews a century ago, that required the Nazis and world war to cauterise the expression of linguistic force revealing the underlying nature of political order. No one is going to come out with the ideas we express here, but it is telling that when we ask what drives an emerging global powers motivation today, even the most informed commentators are left vacant on the matter. The question nonetheless occurs to us. We could of asked the same of the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, the British, and the Americans, and in each case, it seems, the true answer would of been the same, the Jews lie somewhere in the picture, but beyond the Jews themselves, lies the imperative of human corporate nature revealed by science. Sunday, 15 April 2012 Excellent view of the space station passing to the south last night, across a perfectly clear sky. Venus is as bright as can be to West and this object was brighter. It looked fairly near, low, not appearing to be higher than the highest passenger jets that crisscross the skies, presumably because of its brightness, but my binoculars could not do more than discern a squareish shape to the light point, no detail sadly. So clever, and yet so stupid, we are. The most remarkable item arrived yesterday, and appropriate to the preceding observation since this book has much to say about human colonies in space.

SuperCivilizations as Superorganisms by Stephen Blaha, 2010, is yet another American work openly espousing the idea of humans as true superorganisms. Sadly he does so in the most worthless, pathetic manner, of no value to science, just like the American I communicated with this week, Hanson, only in a rather different manner of stupidity. Blaha is however basing his ideas on a mathematical, energetic theory of life dynamics, which is certainly very interesting to see. He makes the triadic form of human civilisation a standard pattern, but he retains the idea of individuals as humans, merely thinking of humans as superorganisms in a general sense applicable to all life forms to some degree. In other words he has no basic theory of human biological nature informing his reasoning about human life. He has an entry in the contents about Christianity, or Catholicism as a superorganism, showing a nice interest in religion, but committing the same error as Benjamin Kidd in not generalising the principle and making Christianity a form of Judaism. So we cannot expect too much from this remarkable book. But isnt it amazing the sudden burst into life of the organicist idea in the last few years, but always from the Americans, and sticking to the religious principle of individual sanctity. These are not scientific works therefore, but expressions of religion in sterile scientific mode.

II Neutral units of core power Homosexuality could form a material basis of Jewish global power in an unconscious way, as an aspect of superorganic physiology providing a basic core type evolved to desire social status, but homosexuality is rarely seen to be a basis for power in its own right. Sometimes the thought occurs to me that something else identifiable as a social category, might lie behind the Jews power over humanity, as the master race, but whatever that might be, it has no official name, such as Jew, and as such it is impossible to discern by any ordinary means. That is where the biological nature of humans comes into view, and then any types of sentient brick especially evolved to form an exclusive core about which a slave body could be fixed, are bound to come into their own at this point. Homosexual men are the only such type of person I know of, and there have been civilisations where the special power of homosexuality as a structural point of social focus is recorded, the Ancients were famous for it, most notably the Spartans. Modern laws against discrimination actually oblige all organised bodies to open themselves up to the kind of infiltration that enables special types to exploit the whole biomass. This is done in the name of equality for the individual, but what it does on a grander scale is disempower all organisations that seek to oppose core authority through expression of an off message orientation denying access to Jews, religious people, women, queers, and such like. As ever, such equality laws look admirable, I am certainly no fan of the kind of body that wishes to exclude people on the basis of bigoted views. But the fact that we live in an absolute theocracy, a society with no free access to knowledge, no freedom of thought and no freedom of expression, makes these laws very different to the beautiful thing they are said to be, it makes them insidious and menacing. As ever, the knife cuts both ways. Take note, I had no idea I was going to get into the subject of homosexuality when I set out to record Hitchens death, it is simply the novelty of discovering that this man was a queer, this is information one never gets to hear about an author, as with their religious identity, as Jews for example, we never know where authors are coming from. And this is exactly what I am saying about the nature of the homosexual in society. Recently, after I blew off a queer who had been working on me for many months, when a mate who happened

to come for a drink with me last Christmas pointed out this bloke who had pounced upon me as we entered the bar, was a queer, I soon found a string of young men coming into the pub and hitting on me in a highly unrestrained, but still completely undeclared manner, because they knew I was a queer, as far as they were concerned, or so it seemed to me. It was a revolting experience, but it showed that there was a secret cohort, a body of sentient brick units all deeply affiliated to one another, but entirely unknown to the rest of us, out there, in society. This is a biologically formed conspiracy, a sexual mafia, the very basis of priesthood. They were disgusting because of their subterfuge, yet intelligent, pleasant, indistinguishable to look at, but still disgusting in their attitude, their self righteous sense of we are special, and we know it, and we can do as we please. No wonder these people have built empires on the basis of their special form, no wonder they have been the target of unthinking hatred by society at large. Hating queers, like hating Jews, is not a simple matter of ignorance as our masters currently oblige us to believe, it is a function of our superorganisms physiology. A year later, last Christmas Eve, this queers brother latched on to me at the bar and I asked him if his brother was bent. He said he was definitely not. Thats all he knows. An important principle then, to arise from these considerations, is that the genetic evolution of humans has continued over the course of our arrival as the creatures we are today, from a starting point some one hundred thousand years ago. The evolutionary development is rather along the lines which the much reviled eugenicists would have it, that is towards a specialised form that is anathema to the individual ideal of a healthy norm in all matters. Here we see that because the individual does not exist, but is simply a cellular unit of a living animal, nature does what it pleases with individuals, and it pleases nature to advance the development of the superorganism by unleashing the latent potential of human persons to take on special structural roles within the superorganic physiology, exactly as we know occurs in other superorganic species like ants and bees. Homosexuals are one such specialist, obviously, why else would men evolve to fuck men ! Homosexuality is therefore a telling key to discerning human biological nature, yet this fact is obscured by the imposition of the idea that we are individuals, so that this alternative sexual orientation is viewed as a personal matter. Which act of intellectual fragmentation deprives our intellect of all analytical force relative to the social structure that homosexuality actually evolved to enhance. We may imagine that the religious sanction against homosexuality allied to the idea of sin and evil, as seen in Christianity, was a method of attacking an alternate focus of social power without identifying it as such, intuitively that is, therefore revealing our own nature as a social power elite based upon a linguistically fabricated identity, that of Judaism. The meaninglessness of religious dogma taken at face value, even one as powerful as this hatred of sexual perversion, is revealed by the modern shift towards including queers in the Christian flock, demonstrating the adjustment occurring in the superorganic physiology as Jews settle into their own territory and a true global dispensation takes hold. The shift is now towards a deeply oppressive consolidation under Judaism, where such in and out delineation is no longer functional. Now linguistic force directs its energy flux towards a wholly different expression of slave dogma, this time based upon equality and freedom, but always rooted in the false idea of the individual as the supreme end, because it is this idea that thwarts any attempt to see past appearances, to identify essences and thus reveal the true nature of our existence. We need a powerful, subtle grasp of this point, informed by a scientific mindset, free from all inclinations towards political bias. We need to understand that as a genetically evolved type of person the homosexual is a neutral powerhouse of corporate being, not an organ of power in itself, but the basis of an organ of power. This is only like saying that our

hands are not tools, they are the basis of tools. Thus, since the Jews are the master race because they are the personification of superorganic identity, the homosexual is the physiological basis of that genetic power from which Judaism has arisen via a series of identity formulas. And this is why homosexuality continues to play such an all important part in the core power base of society to this day, albeit one that lies obscured behind layers of overt expressions of power. And in turn this neutral powerbase quality is passed onto the Jews, in part, which is why they lie behind the appearances of power, though much more closely allied to the surface representation of power, and hence frequently recognised as the true source of power lying behind all things. All of which gives us our more subtle idea of organic power in human life, where we have the face of power, which is government, backed by the identity of power, the church, fronting the deeper basis of motive agendas, Judaism ; all resting upon a social evolution of genetic potential as seen in homosexuality ; all of which rests ultimately upon the basis of human corporate nature, which tells us that the human animal is a superorganism and the individual, somatic form, evolved to bring into being the superorganism, via the expression of linguistic force that is created by the genetic evolution of human linguistic physiology. Thus we discern an interplay between genetics and linguistics to this day, because of course these two expressions of the life force of Information are integral features of the living human animal, the superorganism. Homosexuality is genetics, at its root, though it engenders cultural condensation that is a product of linguistic energy, so that when we see institutionalised homophobia or homophilia, we see this biological interaction between genes and words.

III Homosexuality as a pseudo ideology There seems to be no getting away from this subject once you get started, still homosexuality, like Judaism, is a key subject in the understanding of human corporate nature. A Channel Four programme a few years back annoyed me intensely, as I wrote at the time, because it had some Jewish atheist waxing lyrical upon the beauty of religion in a programme purporting to give a voice to atheists, in which this twat attacked atheism mercilessly. His favourite attack being the use of a nasty phrase calling positive atheists card