Naked Knowledge :

Seeing Past Opaque Science

by

H. H.

Godless House

2009

It is true that against the arts of a fawning writer we are easily upon our guard. But
readily swallowed are bitterness and calumnies ; since, while in sycophancy there
appears the detestable guilt of servitude and debasement, detraction and invective
 come covered under the deceitful disguise of boldness and free speech. To me neither
was GALBA, nor OTHO, nor VITELLIUS known by any act of favour or injustice. That
my promotion in the State was begun by VESPASIAN, augmented by TITUS, and by
DOMITIAN advanced yet higher, I would by no means disown. But by those who, like
me, profess to deliver truth, naked and uncorrupt, nor personal affection nor personal
hate must be admitted in their Characters of men. If life remain, I have reserved, for
the study and employment of my old age, the reign of the deified Nerva, with that of
the Emperor TRAJAN ; a work more copious, as well as more safe. Such is the rare
felicity of these times, when you are at full liberty to entertain what sentiments you
will, and to declare what sentiments you entertain.

(The History of Tacitus, Vol. 2, Thomas Gordon, 1731, p. 2)

Preface

This year, 2009, is the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s Origin of
Species. The Origin of Species stands as the greatest ever monument to raw, unabashed,
naked knowledge, that humanity has ever had the fearlessness to produce.
The current celebration of Darwin’s achievement, realised in the publication ofhis
profound scientific revelation, affirms this impression of unassailable fearlessness in the
pursuit of true knowledge, and the entire intervening period of a century and a half also
affirms the greatness of the achievement. I must confess that I have not watched any of the
programmes produced by the BBC for release at the beginning of this year, to
celebrateDarwin’s achievement. I could not however avoid the promotions of Attenborough’s
programmes, and I noticed the last show was promoted as covering the twenty year struggle
faced by Darwin to bring his insights to the notice of the world. Was the ‘struggle’ to do with
his inner consciousness, or due to efforts made by society at large to suppress his work ? I
ought to of watched these shows just so that I could answer this question, but as it was, I
could not bring myself to stomach any more than a few bars of the same old, tedious,
establishment propaganda. What is for sure, is that once the cat was out of the bag, Darwin’s
revelation exploded upon the world and became the clarion call of the establishment, like no
other before, in an instant, and has remained so ever since.
The promotional line attached to the current round of reinforcement declares that The
Origin of Speciescaused us to discover an entirely new way of looking at existence,
effectively ushering in the modern age by removing the darkness of ignorance that had
hitherto blinded all those who lived before the publication of this epoch making work. So
that our enduring state of opaque ignorance, that passed for knowledge, became naked truth,
shattering, shocking, but exhilarating, for its revelation of naked knowledge.
Or so the story goes . . . . the official story, touted by the establishment. But here
we shall be telling a different tale, a tale no one is supposed to know.

The Arrow of Knowledge

Introduction

Despite our preliminary observations, which suggest that the way people experience
life is subject to a process of continual examination, leading to an ever advancing change in
our attitudes, epitomised by our modern acceptance of evolution as announced by Darwin,
the exact opposite is the case.
At the level of everyday experience there is continual change in the modern world.
The whole thrust of our social experience today is about change, so that we often find
ourselves being lectured on change and how to cope with it, as we are constantly told what
change means, and what it does not mean. In school we are trained to accept information
provided by authoritative sources as true, we are spoon fed ideas by trained professionals,
who were trained to train othersas they have been trained themselves. Then, as adults, we
unwittingly accept the media, by which we mean all public communication, including things
like books and television programmes, as an independent sourcesof information, just as we
believed our teachers to be. But the media exist to continue feeding us, as adults, the social
‘honey’ of homogenised information, that we learnt to receive unquestioningly as children,
and upon this foundation conformity is enforced.
The training procedure is complex and has been developed by professionals for
centuries. As individuals we cannot hope to compete with its sophistication, which includes
counter intelligence instructions on questioning that teach us to challenge everything, while
other devices of the knowledge structure ensure that this command is never acted upon. By
teaching us certain absolutes, such as Darwin put in place, that are placed upon a pedestal, we
are given boundaries beyond which we cannot go, so that we can question everything,
certainly, but not the founding principle, not Darwinism itself, that is inviolable, and certainly
no professional ever contravenes such taboos in any meaningful way. As individuals we are
powerless to resist this process of control, we have no means of questioning its authority, and
no access to alternative viewpoints, ordinarily, but this work is the product of an ‘alien’
within, a ‘loose cannon’, so that here you will discover that which you will find nowhere else.
Two television programmes from the last couple of days, today being 07/02/2009,
illustrate this process of subliminal control telling us what to think, and how to think, while
appearing to passively offer us information that is simply accurate. Last night there was a
programme on BBC 2 called Squirrel Warsin which a journalist told the story of a Geordie
pest exterminator who had made it his job to eradicate the alien grey squirrels, for the sake of
a local population of native reds. But the conclusion of the programme indicated the futility
of his effort, and showed that his war was a manifestation of the deeper desires of a
traditional Englishman to defend his way of life, as a man of the countryside, from the
encroachment of the city lifestyle, that eradicated everything of value and replaced it with a
worthless way of living that meant nothing.
Meanwhile, the day before, Carol Thatcher made the headlines by comparing a sports
personality to a golliwog. This drew debate in which a black TV personality appearing on the
Wright Stuff, a TV chef called Ainsley Harriott, explained, erroneously, what ‘golliwog’
meant, but he made it plain that he considered the term offensive. He was ‘generous’ about
the situation, accepting that the older generation saw this caricature as an innocent figure, but
he said “We have moved on.”, and so these ways of thinking had to be allowed to die away.
Here we have a snippet of change revealed in two forms of public debatetaking place
in real time, on our television screens. And not just random change, but a change in how we
think, partly created by a conscious effort to make this change. However, as we can see from
the resistance displayed by the countryman and the older person, this is not about a whole
new way of thinking about the world, such as we are supposed to have been introduced to by
Darwin, but rather it is due to the sheer force of social transformation requiring a new
disposition, that in reality has nothing to do with real change, that is to say qualitative change,
but rather, this has to do with structural transformations in the constitution of the social fabric
that mean we need a new sense of who we are, to take account of the new constitution of our
biomass.
No one made a fuss about our ideas concerning ‘blacks’ or ‘Muslims’ before these
categories of identity formed a significant part of our society, so it is clear that this self
examination engaged in through public debate is not a moral issue, but rather a practical
issue, like asking us to wear seat belts, because not doing so causes injuries that cost the state
money in health care bills. A century ago black people were to all intents and purposes
nonexistent in the British biomass, now they make up a significant portion of that biomass.
Why does this matter ? This is something that will emerge from the ensuing discussion, it
has to do with the nature of human identity, something we are not allowed to know, being
told instead that identity means nothing. This allows the extreme importance of the subject to
be manipulated, as it needs to be if society is to be controlled as it has been for millennia.
The two main points we have just made, that moralistic debates about how we think
as civilised people, are neither moral nor about the valueswe hold as members of society, but
rather these debates, that seek to adjust our attitudes, are all about the substance of which the
social matrix is composed. This is a radical statement, that conflicts entirely with who we
think we are, and the reason for this conflict is that we derive our idea of ourselves from a
contrived idea of the nature of our existence, but here, in this work of atheist science, we
want to know what we are in reality, as natural phenomena, created exclisively by nature.
This is not how the process of change is presented, indeed the opposite is the case, a
deliberate attempt to make the need for change a moral issue is ever present. A cultural
backbone of the countryside, hunting foxes with dogs, was made illegal recently, in a grand
display of war waged on English culture, mounted by an alien invader, the city person. But
this change was touted as a moral victory, done in the name of compassion for animals, a
device which has become a great symbol of moral campaigning in modern times. Yet really,
this is all about structural change, change in the makeup of the biomass of the British people.
The reason we are coerced on moral grounds is that authorities face an impossible dilemma
regarding the topicsthey make into moral issues. They cannot be purely functional about
mechanisms of control, because the very things they rant and rave about one moment,are
precisely the same things they adore and worship the next. Trying to inculcate a passionate,
mindless sense of fanatical identity is one of the most important aspects of government, it is
the very reason why the national identity was devised. So we cannot be taught to be lax
about our collective identity, we must be made to be passionate about the rightidentity
composition. And there are basic biological reasons for this, concerning the nature of
humans, and hence the nature of society, although again, we are forbidden any knowledge of
these scientific facts. Much of what is said below is concerned with explaining this situation.
There is only one way to reduce humans to the status of exclusively, and entirely,
natural phenomena, and that is to make society the object of human existence, that defines the
human being. By making society the object of human being, we reduced the individual to the
status of a component of that being, and then the individual becomes irrelevant, ideas about
consciousness and morality simply evaporate, leaving only the subject of functional and
structural order pertaining to society regarded as a biological entity. This is the basis of true
science, a form of science forbidden in our society, ruled as it is by a religious authority.
Hence we present the true science of existence as ‘atheist science’.

Part 1

These social changes then, are not of the same kind as the change introduced by a
leading scientist who obliges us to accommodate a new view of existence, such as transcends
all the localised adjustments that we have just been describing. But the social attitudes that
are effected by both structural and ideological changes are the same in both cases, in that they
are public attitudes, created and nurtured by a class of public representatives of acceptable
knowledge. Hence we had the black man on the Wright Stuff generously forgiving the
unwitting racism of the ‘elder generation’, we did not have, never do have, and never would
have, a representative of the older generation defending such ‘racism’ as a normal part of
everyday conversation ; although Carol Thatcher has since been on the Wright Stuff, but I
missed any account she may of given of her faux pas. Curiously, on the Wright Stuff today,
11/02/2009, there was a very odd caller, who said that he wanted all unrestrained freedom of
expression to be band. He believed that the current round of errant outbursts from various
celebrity figures seemed to constitute a mini-rebellion,by people who were sick of being
constrained by the thought police who wield the tool of political correctness on our behalf. I
liked the idea of a rebellious band of people with a public voice, spitting in the face of the
machinery of thought control, but this character was obviously one of the typical minions of
thought control that we have the unpleasantness of coming across in certain walks of life,
social work for example. The discussion topic that got this kind of response going by the
way, was the ban against a ‘far right’ Dutch MP Geert Wilders coming here to screen a film in
the House of Lords promoting the idea that terrorism and Islam go hand in hand, being rooted
in the Koran. What no one pointed out is that the Dutch anti-Islamic group is a Christian
extremist movement, just as the pre-Second World War anti-Semites were all extremist
Christians. And these are the facts you need to know if you want to really understand what
these various religious and anti-religious dynamics are all about. Again, the issue is identity,
social identity, not personal identity, the latter being drawn from the pool of social identity,
something the religious fanatic knows instinctively.
Today, 12/02/2009, Wilders was turned back when he arrived at Heathrow. This was
all about freedom of speech, we were told. When I heard about a Dutch group promoting
anti-Islamic ideas last year, I visited their website and found anAmerican pundit had written a
piece on how Christianity had eradicated slavery. So I posted a piece explaining that
Christianity was a subliminal slave identity, that worked in the same way that slave maker
ants make slaves of other species of ants by giving them their social identity, following their
birth in captivity. Christianity therefore superseded physically enforced slavery as a means of
ruling a human biomass, as a rule that is, a fact which is obvious to any free observer,
otherwise we have no way of explaining how Judaism has taken over the world through the
medium of the Christian and Islamic slave identities, to which the vast majority of us
unwittingly subscribe, as beingour natural identities. When I returned to see if there were any
responses I found I could not access the site. Freedom of speech is their cry, freedom of
speech for themselves they mean, screw everyone else. Which is how everyone with any
degree of power acts, especially democratic governments and academic institutions in free
societies like ours, but they make their means of control far more subtle than those they
characterise as voices of hate, as we have been explaining here.

Again, we may take an item from yesterday’s news, 6/02/2009, wherein Jeremy
Clarkson, a famous TV personality, called our prime minister a “One eyed Scottish idiot.”
during a press conference in Australia. A society for the blind was outraged, and complaints
poured in from Scotland. All of which reaction, a long with the previous items, tells a tale,
namely, the tenor of public statements is like a barbed arrow, allowing the ideas voiced in
public to move in one narrow, strictly controlled direction, and no other. These occasional
gaffs, represent a contrary tug against the constructed thrust of public debate, but, as we can
see from the fuss they cause, and the reaction they draw down upon the delinquents who
commit these errors, against the dictates of those who hold political power through the
control of public thought, such contrary expressions are rare. The exception proves the rule.
The general thrust of public debate, strictly controlled and managed by a variety of
devices, gives us our public conceptions, which do certainly change over time, but not
haphazardly, and never without a definite bias oriented toward a political powerbase, at the
core of which must be a definite identity.

That change in the social fabric, due to people of different racial types, different
religiousand cultural forms, plus changes in political structure, as with our entry into the
Common Market, should involve an undercurrent of struggle, that results in a force directed
toward the control of our minds, and how we think, should not be difficult to understand. But
that this undercurrent of control might apply equally in the field of science, of the most
profound kind, this is an unthinkable thought. And it is precisely this thought that we want to
make real here when we talk about Naked Knowledge, knowledge that is stripped of all
machinations. For it is our claim that just as there is a deliberate effort to force the English
culture to give way to a global culture, for whatever inevitable reasons, which may be
justified in political terms, the same applies to our ultimate views of reality, as represented by
official science, most especially that presented by Darwinism. Indeed,we could present this
work as a specific attack on Darwinism. Except that is not what it is, that would be like
presenting an atheist treatise as a specific attack on Christianity, or religion in general, and
this has been the traditional format of atheist works, which led to atheism being characterised
as ‘negative’, because it simply attacks, and never constructs. Here we are not primarily
concerned to delineate Darwinism and then take it apart brick by brick. Rather, we are
interested in the place of science in our world, as epitomised by Darwinism, but more
importantly, we want to explain the reasons why the world of knowledge works the way it
does, and thereby to explain what is real. Hence we want to offer a positive science, which is
synonymous with a positive atheism, and as such says what is, by way denying what is said
to be.

Part 2

There is a great rift inherent in the knowledge that pervades our world. Darwinism
exemplifies one side of the that rift. Whatever challenges Knowledge had to overcome in
order to take its modern Darwinian form, once Origin of Species was published it erupted like
a volcano upon the world. In the twinkling of an eye Darwinismhad become a sacred
scientific dogma that none could contradict without drawing disbelief and contempt down
upon themselves, exactly of the kind we are familiar with whenever a religious dogma is
produced. Recently I was amused by the find of an ephemeral example of how pervasive and
oppressive Darwinism had become within a quarter century of its presentation to a world it is
supposed to of devastated. In Longman’s Magazine, Vol. II, November 1885 to April 1886, a
regular contributor presents a short review of an anonymous book called That Very Mab,
which appears to be a humorous side swipe at all things conventional, having a comedian’s
style that steals cheap laughs wherever it can, and the review approaches a conclusion thus :

Even so our playfully despondent new satirist explodes with a laugh all the
current explanations of the cosmos or chaos, and offers us in return no glimpse or
shadow of a sufficient substitute. Everything that men value or trust or hope or
despair of, every formula in which distracted humanity has vainly seen some faint
solution of its terrible problems, is passed before Queen Mab in rapid review, and
pronounced with airy persiflage equally vapid, or absurd, or inefficient. The
theologians and the positivists, the thinkers and the doers, Mr. Herbert Spencer and
Mr. Matthew Arnold, Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Gladstone, come in alike for her
impartial ridicule. Nothing is sacred to her—not even Natural Selection itself.
(Excuse the susceptibility of a wounded heart ; all my own pet isms are hard hit.)

(Grant Allen, p. 87)

Judging from the contributions Allen makes to this magazine, he is of a scientific bent
and we may take it that Darwinism is one of his most precious isms. But as a general
observation this one is as good as any, is so far as providing evidence of the fact that the
central idea of Origin of Species had struggled to come into existence, apparently, only to of
been transformed into conventional wisdom the moment it did so. It is as if people had
believed in life after death and all the apparitions associated with it for millennia, yet not
believed at the same time, exactly as we do today, when suddenly people who were dead and
buried started routinely coming back after cremation or burial and sitting down at the table
with us, like the ghost in the old movie The Ghost and Mrs Muir which is now part of our
regular television fair, thanks to the mass of new channels we are blessed with in this
marvellous digital age. What could we do if our dead loved ones came and sat before us ?
We would have to be transformed into believers overnight.
The Origin of Species did not suddenly prove something that we had long believed to
be true, but it did fill a pressing void that we had long been in denial about, to do with making
humans part of nature. After centuries, if not millennia of resistance to such a blasphemous
notion, in the merest moment, we all accepted that we had been wrong all along, and that
now, that which we had abhorred, was in fact the most precious idea imaginable. The need
for something to fill the void where science should be, really was becoming desperate. I took
possession of a copy of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, third edition, 1845,
yesterday, 12/02/2009, the publication of which, in 1844, constituted a ‘premonition’ of the
shocking publishing event caused by the publication of The Origin of Speciesfifteen years
later. Modern works like Victorian Sensation by Secord, 2000, and The Politics of Evolution
by Desmond, 1989, provide fulsome accounts of the pressure building upon the powers-that-
be to find something to put in place that would silence the urgent need for a science of life,
while avoiding the destruction of religious dogmaupon which society depended for its
physical integrity, destruction that was inevitable if a true science of life were allowed to
come forth without the impress of constraints determined by the guardians of religious
sensibilities. And Darwin was very much one of those religious guardians, as indicated by
Desmond’s account of his reaction against subversive movements that were seeking to exploit
new scientific ideas in order to challenge the political status quo, which gives us an idea of
Darwin that runs counter to popular, academically formulated propaganda that we are
routinely exposed to today, that always ignores Darwin’s affiliation to the establishment
hierarchy, preferring to emphasise his supposed atheistic, freethinking inclination instead.
As long as the media is controlled, the controllers can say any thing they want to, any
way that they want to say it. And as long as our society allows religion to exist, so long will
religion control the popular portrayal of science. This is so because the religious are
programmed by their ‘religious identity package’ that is their religion, to seek out knowledge
and challenge itaccording to the terms that their identity programme is composed of. This
challenge, based on personal identity, demands that knowledge is subverted into conformity
with the religious identity programme that individuals cannot help being obedient to, due to
their personal sense of identity being drawn from the collective social identity that they have
been exposed to during their formative years.
The effort directed at control is driven by an irrepressible urge, that we can see
expressed all the time, by all religious people who take a public stand. On Sunday just gone,
today being Tuesday, 03 March 2009, there was a programme on Channel Four, in a series
called The History of Christianity, this episode being presented by the wife of the last prime
minister, a man who is fanatical about his religious beliefs. This ignorant, detestable women,
was bemoaning the decay of Christianity in Britain. She went to America to look at what can
only be described as the spine chilling new mega churches, which she wants to see take over
all of Europe. Watching a programme like this I see the future and my heart aches at the
powerlessness of humanity to defend itself against these affronts to human reason and
dignity. But there we have it, this is the product of human biological nature, and this
programme was an example of media control by religious fanatics, writ large. Never will you
see the faintest whisper of a programme fronted by an atheist, an atheist who is other than a
dupe for the theocracy that is, a positive atheist, rather than a negative atheist.
The ethical mantras upon which our laws are based, are the advanced guard of the war
of control directed at knowledge, athow we all think. This is why morals vary from place to
place and change in the same place over time. What matters is that a moral pressure pervades
the social structure, what those morals are may vary according to the constitution of the social
biomass, just so as long as some things are forbidden while others are extolled. In this way a
functional structure will be self organising about a core authority that acts as the guardian of
moral order. The war directed at taking and holding command of the social infrastructure, of
which the control of knowledge is just one major facet, takes place by any means necessary,
but, in terms of the focus upon knowledge, control is effected by maintaining a sufficient
body of religiously minded people, diffused into the institutional fabric of intellectual society,
from where their modes of subversion cannot be defended against by those who enter the
same institutions to seek real knowledge without ulterior motives dictated by the mere fact of
an imbued identity. This is because ‘ulterior motives’ in this case means motives attached to
a corporate enterprise, which is the defence and promotion of power based on religious
identity ; while, conversely,‘seeking real knowledge’ implies an individual goal with no
external parameters dictating the form knowledge is required to take in order to be accepted
as valid. The evidence that religious people are diffused throughout the academic structure is
as plentiful as the evidence that the earth’s surface is dominated by water. Try finding books
about science and religion written by scientists who desire a world without religion, you will
seek in vain. The few accounts of the relationship between religion and science that are
available, are all written by people who recognise the importance of religion to science,
although such works are extremely rare in any case. Religion rules academia today as surely
as it did five hundred years ago, and we are powerless to do anything about this, and this
control is reflected in the so-called science that is thrust in our faces.
We might talk about what can legitimately be considered the bizarre interest religious
people have in science, which we might say is akin to the bizarreinterest police officers have
in crime. If police officers do not like drugs, violence and robbery, then why do they devote
their lives to developing a knowledge of these activities ? Because they are the avowed
enemies of these activities of course. So, if religious people know there is a God who created
all things, and this was as good a body of knowledge for them millennia ago as it continues to
be today, then why are they so interested in new ideas of an entirely different kind, that are
not of themselves informed by their religious aberrations ? ........... the question answers itself
in light of our preceding remarks.
As infuriating as this process of knowledge control is, because we are raised to
believe we live in a free society, our discussion of ‘naked knowledge’ will make it clear just
why this system of obfuscating knowledge, that emanates from the core of academia, exists,
and how this obfuscation by a cohort of professional elites is vital for our social order and
well being. Our functional approach will be in stark contrast to the wailing complaints of
professional scientific exponents of atheism like Dawkins, who forever bemoan religion, but
never explain its existence.

Part 3

The exaltation of Darwin has gone on apace ever since the days of the first generation
of post-Darwinians, as witnessed by the likes of Allen, quoted above. Certainly, when
Richard Dawkins presents his diatribes on Darwin or evolution, as he did in a series last year,
2008, he claims that his devotion to Darwinism, unlike the devotion of the religious to their
dogmas, is due to the sheer weight of irrefutable evidence, proving that Darwin was right in
his presentation of the mechanism of ‘natural selection’ as the basis of how life came to be as
it is. So there we have it, what is there to argue about ?
Well, doesn’t it seem strange that resistance to science had always been in the name of
religion, and the appearance of Darwin’s ultimate vision of science has not affected the
transcendence of religion over our world one jot ? Curiously, we find that the remnants of the
age of old war between religion and science are still fizzing and popping about the question
of evolution. Dawkins, the great evolutionist of our day, is notorious for his strident atheism,
but Dawkins’ atheism is of the old type, being negative, denying religion’s validity, while
doing nothing to provide any alternative view of what human existence means, he does not
offer a positive vision of the kind that someone like Allen appears to think essential.
So while Darwin transformed our view of existence, he nonetheless did nothing to
changeour view of existence, which remains as primitive and blind as ever it was in the
history of humanity. Darwin moved us from a state of crude ignorance to a state of
sophisticated ignorance, and that is all he did. And sophisticated ignorance is a vastly more
objectionable state of ignorance than a position of crude ignorance, for one simple reason, it
is an advanced state of ignorance, in which ignorance passes for real knowledge. So that
ignorance masquerading as Darwinian science takes on a positive nature, because
sophisticated ignorance explains howthings are, rather than just denying arguments that
others offer. And that assertive stance is vital to an authoritative control of knowledge : to
take the initiative and proclaim what is, and thereby to be on the positive front foot, not the
negative back foot, this is the key strategy in knowledge control that allows false knowledge
to continuing ruling our world, in what is really an age of true knowledge.
It is as if all that Darwin did, was to weave us a new suit of clothes, in which to dress
our eternal delusion. If we imagine bringing a stone age man into the present, we are often
told that such a man, pampered and dressed suitably, would pass for one us, because in terms
of genetics humans have not changed over the course of the ten thousand years that intervene
between the ‘wild animal stage’ and the ‘space age’ of our modern existence. Here then we
get a vivid picture of how something may be transformed, without being changed, just by
altering appearances. And this is all that has happened to knowledge, courtesy of Darwin.
Before Darwin religious knowledge ruled our world openly, now religious dogma rules our
world covertly. This transformation has been achieved by the ruling elite weaving a new
cloak out of scientific material, which dresses the inner principles of religious dogma, and
preserves the religiouscore intact. Darwin’s science achieves this because it is woven from
‘invisible threads of reasoning’, that emerge from the imagination, and are wholly unattached
to the reality they presume to describe. Darwinism is composed of ideas that are pure fiction,
that only take someone, someone like you and me, to stand up and shout that “Science is in
the altogether, the altogether, as naked as the day that it was born !”for the whole edifice to
collapse. If only we could find that voice.

Part 4

The greatest work of scientific philosophy ever produced was written by Auguste
Comte, a huge work covering all fields of knowledge, that was published over the course of a
decade, stretching from the 1830’s to the 1840’s. He called his work Positive Philosophy,
and in the light of what has happened to science since that time the title is very telling, for
this title reveals a hidden truth concerning scientific knowledge, namely that the attribute of
science that is so overwhelming is its positive nature of affirming knowledge, beyond
question, by providing a reference to realitythat is unbiased by human motives. But,
tragically, the word ‘Positive’ refers to the quality of this kind of knowledge, and hence any
knowledge can be made to possess this positive quality if the method of producing it is
controlled by an organisation. And this is precisely what has happened to knowledge since
Comte’s day.
One of the oddest facts concerning important scientific work carried out over the
intervening period since Comte, has been the devotion of deeply religious people to the
collection of material pertaining to those sciences that are anathema to religion, the Leakey’s
work on fossil anthropoids in Africa being a prime example. Whoever gets their hands on
such primary physical material, upon which science is based by virtue of the definition given
to scientific knowledge, as being based on observation and or experiment, gets to write up the
scientific accounts derived from that material. So what better than that the sworn enemies of
anthropology should be the ones employed by universities to obtain this privilege, allowing
these anointed professionals to make positive knowledge as false as the day knowledge was
born. As false as science has to befor the false knowledge of religion to exist as a positive
mantra, dictating the organisation of the social structure we must all live within. But, of
primary importance is the fact that it was Darwin’s false lead that gave people like the
Leakeys their inspiration. Darwin, by grounding human nature in ape physiology, where it
could never be found in a million years of looking, because it is not there, pointed the priests
of scientific deception in the true direction of their goal. The false lead is that humans
evolved from apes, and that this is where we must seek our origins. The truth is that humans
are a form of mammalian superorganism, who share a common nature with other
superorganic species, most expressly, creatures like ants. Our physiological origins are as
irrelevant to our place in the world, as we experience it today, as are those of creatures like
the whales that evolved from four legged deer like animals, since whales have become
aquatic and now share a common nature with fish, with whom they have no common
physiological ancestry relevant to their modern existence.
This method of taking possession of material evidence, while insisting that material
evidence is the sole authoritative basis for scientific ideas, was already well developed by the
first half of the nineteenth century and we see it come to fruition in Darwin’s Origin of
Species, which was based upon the facility provided to Darwin by the military establishment,
who gave him a place on HMS Beagle. There is a telling passage in Secord’s book Victorian
Sensation, dealing with the anonymous publication of the first major treatise on evolution,
Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation.
Secord describes how, with regard to the author of Vestiges, “gentlemen of science
were eager to track down the invisible lion who was trespassing on their territory.” (p. 434) :

It was too late to make a difference in the salons, where the sensation was over, but
the preserves of scientific practice could still be protected. By the summer of 1845,
Vestigesbegan to be labelled a “popular” work, to distinguish it from “real science”
based on laboratory and field experience. This became especially urgent after the
leading suspect began to stake a claim as a practical man of science through his
studies of ancient sea terraces.

(Secord, p. 434)

Secord then proceeds to describe a meeting in which the ‘suspect’ gave a lecture on
sea terraces, which was followed by an attack from a number of scientists present in the
audience. This substituted for an attack on Chambers, as the author of Vestiges, that etiquette
prevented the gentlemen scientists from making directly. Darwin was amongst the audience,
but he did not make a speech in reply. It is clear that Darwin was amongst the officialbody of
scientific men, a place he had earned through both his field work and experimental labours.
This explains why his work could be placed upon a pedestal of accepted scientific dogma,
from which it has rained down its fatuous nonsense upon all the world ever since, to the
exclusion of all true scientific ideas that men of truth, and not religion, would love to offer
the world. Good field work and experimental efforts may be the prerequisite of science, but
nothing in this world is above the subversion of man, and being qualified by such practical
routines is no guarantee of authenticity in our hierarchical world. But what can we mere
underlings do when a whole society is constructed on such a miscreantbasis as this ?
Nothing. The integral corruption of academic life is hardly surprising since its predecessor,
religious dogma, was nothing more than the fruit of precisely the same process of integrated
corruption, built into the social structure of power, and so perfected that perverse religion has
became purity itself.
To say Darwin transformed but did not change our view of existence is a
contradictory observation that can only be understoodif we separate religion from science,
and make the two modes of thinking entirely distinct. And this separation is exactly what we
find has been organized by our masters. Science and religion are promoted as two discrete
ways of thinking, that have nothing in common and as such are not capable of conflicting
with one another. The primary justification for this piece of idiotic reasoning being,that
science has no remit to examine religious ideas because religion proclaims ideas that are not
prone to experimental testing ! We see how this illogical device, masquerading as logic,
builds upon the official model of science as a means of deriving knowledge from physical
endeavour only, that cannot be extended by speculation extrapolated from physical
endeavour. A genuinely scientific refutation of this reasoning would note the all too real
manifestation of religion, which is most definitely prone to investigation by scientists,suitably
guided by reason of a scientific kind. Religion does not tell us about reality, religion is part
of reality. These alternative accounts of reality certainly managed a fair show of being able
to conflict up until Darwin sorted this illusion out by offering a means of building on the
artificially devised logic of separation, which is therefore illogical because it is artificial.
 Part 5

The only reason that we are presented with the impression that the war between
religion and science is over is because the war has been won, science is dead, and the death
knell of science chimes with the words : Origin of Species.
We saw above how the public voice of knowledge that pervades society can be
conceived as thrusting in a forward moving, temporal direction, related to an ongoing process
of structural social change, such that the public face of knowledge has the attributes of an
arrowhead, designed to cut forward, in terms of a continuum of changing social structure, in a
fixed direction, while being prevented from slipping backwards by means of a barb, which
moral sanction, such as political correctness constitutes, or, in more extreme cases, may
appear in the form of a taboo, such as that which prevents a free examination of the nature of
certain religions, leading to accusations of anti-Semitism or Islamophobia, for example,
which help preserve established arrowheadsof advancing structural form. In the case of the
ongoing political presentation of our argument concerning the management of scientific
knowledge, the barb is of a moralistic form, today we call this barb ‘political correctness’,
and none may contravene its rules with impunity, which keeps the arrow of change in the
mode of popular thought, shifting in one direction, as dictated by factors at the core of the
social structure.
The moral control of science is severe today, but the impression gained from Secord’s
account of the rigmarole surrounding Chamber’s anonymous publication of Vestiges is one of
overwhelming severity, you must read it to appreciate the strictures that intellectually minded
peoplewere placed under at that time. Today we find scientific books that warn against
thinking of humans as superorganisms because of the rise of the Nazis, which rise is
associated with philosophical ideas of the age,when everyone knew that humans were a
superorganism. The Nazis made this strictly scientific idea taboo, so that no scientists would
dare promote it today, thus ensuring that religion can continue poisoning knowledge with
impunity. Human by Nature, edited by Peter Weingart et. al., 1997, provides an example of
scientists warning against applying controversial scientific ideas to humans, because of the
political work done by the Nazis that brought genuine science into disrepute. Speaking of
‘social scientists’, we find this in the general introduction :

In addition to being merely oblivious, however, there is also a more aggressive

repudiation of anything smacking of “biologization.” This attitude has its origins in
recent history—namely, the unholy union of biological determinism and racism in the
form of Nazi race policies that served to justify horrific practices.
(Human by Nature, 1997, p. 1)

Thank God for the Nazis ! must be the cry of any devoutly religious person alive
today, who, that is, should know where their continued freedom to abuse knowledge derives
from. It is a dangerous path to tread, to suggest conspiratorial theories about major historical
events of calamitous influence in world affairs. But the fact is that religion and science can
no more exist in one place, at the same time, than day and night can. Yet we live in a world
that is pervaded by science, while being dominated by religion. So, our world, according to
our analogy, is pitch black, in open daylight. Sowe are entitled to wonder : How come ?
Asserting that without the pure insanity of the Nazis this outcome could not be achieved, nor
sustained, fits the occasion.
 We do not have to make out some kind of special effort, being made by the religious
authorities to bring the Nazis into being, we only need recognise the broader implications of
our argument, namely, that wars are, more often than not, waged by the core authority against
their own body of subjects, than they ever are against ‘others’ of the kind labelled‘enemies’.
So these defensive outcomes, wars that is, are natural, structural phenomena, not political,
conspiratorial plots. As a small boy I use to tear my hair out, metaphorically speaking,
wondering why we did not exterminate the Germans after the war my parents had served in,
and taketheir land. As ever, the formal excuses made no impression on me. At last I know
why : because the Germans, like the French, British, Italian, American, Russian, Japanese and
so on, were all being attacked by the same enemy, by their master within, by the defenders of
religion against science. Science in this case representing the general disintegration of
theocratic power based on identity.
Continuous warfare is, ultimately, the only possible means by which imposed
religious identities can be sustained over time. This is because they are highly contrived,
imposed identities, that have an inevitable tendency to decay, as do all such fabricated
structures. Such decay leads to a return, or atavism, as the old time evolutionists use to say
when dealing with such ideas, back to pre-existing forms, notably the more basic racial types
of social identity that we all still feel an affinity to today, not withstanding the
multiculturalism of religious propaganda manifested in the political domain, and its
associated ‘dogma of racism’ that induces attacks upon all expressions of race based identity,
making them not only taboo, but potentially criminal. Anti-racism is a device that defends
religion from decay, and as such the true nature of racial biology becomes another facet of the
war mounted by the priesthood against the population,through the control of knowledge.
Hence we are told racial identity is a quirk of circumstance and of no physiological
significance ! Sure it is, we can all see that !! And did you know that there is an invisible
continent where pigs can fly ........... ? Religion is of course the sequential, physiological
successor to racial identity ; another fact we are forbidden to know by means of a calculated
subversion of knowledge imposed throughout academia, combined with the device of
‘oppressive taboo’ against saying anything contrary to the imposed orthodoxy.
Be clearwhat this means. We do not like racism, but we do want to know what racism
is, which also requires knowing what religion is, the two things being one and the same thing
appearing in a different mode, namely identity. By knowing one, we know the other, and
hencedestroy both. By raising the spectre of racism as an active political force the question
of what raceis, as a functional attribute of human physiology, becomes academic, and as such
racial physiology is protected from rational examination. The resulting taboo against racism
then applies automatically to racism’s counterpart, religion. This explains the nature of the
intimate relationship of Nazism to Judaism, making the survival of Judaism dependant upon
an expression of its antithesis, anti-Semitism. If the logic of this argument is not convincing,
the facts speak for themselves. Without the Nazis the Jews, as the embodiment of religion in
our world, would be extinct, because we could then have a true science of humanity, that
would reveal that humans are a superorganism and that religion is nothing more nor less than
the identity of that organism. We prove God does not exist by showing what God is. And the
Nazis provide a material justification for a politically enforced taboo, even in a so called free
society, against anyone who would dare tackle this ultimate scientific project.
The quote inserted below is a fascinating piece taken from an exceptionally rare
piece of work, rare in its nature, and also unobtainable by ordinary commercial means. This
selection is reproduced from a digital copy taken from the net recently, February 2009, which
I am in the process of turning into Word format prior to printing off my own hard copy.

It has been explained in the introduction to this treatise that Revolutions are but
disruptures of forms no longer in unison with the spirit of the nation, and that these
abrupt changes are due to the resistance which these forms presented to the
aspirations of the masses. We have further seen that they throw into relief the
irreducible forms of the natural constitution of the country, by which is meant those
political forms that are suitable to the inhabitants of the soil : and therefore this
principle was propounded that, ‘Man at every period of his existence represents the
race which has exercised the most direct influence upon him.’
There can be no doubt that, if the principles already laid down be applied to the
principal events in history which prove the influence of race on all human
phenomena, (that bear upon the establishment and effacement of administrative
forms), to be persistent, the laws of political evolution may be discovered. Man being,
as we have said, a product of nature must obey natural laws in the exercise of his
powers, both in his individual as well as in his collective capacity. As an individual,
he is bound by vital laws ; the functions which maintain existence are obligatory upon
him, and he is compelled to provide for his necessities. As a member of society, he
depends upon a code of laws which have converted him into a social animal, and hold
him in submission as much by sentiment as by compulsion. These laws represent the
conditions by which alone society can exist, and society is but an organism.
Production, consumption, exchange, and distribution of property are but the
vital functions of social organisms, and analogous to those of nutrition, intercourse
and reproduction in nature ; in fact to all the functions which in every living organism
constitute the conditions of existence. These functions cannot disappear without fatal
injury to society, but their organic forms are subject, as are all other forms in nature,
to modifications, changes and alterations. Societies must conform to the general laws
which direct the evolution of form, and govern the changes and transformations of
every organism. What are revolutions but changes of form ? Some disappear and
others take their place. Evolution is the sum of slow and successive changes in the
forms which exercise the functions of the organism. Revolution, derived from the
Latin word revolvere, implies the idea of a return. Evolution from evolvere implies the
notion of development. Revolutions being mere phenomena of evolution, and
evolution and revolution standing towards each other in the light of cause and effect
and vice versâ, what is the relation of this idea of reversion to the other idea of
development, as they appear to be contradictory ? We have seen that revolutions tend
to replace forms, no longer compatible with the national character, by others which
might be suitable. The development of this character, and in general of all the
characteristics which particularise a race, such as the sentiment of equality, liberty or
any similar feeling, is the true cause of revolutions, which are but changes of form,
that may affect certain functions in the existence of societies, but which can never
suppress through this fact the general conditions of their existence. Now what are
political forms or types but the laws and institutions ? If these can let loose such
destructive forces they cannot have enjoyed the approval of the nation. They must
have been imposed upon the country, and apparently by strangers to the soil.
Revolutions are but the struggles of races against classes. Classes administer
the functions of government, which are the political forms imposed upon a country.
Law is but the rule of the class in power, and the class in power means the rule of
conquest. Revolutions are but evolutionary phenomena in this struggle of a race
against domination, in its attempt to get rid of those political and social forms that
have been forced upon it. We have seen that progress is the outcome of cerebral
evolution, and this evolution is effected by the growth or decrease of certain
intellectual processes, which thereby conduce to the production of new ideas or the
elimination of antiquated notions. So we shall find that if we associate this fact, that
political evolution is due to the development of certain forms at the expense of others
destined to disappear, with the other facts which we have already established, that
 monarchy was the product of Frankish barbarism and Roman absolutism, and that the
political system, which dates from 1789, is a product of the centralisation thus
acquired and of the sophisms of the Social Contract, the mechanism of this evolution
can be satisfactorily explained.
The struggles of races against the political forms imposed upon them, or rather
against the classes which impose them, amount in reality to the struggles of races
between themselves, for class is but the organisation of the winning side as a
governing body. The struggle then that actually persists in the social organism is that
of the autochthon species against the foreign species.

(Social Evolution, Delbert, 1891, pp. 195 – 200)

There is much to be critical of in Delbert’s account of social evolution. His main

thesis is that all societies must have an aristocracy, with which we must agree in principle, all
superorganisms must indeed have an organ of command, or organ of identity, but Delbert’s
mode of expression harks back to bygone days when protests in favour of absolute monarchy
were the norm, ideas which are extremely repugnant to a bloke like me, sympathetic as I am
to socialist-cum-anarchist political principles. Even so, I have never seen a more perfect
rendition of the idea of society as a superorganism than we find in thisman’s amazing work.
This is delightful because it appears at precisely the time when we might expect it to, exactly
when this true scientific idea of human nature was at its height. For this reason alone this
book must be of great importance to followers of true, or naked knowledge.
It is obvious however that we must interpretthe significance of what Delbert says. I
actually decided to take this passage because it resonated with the difficult point I was trying
to make above, when I concluded by saying that if my arguments concerning the
interdependence between Judaism and Nazism was inadequate to convince anyone, then we
could turn to the facts, which spoke for themselves. Here we have a similar argument
regarding the relationship of destructive revolution to constructive evolution. But the first
issue to note concerns the point at which Delbert makes the ‘nation’ the object of
superorganic being. This was normal for this first modern period of superorganic reasoning.
No one ever fully grasped the fact that religion defines the human superorganism, although in
1894 Benjamin Kidd published a book that was also entitled Social Evolution, which was
famous in its day, in which he states categorically that religion gives the superorganism its
identity. Which is excellent, but then he lets us all down by failing to recognise that
Christianity is a slave identity of Judaism ! Instead the fool treats Christianity as an identity
in its own right, displaying incredible ignorance and stupidity. A truly phenomenal oversight,
that is nye on impossible to comprehend from our present position, it being obvious to us,
empowered as we are by the idea of the superorganic nature of humans, that Christianity and
Islam are both Jewish identity programmes, the three together creating a triadic macro
superorganic physiology.
Much of Delbert’s argument is so obscure that we could be here all day dealing with
its imponderables, and that is not appropriate. When he waffles on about the desires of the
masses and effects impacting on social organisation, we need to think of our own ideas
concerning the nature of linguistic force, that drives the form of social structure and its
associatedidentity programmes that unify the complex physiology of the superorganism.
Skipping over the contrast in terminology and sentiment, we should find a deep underlying
resonance in the overall conception of the subject in hand, that of human society, which
connects our modern ideas with those expressed by this man writing during the last decade of
the nineteenth century. This indicates how far advanced society was, as seen through its
freedom of expression in social science, prior to the twentieth century, which saw the return
of a new intellectual dark age, that effectively brings to an end the whole drama of a
supposed renaissance and enlightenment movement, which supposedly defines Western
Civilisation. The history of the twentieth century is in perfect accord with its nature, bleak.
Where did all this knowledge of the superorganic nature of humans go ? How did it
vanish ? Why does no one seek to resurrect it now ? Naturally, these are all questions that
this essay seeks to answer, in brief.
The critical element of Delbert’s discussion quoted above, comes when we find the
words “no longer compatible with the national character”, which is intended to evoke the
positive nature of the destructive round of the social growth cycle. Delbert makes this
statement in relation to the transformation of the national body, but, having corrected his
egregious error, by noting that the true being is not defined by the ‘national identity’ but
rather the ‘religious identity’, namely the Jewish identity, so that the crucial condition driving
the need for continuous warfare is due to the fact that things are “no longer compatible with
the national character”, can be corrected, to read “no longer compatible with the religious
identity”, or, even more tellingly, “no longer compatible with the Jewish identity”. In this
observation we find the most perfect expression of the ultimate knowledge of human nature.
As such this observation is the absolute pinnacle of naked of knowledge, beyond which no
human can ever reach, because there is no further to go in the search for self knowledge, this
is where science takes us.
Hence, knowing the formula—“no longer compatible with the national character”—
expressed as the essence of a perfect conception of human nature, means coming to the end
of what can be known about existence, that is, what can be known about being human. And
of course no one knows this today. Delbert knew this in 1891, but thanks to an immense
effort on the part of the priesthood, backed by their military order, centred upon the Nazis,
this knowledge has been erased forever, allowing our Jewish world to persist, and to continue
thriving and expanding.
There can only be one message, though it may appear in an infinite variety of forms.
In this saying, taken from Hitler’s philosophy, espoused in Mein Kampf, ‘message’ can be
taken to mean ‘identity’.

There are very curious arguments appearing in this passage from Delbert,that seem to
anticipate the core ideology of the Nazis. This is useful, because we have said that the rise of
the Nazis made the organicist conception of society taboo, and this conception is the only
possible scientific outlook. So the association of the idea of the social organism with race
and nation is what protects religion from science today. It is tempting to think this
association was deliberately forged, for the purpose of subverting science, but, as desirable as
such an outcome has been for the priesthood that rule our world, the fact is that its deliberate
planning and execution demands too much of any organization, and this outcome has to be an
automatic response to the conflict of knowledge as epitomised by the war between science
and religion. In this selection from Delbert we find all the necessary elements of the
confusion over the nature of society that would coalesce into Nazi ideology, thereby making
a true science of society taboo by wreaking havoc on the civilised social structure spread
across the surface of the whole planet, and thus facilitating the reorganisation of the world’s
institutions, that theocracy needed to take place for its dominion to continue undisturbed.
Delbert describes a similar developmental dynamic based on the cleansing effect of warfare,
but he entirely misdirects our attention towards the wrong focus of power, as if we were to
argue that a car is ultimately driven by its engine, rather than its true director, the person at
the controls. The nation is a structural element, it is no more an end in itself than an
individual person is an end in themselves. Nations are best regarded as exoskeletal elements
of superorganic physiology.
Curiously Delbert relates the form of social structure to a given race, evolved in
association with the ‘soil’ upon which it lives, meaning the local environment. The need for
internal strife arises because aliens have supposedly imposed a social structure that conflicts
with the character of the territorially defined race. All of which sounds just like the
arguments of the Nazis concerning the Jews. But if people see such dynamics, then why do
they not relate their Christian identity to this process, since, in reality, this would give them
the true perspective they appear to desire ? It is not race, but religion that defines the slave
body, the hierarchical delineation of social structure being a natural product of human
corporate nature, that causes individuals to spontaneously form social aggregations.
Again, Delbert recognises that law is nothing more than the values of the elite. So he
has all the pieces of the jigsaw, and he puts them together correctly, yet somehow manages to
see a different image to that which all these pieces ought to be revealing when joined up
correctly. The result of this last failure is that he completely inverts the true nature of
warfare, seeing war as an effort to obtain freedom from oppression. Whereas in reality
warfare is a tool of the elite, which allows the established enslavement of a people to be
reinforced. Culturally preserved enslavement, organised through an array of social
institutions, inevitably decays due to the passage of time. The ideology of freedom
promulgated as a means of inducing the illusion that the culturally induced slave identity is
the true identity of an enslaved people, tends to foster localised elites, and nations are the
means by which such structural elements are defined and thereby controlled by the overall
power of linguistic force expressed in the true identity of the superorganism, the religious
identity, centred on Judaism. Thus, Christians fight for freedom, by which they means the
right to be slaves of Judaism. Only they do not know that this is what their identity means,
because humans evolved to acquire a social identity and once physically enslaved by the
vanguard of Judaism, which was the Roman host, we are all then inducted into the Jewish
slave programme, which an elite manage, exactly as Delbert says, as an alien master class
dedicated to the preservation of Christianity. This is precisely why, even in this modern
scientific age, we still end up being forced to endure ignorant, alien masters, people like the
Blairs, both lawyers, and both fanatical Christians, just as are their successors, the Browns,
are rabid Christians, and their successors in turn, the Camerons that is, will be too, next year.

Part 6

With this model of conceptual transformation in the political field, firmly held in our
minds, we canrelate its dynamics to the more abstract, but still structurally grounded
conceptions of religion and science, as two facets of knowledge set at odds against one
another. According to our model of knowledge transformation, the dominant form of public
knowledge, promoted by the establishment, must constitute a conceptual arrow that relates to
social structure, and it carries that structure forward in time by providing intellectual support.
This knowledge arrow must possess barbs that resist any tendency for knowledge, once
established, to decay and move in a retrograde direction, which would implicitly threaten the
decay of the social fabric with which the spearhead of knowledge is directly associated.
The crux of what we are saying, is that a biological link, as opposedto a sociological
link, exists between social form and knowledge. This explains why ‘naked knowledge’, of
the kind produced by genuine science, is of secondary importance to what we might call
‘socially valid’ knowledge, by which we mean knowledge of primary importance to society,
such as religious knowledge, which, for all its being essential, is nonetheless absurd and false,
and hence anathema to science. And this is why religion is part of reality, prone to scientific
study, and not aboutreality, as we stated above. Humans evolved to produce knowledge just
as much as birds, for example, evolved to produce eggs, and this comparison is intended to
indicatethat knowledge must be part of the human animal’s functional behaviour. Science is,
by definition, not knowledge of this spontaneous kind, it has the artificial quality of being
deliberately manufactured by an abstract process that is not dictated by motives concerned
with political advantages accruing to the animal producing the scientific knowledge. At the
same time, this statement begs the question : Are we saying that scientific knowledge is not
part of human nature, in the sense of being a product of human nature ? And we can of
course not claim so absurd a distinction between science and religion. As soon as a hominid
evolved the basic physiological form that caused individuals to become units of extended
superorganic being, whereby information had to be generated to produced social form, there
was a practical dynamic bound up with an identity dynamic, and the two have matured into
the dichotomy between science and religion.
From the earliest days of scientific thinking about the nature of religion, intellectuals
concerned with this topic, recognised the difference between religion as part of reality, and a
science of religion that sought insights into why religion existed. The following quote is
taken from a work that sets out to trace the origins of the science of religion, such as it is.

Near the end of his Origin of Myths, [1724] in which he [Bernard Fontenelle]
has offered a theory of myth and pointed the direction its study must take, he writes :
“It is not a science to fill one’s head with all the extravagances of the Phoenicians and
Greeks, but it is one to know what led the Phoenicians and Greeks to these
extravagances.”

(Explaining Religion, Preus, 1987, p. 40)

The principle inherent in the distinction of science, that is made here, is no doubt the
same as that we are fobbed off with today, namely that individualsmade errors in ancient
times, just as they do to this day. But nonetheless, there is an implied recognition that science
seeks to understand whyreligion exists. Preus tells us that Judaism and Christianity were
exempted from the argument. And they are still exempt from scientific scrutiny today. Also,
Fontenelle sort “psychological and historical causes” for religious extravagances, exactly as
modern so-called scientists continue to do. So from the very beginning of science applied to
humans, there was an instinctive urge to produce a false bias that emphasised the role of
human self consciousness in human affairs. Today this initial phase of primitive scientific
reasoning has been fully recovered and made the exclusive means of understanding
humanity, after a brief phase of advanced scientific reasoning, ushered in by Auguste Comte
and brought to its maximum expression by the organicist philosophers, before finally being
eradicated during the twentieth century purge against society, that we call the world wars.
Our explanation for religious extravagance is wholly scientific. We explain why
religions exist,in biological terms that are positive, explaining that knowledge creates
superorganic physiology and the religious component of knowledge provides the
superorganism with its identity. Our ideas reduce humans to the status of organic beings.
These ideas are simple and coherent, they leave no voids or mysteries, and are irrefutable, if
ever anyone tried to refute them that is. The first job being therefore, to let people know
these ideas exist !
The biological link to social structure is generated by language. The power of speech
having evolved as a facet of individual physiology in order to create social structure, in
exactly the same way that we can see the ability to fly in birds is generated by the evolution
of wings, which evolved to enable animals to take to the air. Language is to social structure,
as wings are to flight. The important evolutionary principle here, being that the development
of organic structure is dictated by forcedirected toward a source of latent potential energy, an
exactly opposite principle to that provided by Darwin, who negates force by making
mechanism the primary principle of evolution. Thus we have mechanism and forcestanding
in the same relation to each other as the proverbial ‘chicken and the egg’. The intimate
relationship between mechanism and force, akin to that between a chicken and an egg, is
what made it possible for Darwin to impose a wholly false model of evolution on the world,
by means of the simplest device of ‘pivotal misrepresentation’. Thus ensuring the idiocy of
religion would persist while science would die. But, can you answer the question : Which
came first the chicken or the egg ? The answer is obvious, it is the egg, just as force precedes
mechanism. But because of the nature of language, and the way those that control knowledge
manipulate language, this fact is made fiendishly difficult to resolve to everyone’s
satisfaction. Pivotal misrepresentation involves selecting a false point of view from which to
observe reality, such as making the earth the observational centre of the universe, about
which all cosmic objects are made to rotate, or making the human individual an end in
themselves, about which all social phenomena are made to rotate in obedience to personal
desires and conscious intentions.
It is fascinating to examine the literature dealing with the issue of creation and natural
history during the pre-Darwinian period. In VestigesChambers refers to a contemporary
author who argued that God directed every single action of every single organism, at every
moment in time. As absurd as this oughtto sound to a modern reader, religious people were
forced into this extreme position because the alternative was to accept the general thesis of
people like Chambers, who said that creation was the result of natural laws. Despite
Chambers trying to avoid the logical consequences of his own argument by saying that
religion could accommodate his ideas, the fact was that it had to be plain to everyone that the
idea of ‘natural law’ made the idea of a ‘divine presence’ superfluous. If we refer to
Macculloch, quoted by Chambers, we see that he expressly rejects the idea of natural laws as
ill thought out and ridiculous, and hence, in the passage quoted by Chambers, we find
Macculloch making the extraordinary claim that coral polyps cannot be responsible for
building island atolls because they have no organising authority directing their collective
enterprise. Hence God directs the action of each polyp toward its unwitting creative goal !
This is a rather delightful example to find from the point of view of our thesis, which asserts
that humans are a superorganism, sharing a common nature with creatures like corals and
ants, being driven to create superorganic form by natural laws that are responsible for the
form of individual humans, which evolved to bring a living organism into being at the level
of social organisation. And today this debate continues within scientific circles, where we
find authors seeking to explain order amongst populations of animals that are leaderless, such
as the coordinated appearance of a flock of starlings.
If we consider what we have just said about Darwin’s failure, and our solution, we see
that what his theory really did was to transform Macculloch’s insane notion of point by point
creation, into an evolutionary model that satisfied the mechanics of scientific study, while
ensuring the outcome was dictated by religious expediency, as indicated by works like those
of Macculloch. The resulting accommodation of science to religion is made easy to
understand when we recognise that ideas concerned with natural law evoked the principle of
energy and force, directing material outcomes, while notions of divinity required that creation
must be micromanaged at the level of individual actionsin order not to do God out of his
purpose in the supposed scheme of things. The special attribute of God is intelligence,
without this attribute the Jewish God that rules our world would be meaningless.
In the above we say ‘ought’ when speaking of what people should accept today,
because modern contemporaries of ours still seek to impose religious bigotry on us all, often
doing so by promoting Creationism. They still have recourse to the same insane ideas as
those of people like Macculloch writing in the 1830’s and 40’s. Darwin has therefore done
nothing to bring a genuine end tothe pre-Darwinian conflict between science and religion,
and this is because Darwinism is sterile science, devised to allow religion and science to live
side by side. To end this war once and for all, we need a true science that brings humans into
the frame of biological science, by making force the basis of evolution, not mechanism,
which must then show what religion is as a functional aspect of human biology, and thereby
destroy religion as the basis of social power.
Macculloch produced a three volume work called Proofs and Illustrations of the
Attributes of God, from the Facts and Laws of the Physical Universe : Being the Foundation
of Natural and Revealed Religion, 1843. Chapter two of volume one is On Systems of
Atheism, and chapter three is Answers to Certain Systems of Atheism. I only downloaded the
work from the net yesterday, but a quick look at the passage Chambers referred to, along with
these chapters on atheism, is highly instructive in terms of getting a sense of the conscious
milieu in which Darwin was immersed during the years prior to which he finally perfected a
sound pseudo science of life, suited to the task of protecting religion, which so many
establishment men were striving to achieve at the time. Macculloch says that atheism is not
even a way of thinking, since it can only ever be a denial of observations about reality. He
takes the popular expressions of scientists, that implicitly substitute for the presence of God
(see pages 69-70 of the first volume), and ridicules them, one by one. Exactly as we find
today, the war against scienceprior to Darwin was relentless. This war can never end as long
as religion exists, because religion, speaking politically, is a lie, so, as with all lies, the liars
must keep up their deception continuously. But nowadays there is a difference, as todaythe
war is unseen, because Darwin provided a fake science to take the part of the real thing,
which had got out of hand, until the Nazis, building on Darwin’s efforts, finally put paid to
the job. And boy were the Nazis worth the trouble ! something had to be done, and whatever
it was, it was going to have to be big. There can only ever be one message of identity
pervading any society, and that message can only exist if backed by uncompromising
violence. Darwin provided the modern extension of the message, while Hitler provided the
violence, so that Judaism, as the soul or identity of the superorganism, not only lives on, but
thrives, and continues to grow remorselessly.
Explaining Religiononly arrived from America yesterday, 17/02/2009, but dipping
into it in search of interesting bits, has already connected with the argument being expounded
here in relation to the way the false science of Darwinism, that rules our world today, was
developed, and having been perfected, was then thrown upon the world to produce a blackout
of all reason hence forth. We are shown how people tried to apply science to religion in the
early eighteenth century, and we already know how this idea developed a head of steam by
the early nineteenth century, so then we see how the regulatory device, The Origin of
Speciescapped the runaway process of scientific inquiry. Now, with this view in mind,I find
two apposite passages in Preus. If we liken society to a pressure cooker, wherein energy
expresses itself in information, the build up of energy needs to be controlled, and so a valve
must be applied to the process of generating information, and Origin of Species is that valve,
forcing all science to pass through its aperture forevermore.
Chapter seven of Preus, Evolutionary Anthropology : Edward Burnett Tylor, begins by
outlining the scientific developments supporting an evolutionary theory of life. As to Darwin
it makes this simple statement, that no one would think to question today, save the
Creationists :

Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) set forth the theory of gradual evolution by
natural selection, a scheme that gained plausibility from the long eras of time allowed
by the new geology and installed the human species firmly in the evolutionary process
of nature.
 (p. 131)

Today no scientist would even be capable of comprehending the notion that humans
are part of a biological process of evolution, so how can it be claimed that Darwin effected
this change immediately he produced his monstrous imposition ? We all know that humans
are free from the impress of natural laws, we make our world as we want it to be, or that is
what science says, in common with religion.
For us Tylor is most interesting. Tylor is quoted as saying, in volume one of Primitive
Culture, 1871, that “The world is scarcely prepared to accept the general study of human life
as a branch of natural science.” (Preus, p. 133). This is music to our ears, since Tylor goes on
to suggest that the most precious attributes of humans are, in terms of seeking an explanation
of human existence, to be lumped together with “the combination of acids and bases, and the
growth of plants and animals.” The joys of the internet mean that since reading this passage
in Preus just an hour ago, I have been able to take Tylor’s work from the internet and examine
both volumes one and two, and I am now ready to make use of the commentary provided by
Preus. Amazing !
Obviously, I know exactly what I am looking for, I am looking for evidence of
organicism, and evidence of the corrupt science of humanity fostered by Darwin. We can
look for the phrase ‘social organism’, as an essential indicator of a genuinely scientific work,
which we would never expect to find post First World War. And where authors are tackling
the origin of language we know this subject will always reveal the fraudsters, in double quick
time. Tylor has much to say about language, and something to say about its origins, although
what he has to say about the origin of language bears all the hallmarks of the spiel of a double
glazing salesman.
Like Darwin, Tylor is extremely authoritative, and to the passionate atheist-scientist,
his words are like nectar. Knowing no better we can but adore such works. But in the mature
phases of a long life spent searching for scientific answers to the place of human existence in
nature, and having discovered that humans are superorganisms just like ants or termites, we
are suddenly enabled to see through the treachery of people like Darwin and Tylor. Preus
tells us, with apparent reverence, that Tylor “became Reader in Anthropology at Oxford
University, the first such position in the academic world.” (p. 131) Well, we find no mention
of the social organism in the index to Primitive Culture, no listing for ‘organism’,
‘superorganism’, or anything indicating that the work treats humans as part of nature, rather
than as a political phenomenon. Herbert Spencer is listed, but the listing does not look worth
looking at. So, here we see how the authorities immediately began building on the miscreant
work of Darwin, promoting authors who took Darwin as the basis for their science of
humanity, and thereby span a web of deceit that has blanketed the world.
The casual reference to Darwin as the founder of evolutionary theory is a damned lie,
we have just been discussing the real claimant to that honour, Chambers, a man who had to
publish anonymously because the church minions in the scientific establishment did not like
what he said. Darwin they loved, and so it was Darwin that led the way. But while men like
Tylor shot off at a tangent which ignored all the scientific reasoning about the nature of
human society, the wider world headed in another direction entirely, as sociology still had to
contend with the direct attempts of people to develop a naturalistic model of human society.
Tylor makes all the right noises, talking about the uniformity of civilisation across the world
and throughout time, proving that there must be natural laws dictating social forms. But then
he does nothing to make this logic result in explanations of what humans are as natural
entities. And so the story has gone on ever since. Instead of recognising that language is a
physiological attribute of humans, Tylor cuts culture off from human physiology, and instead
makes crude expressions of communication the political precursors of modern language. I
have not read the whole chapter on language, but if I performed this labour would I find what
I would be looking for ? Definitely not. If Tylor tackled the question of the functional reason
for human animals evolving linguistic physiology, he would never of been employed
anywhere on earth, not when alive, nor since. This is why the concept of culture has been
developed, along with its twin fiction, psychology, to accommodate the idea of the individual
as an end in themselves, who is empowered to make society, as opposed to being evolved to
form society, without choice or reason.
Tylor’s ideas on the development of language,from imitative and emotional signals to
modern forms, is actually very interesting. We would make use of such observations by
relating these developments to social structure, the whole argument being united into a
concept of superorganic physiology, such that, as language becomes more complex so does
the physiological structure it produces, structure that we ordinarily know as ‘social structure’
because we are only aware of the existence of the superorganism of genuine science, via the
mythology of religious extravagance alluded to by Fontenelle when discussing the ancients,
but which remains as applicable today as it ever did since we continue to live in a world ruled
by mythical extravagance.

Regarding the above comment, to the effect that no scientist could imagine saying
humans are the result of an evolutionary process. –
I read something in a sociology book recently that said humans are obviously animals
that evolved, but ....... I would love to quote this passage as a direct example of how crass
these so called scientists are, but I am buggered if I know which book I came across that
remark in. However while looking just now I found this :

Human beings are not simply driven by innate programming or learnt

behaviour patterns ; instead they monitor their own behaviour by conscious thought.
This thought, however, takes place through symbols learnt in a social context largely
through language. Though we also control our behaviour by reflecting upon our own
actions, we can only know our own self, our social identity, through the responses of
others.

(Introductory Sociology, Tony Bilton et al, 1981/85, p. 734)

This sample of delinquent sociological thinking, which is better described by the

phrase ‘sociological programming’, is not as direct as the passageI had in mind, but it is
serviceable. In abstract terms this piece is akin to a mathematician saying :

While we know three and three equal six, it would be wrong to say that three apples
and three apples is as good in real life as six apples. Anyone who has ever been give three
plus three of something in one transaction, will know how disturbing this is when all they
wanted was six of the offending commodity.

Viewed linguistically, by which we mean viewed in terms defined by the language

itself, that is : taking the language used at face value, and therefore understanding the
meaning of this statement according to logic of a perverse kind, everything said in the above
mathematicalpassage is coherent. The only thing absent is the rationalising influenceof
reality ; despite a pretence to the contrary built into the statement. This demonstrates the
inherent perversity of language, when viewed scientifically. Language is a symbolic system
of self defining realities, because this symbolic system generates an exclusive logic, that is
isolated from none linguistic influences, as we can see from the above sociological passage,
where humans are made separate from nature by virtue of what language calls
‘consciousness’. Nature is just another word for ‘reality’, so how can anything be set apart
from reality in an exposition about reality, such as that which these sociologists purport to
provide in the above work ? This linguistically imposed logic characterises the sociologists’
argument. According to the logic of the words making up their argument, that is logic
derived from the meaningof the words used, everything they say is true, as it is in the
imaginary example of mathematician’s speak. Humans do control their own behaviour by
conscious reasoning, but when adopting the role of a professional sociologist, these
exponents of reality are not supposed to be acting as part of the social world they are
commenting upon. They are supposed to be scientists, detached from the superficial aspects
of day to day activity, who explain the human world from outside the parameters of its
internal logic, which derives from the linguistic programme that orders individual activity,
and requires a deeper explanation than that which any Joe Bloggs can provide willy-nilly.
Language, in short, exists to create its own reality. Which it does by sustaining its
own internal logic, which implicitly demands a social structure to express the function of
such symbolic representation. The symbolic nature of language is not representative, as
suggested by the word ‘symbol’, which means ‘representing’, but rather, linguistic
symbolism is creative. The primary function that linguistic physiology evolved to serve, is
that of symbolising structural forms, so that social structures could come into existence. This
explanation attributes a functional role to language as the medium of superorganic
physiology. All of which explains the great mystery of human creativity, which surely is a
wonder to behold.
So, while all scientists freely concede that humans are made by nature, they always
deny the same fact by immediately qualifying its meaning, by asserting that in the act of
making performed by nature, that is unique to humans, nature has unleashed a being that is
free to do as it pleases from the point of its creation onwards !

Part 7

The preceding observation, that linguistic creativity requires fixing within a social
structure, in order to express its biological function, suggests why all societies have elites, a
circumstance directly indicatingwhy language generates social structure, or, more correctly,
superorganic physiology. That an elite must form spontaneously when a social biomass is
under the influence of linguistic force, is implicit in the idea that language exists in order to
symbolise social structure, that materialises through the coordinating influence of the
symbolistic nature of language that acts upon the biomass that isunder its influence. The only
alternative, none hierarchical model of how linguistic symbolism could organise social
activity, would be via a process of uniform activation, taking effect person by person, which
would require that individuals were nothing more nor less than mechanical devices. A
linguistic force must therefore be concentrated within a senior individual, or an elite body, or
class of individuals, who act as an organ disseminating the influence of linguistic symbolism,
imparted by linguistic force that is derived from the engine of linguistic physiology. And
from this observation we may readily understand why religion is also an inevitable corollary
of linguistic physiology, since religion is nothing more nor less than the elite organ writ large.
An organ that is always created and sustained by a priesthood, whether that priesthood calls
itself a ‘priesthood’ or whether it goes by some other name, or whether it must be regarded as
a composite of many names, such as professor, academic, expert, politician, entrepreneur,
artist, genius, scientist, doctor, lawyer, commander, celebrity, boss, or by a myriad of other
terms that language has to denote superiors, that all serve the unseen master, ‘linguistic
force’, and come together to form an elite class.
Language generates social structure without any input or awareness, of any kind, on
the part of the individuals that deliver social structure at the behest of ‘linguistic force’, their
response to this forceis built into their individual physiology. By identifying the functionally
creative nature of language we accommodate the idea of language as the expression of a force
imparting a creative dynamic, so that linguistic symbolism anticipates the future, rather than
identifyingthe past or present. In the usual sense of what language is said to be, we are
supposed to think of language as a tool that we use to identify and manage reality. This
definition denies language its creative function, thereby separating the essence of linguistic
physiology from its associated structure and leaving that essence, its creativity, to be
possessed by the ficticious being of the human person or individual, which in reality is
nonexistent. This act of linguistic misrepresentation is itself a trick of linguistic force,
making it appear to individuals that they, the individual, exist as ends in themselves, whereas
they are only ever agents of linguistic force.
When all that your consciousness is composed of is linguistic directives, it is difficult
to see your way past the functional creativity of language, to an image of reality which is
correct, but entirely worthless, because it is not the functional objective that linguistic force is
directed towards. If such bear faced, naked truth, were the functional objective of linguistic
physiology, then humans would not need to be sophisticated in order to possess modern
scientific knowledge, this would be the normal product of linguistic empowerment, present at
all times and places in which humans have existed. Whereas the exact opposite has always
been the case, and remains the case today, as the need for this novel work of philosophy in a
science dominated age proves. Humans are immune to truth, they are only capable, as
individuals, of operating on an individualistic basis, that is, they are only capable of relating
to functional knowledge. Worthless, or true knowledge, is instinctively repulsive to all
people, or at best has an entertainment value, a fact which is intensified by a process of
training in the intellectual arts, making this observation most applicable to those who are
highly trained to be experts in the accumulation and propagation of true knowledge. An
excellent example of true knowledge reduced to entertainment is the magnificent programme
Time Team. I love this programme, but as someone who adores true knowledge, I am always
uneasy at the reduction of the art of archaeology to a ‘fast food’ format. And last night,
08/03/2009, I happened to catch a statement from Jeremy Paxman, made during a
documentary, The Victorians, that he is presenting on BBC 1, in which he said there was a
huge reaction against the values of the Victorian age, one artist saying “the more real science
becomes, the more angels I shall paint”, or something like that. The point being that people
hate the truth, and if all else fails, they resist it by bloody-minded rejection. This is because
the truth is useless as a means to live by, and this is, scientifically speaking, for the reasons
we have set out, namely that linguistic force generates social structure. This means
knowledge, which is the intermediary product of linguistic force, upon which social structure,
and therefore superorganic being depends, is, of its nature inherently functional, and therefore
necessarily false, because in order to be functional knowledge must contain a purposive bias,
in order to direct the creation of functional structure. This is why we humans can never live
in a fair world, why our world is doomed to be full of misery and self inflicted pain, tragic,
but true.
 Paxman’s programme, we may as well note while we are here, is just another brick in
the wall of state organised propaganda, directed at projecting the exalted image of Darwin as
the ultra rebel of the freethinking age. Paxman’s strident persona makes him perfect for this
particular assignment, and Paxman himself will be oblivious of his role as a patsy, just as
everyone else will be unaware of the true nature of their efforts in making this propaganda.
As indeed Darwin himself will of been unaware that he was the worst enemy science could
ever have, for this role of priest is given to us all by nature, though it only becomes active
when we take up our position in society.
Paxman’s reputation for intelligence, no nonsense and incisive interrogation, is no
defence against the force of linguistic power, indeed intelligence is a hindrance to seeing past
the all pervasive deception. The ignorant person is never so stupid as to be unaware of their
own dependence upon the likes of a Paxman, in whom they necessarilyput their trust. While
a Paxman is suckered, being made to take on a highly privileged role, the deception is loaded
with reasons to make the individual value their own prestige and authority, and who is there
to compete with them. As a consequence the intelligence that imparts authority is guaranteed
to ensure the exalted never see past the stupidity and blindness that is the fruit of their
exceptional gift. What seems to be a gift is really a hook and line, from which a puppet
dangles. As ever with knowledge, perspective is everything.

When we talk about language in this way, saying “language does this”, we are in
effect talking about the true manifestation of what religion calls ‘God’. The human
experience of the ‘force of language’ is what creates the idea of God. This explains why no
humans ever known have been without a sense of the divine, because divinity is the
manifestation of the physiology of speech, that defines the human animal. When we come to
an advanced stage of human evolution, we should not be surprised that it is a ‘people of the
book’ who are the embryonic origin of the first global superorganism, that is the
manifestation of the idea of ‘God’ inherent in language, made real in the flesh. To say ‘the
people of the book’ is just another way of saying the ‘people of language’ or, indeed, the
‘people of God’.
We say that language evolved to create social structure, so that the human
superorganism could exist ; an outcome that was inevitable because the engine of mammalian
physiology contained within it the latent potential of social organization as a factor of its
ascent of an energy gradient, an ascent which inducedlatent potential energy relative to the
new physiological engine. What this means is that mammals had to evolve a linguistically
empowered form in order to realise the potential of superorganic being. We also say that it is
the existence of linguistic force, inherent in linguistic physiology, that generates a sense of
superhuman existence. And finally, we link these ideas together by saying that what we call
‘God’ is in reality the human superorganism, in which we exist as cellular units, living within
a superorganism that has been created by language, a superorganism that we know as ‘God’.
I am being slightly repetitive here in order to be as emphatic as I can be about these crucial
aspects of what this essay proclaims.
It follows from these ideas that linguistic physiology constitutes a physiological
gradient, evolved over time, from which social, or linguistic energy, flows into an associated
biomass, the whole of which is interconnected via the medium of language. So that linguistic
physiology is a physical means whereby life raises an energy gradient, with potential to create
living structure beyond the limits of the integral body of the individual. This conception of
physiology as an organic gradient, collecting, or accumulating energy in a living structure,
seeks to develop the primary concept of force as the driving principle of evolution, in exact
opposition to that principle which Darwin made central, namely mechanism.
As I happen to of recently come across a very nice, simple statement, regarding the
nature of the relationship of universal energy to structure, I think we should try and make this
most important topic, on the nature of physiology regarded as an energy gradient, more
comprehensible by utilising that example :

But while the material supremacy of the sun has always been recognized by
thoughtful minds, and has even been made the foundation of religious systems, as
with the Persians, it has been reserved for more modern times, and to our own
century, to show clearly just how, in what sense, and how far the sunbeams are the life
of the earth, and the sun himself the symbol and vicegerent of the Deity. The two
doctrines of the correlation of forces and the conservation of energy, having once been
distinctly apprehended and formulated, it has been comparatively easy to confirm
them by experiment and observation, and then to trace, one by one, to their solar
origin, the different classes of energy which present themselves in terrestrial
phenomena—to show, for instance, how the power of waterfalls is only a
transformation of the sun’s heat ; and that the same thing is true, a little more
remotely but just as certainly, of the power of steam, of electricity, and even of
animals. The idea is now so familiar that it is hardly necessary to dwell upon it, and
yet, for some of our readers at least, it may be worth while to examine it a little more
closely.
Whenever work is done, it is by the undoing of some previous work. When a
clock moves, it is the unwinding of a spring or the falling of a weight which keeps it
going, and some one must have wound it up to begin with. If the water of a river falls
year after year over a cataract, and is intercepted to drive our mill-wheels, the river
continues to run because some power is continually raising and returning to the hill-
tops the water which has flowed into the sea—a process precisely equivalent to the
daily rewinding of the clock. If the powder in a rifle explodes and drives out the
bullet, its explosive energy depends upon the fact that some power has placed the
component molecules in such relations that, when the trigger is pulled, and the
exciting spark has, so to speak, cut the bonds which hold them apart, they rush
together just as suspended weights would fall if freed. Before the same substance,
which once was a charge of gunpowder, but now is dust and gas, can again do the
same work, the products of the explosion must by some power be decomposed, and
the atoms replaced in the same relations as before the firing of the gun ; and this
process is mechanically analogous to the lifting of fallen weights and placing them
upon elevated shelves, or hanging them from hooks, ready to drop again when the
occasion may require.
Precisely the same thing is true of the heat produced by the combustion of
ordinary fuel : it is due to the collapse of molecules, for the most part of oxygen on
one side, and carbon and hydrogen on the other, which have been separated and built
up into structures by the action of some labouring power.
The same can be said of animal power, for all investigation goes to show that
in a mechanical sense the body of an animal is only a very ingenious and effective
machine, by means of which the living inhabitant which controls it can utilize the
energy derived from the food taken into the stomach. The body, regarded as a
mechanism, is only a food-engine in which the stomach and lungs stand for the
furnace and boiler of a steam-engine, the nervous system for the valve-gear, and the
muscles for the cylinder. How the personality within, which wills and acts, is put into
relation with this valve-gear, so as to determine the movements of the body it resides
in, is the inscrutable mystery of life ; the facts in the case, however, being no less facts
because inexplicable.
And now, when we come to inquire for the source of the energy which lifts the
water from the sea to the mountain-top, which decomposes the carbonic acid of the
 atmosphere, and plant-foods of the soil, and builds up the hydrocarbons and other
fuels of animal and vegetable tissue, we find it always mainly in the solar rays. I say
mainly because, of course, the light and heat of the stars, the impact of meteors, and
the probable slow contraction of the earth, are all real sources of energy, and
contribute their quota. But, as compared with the energy derived from the sun, their
total amount is probably something like the ratio of starlight to sunlight ; so small that
it is quite clear, as we said before, that a month’s deprivation of the solar rays would
involve the utter destruction of all activity upon the earth.

(The Sun, C. A. Young, 1882, pp. 12 – 15)

Lets follow in the footsteps of this delightful description of the Sun’s power on earth,
and extend the idea of examining “a little more closely”, to the relationship between the
gradient of linguistic physiology and its relationship to superorganic physiology, otherwise
known as ‘social structure’ or ‘society’.
To benefit from the clear exposition of Young, we may say that the production of
social structure represents the development of work previously done in the act of evolving the
capacity for speech. We may liken this idea to the general principle of life’s evolution, and
say that life’s evolution represents the work previously done in the act of evolving the basic
mechanism of genetic evolution, materialised in the form of DNA. All life is based on the
unleashing of the latent potential of DNA. And all social life in humans is based on the
unleashing of the latent potential of linguistic physiology.

Today, Saturday, 21st February 2009, a copy of Introduction to Sociology, by Arthur

Fairbanks, 1910, originally published in 1896, arrived from America. I ordered this book
because the title of chapter two, Society Regarded as an Organism, and such like content,
made this work look essential reading. Thanks to the first bit of warm sunshine this year, I
have already perused this book while sitting in my greenhouse, soaking up the energy of the
sun, as is my wont. It turns out that this book is a virulent enemy of science, as one would
expect most work on sociology to be at the time of its publication. But it is a magnificent
book to have, because it is transitional between real science and fake science, and as a
consequence it still alludes to the true science of humanity that awaited total elimination in
the Great Cleansing due to begin just four years after my copy was printed. Post First World
War it is inconceivable that any books were ever again published that contained genuine
sciencerelating to human nature, even if their object was to undermine that science, as
Fairbanks obviously sort to do. I know of no such books, and believe me, I have looked !
This last remark induces me to interject a statement regarding any pretences I have to
an intellectual status. On occasion I havebeen bowled over by the technical excellence of
modern academic work that sometimes approaches the subject of my life’s endeavours, and
reveals the power of a professional academic training, and the resources made available
thereby. So I do not claim too much for the researching capabilities of my own efforts, which
tend to be more informal, haphazard and opportunist. But then I am a lone ranger, seeking
knowledge that the establishment exists to control and suppress, so that my amateurish
sampling tactics suit my circumstances, and are sufficient for the job of unearthing and
revealing, which is all I hope to do. We have been making use of Secord’s book Victorian
Sensation, which is incredible for its wealth of material, and my other favourite example of
the same kind of excellence is The Politics of Evolutionby Adrian Desmond, 1989, which I
read a couple or three years ago. Books like these are to die for, but, tragically, they are part
of the defence of religion against science, because true science is all about position relative to
an observational pivot, which is ‘either/or’ and nothing in-between. Either you accept that
humans are a superorganic species of mammal, or you accept that humans are divinebeings,
manifesting their divinity in the free willed prowess of the individual, that makes society
through its conscious decision making capabilities. Even so, books of this quality are
delightful for me because of the wealth of detail they offer, which gives them a degree of
neutrality through the quality of self-evident integrity that they possess, which is manifested
in the scholarship employed in the compilation of extensive research. Small wonder that
Secord’s book begins with these words : “The writing and researching of this book have
occupied a large part of my life, . . .”, you don’t say ! and it shows, very nice.

I am introducing a discussion of Fairbank’s work now because the telling section, his
work being transitional, nicely relates to what we are endeavouring to say about the true
nature of human society as a product of human physiology. In a transitional work like that by
Fairbanks, we typically find homage being paid to the naturalistic conception of human
society, followed by the introduction of a ‘logical lever’, based on perverse linguistic logic
unattached to reality, that shifts humans as we know them, away from humans as science had
thus far revealed them to be in reality, through the idea of the social organism.
Turning to chapter four, Association : The Relation of Men in Society, we find the
exact point at which the logical lever shifting humanity away from reality, and into the realms
of unattached, exclusively linguistic logic, is applied :

The Social Group not merely Physical.—In the preceding chapter, the social
group has been considered as a physical object determined by physical causes ; but
the unity of a social group is not fully explained by saying that it was “made so from
outside,” or that it was “born so.” To stop here, is to let the lower truth take the place
of the higher—a result that is fatal to all science. Chemistry and physics do not take
the place of biology, though familiarity with these sciences is the necessary basis of
any advance to a broader and more scientific biology. The physiology of the brain is
the basis of a true psychology ; it can never take the place of psychology and logic,
but it is rather the condition of progress in these branches. Similarly the study of
society from the physical side is only the basis of a study that is bothbroader and more
direct. A society is a group of men ; as such it must be studied and explained, if
sociology is to be more than an empty name.
I. Bonds of Feeling : Man not naturally a Social Animal.—Two theories,
frequently advanced with reference to the relation of men in society, are suggested by
the phrases, “man a social animal,” and “social cohesion.” The study of society has
often begun and ended with the statement that man is a social animal, as though this
were a fact too familiar to need discussion or criticism. Certainly civilization makes
man pre-eminently the social animal, but by nature he may be a very different being.
The study of uncivilized races to-day shows clearly that this is possible ; the lower
type of Veddahs in Ceylon and of Hottentots in Africa live in scattered groups of two
or three or four, with no more sociability than is found among gorillas. If man is not
necessarily and universally a social being, the phrase demands investigation before it
can be accepted as the whole philosophy of society.
Influences for and against Sociability.—In truth, both social and unsocial
tendencies are at work in each stage of social development ; some forces tending to
draw men closer together in society, and others tending to break up the societies thus
formed. In the world of any creature, those of its own kind are the most prominent
objects, the beings about which sentiments of aversion or of pleasure are sure to
cluster. In early stages of civilization jealousy appears at least as soon and as
commonly as sympathy, and anger is by no means a product of civilization. The
bitterest conflicts arise among those who are seeking the same thing, so that
association itself leads to strife, and even in the effort to unite, men are driven farther
 apart. But oftentimes co-operation is the only means of obtaining any success ; the
individual alone cannot protect himself against attack, nor can he win from nature the
means of subsistence. Under such circumstances the feeling of loneliness becomes
unendurable, for it is associated with the sense of imminent danger.

(Introduction to Sociology, Fairbanks, pp. 87 - 89)

To the same degree that Young illuminates the connection between all existence, so
Fairbanks manages to obfuscate the same connection between humans and existence. He
indicates that the science of humanity had reached an accepted state of perfection, and yet
this was notacceptable, and had to be undermined. The irrefutable fact that the human animal
isa social animal, a fact that must inform every thought about human existence, he sets out to
destroy. In doing this he is just one of many professional priest-academics that have come to
act as the guardians of religious ignorance by masquerading as scientists in our sad and
pathetic post-modern world.
When Darwin describes evolution as a process of natural selection he emphasises the
mechanism of change that enables structure to ascend the gradient of physiology, and thereby
fix the latent potential of living form, derived from the basic template of DNA, in the guise of
a successful species. This however is only one half of the equation. Darwin’s model of
evolution only describes the manner in which the latent potential of genetics, in the
broadestsense, is released and made specific in the exact sense of localised conditions. What
we are saying here chimes with the sentiment of Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene, 1976,
which set out to emphasise the status of the gene as the attribute of evolutionary change, by
casting the living form in the role of servant of the gene’s existence. This kind of
transposition between parts of a whole can always be manipulated to achieve an interesting
effect, a book can be said to exist in order to preserve the text of which it is composed, rather
than the text existing to serve the creation of the work the book presents to the world.
Each set of local circumstances, otherwise known as the ‘environment’, acts as a
window of opportunity for the unwinding potential of genetic energy to bring a new gradient
of living energy potential into being, in the form of a new species, or variety thereof. Just as
each irregularity in the landscape offers a new opportunity for the flow of water to the sea to
take a new course, and establish a new water channel in the landscape. It is small wonder
that Darwin’s theory of evolution has been proven beyond doubt by the rise of genetic
science, since his model was informed by a general understanding of selective processes
involved in the inheritance of individual characteristics, which has a key place in Darwin’s
argument. His resulting synthesis of ideas was bound to be proven by ensuing experimental
insights into the material details of the reproductive process. Darwinism is therefore more an
example of self-fulfilling scientific theorising, than brilliant intellectual insight. Added to
which, the insightful portion of his ideas are one hundred percent wrong, in so far as there is a
part which supposedly explains the evolution of life taken as a whole, the error of which has
resulted in our total inability to include humans in Darwin’s universal model.
The simplest way to think about the life process directed by force, is precisely that
which Young has used when applying the analogy of an engine, with which we are all so
familiar. Each living structure can be represented as an engine evolved to express a particular
source or modeof energy. DNA is itself an engine within this scheme, a generic engine, that
is fittedinto all living bodies in a specific arrangement that defines each species as a unique
kind of engine in its own right. The generic engine of DNA gives rise to species, each of
which constitutes an engine derived from the basic mechanical principle of DNA, expressed
in a specific setting. We apply the same logic in everyday life when we talk about types of
engines, such as steam or petrol (source) and motor or rocket (mode). DNA is the engine of
life per se, and each nuance of the genetic engine is a variation adapted to specific
circumstances. The existence of a generic type of engine such as DNA, the basis of all life,
reveals a fundamental principle of life-engines : generic forms of living structure ascend an
energy gradient by means of a competitiveselective process, such as Darwin delineated, and
then, once a generalised form has been achieved, that form descends from a pinnacle of latent
potential energy, into a plethora of varieties, specialised to suit all available conditions. Thus
we have a creative cycle of developing uniformity, which, upon reaching its zenith, descends
into complexity.
Mammalian physiology is one type of life-engine. Having ascended a physiological
energy gradient, to produce a novel form of life-engine, the generic form of mammalian
physiology then descended into all available niches, from land, it dispersed into the air and
the water, which had been rendered effectively void of life, comparatively speaking, relative
to the inherent energy potential of the new life-engine of mammalian physiology, which
consisted of a built in heat engine. So the adaptation of mammals to exploit these major
niches was not a competitive process, because there was no competition once mammalian
physiology had come into being ; just as pre-civilised people could not compete with
Europeans once Westerners had developed advanced machines of war and transport,
whereupon they simply swept across the entire planet !
The latent potential of social integration to form a superorganism, was attained by
evolving a mammal with linguistic physiology. Having evolved linguistic physiology in
mammals, this ‘linguistic engine’, rested at the pinnacle of latent potential energy inherent in
this new form life-engine. The evolution of humans from that point forward represents the
unleashing of the latent potential of linguistic physiology, which we talk about here in terms
of linguistic force, which ultimately revolves around the central theme of our discussion,
evoked by the idea of an arrow of knowledge.
As indicated above, I have a rather ad hoc method of introducing what passes for
‘research material’ into my work Today a POD (print-on-demand) volume arrived called
German Sociology, by Philip Jacobs, 1909. I had been working on a digital copy taken from
the same source these publishers will of obtained their copy, but the number of footnotes
thwarted my effort to produce my own hard copy and this hardback book only cost £17, so
what the heck. Leafing through its pages just now I came upon the following apposite
passage, dealing with an author, Ratzenhofer, who, like me, focused on force as the be all and
end all of everything, including the creation of human society. Except, as we shall see, his
ideas are decidedly simplistic and unnaturalistic, and consequently quite facile. This is
however as good as it gets prior to the total eradication of science from our society at about
the time Jacobs produced his short treatise :

We may ask then, at the outset, what does Ratzenhofer mean by social
differentiation ? In answering this question, we must recall first of all the fact that
Ratzenhofer is a monist of the most pronounced type and that all of his social
philosophy is deeply monistic. With this fact in mind, we may answer that social
differentiation, like all other differentiation, whether physical or biological, is, in its
simplest instance, nothing but a variation from the one primitive original force or
power. “All life springs from the unsearchable primitive force.” 1 With this start, the
rest of the differentiation process is comparatively simple. If one postulates in the first
place a single world-filling force, then the process of differentiation can readily be
traced back to its primary source, and the fundamental of all social evolution be
found. This is precisely what Ratzenhofer has done for us. Let us note the steps by
which man and human society have differentiated from this primitive force.
The first step was the differentiation of man from the lower animals. This
differentiation was the direct result of certain innate capabilities, which developed
later into the inherent interest. The process of the differentiation of this one innate
interest in man must have taken ages, but finally man was produced by natural and
lawful means, a being distinguished from all other animal creation by the fact of his
inherent interest. It should be noted here that Ratzenhofer connects human life
inseparably with all other organic life, and, more than this, that he has made of the
inherent interest of man, from which social life comes, a plain morphological and
physiological fact. The differentiation of man from the lower animals happens in the
field of those interests, which are most closely related to the physiological, such as the
sex interest, the desire for sustenance, self-preservation, and so on.
“The first sure concept which we have of the nature of our being is interest,
and this is the guiding principle of the biological as well as the social process.” 2 The
further variation of interests in men is now brought about by man’s contact with his
physical environment. As the life conditions of men are changed, by natural pressure
or the driving of interest, new interests are produced and differentiation takes place.
The differentiation leads men gradually to higher needs and other life-conditions,
which in turn brings them to new interests. Thus, the horde with its unsettled life
changes into the settled tribe or the peaceful community, because of a variation in
interests. In a word, the whole process of differentiation is one of constant adaptation
of interests to new life conditions. With every change of the latter there comes a
corresponding change in the former. Along with this differentiating process goes a
parallel one, that of integration. The latter works for social stability ; the former brings
about social change.
In the factors of individuation and socialization, or the individual and his
group, we may note that the individual according to Ratzenhofer is a two-fold
product. He is at once the fruit of his own inherent interest capacity, and of his
acquired characteristics, due to the pressure exerted upon him by his environment.
This environment is also of two kinds. The individual finds it first of all in the group
or groups in which he lives, in association and reciprocal inter-relation with other
human beings. In the second place, this environment consists of all the physical and
natural surroundings with which the individual is thrown in contact.
In his struggle with the former of these two kinds of environmental influences,
the individual develops his noblest and most altruistic interests. The struggle with the
latter set of influences, produces the more material interests of life. Thus, for instance,
we note how the family trains the individual for all the finer social interests which he
is called upon to use. The state gives him a political interest, the church, a
confessional interest. The land, economic opportunity, trade and other physical factors
develop chiefly those interests which help to better the individual’s own condition.
Within the individual, and springing from his inherent interest, are his social
and individual interests. These are born simultaneously with the individual. They are
constantly at conflict with each other. Now the individual interest gains the upper
hand, now the social. This conflict between individuation and socialization, however,
leads to more developed individuality and to higher social life. Ratzenhofer holds that
the group or the socializing tendency gains the ascendancy, for the individual will
becomes subjected to the social will, and individuality can find expression only when
it would free itself from all social interest. Thus socialization is the more powerful of
the two factors. The individual, though limited and constrained by social pressure, is
not a mere lump of putty in the hands of the social group. He can influence his society
and is in turn influenced by it. The fact that both the individual and the group find
their origin in one common source, the inherent interest, seems to give to
Ratzenhofer’s view a mollifying of the status of the individual, which is not found in
many other monistic theories, such as those of Gumplowicz or Stammler.
__________
1
Die sociologische Erkenntniss, 222.
 2
Ibid., 225.

(German Sociology, Jacobs, 1909, pp. 76 – 79)

This business of ‘monism’ has caught my attention before when dealing with
scientists and philosophers sympathetic to a scientific view of humans, all it means is that the
universe is believed to be a universe. The term ‘Monism’ is a by-product of the intellectual
deviants imposition of a dominant dualistic view,that asserts there is a universe, and then
there is humanity. Or at any rate, that is all I care to think about the matter. I bought a book
last week, Last Words on Evolution, by Ernst Haeckel, 1905, and when scouring the book site
one dealer’s descriptionof Haeckel caught my attention, for he said that despite being famous
for his hatred of religion, Haeckel was a Monist. Well so what I thought, so the man treated
all parts of one thing asparts of the thing they are part of ! How does that suggest he ought to
believe in God ? But it does seem that people like Haeckel took up the standard of Monism.
However I have never had my hands on a work dedicated to monism as an idea, from the
relevant period, so I cannot imagine how plain reason could be made into a philosophy of
reality when its only reason for existence is the plain stupidity of its opposite, founded upon
ancient religious notions that were based upon intuitive bias, serving political ends.
Dualism is a degenerate idea if ever there was one, that reaches back, most
notoriously, to the French seventeenth century philosopher Descartes, an arch menace to true
knowledge, a man consequently acclaimed as the father of modern science, naturally !
Darwin was not the first of his kind, the basic method of mounting ‘false gods’ on pedestals is
evidently a well worn ruse in the modern scientific age. The main idea of ‘dualism’ was to
accommodate science to the intellectually absurd, if emotionally gratifying notion, of a ‘soul’
or ‘spirit’. Descartes achieved this goal by transposing these religious formulas into a
scientific guise in the shape of the ‘mind’, conceived as something separate from the
materiality of the person, and hence akin to something ‘spiritual’. Thus a huge bounty of
obfuscation arose like a pustule over the whole earth, and has been milked by the intellectual
priesthood ever since. Still today, the priests in the universities rant on about this gross idea,
asking if the mind is distinct from the body, and if it has any materiality of its own. The best
way to confound this verbal diarrhoea is to point out that a mind is to a brain,as information
is to a book. Need we say more !
As we can see from Jacobs description of Ratzenhofer, he follows the plan we have
sort to elucidate when drawing on Young’s description of the sun as one original source of
energy for most of the processes taking place on earth. Ratzenhofer extends this principle to
human society, as we do when we make linguistic physiology the font from which all social
structure flows.
From this point onward things go astray. Ratzenhofer apparently makes ‘interests’ the
unique feature of human nature, from whose influence we are to suppose human society
evolves. Whether the translation is correct, or whether Ratzenhofer was an idiot is
impossible to say, but this surely is one cack-handedway to talk about such a subject.
However, we can only deal with what we have available to us, and if we interpret
Ratzenhofer’s work sympathetically, as we would surely love to do, given the point from
which he starts out, then we can see in this simplistic notion of ‘interests’, a reaching out for
something more tangible. And for us that tangibility is found in the physiology of speech.
So that we can see in Ratzenhofer’s focus upon ‘interests’, an unwitting recognition that it is
language, and all that arises from the power of speech, that distinguishes man from the rest of
nature and causes humans to bring society into being at the behest of the all empowering
force of universal nature.
It is interesting to find another attempt at an accommodation between the constructive
and negative aspects of social life,that are always inseparable. We tackled this issue above
when dealing with the function of seemingly negative behaviour such as war, racism and
ethnic cleansing. Here we find the juxtaposition of ‘environment’ and ‘interests’ being made
to compose a feedback loop, forcing social evolution along by virtue of an interlinking
dynamic between these two facets of human existence. But this observation is incidental to
our main objective in sampling Jacobs’ work, which is to take a look at the use of the idea of
‘force’ in an account of human evolution. Something we can only do by reaching back to the
days prior to the suppression of all science in society.
The focus upon the processes of differentiation versus integration and stability versus
change is, without doubt,the heart of the matter when seeking to understand the human
animal. We saw Fairbanks refute this dangerous suggestion by asserting that we must set this
organic principle aside and realise that when all is said and done societies are composed of
people,and it is to the people that we must therefore turn our attention if we would understand
our world. Fairbanks therefore wanted to assert a political principle over an organic
principle, unfortunately, as vital as this deception is to our existence, it is totally invalid as a
scientific idea. The truth lies far more closely to the work of Ratzenhofer, which is why his
ideas are unknown today, while those of the former commentator rule our world.

________

I now have what I hope is a real treat for you, as it is a real delight for me to render
and comment upon a piece of early eighteenth century Scottish puritanpolitical philosophy.
As ever, this selection is an ad hoc product of my casual reading. I just fixed a makeshift
front board to a book I bought years ago for only ten pounds, it is a folio volume, huge, and a
lovely item. Thomas Gordon was the third person to translate Tacitus into English [1728] and
he begins this second volume with a series of discourses upon Tacitus, this is part of
Discourse VI., Of Bigotry in Princes.

THE Story of Saint BERNARD is remarkable. He was engaged by the Pope to

exert his credit and eloquence in raising a Croisade [crusade]. The warm Monk
undertook it zealously and laboured in it with ardour. Even miracles were said to have
been wrought in favour of his endeavours. He alleged a divine call and authority
divine for that expedition, and prophesied certain success to the Christians, certain
destruction to the Turks. Upon such assurances from Heaven uttered by one of its
Embassadors, who sounded the Lord’s trumpet to war, all men ran to enlist
themselves, and whole Cities and Villages were left desart. A mighty army passed
into Asia, most of that mighty army perished : The whole expedition was fatal, and
God’s Providence gave the lye notoriously to the promises of his Embassador, who
yet kept himself in countenance by a pitiful subterfuge, “That these forces miscarried
for their sins.” Why did he not foresee these sins, he who pretended to divine light and
prophecy ? He had boldly promised success without exception or reserve ; and the
excuse which he made will equally serve any Quack-prophet that ever appeared or
ever can appear in the world.
BESIDES the loss of men, which was often such as left the countries that
furnished them little else but Widows and Orphans ; (for the Monks who remained in
safety at home, were to be accounted, not members, but moths of human Society)
besides the waste of treasure, then very scarce in Christendom ; the Administration of
Government was every where neglected or abused in the absence of the Governors,
men, who can never fail of finding business enough at home, if they will
conscientiously perform it. Kings too were sometimes taken prisoners, and for
ransoming them, almost all the money which remained in their poor Countries, always
 made poor by these pernicious enterprizes, must be amassed and carried away to
enrich their enemies.
WE now see clearly the folly and mischief of these wild adventures ; we
discern (in this instance at least) the danger of credulity, the pestilent influence of
delusion. They who were under it perceived it not, and we wonder at their blindness.
Succeeding generations will perhaps be finding cause, tho I hope not equal cause, of
wondering at us, though, they too may have their follies, but perchance not the same
follies.

(The Works of Tacitus, Vol. 2, Thomas Gordon, 1731, p. 70)

What initially prompted me to take this passage, after reading it half an hour ago, was
the excellent manner in which this description of crusades, serving as a perfect means for
controlling the constitution of the biomass under the control of the theocracy, accords exactly
with our assertions concerning the nature of the two world wars, which also served to cleanse
the biomass of the corrupting influence of modern science, and the general decay of Christian
belief associated with contemporary conditions, which we discuss in terms of the open
warfare between science and religionthat is now long gone, and expressly tabooed thanks to
the efforts of Adolf Hitler. I am of course referring to the parts of the above that describe the
decimation of the adult male population, in conjunction with the preservation of those adult
males committed to the priesthood as a way of life.
This mode of organising, refining and reconstituting the fabric of the human biomass
along lines that cull breeding males, while preserving sterile males,is highly evocative of the
distribution of sexual versus asexual adults in beehives. Bees also engage in a selective mass
slaughter of their biomass, along sexually determinedlines. This idea is however too tenuous
for me to take further, it is beyond my reach to sayanything scientific about this. But clearly,
this is exactly the kind of question about superorganic human physiology that ought to be
addressed by sociologists, if there were such a thing as sociology in our society. I was
delighted to discover a fleeting reference in Gordon’s Tacitus to the organisation of human
society compared to that of bees :

What signified the numbers and industry of the Moors, as long as they were Infidels ?
Where the harm of dispeopling and impoverishing Spain, when, with so small a loss,
so great, so pious a point was gained, that of quieting the King’s Conscience and
making the Monks easy ? No matter what became of the Bees so the Drones were
safe, and the Bigot was appeased.

(Ibid., p. 66)

These remarks conclude a passage in which Gordon is denouncing the corrupt

behaviour of monarchs and theircronies. The topic used here to illustrate his point is the
expulsion of the Muslims from southern Spain. He assertsthat amends are made for the
licentious and immoral goings on at court by waging war against innocent victims. The point
of interest for us, is that he chooses to delineate the fabric of human society in terms of the
superorganic physiology of bees, making the working Muslims the ‘Bees’, while the corrupt
monarch is called a ‘Bigot’, which equatesto the queen bee, and the priests are called
‘Drones’. Although there is a secondary point of interest, in that we see how the lines of
demarcation in these cleansing and rejuvenating operations are determined by religious
identity markers, all of which are of course Jewish, which indicates that these organising
dynamics are physiological, because they concern the internal organisation of one individual
superorganism’s living being. What looks, and feels like disorder and chaos to us, is anything
but. In reality war and mayhem of this kind follow predetermined principles, which lead to a
predetermined outcome, namely a uniform society focused about a common core of identity.
If this were not so civilisation could not exist.
This indicates that from a scientific point of view, an intuitive passage, as above, from
the early eighteenth century,was far in advance of anything any sociologist could even
imagine today. Gordon at least feels free to use a sound comparative model for his
delineation of social dynamics, even if he does not know the significance of whathe is doing.
Today we are enslaved to religion made scientific, that obliges us to see humans as self made
animals, instead of the superorganic mammals they we really are. That said, it is clear that
for modern sociology to be scientific, religion would have to be destroyed, and thus our
world would have to be a very different place to that which it is.

It is not difficult to see how interminable crusades, conducted over centuries, from the
early formation of the Jewish theocracy’s overt control of the whole of the European
continent, under the agnomen of Christendom, would of required some such refining and
stabilising device as that which is provided by a system of decimation that selects adults in
this constructive manner, and destroys them, on an ongoing basis. This is akin to the process
of gradually landscaping an environment, that takes place over centuries, whereby the actors
delivering the mature effect do nothing more than consistently snip out this, while leaving
that. Whereupon, lo and behold, a millennia passes and a wild terrain becomes manicured
countryside. How Darwinian ! So oblivious are we to these so called ‘man made’ effects that
today we are in constant need of being reminded of the vital role farmers play in the
maintenance of the British countryside, which would run wild in the twinkling of eye if we
stopped managing its fields, woods and open spaces. We would of course not see the effect
of our downing tools, that would fall to later generations, who, taking wolves, bears and deep
dark woods for granted in Britain, would be astounded at the work of their archaeologists,
revealing, as they would be bound to do, that once upon a time—in our time in fact—Britain
had been a green and pleasant land.
A process of Islamification is taking place today, of exactly this subliminal kind. In a
few centuries time schoolchildren will be taught how Britain was not always an Islamic
theocracy, but how, through the mercy of Allah, the primitive Christian having become
decadent, had faded away, allowing the virile Muslim to take their rightful place as masters of
all earth. Some such process is certainly taking place now, we cannot help but be aware of
this because we are slap bang on thecusp of the transitional phase. It is only natural that
those elements of the superorganism especially sensitive to such changes, namely the
fanatical Christian groups, should react aggressivelyto this situation. Their futile
exclamations however, are like the desperate exertions of a lost beast,stuck in a quagmire, the
more you resist the faster you sink. Yet, as we have been saying all along, Christians and
Muslims are Jews by another name, and when times are tumultuous the reactionary actions of
these sub-Judaic slave identities help ensure that the very thing they protest against, is exactly
what takes place. So although resistance looks futile, this is a political misconception of
events, based on the illusion that humans are individuals. Whereas, in fact, the human
individual is a superorganism, and social tensions occurring between groups of individual
persons are really physiological reactions that ensure the unity of the superorganism by
concentrating the energy of social change upon the core identity base. There can be no better
example of how resistance invigorates that which it opposes than the outcome of the Nazi
uprising against Judaism in Germany, without which the two thousand year struggle of the
Jews for the conquest of Israel could not of been realised, a powerful Germany would not of
been tamed, and science, the bane of Judaism, would not of been brought to heel.
 When we make predictions concerning the outcome of ongoing processes, that are
transforming the identity composition of the human superorganism, itis difficult to be entirely
precise about the ultimate outcome. The ongoing process of Islamification occuring within
former Christian strongholds might lead to some kind of compound of the two slave
identities, although I know of no such arrangements anywhere on earth, one always has to be
dominant, even if it is tolerant of its alternate kind. When the British finished their work of
bringing India into line with the Judaic corporate plan and handed the reigns of power over to
the freshly enslaved indigenous people, many of whom had already been enslaved to Judaism
via the ingress of Islam into the region, the Indians immediately went to war amongst
themselves, along lines of physiological fracture determined by categories of faith. Soon a
new Islamic nation emerged, Pakistan, a bastion of global terrorism today—a war which is
vital to the ongoing process of bringing Judification to the world—and the number one source
of the Islamic slave implantees that fed the initial phase of Britain’s Islamification process
after Hitler provided the initial opening, without which this vital work simply could not go
ahead. Although right now the ongoing work of securing Afghanistan within the Jewish
global planis creating the main pool of Islamic slaves of Judaism coming to these islands.
Wherever we go to war, from that source a supply of religious identity slaves soon arises.
This is no coincidence, it is a crucial mechanism of superorganic growth that explains why
warfare is endemic to the human animal. All of which is therefore exactly as it should be
from our master’s point of view, as they are working to a preordained, religiously formulated
programme—the plan—which is created by linguistic force and imbued into the exoskeletal
structure of the superorganism, the institutions of which provide the base from which our
masters robotically manage the power that drives the realisation of the plan.
Linguistic force generates social structure by acting on individuals. Our masters want
Britain to become a Muslim nation, otherwise it could not happen. They would only ever
admit that what they want is for Britain to be a Christian nation, or they may say a
multicultural nation. The one state of oppression is however the same as the other from an
atheist point of view, and it is functionally the same from a scientific point of view. By the
same token, as far as those who own us and farm us are concerned, there is no problem with
Britain becoming an Islamic theocracy as long as they retain the control established by the
Romans two millennia ago, about the same core ofJewish identity. I refer to Britain because I
am English, but Britain has had a leading role in the process of extending Judaism to all
peoples, and continues to be a leading element in the ongoing process. Britain is however
only a structural element of the global Jewish superorganism, and at no time must we think of
nations as ends in themselves. Nationhood is a structural device of superorganic physiology,
which necessarily appears in the global superorganism bearing the Judaic identity. It is
difficult to imagine how linguistic force could evolve a superorganism with the potential to
go global without a structural device of the exact kind we see manifested in ‘nations’.
Nations divide territories into manageable blocks, interlocking with one another by
virtue of the linguistic formulas which created them through a shared common law derived
from their original Jewish conquerors, the Romans. The result is a rigid exoskeletal structure
consisting of strongly defined segments, in which localised identity is directly fixed by
different languages, all of which are ruled by a generalised, catholic, common language.
Catholicism initially utilised a uniform language of its own, Latin, whereby the old Roman
language served as the language of the priesthood, the elite that rule and farm us to this day
by the same means, the control of linguistic force, which we experience today through
overwhelming force of the modern machinery of law. If law can be made more invasive,
stronger, insinuating itself into every fibre of our being, then it must be. This is why identity
cards will soon be with us, why cameras stare at us all day long, why soon every electronic
communication we make will be spied on, which, which, which, and so on ad infinitum. The
superorganism goes on growing, and there is nothing we can do about it because we, the
individual, do not exist, we never did, and we never will.

None of the historical and political outcomes and activities descried above are as
random as they appear to us when we view these events in real time. Our masters
deliberately foster accounts of these processes that reinforce an appearance of randomness,
by suggesting these major events are about megalomania and power mongering due to the
ever present flaws of errant individuals. This ‘history’ simultaneously obscures the true,
fixed objective of these major events, which derives from the attachment of identity to the
being of the superorganism, making the organization of identity dynamics, religious
organization in other words, the true source of power and the real source of all expressions of
megalomania. The need for obfuscation of this kind is obvious where social structure is
organic and organised over time through the interplay of identity dynamics, since the very
idea of ‘identity dynamics’ as portrayed here requires that each identity must be an
independent subterfuge in its own right, as we see they all are from the way each religious
block stands alone unto itself, despite all that they have in common from an external point of
view. This gives us our ultimate understanding of the relationship of true ‘knowledge of
reality’ to false ‘knowledge of identity’, and hence indicates why warfare between science
and religion is endemic to the human condition in advanced societies. Only by taking a deep-
time view, that makes centuries seem as weeks, months and years, can we hope to make sense
of these physiological processes. But one thing is obvious, the outcome is always the same,
Judaism, in all its forms, always rules. And this is all the evidence any unbiased scientist
would need to accept that the general outline of the process offered here, is along the right
lines.
Christians and Muslims, in whatever proportions, must both be essential in the Jewish
world of the future. It is a question of precisely how the distribution will pan out when
Jewish authority finally becomes complete, when a uniform authority will govern all
humanity, paying homage to Jerusalem at the heart of Israel, of course. The time scale ? Pick
a number ; 5, maybe 10, surely this number of centuries must suffice. Maybe only 2, but that
does seem unlikely. As slave identities are imposed they need to be bedded in, and this is the
real chore. This is where interminable crusades and intermittent world wars come in, so that
much strife and mayhem have yet to be enjoyed before the whole of humanity become one
under the Jewish identity we call God. The one crucial thing is, come hell or high water,
science must never be allowed to exist, as this would be fatal to Judaism. It is far better that
Europe should become an exclusively Islamic continent, than that religion, in the shape of
Christianity, should just fade away, leaving a truly free humanity in its wake. And this is
precisely why a particular process of snipping and leavingis being deliberately fostered by
our masters today. Ensuring that Islam flows in, and becomes established, while Christianity
is supported as best it can be ; while science is subject to a relentless war of oppression, an
unspoken war of course, this is after all a democracy !

Having taken the abovepassage for this express purpose of deepening our grasp of the
functional, biological nature of war, we find much more in it. Gordon rather delightfully
anticipates our era by speculating on the chances of our solving the mystery of why such
slaughter takes place, and whether or not we will of advanced beyond such animal behaviour.
As it is, the same physiological need that caused crusades to be enacted impacts with equal
force upon the same human animal today, as it ever did. If the superorganism bearing the
Jewish identity is to continue its remorseless advance toward total dominion over the whole
earth, which indeed it must, because that is the destiny our biology has determined for us, war
and all that is associated with it must be kept up at all cost. Fortunately we love war more
than anything else. The pick of the week’s news : the French send envoys here to pin a medal
on a 110 year old survivor of the First World War, because he represents the sacrifice that
ensured we could remain slaves to Judaism. English soldiers butchered in Ireland, are
mourned as heroespoised on the brink of setting off to kill people in Afghanistan. While their
heroic comrades, just returned from performing the same mission, upon being harangued by
Muslims while parading their success through the streets of an English town, have their
honour defended by calls for free speech to be banned so that none can decry the efforts of
those who defend our slave status. Boy it is good to be alive in such a world, not !
Further to our ends, we find a superb cameo of our core thesis appearing in the brief
critique of false prophets, reflecting on the manner of beguilement and how all involved in
such deception are driven to perform mass acts, unwittingly, leading to an outcome that
equates to our analysis that describesa linguistic force generating social structure. This is so
excruciatingly delightful. I adore reading old works of this sort, they reveal a kind of access
to social dynamics from which we are far removed today. The elaboration of illusions that
manipulate and control us today are very difficult to see through, existing in the form of
highly complex institutions, in the shape of government, parliament, schools, media and all
sorts of gubbins. My disparaging attack on the precious work of our military is really
intended to demonstrate just how manipulated we are. In this case it is impossible for us to
see the truth without making ourselves contemptible, because the young men who die in the
wars our masters use to control us, do give their all in a belief that is true. As it is however,
there is no such thing as an individual, and when we take part in a war, any war, we are the
most abused example of a human individual that science can ever hope to discern. Unless
our war is aimed at imposing slavery and enjoying rapine, in which case, stroll on, that is
what war, as a collective effect, is really all about, always. In our world this fact is not
apparent because the collective effect of slavery and rapine are so matured, like a cultivated
landscape, that we extant beings take its consequences for normal, so that war in our days is
about keeping the sward cut, and the wilds at bay. In other words, about preserving long
established conditions of slavery and institutions of rapine, the evidence of which is
abundantly clear in the current financial crisis. And now the government is about to pass a
bill instituting the American slave model, where unemployed people are forced to work for
their pittance ; that’s Jews for you, in the guise of Christians of course. This is why we call it
fighting for freedomwhen we preserve our slave status by waging war, because we
unknowingly call being a ‘slave of Judaism’, that is, being a Christian or a Muslim, being
free ! Ants, mammalian ants is all we is.

Part 8

The developing-dispersing dynamic of the evolutionary process, centred on the idea

of force, is unrelenting, it does not end with the coming of mammals, with the coming of
hominids, or with the perfection of linguistic physiology in humans. Forcing energy potential
up a ‘structural energy gradient’ only for the resulting perfected structure to then descenda
‘spatial energy gradient’, does not conclude in the appearance of humans, or in the evolution
of linguistic physiology. Although this is precisely what modern science implies happens
when it accommodates the idea that humans have been empowered by nature to make their
own world, according to their own desires, rather than as determined by their natural course
of biological evolution. This pseudo scientific conception of the present human condition
means that humans ascended an evolutionary trajectory, and then became self aware, and
hence no longer subject to the directive force of the process that had produced them. This
ludicrous idea is represented in every form of theocratic propaganda. The sci-fi
supercomputer in the Terminator movies is a perfect example that subliminally reinforces the
idea that individuality is a real condition, derived from the attribute of intelligence, which
allows humans to take control of their own destiny. It is of course no accident that such
fiction reinforces the fiction imbued into both religion and modern science. All public
information, of all kinds, is pure, unadulterated state propaganda—there can be only one
message, though it may appear in an infinite variety of forms.
So, to be explicit about what otherwise may seem an obscure mantra. We are saying
that what makes this sci-fi movie a further brick in the wall of theocratic autocracy, is that the
story derives its logic from the same core principles from which both religious and modern
scientific illusions are woven. Wherein consciousness and freewill are made something real.
All the story teller is doing,is projecting the normal state sponsored model of the human
condition into a fictional setting, exactly as all forms of fiction always do. Movies are simply
the modern form of mythology, as frozen food is the modern form of nutrition, that ten
millennia ago would of been picked off the rocks by the sea shore. A form may change
freely, but never the essence, or nature of a form serving the same function, in the same
context. As long as this principle of adhering to the false notion of human divine nature is
adhered to, then the variety of ways in which a story may be spun from this principle are
infinite, being limited only by the duration of the authority that dictates this mode of
generating knowledge. That authority is of course religious. Its power rests on the
imposition of identity, the core identity in our world being the Jewish identity, which, as we
would expect, given what we have just been saying, appears in a myriad of forms.
It should now be possible to make the biological function of proliferating fiction in all
forms of linguistic expression clear to all who are interested. The ideas expressed here must
appear unfamiliar to everyone, as they invoke an alien world in which humans as we know
them simply do not exist, wherein we are no longer what we thought we were. Fiction makes
the creation of the complex world we take for granted possible by delineating the social
biomass, as should be evident from what we are saying, for to us these ‘fictions of identity’
are all too real. Our normality is completely fake, being an intellectually produced,
collective, delusion. Reality is something radically different to what we see as normal, and it
is impossible for us to see this reality without the aid of scientific method applied to
ourselves. What this observation leads up to is that identity is the essence of fiction. Identity
itself, is fiction. Fictional capacity exists to create identity.
This is a crucial idea, for it reveals so much about the how and the why of human
history, politics and life in general. Most importantly it reveals why the war between religion
and science is eternal, and why religion must always win. Religion is identity, identity is
fiction ;while science is truth, so that science is reality. Where human identity is concerned
science is anathema. Human identities are the means by which social structure is generated,
this is why science and religion meet head-on in sociology, where science must explain the
nature of social structure, and this is why sociology simply does not exist in our society,
except as a travesty of its true self. Science can only ever give one answer to any one
question, hence it cannot provide a structural basis for a superorganism that is generated by
linguistic force. Science is bound to destroy any fictional basis to the social structure, that is
derived from the expression of linguistic force by reducing all identities to a common
denominator, as functional elements of a superorganism. In mathematical terms it is as if
social structure were based on the sum of 2 + 2, any answer is permissible but one, the true
answer. If the real answer is given we are finished,so any answer but 4 is allowed. As long
as we are discussing that which is unreal all ideas may be expounded with an equal claim to
truth, so that all resulting identities are equally valid, exactly as we find in religious affairs,
where the proliferation of puerile identity platforms is infinite.
Our identities are real to us, as living animals, yet they are mediums of an ever
changing form, a form to which we belong. Only one identity ever remains true at any one
time, serving as the ‘4’ in the sum of 2 + 2, although this eternal identity is just as insane as
any other identity in terms of reality. So that in terms of our mathematical analogy, it might
be represented as any number, except 4, just like all the other fictionsgenerating social
structure through the medium of religious identity. The ‘master identity’ just happens to be
the identity package that came to the fore in the evolution of the living superorganism. In our
time that eternal, master identity is Judaism, all identities are either derived from Judaism or
made servile to Judaism. This is becauseJudaism is the identity of the constantly changing
form of the growing global superorganism. When the superorganism expands rapidly into
new virgin territories it needs a new religious identity, and so it spawns a new Jewish identity,
American Mormonism being the classic example of this process. Language, as the
physiological foundation of fiction, creates superorganic physiology, the product of fiction,
through the medium of identity. Identity is the expression of fiction that exists to provide
individuals with their sense of place within the superorganic physiologyof which they form a
part. This fictional identity allows individuals to perform a functional role within a complex
physiological being, the human superorganism. This superorganic model of the process of
linguistic force, described in terms of the production of fiction as the essence of identity,
explains all our unique and astounding qualities of creativity, most especially the more
obscure specialities of our nature, such as the propensity to generate infinite amounts of
fantastical fiction.
The kicking off in Northern Ireland this week, today being Wednesday, 11 March
2009, is a perfect example of how real our notions of identity can be, with a police officer
shot in the head yesterday as part of a move to get the British out of Ireland. Whether we are
looking at Islamic jihad, Jewish attacks on Gaza or Russian moves against its neighbours, to
select from recent events, all of this activity shows how the delineation of the superorganism
is orchestrated along lines of identity that feel very real indeed under this kind of deadly
pressure, even though these identities are largely products of linguistic force, generated by
our linguistically empowered physiology, in order to create a superorganism, as a natural
outcome of human biological nature.

From our preceding conversation it follows that words are like a disguise, a costume
worn by theatrical performers, except the ongoing flow of conversation in ordinary life takes
place in a social theatre composed of institutions and institutional, or traditional settings.
If we think about the activity of drama, which plays so prominent a role in civilised
life, as a behavioural phenomenon of an animal, we are bound to find acting a very strange
thing indeed. We can easily explain why we value drama, just as we can easily explain why
we value eating, but such explanations have nothing to do with a scientific explanation,
which is necessarily entirely impersonal and purely functional. The drift of our thoughts
above, has led us toward a position in which we have managed to extract all meaning from
the most intimate and meaningful aspects of our existence by introducing a strictly scientific
formula of human existence,which says that linguistic force creates social structure. As we
delve further into the implications of this scientific insight we are able to grasp that acting is
not a weird and wonderful thing, a peculiar expression of a basic human giftfor reason and
expression. No, drama is nothing of the sort. Dramatisations of life are, in reality, the visible
pinnacle of all that is human, in the same way that the floating iceberg is not an aberration of
freakish land that floats, but a normal expression of the extraordinary properties of water,
where water in this frozen condition is only seen as a visible portion of the whole mass, most
of which ishidden beneath the surface of the sea. Likewise, acting is the normal condition of
human social activity that we happen to recognise as ‘acting’because it is formally presented
as a fictitious view of life, something set apart from everyday life. But as we pull back from
social life in order to discern a scientific view, we can see that acting is a uniform part of the
whole continuum of human behaviour, so that in reality everyday life is simply an informal
version of the stylised, staged performance.
Some aspects of everyday life are highly formalised, and as such easily equate to a
performance, albeit they are not supposedto be a dramatisation. In parliament yesterday,
today being Thursday, 19 March 2009, the leader of the opposition was censured by the
speaker for calling the prime minister a ‘phony’. The ongoing television coverage made a
great deal of this little drama, extracting nuances and pulling it this way and that. This was
real life, yet, it took place in a highly structured setting, and these events were public
performances, hence the minute interest from interpreters of the import of the drama. This
example shows that actors within these ‘real life’stage sets must abide by strict rules in the
delivery of their scenes. Shakespeare of course took historical accounts of ancient ‘real life’
performances and made them into formal dramas, and this interchangeability between the real
and the staged demonstrates the fact that, viewed scientifically, there is no such thing as
‘acting’, because acting is merely the extreme end of real life ongoingin human society. And
all this is the product of linguistic force, played out in the fabrication of superorganic
physiology.
Once we have grasped the thread of this line of reasoning we can easily see that,
according to the same principle, all people, at every moment of their existence, where any
kind of communication occurs, intended or not, are also subject to the exact same stricture of
presenting a performance to be evaluated. So that everything we say has a nature comparable
to that of a script, written to present to an audience. Real life, viewed scientifically, becomes
like a play, where the whole of society is a theatre and the whole of our social reality is a
fictional construct, because language creates the entire fabric of society. And the fact is that
this conclusion is an inevitable consequence of the principle that linguistic force creates
social structure.
The idea that life is stage upon which we perform our fleeting roles is far from novel,
but that only lends weight to the point when made scientifically. Of course when we make
this point scientifically,we are seeking to strip life of its personal significance in order to
reveal the nature of human life as a natural feature of existence. At a funeral today, or
yesterday, a sister of one of the English soldiers killed in Ireland last week, by Irish freedom
fighters, described these murderersas cowards. Every aspect of these serious events means
something intense to the individuals personally concerned. Yet, at the same time, viewed as a
facet of behavioural dynamics,these dramatic events are nothing more or less than dramas of
the human condition. We are caught up in these dramas as surely as we are in any natural
disaster, such as a tsunami, though we feel that warring between people is not natural, but due
to human factors that can be dealt with and controlled in a way that does not apply to natural
disasters like tsunamis. Yet this is not really true. Today, 19/03/2009, in an Austrian court, a
man was sentenced for enslaving his daughter for a period of twenty four years, having kept
her in a cellar to serve as hissex slave. His lawyer said he pleaded guilty and was sorry for
what he did, but he had personality disorders for which he was not responsible, and he was
sorry that he had these disorders. By the same token, it is not the fault of the Irish killers that
they are Irish, they want to fight for freedom, and as Irish Catholics that demands that they
try and murderEnglishmen. It is not the fault of the English youths who were shot dead while
collecting a pizza, that they were English, all they wanted to do was to serve the country they
loved, they just wanted to kill Muslims in Afghanistan. The Muslims are not responsible for
their religious identities, there is nothing any Muslim can do about being Muslim. All
Muslims want to kill all none Muslims, or enslave them to their own identity programme, just
as all Jews want to kill all none Jews and all Christians want to killall none Christians. All of
these Jewish identity packages teach the superiority of their own slave implantees, and the
inferiority of all others, so they want to erase, that is kill the others, and cause all to become
one under the same name. No one is responsible for anything, no one asked to be born, and
besides, there is no such thing as a person, or an individual who exists as an end in
themselves.
At the end of the day, the old fable, known to us courtesy of Hans Christian Andersen,
The King and His New Suit of Clothes, which tells of the illusory nature of life foisted upon
us by our masters, indicates that the drama of our social life is nothing more than a linguistic
bubble, waiting to burst if anyone can but find a verbal pin sharp enoughto pierce the illusion
in such a way that it collapses in everyone’s mind’s eye at the same time. It can be done in a
story, and it can occur spontaneously in life where the significance of an illusion to the power
base falls away, as with the sudden dissipation of energy focused on witch hunting at the end
of the seventeenth century. But as long as power is secured by means of any given delusion,
such as religious identity packages, then these delusions will be resistant to all attacks.

Part 9

Once established then, language starts to ascend a new gradient, the existence of
which came into being with the coming of linguistic physiology. This conception, of energy
gradients of life forms, evokes the feedback loop of life that is sometimes talked about as life
dragging itself up from the mud by its own bootstraps, but which is simply the ongoing
process that consists of developing form, expressing potential, developing form, expressing
potential, in a never ending series of transformations. The root of this developmental
dynamic must be the basis of universal existence itself. If we knew how to think about the
origins and nature of the universal promulgation of energy-cum-form, then we would literally
know all that is to be known, a concept which is, however, too awesome to think about in any
meaningful sense. I wonder if the problem of universal being will ever be solved ?

One thing is certain, the solution cannot even be begun until atheism is the universal
norm amongst all humanity. This is so because the existence of religion denotes a
dependency upon fictional representations of reality, which perforce must preclude absolute
knowledge of reality. Therefore atheism is the default position from which anything real
about existence can be known, in absolute terms. We cannot even imagine how we might
think as a collective whole if we took atheism for granted, but for sure our world would be
transformed into something unlike any society ever known on earth, we would become
human, shaking off our animal skin. Tragically, I am certain this capacity for true humanity
is not within our potential, some other kind of animal would have to evolve in order to have
this potential for true individuality, one not doomed to form a superorganism by enslaving the
individual from within. But that too seems impossible, we are the path, but the path is a dead
end. Unlike the computer in the Terminator movies, there is simply no way for humans to
become collectively self conscious. As this work shows, we were on the verge of collective
self consciousness at the end of the nineteenth century, when everyone knew, and accepted as
a commonplace, that humans were a social organism. Then, inevitably, we plunged headlong
into the blackest depths of ignorance and blindness, exerting every sinew of our collective
being to achieve this state of supreme ignorance, in which we glory today, when no one
knows that humans are a superorganism and the very mention of the idea is a terrible crime.
In the face of such evidence of how vital ignorance of our collective self is to our existence as
civilised beings, there can be no hope of our ever being free from the obscenity of religious
belief.

With linguistic capacity having been established, a ‘knowledge energy gradient’

proceeds to be spun from its physiological origins, and thus a cloth of cultural tradition is
woven into a complex social structure. The unwinding of this physiological potential
produces an ‘arrow of knowledge’ leading toward an unidirectional unfolding of cultural
potential that is manifested materially in superorganic physiology, or social structure, or
society, if we want to adhere to these more familiar, albeit primitive, intuitive terms. So this
‘knowledge energy gradient’ could equally well be called a ‘social energy gradient’ or
‘cultural energy gradient’. We are never short of words to use to describe things. Language
therefore ascends a gradient of social structure. On television last night, 21/02/2009, I
noticed, what for me at least, was a new documentary, Guns, Germs and Steel, presented by
Jared Diamond. This offers a sophisticated representation of how evolution works on
humans, according to a dynamic process, but it does so by externalising the dynamic, rather
than making human physiology part of the ongoing process of life’s evolution. I came across
Diamond’s book of the same name a few years ago, initially it looked very impressive, and I
have seen it praised lavishly since then. The documentary began in excellent style by
questioning the inherent nature of humans, with a view to discovering why, assuming an
inherent native equality, some peoples had produced civilisation while others remained in a
wild state of nature ; this was enough for me. Of course, as ever, this work adhered to the
idea that humans are individuals, which is why this finely crafted book of nonsense has been
published,and made into a documentary. Had this work been based on sane ideas it would of
been ridiculed, and outcast ; except for the fact that it never would of seen the light day. As
Darwin did for evolution in general, so this celebrated author made the environment the
operative principle in the process of social evolution. This allowed mechanism, cast in the
shape of things like animal physiology that was prone to domestication, to form the basis of
differential development, enabling the development of farming in some places and not others,
depending upon location relative to global latitude. And so the war between religion and
science goes on, only now the battlefield exists almost entirely within the domain of science,
which has been occupied by religion in disguise. I suppose Young may of delighted in
Diamond’s thesis, since it makes the evolution of human civilisations just one more
expression of solar energy, conforming to the continuum we have already quoted above !
We want to regard human physiology as the basis of human existence, as that
existence is manifest in the way that we live today. Accordingly,we focus on language as the
key to understanding how we live as animals today. As clever and consequently appealing as
Diamond’s ideas are, the best they do is to describe factors acting on the formation of
civilisation, while saying nothing about why civilisations arise as an inevitable product of
human existence, as an endemic product of human biological nature.
Each example of a distinct civilisation, represents the peak of a linguistic gradient,
and as such is comparable to a species arising at the pinnacle of a genetic energy gradient.
We have characterised civilised forms as ‘superorganisms’, indicating that they these
complex, highly integrated social agglomerations are organisms rather than species. And this
is correct, because these superorganisms are the product of linguistic energy gradients, not
genetic energy gradients ; which is another way of saying society is based on culture not race
; saying whichshould please fanatical votaries of political correctness. Our own society is of
course riding on the peak of a linguistic energy wave, and we can easily identify the attributes
of this linguistic wave once we know the nature of humans, which it is our object to make
plainly knownhere. Modern linguistic, or social gradients are manifested in religious forms,
all religious forms function as biological identities. The actual gradient of our society, which
is now global, is Jewish, and according to this fact, we can note that Judaic identity is an
‘engine’of the kind we have been referring to above. Once Judaism evolved as an adaption to
civilised social structure, it became the engine at the pinnacle of a linguistic gradient, so the
production of the sub-Judaic identities, Christianity and Islam, represents the descent of this
‘linguistic engine’ down the spatial energy gradientof social form. Whereupon it crystallised
into alternate linguistic representations of its ownidentity, Christianity and Islam, and a host
of variations of the three main identity themes, all of which have an associated social
structure. The descent of Judaism down a spatial gradient is synonymous with the rise of
Western civilisation, which therefore should of been called Jewish civilisation. But this
literal denomination was always precluded by the nature of identity dynamics within human
superorganisms, which require a hidden core of authority, as we should expect given that
unwittingness is the primary characteristic of the human individual, in terms of their function
as a unit of superorganic being. It is important to understand that the complexity of Jewish
evolution has not given rise to alternative superorganisms, but to a complex superorganic
physiology, pertaining to one uniform superorganism, which is Jewish in its embryonic
origins and Jewish in its final outcome. Christianity and Islam are not separate identities
existing in their own right, and they do not define distinct superorganisms. A fact which is
self evident from the most cursory observation of history and contemporary affairs, but which
is hidden by the effect of linguistic force as its applies identity to individuals in the process of
forming superorganic physiology.
The fine detail of the development-dispersal dynamic continues to be played out in
the structural details of superorganic physiology, as seen in the evolution of technology. Real
engines, heat engines, such as those in our cars, having been developed during the nineteenth
century, once established, represented an engine atop a ‘technological energy gradient’,
which is a sophisticated form of linguistic energy gradient, technology being the product of
highly complex information, ultimately derived from the engine of linguistic physiology. In
much the same sense that we may link numerous diverse manifestations of solar energy on
earth to the sun, so we may link many manifestations of linguistic force to the power of
linguistic physiology. The dispersal of motor vehicles throughout the social space of our
planetis the most perfect demonstration of the reality of our argument, since, for all that the
connection made between linguistic physiology and the spread of modern technology may
seem surprising, it is no more astounding, and no less real, than the fact of the sun’s influence
as expounded by Young in the passage above. The only real difference being that our story is
less familiar because we live in a more primitive, less scientific and more oppressive age than
that which men like Young had the privilege of experiencing over a century ago, before the
First World War ‘turned the lights’ out across Europe, and the world. Young’s was an age
when people talked about progress even as they exerted every fibre of their being to ensure
that real progress, which can only ever exist in the maximum advance of knowledge, was
being washed straight down the pan.

The critical feature of Darwin’s model of evolution is ‘competition’, which serves as

the arbiter of change. Competition is the political idea that makes Darwinism serve its
political purpose,by placing the individual at the focal point of evolutionary development.
Darwin himself thought the diverse physiological types of individuals making up insect
societieswere fatal to his idea, because the presence of individuals that did not exist to serve
their own ends, but rather that of the group, contradicted the fundamental principle of
competition as the driving mechanism in life’s evolution. Darwin was obliged to come up
with a logically perverse fix, that manipulated language rather than taking account of reality,
in order to get around the problem. When we make force the basis of evolution we do away
with the idea of competition altogether, forms no longer fight for a place in existence, instead
they emerge into the void‘awaiting their coming’. To be clear about this we shall be explicit.
Cars did not compete with horses in order to disperse around the world, once cars became
established in Europe and America those places without cars automatically became voids
waiting to be filled, and filled they have been. The dispersal of life works in precisely the
same way, competition has nothing to do with it, there is no competition in the evolution of
life, the odds are always overwhelmingly in favour of the advancing party, which, having
advanced, and thus having occupied all voids, becomes the established order.
The question then is, Why do we pay heed to Darwin in any sense at all, by
suggesting that his model does apply to the developmental process that creates the generic
‘life engines’ prior to their dispersal in a myriad of complex forms ?
The answer is essentially intuitive, rather than technical. Darwin’s theory has been
paraded as the greatest ever scientific achievement, and in our modern, highly sophisticated
scientific world, Darwinism is still touted as science. I have always felt, ever since realising
humans were superorganisms, and that Darwin was a fraud intended to divert science away
from a path based on this true knowledge of human nature, that Darwin’s idea must have
some partial element of truth in it, exactly as Ptolemy, Darwin’s ancient counterpart, had
when he based his so called brilliant science of astronomy on the pivotalassumption that the
earth was at the centre of the universe. For all that the Ptolemaic system was doomed to
failure as a science, if ever knowledge advanced, his celestial model still observed the same
celestial objects and their movements, as our true science of astronomy sees today.
The same principle applies in Darwinism. Darwin based his model of evolution on a
great mass of real work, all that was missing was the decisive, pivotalfactor, that humans
were a superorganism, and hence, in order to provide a true science of life, Darwin needed to
account for the evolution of superorganisms, not just flesh and bone. In reality, it is obvious
that whether the process of evolution involves the generation of new generic types of ‘life
engines’, or the dispersal through environmental space of new expressions of generic‘life
engines’, the mechanism of change in both cases has to be genetic. But in my mind at least, I
feel that there is something to the notion of strugglebeing involved in the production of an
entirely new kind of life engine. Why did mammalian physiology come into being ? The
engine had evolved in difficult conditions, and its potential was released when a void opened
up across the planet after the demise of the dinosaurs. Well, I guess the fact is that I am
trying to accommodate Darwinism because of its immense success. But in reality, the
startling truth is that as long as a religious based authority exists, it has the power to control
society forever, even to the point of obliging us all to think that Darwinism is real, when it is
no more real than Alice and Wonderland. The only reason the theocracy was obliged to let
heliocentrism take the place of geo-centrism, was because it was about to go global, and the
idea of occupying a stationary, flat disc, at the centre of the universe was no longer tenable,
being a hindrance to the governorship of the entire planet.

Part 10

As usual then, with all these damned scientists, they talk the talk, just as Tylor, early
on, showed them how to do, while brazenly disregarding their own proclamations, just as
politicians always do. Everyone is engaged in a performance, they are acting a part,
delineated in a script. When it comes to science, Darwin is the playwright from whom all
script writers take their lead. There is a remarkable book called Human By Nature : Between
Biology and the Social Sciences, edited by Weingart, Mitchell, Richerson and Maasen, 1997.
Its objective was to bring a cross disciplinary forum together for the purpose of examining
the relationship between the life sciences and sociology. When we look at Human by Nature,
a text book of sociological perversity, we find an extensive account explaining why the social
scientist is the supreme politician amongst scientists, loving taboo and political correctness
above all other determinants of what should pass for knowledge.

The political abuse of the biological sciences’ authority by Nazi race policies
should give pause to those who are propagating anew our biological foundations as an
explanation of human differences and universals.

(p. 3)

This is a threat by the religious establishment, acting in the guise of academics, that
says, when interpreted, “You who would apply science to humanity, be warned, you have
seen once before what we are capable of when provoked in this way, and we will do the same
again, and if necessary, far worse. Leave Judaism alone !!”

the legitimate or illegitimate use of biological categories in social science discourse is

evidently as much a political as a scientific one.

(p. 65)

Indeed, and what is the supreme form of political expression ? That is correct ;
Religion.
This passage continues :

To regard the “biologization” of social facts as illegitimate, first of all,

presupposes that a distinction between the natural and the social is available, and
second, that violating this distinction is injurious.

(Ibid.)

Here we have a more subtle and interesting remark, which, at first sight, seems to be
in our favour, questioning, as it does,the validity of the position taken by those who attack the
application of science to humans. But the crux of the matter is religion, and this is not being
made plain in this criticism. There would be no fuss about the biologization of human affairs
if it were not for the existence of religion. When we look at the origins of modern science, in
the fermenting bin of pre-Darwinian society, we find that the warfare between religion and
science raged openly, with blood on the streets, as it were. Darwin put a stop to this, he
provided the means of decoupling the naturalistic argument from religion, by decoupling
humans from nature. He did this by introducing a mechanism that created humans along with
all other life forms, but did not control what was made byhumans. This left humans free to be
portrayed as living in a fictional world of their own making, while, at the same time, allowing
the religious fascist to continue asserting that God directed the way that humans must make
that fictional world.
Science,according to Darwin, left social authority out of the equation, which
inevitably left it where it had always been, in the hands of the priests. The only difference
was that society as a whole adopted a secular disguise,so that the priests were themselves
now obliged to appear in a new guise, as professors. Hence we find science celebrating
Darwin today by describing how Darwin placed humans incontrovertibly within nature,
when, as we have just noted, this is exactly what he did not do ! Such duplicity is an old trick
: if an essential activity is forbidden or compromised,by circumstances beyond control, call it
by another name, and continue as before. Language makes social structure.
The fact that society can be manipulated in its most vital and demonstrative aspects
simply by manipulating the terminology applied to activities, indicates the central role of
language in the creation and organisation of social structure. Think of the still simmering
Iraq war where just talking about “weapons of mass destruction” allowed the fascist
democracies of Britain and America to break their own laws in order to wage an illegal war
against a powerless victim. It is the ability to juxtapose terms like fascist and democracy, two
terms presented to us, by our masters, as being of their essence contradictory, yet operating in
perfect harmony in our society, where democracy is reduced to a mechanism, that enables
autocratic powers that have always been in control to just carry on as before. Language is
everything.
$ Those who control language control everything, because it is upon the basis of
linguistic definition that social structure is organised. Last night, 20/03/2009, on Channel
Four News the headline item was a ban placed on the MP George Galloway visitingCanada.
A member of the Canadian Jewish Defence League (?) said the constraints on Galloway’s
visit were nothing to do with free speech, this was about laws against those who support the
enemies of Israel, terrorists, as he called them. This argument was a beautiful example of the
role of linguistic force in the organization of social structure, and the vital importance of
obtaining control of the meaning applied to social structure by language. Although the
Palestinian authority named by this Jew were democratically elected, he said they were
recognised as a terrorist organisation, and his ability to make this claim indicates the
importance of building social structure on the basis of words, carefully applied. That “sticks
and stones may broke my bones but words can do no harm”, may be true in the playground,
but nothing could be further from the truth in the grownup’s world !
Needless to say the Jews are the masters of all such devices,in all societies on earth,
including those of their so called enemies, since Muslims are the slaves of Judaism. And,
while we are on the subject, we may note that Galloway was due to tour various religious
establishments in Canada, so, Is Galloway a Christian ! It would seem so, and hence, is so,
once again we find the fanatic is a religious bigot, no surprises there then. All of which
unified social organisation is made possible because of the power of religion persisting in a
so called scientific age, withina so called secular society. One can imagine what fun a
reincarnated Machiavelli would of had in the post Darwinian age ! as he sort to decode the
meaning of all the new tricks introduced to convert overt religious absolutism, into covert
religious autocracy. In all of this internecine feuding along lines of religious denomination,
we must not lose sight of the fact that it is through this ongoing terrorisationof the social
fabric that Judaism, religion that is, commands the obedience of the individual. At first site it
may seem strange that Nazi and Jew are two sides of one coin, but, upon reflection, it ought
to be obvious that for massive societies like ours to exist, given that they are orchestrated
along lines of power and force, always extremely brutal—I call prison brutal—it is obvious
that there must be some organised, core body making and utilising this brutality. It is the
binding tension of conflict, ongoing between an infinite variety of the one universal form,that
provides the brutality that makes religion the basis of social power. After all, how could a
Canadian Jew appear on our television screens and command our obedience to the state of
Israel if it were not for his emblem of power, the holocaust, which he brought into the
discussion last night, like a man raising a cross to a vampire, be silent infidel, hear the word
“Six million Jews exterminated” and speak no more. Thank God for Adolf Hitler the Jew
must mutter in place of Amen, every night he closes his prayer to the Lord. Without Hitler
what argument would the Jew have for demanding our obedience to his cause ? And if we
were not subject to an absolute Christian theocracy, how could this anti-Semitic device of
arisen, or having arisen, how could it be made us of today without the obedience to Judaism
forced upon us by our Christian masters? And without Islamic theocracies how could the
enemy currently providing a means of inflicting brutality in the name of Judaism, be forced
upon us,without causing mass rebellion ? The game is simple, but we do not see it because
we are bound up by the threads of linguistic force infused into our being by the process of
acquiring social identity, just as an enslaved ant is locked into obedience to a slave maker
ant’s nest by the exact same device of linguistic force, expressed according to the manner of
its own hormone based linguistic physiology.
I noticed a new book on the internet yesterday called A Twenty First Century
Rationalist in Mediaeval America, the title echoes all that we are saying here about the
mindless control of modern society according to primitive religious principles. The author
apparently wants people to take a more active part in society, atheist people that is, and as
such he evidently has no idea what is really going on to cause America to be so primitive and
socially backward, but I love the sentiment expressed in his title.

When the war between religion and science was in the open authors like Chambers
were forced to publish their scientifically inspired work anonymously, and when doing so tact
was vital, because as it washis work was despised and its author reviled. At the same time
Chambers was also obliged to include a broad defence of his science from religious criticism,
even within his scientific treatise. What Origin of Species really achieved, was to produce a
work that said exactly the same thing as Vestiges, except its author pinned down the
developmental process that caused so much offence, and the offending work was now
presented by a man who had spent decades working in open cooperation with the religious
establishment that pervades the corridors of scientific power, so that his book was able to
simply promote science,while paying no heed to religion within its pages.
The effect of separating science and religion, accomplished by Darwin, is seen in the
above quote, questioningwhether there is a real distinction between nature and society, which
there obviously is not, and whether, even if there were, it would be a bad thing. So really,
when reading the preceding quote, we find ourselves projected back to the pre-Darwinian
argument of Chambers’, since this modern writer is trying to say that we can apply biology to
science without doing any harm to society. The squirming apologies of would be scientists
go on and on. But in making this connection between the modern debate and its original
counterpart, we can see how the debate has been linguistically elaborated, which distances
our conscious ability to connect with the fundamentals of the issue, which are, that this
question of biology in relation to sociology is all about the war between religion and science.
Even when we find the bigots calling on their sacred taboo, by naming the Nazis terror in
conjunction with true science, they call upon this taboo in the name of racism, not its real
object, which is religion, that is manifested in Judaism.
The consequence of this linguistic elaboration, produced entirely unwittingly, by
individuals, in their billions, generation after generation, simply following the dictates of
their own identity and its associated programming, as necessitated by conditions pertaining in
the social environment from moment to moment, is that while Chambers knew perfectly well
what the struggle was all about, religion that is, the would be voices speaking on behalf of a
liberated science, that we have just found an example of in Human by Nature, have no idea
what the real nature of the problem is. No one today has the slightest inkling that the
problem faced by scientists trying bring science to bear on sociology, is all about the need to
seek the total eradication of religion from the face of the earth. But this is the minimal
precondition for a science of humanity, as the history of the last one hundred and fifty years
since the publication of The Origin of Species shows all too clearly.

Part 11

All this constitutes a lovely example of just how the arrow of knowledge is perfected
through elaborate convolutions of linguistic weaving. Producing a pattern displayed before
the ‘social eye’, which is the brain, through which individuals seesociety. We can only see
society through the words that are placed before our mind’s eye. Everything about society is
an interpretation, and this is why we have these behaviours in which people fight over
scientific ideas, to ensure that only those ideas which support religion can be expounded
legitimately. And when the subject is raised, as shown above in Human by Nature, religion is
not brought openly into the frame, as it should be. By this time no one is aware that what this
whole argument about sociobiology, instigated in this modern form by Edward Wilson in
1975, is all about, which is the age old war between religion and science, a conflict that the
supreme philosopher of the social organism, Benjamin Kidd, said was the central issue in all
of human history, in his remarkable work Social Evolution, published in 1894.

There is a rift in the body of knowledge pervading our world, which is epitomised by
Darwinism on the one hand and by religion on the other. This suggests there are two parts to
an ‘arrow of knowledge’, wherein the arrow is associated with religion, and science
constitutes the arrow’s barb, that resists any backward movement. So that all knowledge is
reduced to one illogical continuum, as befits the biological function of language and the
knowledge that language produces. Hence the rift, as it appears today, is an illusion,since
Darwinism, properly understood, is in fact nothing more or less than religion. The fabric of
social structure that the arrow of knowledge is attached to, the shaftwe might say, is the
religious constitution of society. So the ‘arrow of knowledge’ preserves the ‘shaft of social
fabric’. The barb must be fashioned to serve the arrow in such a way that it resists any
retrograde movement that would threaten the decay of the religious fabric. What Darwin did
when he published The Origin of Specieswas to present to the world the great solution, for
which it had been striving, in a form of science that was sterile, that would meet the demands
being made of modern scientific knowledge to answer questions about the mechanics of life,
without going so far as to destroy the knowledge upon which society itself was founded. The
arrow could then be preserved, along with its shaft, while meeting the challenge of new times
that were unfolding as the evolution of the species continued to conform to a long
established, religiously mediated pattern.
It is because Darwin solved this great problem, of providing a partially true scientific
account of life, without taking the science of life far enough to result in a
comprehensivelytrue science of life, that his work was welcomed with open arms, and
instantly transported to the heights of sacrosanct knowledge, from which it has not been
shifted since the first day its sterile ideas hit the bookstands. Darwinism has done the job it
was designed to do. It has allowed religion to continue to cut forward in time, preserving the
social structure associated with the ruling religious identity, despite the coming of a scientific
age, allowing religion to advanceits programme as relentlessly as ever it did over the course
of the last six millennia. No finer barb of false knowledge was ever cut than that which
Darwin cut to refine the chipped and flaked arrow of religious dogma, that was threatening to
fracture and come apart, until it was rescued by the sterile science of Charles Darwin, which
our absolute theocracy is celebrating in all its triumphant glory this year, one and half
centuries after its imposition upon the world. But for all its greatness as a means of
subverting scientific knowledge into a religious function, Darwinism is not unique. Our
advanced, mature civilization, allows us to look back to comparative events that occurred
almost two thousand years ago, to a precise functional analogue of Darwinism that was
created to serve the prevailing conditions of knowledge in the ancient world, where
astronomy was the pivotalidea about which insane religious ideas revolved. At that time
science appeared in the guise of religion, courtesy of the greatest scientist of the time, the
astronomer Ptolemy.
Having at last dipped into the copy of Vestiges last night, that arrived from America
last week, having been repairing the spine with soft leather so that I can look at the book
without it falling apart, I find a most intriguing passage, for our present purposes.

A candid consideration of all these circumstances can scarcely fail to introduce

into our minds a somewhat different idea of organic creation from what has hitherto
been generally entertained. That God created animated beings, as well as the
terraqueous theatre of their being, is a fact so powerfully evidenced, and so
universally received, that I at once take it for granted. But in the particulars of this so
highly supported idea, we surely here see cause for some re-consideration.

(Vestiges, 3rd ed., Wiley and Putnam, New York, 1845, p. 115)

For all that Vestiges created outrage due to its description of continuous creation
according to natural laws, we see that its author was committed to expressing his devotion to
religion. He proceeds from the above,to argue that there is no reason of any kind why science
and religion cannot be accommodated to one another in the light of his arguments about the
nature of life, just as the two had been reconciled after initial conflagrations inspired by
earlier scientific revelations about the geology of the earth, that conflicted with Biblical
accounts relating to the same subject. Science and religion can of course never exist in the
same social space and time, but when Vestigeswas published in 1844 it was still a criminal
offence to promote atheism, so we cannot blame Chambers for his puerile and weaselling
notions of how the two could be accommodated. Chambers’ expressed desire to
accommodate science to religion was met by Origin of Species, which was promoted by the
establishment as science, and as such had no need to squirm in obedience to religious
scrutiny.

Science today is an opaque body of knowledge that fills the void where ‘naked
science’ should be providing forms of science that would see right through all things,
including human nature and religion, leaving no stone unturned. Lets see how the positive
revelation of reality would look, and how the opaque form manages to shut out the light of
transparent truth.
 We are often told that no matter what authority accrues to any scientific idea, it is of
the nature of science that scientific knowledge can never be taken as sacrosanct. The greatest
demonstration of this fact is to be found in the supersession of the towering figure of Newton
by Einstein. Even so, no one imagines that a future science of life will wholly overthrow
Darwin and reallytransform the way we understand existence. When scientists talk about the
passing of Newtonian science they invariably note that Newton’s ideas do still apply at a
certain level of observation, but that ultimately, as an explanation of universal phenomena,
such as Newton’s ideas pretended to tackle, we now know that they fell short of their mark.
And we may suppose that this is exactly how Darwin would come to be dethroned too. There
is, as Dawkins loves to exclaim, a body of evidence supporting the theory of evolution as
expounded by Darwin, that is destined to be eternally true. But, so what, the evidence that
Ptolemy must of presented that sustained the idea that the earth was at the centre of the
universe must of been identical to that which a modern scientist would present too, in a
certain limited sense, since even today the celestial bodies still move through the same arch
of the zodiac.
Instead of celebrating Darwin today, we should be commiserating with ourselves, that
despite the apparent acquisition of a magnificent theory of existence one hundred and fifty
years ago, we remain condemned to live in a world of abysmal ignorance, where religion
stalks us as relentlessly as ever it did, and where we have no prospect in sight of ever seeing
our way past this revolting and degrading way of thinking about life as a product of divine
intervention. No matter how far across the chasm of ignorance Darwinism has caused us to
leap, the gap may of been a billion light years, and Darwinism may of taken us 999, 999, 999
∙ 9999999999999999999 billion light years toward our goal, but like a man needing to jump
ten feet to cross a gap, and to live, but who only managed nine feet, eleven inches and seven
eighths, a miss is as good as a mile, and the man falls to his death. And so it is thatwe plunge
today, in the arms of Darwin, into the depths of ignorance as bleak and deep as ever there has
been in the existence of mankind. Ignorance is ignorance, as death is death, you cannot have
degrees of ignorance, anymore than you can have degrees of death. You either know the
truth, or you do not, and with Darwin as our guide we can confidently say, “We know
nothing.”

Overthrowing Darwin is part of what we have been doing here. But this is not a
scientific treatise. This is a work of philosophical enlightenment. Because science has been
corrupted and made worthless as a means of synthesising knowledge, philosophy continues to
be the sole means of advancing our understanding of existence, something which is
regrettable, and which had seemed, for a time, to be untrue. With the coming of science it
was said that philosophy was redundant, and so it should of been, if science had really of
been realised, as of course we are told it has been. But, as we are explaining here, the fact is
that science has completely failed to advance our knowledge of existence. And here we
explain why, and hence, why this must now be done by a philosopher of science, and why
this task cannot be performed by a professional scientist, whose training fits them into a
mould that precludes the synthesis of knowledge from facts, permitting only the synthesis of
factual models, each model a discrete end in itself, much as the individual is supposed to be
in the ficticious tale of our life and times. All of which constraints placed upon science, have
to do with the higher objective of fashioning an ‘arrow of knowledge’, suitable to sustain the
‘shaft of social structure’, as established on the basis of a preconceived body of knowledge
that is religious. In this way science is made the ‘knowledge of structure’, forever subject to
change ; while religion persists as the ‘knowledge of identity’, forever eternal, and hence
resistant to change. Religion is the arrow of identity, science its barb of restraint.
 Final Thought

When we talk about the force of language creating social structure, we make a
proposition that it is no doubt difficult for anyone to grasp with conviction. It is as if we are
merely toying with words, capturing the importance of language, but expressing its
importance ina manner that seems impossible. This is so because our use of language is so
intimate that we feel we must be in charge of language, not the other way around.
The key to understanding the significance of this idea of language as a force, creating
social structure at its own behest and wholly without any conscious input or awareness on our
part, is to be found in grasping the total unity of our being and our body. We live in the
atmosphere of a planet, and we live in the dynamic of a social flux. Because science has
taught us that oxygen is the element making up the vital constituent of the atmosphere, we
can easily understand that if the atmosphere were to vanish, so would we. Our bodily
connection to this vital component of our world, to which we are connected via our lungs,
would destroy us if it were not there.
Likewise, we must be able to understand that if all humanity were suddenly deprived
of the ability to speak, our world would collapse, as certainly as if the atmosphere we breath
were to disappear. Imagine a world in which speech were no longer possible. What you
struggle to conceive of, if you sincerely try, is what tells you that the force of language, is
real.

Oh to be in the world of Tacitus, where we can think as we see fit, and say what we
think. Oh to be in a land of make believe—but we are ! And we do.