Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 185

There is No God

There is no God

But .......... There is something

Even Better !



Philosophy 4

Essay Title 11

Preface 13

Introduction 16

I The Idea of the Social Organism 18

II Let's Look at Force 31

III The Evidence 52

Part II 75

IV Professionalism 94

V The Echo of Organicism 116

VI The Transformation of Logic 117

VII Organicist Philosophy in Mein Kampf 127

Conclusion 170

Appendix 180

Bibliography 181


Some people may think the news that it can now be confirmed without a
doubt that there is no God is bad news. It is therefore with pleasure that we can
report that at the same time as we discover that God does not exist a new realization
spontaneously pops, so to speak, from the ether of thought to fill the void hitherto
erroneously occupied by the great figment of our imagination that is God.

This result was only to be expected all things considered. It is too much to
ask that something as overwhelming as the idea of God is should be made to vanish
without a trace as if all of humanity since time immemorial had been hallucinating,
as if all humanity needed to do now was to stop taking the concoction responsible
for its delusions. No, there can be no question, God was something, it was just that
God was not what God was said to be, so all that was needed was that people
should see what God was and then God would vanish in the same instant that a
conception materialised to replace the illusion.

Here the thoroughgoing atheist will find an atheistic account of reality

written by an uncompromising atheist for true atheists. Those who control and
manipulate knowledge excel in chameleon like qualities that derive from the power
of language, whereby a cloak of identity allows the representative of social
authority to appear in any guise whilst being of only one form. Thus atheism is
generally written by priests for their captive audiences and as such readily available
expressions of atheistic thought are anything but atheism for atheists and more
properly represent atheism for theists ! Humanism it can be fairly said is a variety
of Christian atheism from which the figure of the Godhead has been excised to
leave only the essential dogma of obedience to absolute authority, now vested in
man supposedly, an obedience then expressed through the recognition of human
laws that are of course the laws of what is called a secularised Christian society.
Humanists do not desire a world freed from the yoke of religious ignorance.
Humanists respect religion and they are always keen to show how they love every
precious aspect of religious devotion, a disposition epitomised by their mimicry of
Christian rituals dealing with death and marriage. Humanism is simply created by a
type of priest to help those who find the lunacy of the idea of a divine being too
much to swallow in the face of scientific knowledge. How much do the religious
like to refer to atheism as just another form of belief which must be welcomed into
the pantheon of religious ideas ; very much. Well here atheism is made available
that is not written by a priest of any kind, but by an atheist, and if the priests care to
welcome this philosophy of existence then I welcome their welcoming of atheistic
philosophy because if they welcome what I have to say then it means that at last we
can kiss goodbye to all religious belief without exception.

The author of this work wishes to make enlightenment available to a world

lying in the shadow of priestcraft. It has been pointed out to said author that people
do not want to know the knowledge that he has it in mind to give to the world. The
author however is determined, he feels it is his duty to deliver this knowledge in
much the same spirit as the doctor of medicine who must deliver unwelcome news
to the patient when presenting him with a diagnosis of cancer, which can only mean
a horrible course of treatment, or death in the near future. I thus assume the title of
doctor of philosophy, by self appointment, and deliver my diagnosis upon the state
of the patient, upon humanity that is, with stern determination and with a firm belief
that the best way forward is an enlightened knowledge of who and what we are. I
can see no possibility that I might be mistaken in my idea of what human animals
are, and I invite those who are made of sterner stuff to look at what I have to say
and see what they think for themselves. Those who have a cross to bear or an axe
to grind will be my implacable enemies, and as such I care not one jot for them in
any way, shape, or form. Let me state clearly and emphatically, I neither address
myself to those who are religious nor to those who are in anyway tolerant of
religion. This work is not for such people, this work must be considered as a
parallel line of reasoning that has nothing to do with established thought.
Expressing myself in political terms I reject the assertion that anyone has the right
to follow any religion because all religions are false and can be proven to be
nothing more than political creeds serving political ends, creeds that function
according to biological principles laid down by nature for mindless animals to
follow. I no more recognise the right of people to be religious than our society
recognises the right of people to promote racial hatred. I make no essential
distinction between racial identity and religious identity, these aspects of human
behaviour are of the same kind and only differ in that religious form is a product of
the linguistic force of information while the origins of the racial form of social
behaviour derives more directly from the genetic force of information.

There are a variety of ways in which I might approach my task. The subject
is humanity and the method is that of science given voice in a philosophical format,
that is science given voice without the authority of a practicing scientist. The great
nineteenth century English philosopher Herbert Spencer pointed out long ago that
philosophy still has a role to play in a scientific age for the specialisation of
scientific practitioners thwarted their ability to synthesise their factual knowledge
into a conceptual whole. Such synthesis is however the necessary objective of
scientific endeavour if the idea that we live in a scientific age is to have any real

As each widest generalization of Science comprehends and

consolidates the narrower generalizations of its own division ; so the
generalizations of Philosophy comprehend and consolidate the
widest generalizations of Science. It [philosophy] is therefore a
knowledge the extreme opposite in kind to that which experience
first accumulates. It is the final product of that process which begins
with a mere colligation of crude observations, goes on establishing
propositions that are broader and more separated from particular
cases, and ends in universal propositions. Or to bring the definition
to its simplest and clearest form :— Knowledge of the lowest kind is
un-unified knowledge ; Science is partially-unified knowledge ;
Philosophy is completely-unified knowledge.

(First Principles, pp. 133-4, 1898. First published 1862.)

With this work I launch myself as a philosopher of human nature. I shall reveal
what human nature is from a scientific point of view, something that all accredited
scientists would deny is possible. This means our biological nature, and does not
refer to the popular meaning of human nature which evokes the idea of common
everyday human foibles and proclivities. However I do not presume to try and out
do the professional academic scientist at their own game, wherein the scientist's
domain is taken to involve the command of detailed knowledge. I will not therefore
attempt to produce an anthropological treatise, although I will touch upon the broad

thrust of anthropological ideas. Accordingly, consider this. Scientists tell us that
the evolution of the human brain conflicts with certain basic principles of evolution
because the human brain consumes vastly more energy than it earns in the upkeep
of the individual animal, so that on a comparative scale of animal brains that of the
human presents an anomaly that conflicts with established scientific logic. This is a
material fact that the scientist can demonstrate, but cannot account for in an equally
conclusive manner because the scientist cannot say what human nature is. The
scientist cannot say what human nature is because the scientist is not a philosopher,
the scientist is essentially a technician, and as a professional academic the scientist
is forbidden to trespass on the intellectual territory assigned to other disciplines.
There can be no better example of this difficulty than that embodied in the career of
Edward O. Wilson, the founder of Sociobiology. Wilson has struggled to don the
cloak of a philosopher ever since he sort to develop a unifying model for the life
sciences beginning with the publication of Sociobiology : The New Synthesis in
1975. He has failed miserably to understand the task ; follow me Ted, and let me
put you out of your misery. As a philosopher I will state precisely what human
organic nature is, and from this position it will be easy for any physical
anthropologist to account for this puzzling mystery concerning the human brain's
evolution. When treating of human nature the proper field of academic study is
actually sociology because humans are defined by their organic nature as social
organisms. Wilson specialises in social organisms, namely ants, hence his close
approach to the domain of sociology got him into hot water when he naively sort to
give a philosophical synthesis while wearing the garb of a scientist. Sociologists
are not scientists, neither are they philosophers ; in truth sociologists are latter-day
priests and like all priest, ancient or modern, they make the art of donning
intellectual cloaks their speciality. Thus, while I shall not seek to produce a
sociological treatise as such, I will offer a critique of sociology since modern
sociology must be dealt with as the major obstacle to a true understanding of human
That There is no God is an idea which has profound consequences for the
way we live our lives and these consequences represent the teeth of humanity into
which I intend to throw myself in the act of publishing this work. This is not meant
as an act of provocation nor as an act of self destruction, even though it surely will
be deemed as the first and as a consequence may well prove to be the second. What
the hell, we only live once, may as well make a splash of it when we can. But blasé
I am not, this is a serious business and the rabble of religious maniacs have it all
their own way these days. I write these words on Sunday, 17 September 2006,
yesterday all we had in the news was a load of drivel about the gaff made by the
Pope in a speech given to some gathering of intellectuals in which he resurrected
the words of a long dead Christian who, surprise surprise, hated and despised
Muslims ! Shock horror. So the rabble of Muslims go off their heads burning and
killing, shooting an old nun in the back, and swearing blue murder at everyone
while the tame Muslim variety raised especially in the comfort of our nice world
appear on television and explain to us poor heathens that their prophet was a perfect
being and we must not dishonour his name, so that if we will but grovel in the dirt
and beg forgiveness then our deluded betters, the Muslims, will graciously forbear
our failings and continue to try and bring us to the same state of enlightened
stupidity which is their joy in life.
I am an atheist, atheism is my passion, the desire for a world in which no
one can call themselves a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew and so on is the ideal I wish
for. Needless to say I cannot make this dream come true, but I can discover the
antidote to religion, and that is what I have done and in this work I will set out some
of the background to this discovery in terms of the argument proving that God does

not exist and I shall bring the point home in the most shocking way by indicating
the intimate relationship between supreme evil and religion, that we all intuitively
suspect anyway, how can we do otherwise as we fall inexorably into the grip of an
insidious global war inspired solely by the ideology of love that beholds the God of

Unfortunately I am a one man band, the ideas presented here are entirely
original to me and they owe nothing to any other living person. This exclusivity is
not by choice, I wish to share my ideas with those who might be of a like mind as
myself and who want a Godless world fit for people to live in as free individuals.
There are problems inherent in attempting to produce a work of philosophy isolated
from all input from others since isolation makes the job of ironing out flaws in the
attempt to transmit ideas difficult. In this day and age however a book can be
knocked off and marketed so readily that a work might be presented in a raw state
whereupon those who read it will have to adopt the attitude of the proof-reader even
as they act as judges of the contents.
The central philosophical principle presented here is that there can only be
one dominant idea of reality extant in society at any one time, and that all ideas of a
sweeping nature derive their unity and force from the adoption of a central premise
concerning the reality they presume to describe. Having selected the central
premise all knowledge is then spun from this point of attachment to reality into a
conceptual cloth with which all reality can then be dressed according to the
principle embodied in the core idea. So broad bodies of knowledge start by making
contact with reality, they then move away from reality in the act of formulation in
order to be able to move back towards reality once again in such a way that when
formulated ideas meet reality the common understanding of reality that existed
hitherto is transformed into something different to that which it had been before.
Consequently true ideas of reality often strike us as different from what reality
appears to be as a matter of fact. Genuine knowledge that describes reality
perfectly and without bias can have the quality of making reality into something
different, as we can readily appreciate when we gain insights into existence from
new ideas that tells us things we have no way of knowing directly, such as the fact
that the world is a spinning ball going about the sun and the sun is but a type of star,
and material that goes into the making of our own bodies was at some time in the
distant past created within the furnace of the stars.
Religion is a cloth woven from just such an initial point of attachment to
reality from which a cloak can be produced in the form of a set of ideas that take
possession of all things in the name of those people that spin the linguistic yarn of
knowledge to produce a conceptual cloak that is thrown over reality. Because
religion is a body of knowledge woven to serve a purpose that is linked to a social
identity the initial point of attachment for the ideas of which any religion is
composed is necessarily artificial, rather than true and hence universal, because
only by creating an artificial point of attachment to reality is it possible to
intertwine a social identity with knowledge of material reality so that knowledge
spun from the selected point of human contact with reality can serve its social
purpose. The selection of the point of attachment will suggest itself, it is not
arbitrary, it must have significance, such as that provided by the mystery of the
heavens or the mystery of life's origins. Both of these mysteries have real
significance for human life, albeit significance at a higher plane of thought than that
which impinges upon the individual in their daily pursuit of life's objectives. The
essential quality of anything artificial is bias, where bias simply means serving a
purpose or function. The word bias is particularly appropriate to purposeful or
functional knowledge as it suits the theory of knowledge given here where

knowledge is said to derive from one specially selected point of view which is
obviously biased toward one particular mode of understanding. It would make no
sense to generate knowledge as a pure representation of reality for this would be of
universal relevance to all who possessed it and as such it could not deliver power to
people by carrying a component of identity giving possession to those who manage
the knowledge produced. It is because religion is concerned with delivering power
to an exclusive group that religions always carry a heavy load of identity messages
defining those who carry the particular pattern of linguistic information that
constitutes their particular variety of religion.
Thus the cloak of knowledge that covers reality carries in addition to its
genuine representation of reality a decorative or abstract pattern that interweaves
human qualities with external reality. In this way knowledge of the sun and the
moon might serve as the basic material for an intellectual cloth that is interwoven
with notions of the human relationship to existence and the unknown forces of
nature, thus imbuing natural forms with a human purpose and so uniting the identity
of a body of people with nature to give an intellectual cloth bearing a identity
pattern that might be likened to a colour pattern for the superorganic social skin
that imprints itself upon the social entity through cultural expression thereby uniting
society with an environment that society consciously identifies with in the act of
forming one collective mind. The idea of one universal God is thus seen to be a
recognition of the common nature of all humanity and the Jewish idea of
chosenness is likewise related to this universal imperative of human nature. This is
why modern religion meets its nemesis in biological science since this science
reveals in a mundane way, through the natural point of attachment of humanity to
nature, exactly what human nature is and so decodes the meaning of God as
understood in modern religion. In effect a religion is a social skin with the same
quality as an epidermis made of living tissue, the social skin performs a universal
function of containment and it also carries the element of identity delineating
different socio-organic structures in the form that we recognise as religious
Herein lies the flaw in religious knowledge that allows us to undermine
religion in the most potent manner possible, causing the actual threads of belief in
God to come unravelled and thus, hopefully, eradicating religion from the face of
the earth. But there has to be more to this effort at achieving true freedom through
real knowledge than just unravelling the mystery of religious knowledge. As we
unpick the religious cloth we are forced to replace the artificial threads of cultural
identity with threads of our own connected to a genuine point of attachment
determined by nature, not by people. The resulting conceptual cloth is then,
figuratively speaking, without colour or pattern, it is pure white, free from bias, it
cloaks all humanity and all nature in harmony. The new threads will however have
the quality of being useless for the reason just given, the purpose of knowledge is to
create power and universal knowledge cannot be the foundation of power in society.
It is however for precisely this reason that universal knowledge sets us free from
autocratic and arbitrary power structures. The question is whether or not people can
organize their lives without obeying the laws of nature which have made us what
we are. That is a question that I cannot answer for the same reason no one can
answer the question as to whether humans might one day colonise the planet mars.
These things are possibilities we can contemplate but only by making the effort can
we discover whether or not we might achieve these goals.

I want to give this work an atheistic intent but I have just written a piece of
work in the guise of an organicist interpretation of the rise of Adolf Hitler which I
think lends itself to an atheistic account of human existence. So this book has the

curious attribute of two titles, and two title pages, since I want the first title to act as
the cover for publication while the way I have actually written the contents means it
must keep its original essay title in order to provide a title that will make sense in
relation to the contents. This work was written as an aid to developing ideas that
have drawn my attention toward an extremely difficult subject for some time now,
that subject being the relationship of the Nazis to the Jews. My starting point is
naturalistic, not moralistic, my method is therefore organic and not historical.
Because this piece of work is developmental and not monumental I have not sort to
make it complete, thus while I have made provision in the layout for a chapter on
relevant works from the second post-scientific age I have not gone to the trouble of
actually writing this chapter, which would involve a good deal of time consuming
work and at this point in the venture this would mean a waste of effort since the
question raised here only becomes of interest once the central idea has attracted
attention and until that attention has been attracted overburdening a work like this
with detail would hinder rather than aid the penetration of the public consciousness.

Last then, but by no means least, it follows from the need for one consistent
message to appear in all forms, no matter how contradictory those forms may
appear on the surface, that we cannot have two modes of understanding existence
that connect humanity to reality at two different points. Thus we cannot have
science and religion existing at one and the same time and place. In a world where
both science and religion do exist only one of the two can be genuine reflections of
what they purport to be. Our world is therefore an absolute theocracy in which all
science is contained by priestcraft whose outpourings obey the one point of
connection to reality upon which religious authority relies. Thus all science in our
world must be understood to be religious science.
This work, being written by an atheist for atheists, attaches itself to reality at
the point of attachment offered by nature itself and as such our mode of interpreting
all things is necessarily in direct conflict with religion, here we might say we have
atheist science. It follows from this reasoning that as both modes of describing
reality arise from common physical realities but from different points of attachment
to those real features of existence, that two alternative modes of interpreting reality
must result. These two bodies of knowledge can never exist in harmony, there can
be only one mode of absolute understanding, therefore we have two parallel
sciences, one true, one false, one abstract, one social.
And since we live in an absolute theocracy in which all modes of expression
are subsumed by the priest under their cloak of authority attached to their false link
with reality, the person who would oppose the priest must reject the priest as being
beyond the pale of humanity. Here we talk about religions, we do not talk to the
religious. The religious can bark all they want about what is said here but the
noises they make have no more significance for us than the barking of a dog that
someone chooses to interpret as indicating the dog thinks Pavlov's mixing meal
times with ringing bells proves nothing about the mechanistic nature of life. It is no
more possible for an atheist to ask a Christian what a Christian is and to receive a
meaningful answer than it is for anyone to ask a dog what a bark means and to
receive an answer. This is so because a dog has no means of knowing what a dog is
anymore than a Christian has any means of knowing what a Christian is. If a
Christian knew what a Christian was they could not be a Christian ; Christians do of
course know what the programme running in their brain tells them a Christian is,
but that is not what a Christian is. And what goes for Christians goes for all cultural
identity imprints. There can be no communication between parallel lines of
thought, either there is God, or there is freedom. And if there is to be anything
remotely representing freedom then we have to earn that precious snippet of our

potential because nature made humans to be slaves and the job of the priest is to
make it so by becoming more of a slave to one uniform expression of human nature
than any other person and then ensuring that all those that the priest has set
themselves above follow suit and become slaves to the same uniform representation
by any means of duplicity, guile, coercion, misrepresentation and brute force that
can be conjured up and brought to bear. Politically speaking this sounds bad,
scientifically speaking it just sounds true.

The Making

of the



H. H.

Godless House


We too often forget that not only is there "a soul of goodness in
things evil," but very generally also, a soul of truth in things erroneous.

(First Principles, Herbert Spencer, Williams and Norgate,

1898, page 3)


Hitler is the blackest name of our age, the monster looming over our world.
Who Hitler was has been asked many times, and answered profusely, borrowing a
description from another department of human interest where they speak of the
Darwin industry (The Politics of Evolution, Adrian Desmond, page 1.), we might
also think in terms of the Hitler industry !

But rather than ask Who ? Hitler was, thus posing a question that begs a
political answer, I want to know What ? Hitler was, thereby stating a question that
asks for a scientific answer.

We live in a political flux and Hitler was certainly a political creature,

therefore it is natural to ask for explanations that come in a political form. However
there is an alternative mode of understanding that is only political in the sense that it
necessarily stands in opposition to political explanations, science is of itself
apolitical. Since the argument presented here is going to split knowledge along this
dividing line between politics and science we must be quite clear what makes the
distinction between these two modes of understanding so absolute.

Political knowledge is, by definition, bias.

Scientific knowledge is, by definition, neutral.

It follows from this blunt statement of the ideal condition defining these two
forms of knowledge that they stand in complete opposition to each other whenever
their judgements overlap. But elements of reality are not found to exist in an ideal
state, reality is a compound of elements that we can refine to their pure condition
for our own purposes ; what one might call political purposes indeed. Thus while
we may be able to define the ideal standard of political and scientific statements we
will not find these ideals in the social world where they exist occurring in their pure
form, this is so because we are all political creatures and therefore when science is
produced it is produced by political animals and made use of accordingly.

Freedom from bias is so valued as a quality of academic knowledge, which

should be pure and untainted with bias, that academic authority is invested with an
elaborate display of independence. Only academics get to rule on matters of
academic concern and the community of professional academics are supposed to
exist as a free body of peers ever free to express themselves and to be judged by one
another. And as I look up from my computer on this slightly dismal August day in
the year 2006 do you know what I can see dancing in the shadows beneath the trees
at the bottom of my garden, pixies all pretty and ...............and if you believe that
there is such a thing as an apolitical academic community, you will just as likely
want to know more about those pixies that I cannot see and that do not exist in my
garden or anyone else's garden ! The things that people are capable of believing is
astounding and this gullibility exists for a reason ; human intelligence, we might
say, exists to make people stupid.

Politics determines what people can and cannot know in all societies, and
our Western democracies are no different to any society that ever existed anywhere
in respect to access to knowledge and freedom of expression. If this were not so
then there would be no room for anyone to think of writing a scientific account, that
is a none biased none judgemental account of Adolf Hitler, as this would already of
been done. But, as we have just noted, science always, necessarily, stands in
opposition to politics, this juxtaposition is usually identified in reference to the
domain of religious knowledge, so called, but there is no knowledge more political
than religious knowledge, religious knowledge is the supreme expression of the
political force in human affairs. Needless to say there could be no more erroneous
association made than that which I have just made between religion and politics as
far as the religious advocate is concerned, they will tell us that we must always take
care to distinguish between religion and politics, but bearing in mind that the
essence of politics is bias, when it comes to religious knowledge we find the
knowledge that comes under this umbrella is exceptionally pure, pure bias and little
else. Religion is as good an example of purity in nature as the white cliffs of Dover.
And hence it is not surprising that when people seek to generate knowledge that is
refined to be as purely neutral as possible the product immediately clashes with that
which is defined by pure bias. So science inevitably, sooner or later, conflicts with
religion. But for our purposes here we just want to note that by the term religion
we understand this to be only one of the more refined expressions of the political
force which runs through all social affairs.

The habit of delineating independent social structures is in reality a mode of

control, it is not a method of generating true independence from social authority.
Why would any social authority want to generate a host of independent authorities
under its supreme authority ? The idea is the height of absurdity. America portrays
itself as the land of the free and bases this presentation on its free and independent
institutions. But the fact is that American freedom is really based upon religious
authority which imposes religious belief on people by allowing freedom of religious
expression. This imposition works according to the principle of cutting with the
grain as opposed to cutting against the grain of human nature ; the fable about the
sun and the wind seeking to prove who is stronger by trying to get a man to remove
his coat teaches us the value of this principle. In one of the first American treatise
on American freedom vested in social institutions we find this

'Nor is there the least reason to believe that free institutions can be
permanently upheld among any but a religious people.'

(The Nature and Tendency of Free Institutions, Frederick Grimke,

1968, Page 237. First pub. 1848)

Whereas, for an atheist, such as myself, the exact opposite is the case. In England,
as in America, there is no freedom of access to knowledge—we are not permitted to
know what the true biological nature of human nature is—and without free access
to knowledge there can be no freedom of thought, and without freedom of thought
there can be no freedom of judgement nor freedom of expression. And in a world
so thoroughly cleansed of all freedom as our world is how can there be free
institutions ! By freedom the American means freedom to be a slave to religious
dogma, which is fine if you are a slave to religious dogma, then of course you will
feel free in America and in England. But in reality no world was ever less free than
the world of our Western democracies ; although the art of creating an illusion of
freedom has undoubtedly been brought to a high state of perfection in our
contemporary world precisely through the notion of freedom of expression,
carefully managed. Perhaps this is as good as life can get ? That is as maybe, I
want pure freedom, unadulterated.

It follows from what has just been said that the work to follow is intended to
be a dispassionate, neutral, and unbiased account of the creation and existence of
Adolf Hitler, an account determined solely by scientific knowledge and principles,
and in no part influenced by judgemental bias.

That said, we might just wonder whether such a neutral account is possible,
and the answer is most definitely no. It is not possible to write an unbiased account
about Hitler, for a neutral account of the making of Hitler is by definition bias in the
same sense that science, sooner or later, is always bias against the ruling political
party's established interests. This is why when philosophers in Ancient Greece
sought to express the idea that the earth might not be the centre of the cosmos they
were accused of blasphemy, they were indeed being blasphemous. The
unrestrained expression of ideas is bound to include blasphemous content in a
society organised about an absolute theocracy, and our society today is no different
to that of Ancient Greece in this respect. The grounds for committing blasphemy
have shifted from the cosmological zone to that of biology, that is the only
difference between ourselves and the ancients, which is no difference at all really

It has to be said at the outset then that in reading a piece of work such as this
the reader is committing an act of blasphemy against the ruling authority of our
society. This cannot be avoided, if being blasphemous alarms you, then say
goodbye now, put your feet up, pick up the remote, press 1 and absorb the soothing
wavelength of conformity emitted by the BB corporation. You will soon feel better
and before you know it the idea that another world exists, a parallel universe of
knowledge, aside from the one you have been trained to know, will be less than a
dim shadow lost in the tissues of your numb brain that houses the blinkered
consciousness you call your mind.


While we may not be able to avoid a head on collision with the ruling social
power base that is vested in religious authority, lying at the core of our social being,
because of the inherent bias in the very existence of religious authority, we do not
have to be intent on promoting an alternative political agenda, even if the result of
our efforts are bound to represent an opportunity for an alternative focus of social
authority to arise in the shadow of our revelations. That people will seek to convert
knowledge into power is inevitable and cannot be helped, and this fact may be an
argument for accusing people who write works such as this of blasphemy and for
seeking to silence them accordingly, but here I shall attempt to refute such a
suggestion and to justify an apolitical, none judgemental account, of how the Devil
in the shape of a man came to earth to open the gates of hell so we could all take a
peek inside.

The creation of Hitler, curiously enough, is at the heart of a true

understanding of human nature and a true understanding of our experience of
existence. There is no reason to suspect that this realisation would result from a
relentless pursuit of knowledge, but it does, knowing what Hitler was and knowing
the truth about who and what human beings are go hand in hand and, remarkably,
this is so because Hitler played a central role in protecting society from the truth by
bringing the truth into disrepute.

This book then, is not really about Hitler, it is about human nature, human
nature as determined by a correct scientific approach to the question of what human
nature is. The appearance of Hitler sealed the fate of the scientific study of human
beings and thus handed society back to the core authority that rules society today as
it has always ruled society through the medium of pure political bias that we call

Human beings are animals, they are organic entities and, in common with all
life forms, humans evolved to be what they are, humans exist in strict obedience to
the laws of nature, just as much as any other organisms. Ideas that tell us we are
divine, or that we are free agents, are just the fruits of political bias that enable us to
be the creatures that nature has made us to be. Political bias is natural, but it is not
science, so if we want to understand ourselves we must have a clear understanding
of what political bias is as a force of nature, and why this political force exists, and
we will seek to develop this understanding now.
The reason Hitler should be presented as the figurehead of a scientifically
inspired essay on the true nature of human nature has to do with the fact that his
appearance marked the end of a period of scientific enquiry into the nature of
humans as organic beings, and it is the association of the monster Hitler with these
investigations into humans as animals that capped the science of humanity, and so
enabled the social authorities dependant upon religion for their power to once again
take up the reigns of control over academia undisturbed by the nagging facts of
reality. It is not for no reason that God has his counterpart in the shape of the Devil,
these two political forms are one and the same thing appearing in alternate postures.
It follows from what has just been said that the substance of this work must
consist of an account of the scientific investigation of human nature that we will
find led inexorably to the creation of the human Devil as a flash of anger shown to
those who sort to know the truth, a flash of anger which once abated could allow
God to sit easy on its thrown once again. Let us begin then.
We will have some general discussion of the main subject matter in the
opening section. This will take the form of a free flowing philosophical exposition
of the author's ideas that will introduce the reader to the unfamiliar mode of
thinking to be found in this unconventional work. In part two we will move on to a
consideration of the kind of material that supports the preceding discussion and
justifies the ideas expressed in the opening section. The second part will continue
to build upon the challenging analysis that includes Hitlerian philosophy in the
philosophical scheme of this work. Such a method, offering, as it does,
accommodation to an outcast ideology, cannot help but implicitly initiate the
normalisation of a view of life that is still very much anything but a normal facet of
human philosophy. Is this a reckless act of inclusion made too soon, or, in the light
of the new challenges that have emerged at the very beginning of this millennium,
is this a bold action offering a timely opportunity for us to exercise our ability to
examine ourselves with a more intense degree of sincerity than that which we
ordinarily manage ? You decide.

Chapter One

The Idea of the Social Organism

Once you have entered upon a path of inquiry that says humans are animals
and that humans evolved you have taken the first step on the road to a head on
collision with the idea of God. The most succinct and simple way to explain the
mutual exclusivity of the idea that there is a God, as we know God in the Jewish
religions, and the idea that humans are animals that evolved as part of the planet's
fauna, is to note that there can only be one point of origin for any particular thing, a
point of origin is in effect a determining authority in the search for truth, and as
such we are saying there can only be one ultimate point of authority and these two
ideas, that there is a God and that humans are animals that evolved, each name a
different point of authority as the point of origin for humans, only one can therefore
be correct, either there is a God or there is biological evolution, both explanations
cannot exist side by side.
This said however, the fact remains that religion continues to rule our world
as it has always done while we all know and accept that humans are animals, and
humans did appear via a process of biological evolution. The emergence of
scientific knowledge concerning the evolution of life was irrepressible once society
set upon the road to an open examination of all things, and this openness was
inevitable with the emergence of the first culture with the potential to go global. It
is difficult to see how any strictly authoritarian culture could develop the means to
dominate all other cultures without developing this openness toward knowledge. At
the same time the unity of this global culture was dependant upon its religious
identity, and thus God could not be dethroned as the ultimate source of authority
without at the same time destroying society. Thus we have the makings of a
fundamental conflict that cannot be managed by any simple means such as setting
the discussion of certain aspects of existence, namely the nature of humans, beyond
that which it was permissible to discuss ; although at first the religious authorities
did indeed impose themselves upon those who sort to question the nature of
humanity in terms beyond the lines of thought laid down in the Bible. This method
of control was however doomed to become redundant, another method was
essential and this method had been established long ago, the theocratic powers had
long ago set themselves up in the business of knowledge management through their
control of academia as manifested in the universities. And this academic method
continues to control knowledge in the name of religion to this day, only now the
method of massaging the knowledge flux is remarkably sophisticated in terms of
the way the link between religion and so called secular knowledge is disguised.

We can see that a certain logic is coming to the fore in our argument here.
We are beginning to tease out the idea that various strands of thought resonate
through the social body and in this way a uniform flux of information is broadcast
eternally, and broadcast in such a way that the two basic components of knowledge,
the political and the scientific, that equate to the identity and form, blend into one
message in terms of the information that creates a living being. These two elements
of knowledge can be reduced to a common form by substituting the terms identity-
knowledge and practical-knowledge in place of the words religion and science. An
example can be drawn from everyday life to illustrate the thinking behind this. A
car consists of two basic knowledge components, that which gives it its technical
attributes and that which gives the vehicle its outer form through which we interact
with a car on a more personal level. The identity of a machine like a car and the
practical aspects of the machine are related to each other in ways too obvious for us
to bother describing. If we think of organisms as machines then we can also
identify the same dichotomy of identity and practicality and the outer form by
which the organism knows itself will be influenced by its structure, but there are
general principles concerning the nature of identity and the nature of structure that
must apply to all life forms.
Thus, by definition, life must know itself, that is what distinguishes life from
none life, living entities must carry identities in order to be alive since what defines
life is the act of growth and reproduction. Furthermore there will always be this
division between identity and structure whereby the information that generates
identity and the information that generates structure are blended into each other,
whilst that information which generates identity will always be unconstrained and
as such only true in its own terms, whereas that which generates structure will be
fixed by the functional requirements of the structure to be generated and as such
this structural information will be obliged to be true in literal terms. Hence we can
say that the technical details of a motor vehicle are fixed and as such true since they
must apply at all times to all vehicles made according to any given plan, whereas
the outer form of the car, the colour for example, is not true, or fixed by the
structure, any vehicle can be given any colour ; unless camouflage is part of the
technical specification.
All this might seem like a rather abstruse discussion but it is intended to get
to the heart of the reason why we have this eternal conflict between the needs of
social authority and the personal freedom to know the truth. Why is it not just
possible for a free society to exist ? So much is this conflict inherent in society that
in the first truly free society ever to exist we make freedom the supreme object of
our existence only to find that the social authorities have only developed the desire
for freedom as a political formula serving as a means of controlling knowledge and
preventing us from knowing the truth which must inevitably conflict with the
religion which gives the social authorities their power over society by keeping
authority at the focal point of the knowledge flux that gives the biomass of society
its identity. This is why religion always stays in the thick of all our woes, even in a
so called secular age of science.

Now, I have been setting out the preceding discussion on the basis of a
particular point of view which is a strictly scientific view of existence and which as
yet I have not spoken about, although I have made this central scientific idea the
subject of the title for this chapter. Human beings are a particular kind of organism,
humans are a superorganic species where the individual animal takes shape at the
level of social organization. This knowledge of human nature was the inevitable
result of applying science to the study of humanity and everyone knew the true
nature of humans until the time when the First World War turned the lights out
across the world and wiped this scientific knowledge from the structure of society
to be replaced by the theophilic pseudo science that dominates academia today.
If you think of society as a living organism then the preceding discussion
concerning the relationship between religion and structure, as it is related to the
manner in which life forms acquire an identity intimately related to their structural
form, will immediately make some sense ; hopefully. All of my thoughts about
human existence are informed by the knowledge that human nature is corporate,
corporate because humans evolved to bring a living body, an organism, into being
at the level of social organization. In The Encyclopedia of Secret Knowledge by
Charles Walker, 1995, we learn that occultists used the beehive to symbolise the

"body corporate". This conception was intertwined with mythical imagery to do
with eternal truths and human souls, but it is nonetheless an evocative rendition of
the scientific idea presented here that shows how the mystics intuitively created
religious ideas that connected with scientific reality and thereby served to make the
human hive evolve according to the laws of nature that brought humanity into
As I wrote the preceding passage last night, 21/08/2006, Channel Four were
broadcasting The Hitler Family examining the consequences of being related to the
greatest criminal of the twentieth century. Hitler was repeatedly described as the
greatest criminal of the twentieth century as if he was somehow responsible for the
Second World War and the holocaust in which some six million Jews, and various
other irrelevant people, irrelevant as they were not Jewish—the holocaust always
being promoted as an expressly Jewish affair—were slaughtered in a particularly
cruel, calculating and sadistic manner. Hitler is made responsible for the bad things
as Churchill was our saviour and responsible for the good things.
In his autobiography, described on the programme just referred to as a kind
of mission statement, Hitler goes to some length to reject the notion of democracy
as worthless because democracy negates the possibility of meaningful responsibility
centred upon an individual who takes decisions. Accordingly he promotes the idea
of personal responsibility focused upon the leader to its maximum value, and thus
he was indeed a supreme example of a cult personality. And therefore the way our
social authorities represent Hitler is exactly in accord with the way Hitler
represented himself, the nature of our social authorities and the nature of Hitler can
therefore be seen to be born of a common philosophy about the nature of human
existence. As they say, it takes two to tango, two to make an argument, and
although they do not say it, it is also true that it takes two to make a war.

The cult of the personality is a central pillar of the bias account of humanity
that we have described in terms of the political mind set. Science ideally seeks to
shun all bias and therefore to be entirely apolitical. Thus it follows that from a
scientific point of view the role of individuals in social phenomenon is, by
definition, entirely irrelevant because social movements are social and not
individual, and social movements must occur as a result of social forces that follow
a course predetermined by the prior course of events that have organized the
ongoing social structures that carry individuals along as agents of the supra-
individual social structure. In a superorganism, such as a bee colony or a human
society, the activity of the individual organisms only makes sense, only achieves
some biological end, in the creation of social structures, thus the social structures
are the organism. Hence in a bee colony the wax combs and the honey they contain
are in effect the organic being brought into existence by the actions of the bees that
evolved their individual form in order to create this superorganic exoskeletal
structure. In human society the equivalent of the wax combs is the fabric of the
society, the villages, towns and cities and the store of energy held throughout the
territory occupied by the organism that is composed of the exoskeletal structures in
which the living biomass of the organism is housed consists of the domesticated
flora and fauna. So the domesticated livestock and other foodstuffs are the fat
tissues of the human organism that individual humans exist to create just as honey
is the fat tissue of the bee that individual bees evolved to create. Of course there are
other elements of the superorganic structure that demand our attention, the
existence of the central authority that unites the organism into a whole being,
authority invested in the queen bee and the religious organ of identity that are
organs of major importance.

Human beings do not choose to live by farming rather than living by hunter
gathering anymore than bees choose to live by storing honey as opposed to the
immediate consumption of nectar. Both these natural behavioural phenomenon
have arisen as a consequence of these animals evolving individual physiologies
along with their associated behavioural strategies that together are formed so as to
create an organic being at the level of social organization. Humans are
superorganisms pure and simple.
The idea that society is a social organism, when expressed and understood
as a true scientific idea, effectively makes the social organism the closest thing we
can get to defining a human individual while at the same time reducing the person
to the status of a unit of the superorganism. The person therefore has no real
independent existence from a scientific point of view. Accordingly the cult of the
individual can only be pure fiction, pure myth, pure politics, a linguistic fabrication,
and notable leaders like Hitler and Churchill, or Bush and Blair, are mere
figureheads carried along at the forefront of a structural organ, they are the face
appearing on the exoskeletal casing which houses the brain of the superorganism.
Leaders are the personalised expression of superorganic authority, which accounts
for their bizarre, self-righteous and generally incomprehensible behaviour that is
usually completely at odds with what the mass of people actually think about life.
Hence although it is quite rare to meet very religious people in ordinary life
political leaders are invariably deeply religious individuals, as they must be in order
for the social forces that induct individuals into the role of a public face serving the
theocracy that we call Western Civilisation to draw them toward their positions of
political power.
The consequences of thinking about political history in these strictly
biological terms are such as to erase all common knowledge and to deliver an
account of phenomenon such as that of the great criminal Hitler which loses all of
its meaning and significance. Given this fact it is not surprising that we do not have
a science of humanity in any sense whatever. All we have is the politicised science
fed to us via the academic structure serving the core social authority that forces us
to think along political lines by making political meaning real by acting politically.
We noted that all life forms have to have a political dimension that is self
defining, in other words the identity of an organism establishes its own reality by
existing, so that an organism's identity does not derive from or relate directly to any
other reality. The identity of a life form is a self defining element of reality. The
identity of a life form needs no other conformation of its reality than its own
existence. This is why religion is its own authority, authority that is independent of
any material evidence, as indicated by the fact that mere belief without supporting
material evidence is a core value of religious conviction. Religion is the colour that
identifies superorganic physiology. A familiar example of the linguistic mechanism
whereby reality can be created by acting on an idea is provided the fact that people
are in reality subhuman when they are defined by people who are in a position to
treat them as being subhuman. Thus when black people were defined as a
subhuman species of humans and treated like livestock they were in reality a
subhuman species by virtue of the life they led due to the way their society treated
them. From the initial bias political idea that black people consisted of inferior
races a pseudo scientific idea was generated to support the politics so that
arguments were developed about racial hierarchies determined by biology. It was
not intended to discuss the idea of racial identity in this work despite the importance
of racism in Hitler's political philosophy. This said, in the final chapter we will
look at a correct scientific explanation for racial phenomena since this is important
to an understanding of Hitler's political philosophy. At this point however we only
need a real life example of how reality can be conjured up from a false, that is to

say from a bias, or political starting position. We all know that black people are not
subhuman and we all know that God does not exist, but while most would accept
the former few will accept the latter fact in public, so we choose the former in order
to illustrate the desired point that reality can be made from a false idea. All
political ideas are, by definition, woven from false premises, it is not possible to
have a political idea that is not derived from an initially false premise. Politics is
meant to be bias, what use would politics be if it did not favour someone in
opposition to some other ? None whatsoever. The art of politics is about balancing
the resulting tensions by giving appropriate value to the false premises of each party
that is able to deliver a political influence on the basis of their initially false premise
from which they take their identity. Multiculturalism is an example of a convoluted
political system that aims to place equal value upon all false ideas, from which it
follows that by creating a level playing field for all comers the strongest will be
master. Thus multiculturalism allows the ruling authority to continue to rule on the
basis of multiculturalism's own particular false premise that pretends to make
equality the supreme social value in which all have an equal interest. Whereas in
reality, in a society composed of numerous identities, only the ruling authority has
an interest in the idea of equality for this alone ensures that only the supreme
identity can prevail ; otherwise why would a uniformly European population decide
to relinquish its identity to aliens as we have done in Britain since the last world
war ? Needless to say in asking this question we make it implicit that the ruling
identity in Britain is neither British nor European, it is in fact Jewish, although
represented by the Christian arm of Judaic identity. Put like this we instantly see
why the ruling authority would welcome the alien Islamic identity, because Islam is
not alien to Judaism ; while conversely, British, or European identity, most
definitely is alien to Judaism, for precisely the reasons Hitler said racial or
territorial identity was alien to Judaism.
For multiculturalism to work as a dogma serving one absolute master
identity it does of course require a social body that is composed of a multiplicity of
social entities all of which are based upon false premises derived from one
universally acknowledged core value. In our multiculturalist system the core false
value is the idea that there is one universal God. Thus even fair minded politics is
only a convoluted expression of bias. It can easily be imagined just what depths of
malevolence people have to have within them to bring into being a successful social
system where all knowledge is twisted and perverted to always achieve one
common end. No wonder politicians, as the supreme example of good people, are,
at one and the same time, the worst insult to humanity that we can ever conceive of.
Tony Blair, the good man ; Tony Blair, the war monger. Multiculturalism cannot
result in equality, it can only produce the age old social structure which is a
hierarchy of related groupings, reformulated in a suitably modern idiom that relates
to the current form of identity composition colouring the superorganism via the
force of language which has generated the superorganism's physiology.

Continuing to apply our unbiased scientific logic we need to describe the

proper way to understand the natural bias of political thought. We have spoken
about politics as a natural social force and as such we experience this force in the
form of behaviour, such as that behaviour of Hitler's which allows other elements of
the social structure to speak of Hitler in political terms as a supreme criminal.
Beyond the political behaviour however lies that human attribute which is a pure
natural force, language. Language is a natural force that creates social structure,
political behaviour is one manifestation of the creative force of language. Language
creates social structure wholly independently of any individual will or
determination, in precisely the same way genetics produces living forms wholly

independently of the will or determination of the cells or organs of which the whole
organism consists. Thus the point is not that Hitler generated the world war or the
holocaust but that the world war and the holocaust had to happen as a consequence
of the physiology of the superorganism we live within and form part of, Hitler just
happened to be the individual that society generated to perform the vital role of
reorganising society about its religious core. Hitler was one face on the exoskeletal
casing housing the authority of our social organism at a particular point in time.
Just as we can laugh or cry, grimace or smile so the personalised features of
superorganic authority can be multifaceted too and bear an evil image of a Hitler
alongside the benign image of a Churchill. These two leaders were part of one
organic being representing an internal state of tension that required a war to resolve
that tension, they were not two enemies, this latter representation is a political myth
made real by action but in truth no more real than the political myth that black
people are an inferior subhuman species which was made artificially real by the
reality of the slave trade and its associated laws of segregation.

Once again I am stating conclusions informed by my prior understanding of

the significance of the fact that humans are a superorganic species that form social
organisms. In order to understand the ideas expressed in the preceding paragraph
you need know about the idea of the social organism, by which I do not mean that
you need to understand the nature and significance of the social organism, I mean
you need to know about the idea of the social organism as distinct from
understanding what the social organism is and how it works.
The reason we need to know about the idea of the social organism is that
this idea existed as an expression of the linguistic force that generated new social
structure as a result of this new idea which in turn clashed with the religious ideas
at the core of the established social structure. It was this clash of ideas that resulted
in the emergence of Adolf Hitler and all that we associate with this man's name.
Thus the connection between the idea of the social organism and the existence of
Hitler could not be more significant, without the development of the idea that
human beings were a superorganism Hitler could not of come into being. Hitler
was a product of the society in which he lived and in no sense whatever is it correct
to speak of Hitler as being responsible for anything. We can be sure that Hitler
would object to the account of himself given here, but we do not ask the mad man
to explain his actions because we do not expect him to know why he does what he
does. And for the most part this state of unwittingness applies to all of us all of the
time in terms of the driving forces dictating our actions and lifestyles. Leaders
certainly take on a more self conscious persona, but it is only a persona, leaders are
no more aware of why they do what they do than the rest of us are. There could be
no better example of a mindless leader than that of Tony Blair in the run up to the
disastrous ongoing war in Iraq where the best statement we ever had from him on
his reasons for going to war was that while he knew people thought it was a bad
idea he thought it was a good idea and that was all he could say on the matter ; each
to their own ! Likewise the weird habit of extremely powerful leaders taking
comfort and assurance from fortune tellers reveals the true nature of leadership as
well as anything could.

In The Hitler Family Hitler's book Mein Kampf was described as a mission
statement, I suppose this is a fair statement to make given that Hitler opens by
saying that he intends the work to be for the benefit and instruction of his followers.
It is also described as being shot through with expressions of hatred and certainly he
does resort to unrefined expressions of hatred for political systems and of course
specifically for the Jews. However the book is substantial and it argues its own

case in a perfectly coherent manner, albeit there are few specific examples of actual
cases being described when general criticisms are made of organizations. This is
not surprising given that it was written in a prison cell and not in a gentleman's
study, but what we can take away from this work is an impression of the general
social conditions in which Hitler grew up and developed, and since we have just
noted that science reveals that individuals function as units driven by the linguistic
force that creates social structures and directs the flow of activity taking place
within those structures then it follows that if we can obtain a picture of the
conditions that created Hitler then we can develop our understanding of the
underlying social processes of relevance to the occurrence of the events that are
falsely attributed to his will and malice.

It is difficult to build up an adequate picture of the social conditions that

created Hitler in terms applicable to our naturalistic argument because the
undercurrent of social ideas responsible for the Hitlerian social phenomenon have
been erased from the record as effectively as possible without actually overtly
declaring, in Hitlerian fashion, that such and such ideas are outlawed. Our
theocratic dictatorship operates covertly by sheer overbearing force, using such
convoluted ploys as the smiling face of multiculturalism, and the resulting control
delivered through the organization of social structure in the form of favoured
identities and their associated propaganda.

The idea that society is a social organism was inherently scientific and
inherently apolitical, it spelt the death knell for religion, all religion. Think of this,
a world in which no one can call themselves a Christian, a Jew, a Moslem, a Hindu
and so on without being in direct conflict with science and the academic institutions
which house science. This was never going to happen, but the idea of the social
organism is the only possible explanation for human existence as we know
ourselves to be, and it was out there and all over the place. Worst of all this idea
permeated the academic structures themselves, the very structures that existed to
control knowledge in the name of the theocracy ! This idea had to be got rid of,
how was this to be done ?

We know how this idea was destroyed, the world wars played a central role
in the eradication of science from society by fracturing the established exoskeletal
structure and decimating a portion of the living biomass and so returning society to
its natural state of enslavement to religious ideas, which has brought us to the
position we are now in with the global war on Islamic inspired terror which
continues the life cycle of our organism based on religious identity and all that goes
with the expression of the creative linguistic force organized about the religious

War is not a political phenomenon that individuals are responsible for. War
is a natural human behaviour, and as a natural behavioural activity, like making
love or eating, war is an organic phenomenon that can be differentiated from eating,
for example, only in that it more particularly has to do with the organization of the
superorganic being. This is why in warfare the individual is required to give up
their personal identity to become a part of the whole. In a documentary about
Ghengis Khan screened on BBC 2 this week, today being 22/09/06, a quote was
taken from this greatest of all military leaders that expressly stated this requirement
for the warrior to relinquish his self to the existence of the greater being. The
emergence of unrestrained scientific knowledge is always anathema to the identity
of the organism that knowledge creates as the fruit of the linguistic force because,

as noted above, identity is a self defining attribute of an organism. Clearly any self
defining attribute of an organism is prone to interpretation by another life form that
utilises the same basic units of the identity code. This is what allows parasitism to
take place where, for example, some animals cloak themselves in ant pheromone to
take advantage of the specialised superorganic physiology of ant colonies as a
source of security and food. Some butterfly larvae do this only to be followed into
the ant nest by a parasitic wasp that does likewise in order to attack the butterfly
larvae. It has to be said that this process of social information manipulation is too
incredible to be believed, it just happens to be true. With this kind of unbelievable
power at a superorganism's disposal it is no wonder we see the modern forms of
religious slave identity creating an extraordinary human global superorganism.
When humans turn their attention upon themselves to understand their own
superorganism's mode of self definition they dissipate the identity of the living
being for those who are overtly enslaved to the identity vested in God. So they
dissipate God's identity, and by exposing those enslaved to God's identity to an
abstract decodification they threaten the enslaved devotee of religion with personal
destruction. In being reduced to the status of a biological phenomenon in the shape
of a superorganism God is no longer the same thing precisely because God and the
superorganism are now rendered into the same thing ; so that God is no longer what
God was.
It follows that knowledge must be contained as part of the process of
superorganic evolution. Society either self destructs under pressure from the
linguistic force that creates social structure or society persists by finding a measure
of compromise that establishes a balance between knowledge and identity that
allows all social force to flow in one harmonious direction dictated by the
knowledge of identity. War is a process that involves a moment of self destruction
that reorganizes the social structure about the established core of the social
structure. The way this reconstituting effect is achieved cannot be controlled
directly in a political manner, no person or group of people could possess sufficient
knowledge to perform this task as adjustments can proceed over the course of
decades as the life cycle of the organism rotates for periods measured in centuries
that in our case can be traced back continuously over several millennia. No wonder
the best poor Mr Blair could do was to say that he knew it was right to go to war, he
just could not say why he knew what he knew ! because he did not know why he
possessed this knowledge !!
The way in which the stabilisation about a core identity is realised in a state
of tension between the knowledge of reality and the knowledge of identity has to do
with the generation of social structures that preserve the core identity and organize
resistance to decay through a process that affiliates individuals to the core identity
fixed in the social structure, in other words fixed in the exoskeleton within which all
individuals live out their lives. This process of attachment sets in place a
superorganic structure with a built in feedback mechanism connecting the structural
fabric to the living tissue that defends the structures immortal longevity on an
ongoing basis due to the association of the individual's personal interests with the
interests of the social structure. The linguistic force creates appropriate social
structure by projecting a personalised image of humanity in an exoskeletal form that
has superhuman qualities that individuals can be emotionally attached to. Hence all
the talk of God being made in man's image and Jesus being a projection of human
will and desire, and such like. In this way the superorganism is invested with a will,
a purpose, a personality and an identity, all defended courtesy of the religion
preserved within the exoskeleton and infused into individuals as part of their
acculturation process. The force arising from the resulting superorganic qualities
are what Blair was unwittingly acknowledging in his promotion of war in Iraq. As

an organism grows it must evolve layers of structure organized about a hierarchy of
distinct but related identities in order to extend the reach of its will to an ever
extending mass of individuals which are incorporated from the remnants of former
distinct superorganisms that have been drawn into the vortex of the dominant form
that has been created via a process belonging to the field of the linguistic force
which generates new patterns of social induction which, when acting in association
with warfare, enable the process of unification under those new patterns to take
place. The war in Iraq is a single example of this process of extending a new
pattern of social induction—in this case in the form of democracy—by association
with warfare which will eventually knit this region into closer unification with the
core religious authority that gives the global superorganism its identity. It must be
stressed however that Iraq is already entirely a part of the organism that America is
part of ; war is mostly about reorganization of the living organism about its core
organ of authority, war is a physiological process, war is not a political process.
Politically this whole set of events is called progress, hence the transition of Iraq to
a democracy is progress, but it is in actual fact a perfectly deterministic organic
process exactly as all universal processes must ultimately be deterministic if they
are to give rise to any kind of order. The organization of political states which
Hitler served is part of the pattern of social structures which is associated with the
Jewish religion which lies at the core of the global superorganism.
The world wars, the holocaust, the current global terror, these are all one
uniform process sustaining the survival of the Jewish identity core. The idea of the
social organism makes the basic dynamics of this process accessible to our
consciousness and the difficulty arises when the political reformulation takes over
and corrupts and destroys the scientific knowledge. It was the process of corruption
that led to the creation of Hitler and the two world wars which reorganized the
social fabric in such a way that religion survived while science died. Thus while
simplistically it could be said that science is responsible for the rise of the monster
Hitler I would argue that on the contrary it was the resistance of the priest that
perverted science and made Hitler. And since the priest could not of survived the
impact of scientific enlightenment we must say that the effort of the priest led to a
good outcome in the production of the one man that could be said to of saved
Western Civilisation from becoming free of priestly control, that one man being, if
we permit ourselves a momentary political allusion, Adolf Hitler.

It is of course all very well to come out with such a description of our social
development and life, but it is necessary to provide the element that we have noted
Hitler failed to provide, in other words we need to look at the direct evidence of the
influence and significance of the idea of the social organism on the formation of
Hitler, and also to look at the reality of the idea of the social organism as a scientific
account of human existence, including an account of how the eradication of this
idea was achieved by the theocracy. With sufficient time and effort this is easy to
do in general terms, since there is plenty of relevant material from the period
preceding the First World War and there is a thin trail of the argument left for us to
follow the manner in which the academic establishment formulated its political,
bias science, to substitute for the real thing thus saving the idea of God to continue
serving as the core knowledge of our lives.

Conceptually, when speaking of the superorganism in terms of forces that

tend to gravitate toward a vortex centred upon a core religious identity, we can
visualise contradictory knowledge as a kernel of potentially alternate focal points of
social authority. The contradictory nature of these focal points of identity relative
to that of the core identity means these alternate focal points of knowledge, and any

social substance associated with them, tend to be thrown out of the social vortex by
a centrifugal social force acting in the opposite direction. This tension in the social
fabric based on ideological conflict necessarily tends to fragment the social
structure that is the physiology of the superorganism. As the ideas produced by the
linguistic force cause ejected structures to accrete at a point removed from central
control tension builds in the social fabric until social structures standing in
opposition to one another cannot help but collide. The end result can only lead to
the fragmentation of the ejected alternate foci of the would be core authority,
resulting in a new rationalisation of the products of the linguistic force based on the
original core identity, so that a new organization of the social structure takes place
and once again everything resettles itself upon the original and eternal core identity.
The outcome of this process is dictated by the social structures established in
conformity to the core identity, and this is why the academic structure is so central
to the power of the theocracy and also why even in the modern age of scientific
knowledge the ancient idiocy of religion has been preserved in tact without the least
diminution in its influence and without the slightest advance in the rationality of its
primitive ideas. There could be no better proof that humans are superorganisms
than the continuing existence of religion in the modern world where staggering
advances in practical-knowledge have done nothing to diminish the eternal
continuity of identity-knowledge.


Today, 22/11/06, an interesting comment has just come to my attention in

relation to the failure of people to apply their observations of society to society.

'But, assuming that non-logical conduct is, on the whole,

predominant in those actions that affect the course of history, we may
legitimately wonder why this has not been widely recognized. Pareto
readily grants that "If non-logical actions are really as important as our
induction so far would lead us to suppose, it would be strange indeed that
the many men of talent who have applied themselves to the study of human
societies should not have noticed them in any way." (252.) The fact is that
many writers on society, and many plain men and politicians as well or even
better, have observed the importance of non-logical conduct. Nevertheless,
they have almost never been willing to generalize the legitimate inference
from their observations. Something seems to block them from accepting the
conclusions of their own inquiries.'

(My italics)

(Burnham, Page 202-3)

I thought of inserting this piece of sociological insight into the section where
I discussed the failure of people interested in the idea of the social organism to
apply the fruits of their own thoughts properly by recognising that first and
foremost their ideas meant there cannot be individual persons existing as ends in
themselves. But I found the preceding passage discussing the way a linguistic cloak
affects the form that the structure of a social organism takes in all superorganic
species, as noted in relation to human and insect societies above, and I think this

location is equally appropriate for Pareto's discussion of the nature of logical versus
non-logical knowledge. As delightful as Pareto's reasoning is he does not appear to
base his sociology presented in Mind and Society, from which Burnham takes his
quotes, on the premise that the human animal is a social organism, therefore since
Pareto uses so much material relevant to the idea of the social organism that we
must consider Pareto a supreme enemy of the idea.
Burnham tells us that Pareto accounts for the failure to apply observations
properly to the fact that commentators always have a political agenda. In proposing
such an explanation Pareto is politicising rather than biologizing humanity. But he
is correct to make the observation that this failure is due to just this inclination to
promote and defend the self in association with a bloc of related interests that
effectively define the self. From this fact it follows that for a social authority to
exist only those individuals who have an affiliation with religion, law, social order
and authority in general, must be allowed to make public proclamations, and this
describes the world we live in exactly. Pareto himself does not break with the habit
of failing to apply observations correctly even though Burnham tells us that Pareto
set out to criticise others for this failure while clearing himself of any such flaw,
even as commentators said that Pareto had his own implicit agenda, and we may
confirm that he did indeed. Burnham says that because Pareto denied having an
agenda we can never say what it was, but we can, he was obviously set upon
subverting the science of the social organism ; why else would anyone devote so
much time and effort to the study of the mechanics of society according to a logic
that demands the idea of the social organism to make sense of all the effort involved
while not using the idea of the social organism which Pareto must of been very
familiar with, and while applying the idea that people are individuals ? Pareto was
evidently trying to make the idea of non-logical behaviour commensurate with the
idea of the decisive and purposeful individual who exists as an end in themselves ;
if he were not trying to do this his book would not of been published and he would
of been unknown. Why was he doing this ? To obtain status within academia, the
same as all other priest-academics must do, people like Dawkins today for example.
However, there is no reason to think that this kind of subversive behaviour is
carried out in full awareness that it is deliberately intended to subvert science for
the sake of religion. The all powerful theocracy that controls all social structure
values theophilic scientific ideas and its allocation of reward draws out individuals
that offer the desired result. The individual has no real idea that they are successful
in life because society is biased in their favour, nor do they realise that they are
tailoring their ideas in order to be successful because as individuals we have no real
consciousness of our own, we are part of the flux of the social mind. When we
follow social mores we think we are doing what is right and proper because we are
good people making a conscious choice, we do not think we are being channelled,
but of course we are. All sorts of linguistic devices are generated by the priests to
create this false sense of self awareness, too many, and too familiar for us to bother
considering now.
But the existence of a piece of anti-scientific work like Mind and Society is
excellent as it seeks to take possession of observations relevant to a scientific
understanding of humanity and in the process it provides a mass of material
supporting our idea that humans are superorganisms, all we need to do is to apply
the correct foundations in order to recover these facts from the priests. Clearly non-
logical action can be rendered logical once we know that individuals are
programmed units of a social organism. In a world where we interpret things like
the holocaust and Hitler as the saving grace of Judaism we need to have a clear
understanding that the mirror image of our logic is what makes sense, not the image
of reality that we see and share with one another. After all the hatred of violence is

as persistent as the pursuit of war and hence this hatred is illogical, as Pareto says,
but this logical contradiction can be made sense of when we know that the human
organism is a superorganism wherein the units it is composed of are unified by
means of these illogical mantras because it is these illogical ideas that allow social
structures to be delineated so that a superorganic physiology can grow to embrace
all humanity through a mechanism of antagonism aiming at unification under one
identity. How else could the superorganic process work other than by means of this
dynamic of logical opposites extending and stabilising, extending and stabilising,
extending and stabilising ? Pareto discusses these disguises, but does not discuss
the social organism, as far as I can tell from Burnham, and I am sure he does not.
However as the full four volume set of Mind and Society is available from America
for a mere £15 + £4 post I will order it right now and take a look. Job done, just see
if they want more postage now.
It appears that the contrast between logical and non-logical thought forms a
large part of Pereto's Mind and Society and Burnham says Pareto argues that non-
logical reasoning is what characterises the mass of animal reasoning. But elsewhere
in this work we have followed a logic that seeks to make information the
characteristic of life where two main modes of information exist, genetic and
linguistic. Both serve the same function, that is to create living structure, and the
two modes of information constitute a dynamic continuum. Hence we have in
effect argued that what Pareto calls non-logical thought is really self sustaining
information. So that those things that Pareto calls examples of non-logical thought
are really functional expressions of information that bear no relation to reality
beyond themselves as they are themselves the creative expression of information
that directs the flow of energy which creates the reality that the non-logical thoughts
in question relate to. Thus belief in God creates all the social structure associated
with religion and as such this non-logical idea is its own justification. We went into
some detail regarding this idea by saying that this illogical linguistic mode of
thinking is what made racism real in that black people were in reality an inferior
race because they were treated like animals. So racism, like Judaism, is self
defining, exactly as ideas created by language should be because genetic evolution
created the power of speech in order to allow social structure to evolve. Once an
idea like racism has served its purpose by driving a particular shift in social
structure toward a desired state of unity its non-logical features are then attacked by
the same elements of the social structure that had formerly been its exponents in
order to fix the shift in social structure. So the priesthood is first racist then
egalitarian, resulting in an inversion of logic of a kind that we frequently see in
religious formulas, as exemplified by the recent shift in sexual mores concerning
homosexuality in Christian culture which has gone from being extremely taboo to
being a behaviour that is made welcome in an expression of tolerance and love that
exemplifies Christian ideals. All of which inconsistency demonstrates the real
nature of language as a force delivering social structure, wherein it is inevitable that
the conceptual product of language must be non-logical if it is to be functional in
terms of adapting to the needs of generating social fabric that grows by
incorporating diversity made available through acts of destruction that leave
humans dispossessed of their former focal point of authority, hence the shift from
hating the enemy to loving them. In effect then ideas of the non-logical kind
support the functional operation of ideas of a dynamic kind aimed at bringing all
humanity under one authority as dictated by the laws of human corporate nature
which demand the formation of one universal superorganism that is typified by the
all embracing notion of one God.
By recognising what non-logical thought is we can see how Pareto was
performing a vital service to the theocracy by helping to give scientific ideas about

the biological nature of society a political character focused on individual motives.
This goes to show just how powerful language is at subverting reality in the domain
of life that language exists to create and control. And so our explanation for the
dominant aspect of non-logical behaviour in the social domain, as set out by Pareto,
is that non-logical information is precisely that information that is most intimately
linked to the creation of a supermassive superorganism such as we are part of today.
Meanwhile that minor portion of thought that is deemed logical equates to
the realisation of practical objectives and as such logical thought is only logical
because it is subject to fixed determinants. So if we want to unite disparate parts of
a global human population into one body wherein racism serves to justify the
purpose, then this non-logical justification serves as a motivational cloak covering
the practical efforts consisting of the technological and knowledge based advances
that actually made the unification of the earth under Judaism possible. As such
logical reasoning equates to the genetic routines that make physical structure
according to the dictates of non organic factors upon which life depends, as
compared to genetic routines that make superficial structure laid upon established
organic form ; physical structure such as feathers are adorned with superficial
structure in the form of colours that induce a social superstructure by laying the
foundation of behavioural responses which are not constrained by physical
determinants that dictate the structure of feathers and as such these patterns are akin
to an expression of organic freewill.
If racism forms the non-logical element in a social hierarchy based upon
racial differentiation, the basis of this conceptual model is genetic since skin colour,
to take the primary label of racial differentiation familiar to us today, is provided by
genetic differences. Similarly the fancy dancing of a bird of paradise is non-logical
in terms of rational choice, but this exaggerated mode of linguistic communication
is driven by the genetic base that gives the male bird of paradise its fancy plumage :
genes and language constitute a natural continuum where genetic information
predominates in physical form and linguistic information predominates in behaviour
that reflects underlying physical structure, until that is a social organism evolves
wherein a new cycle of physical deposition occurs as linguistic information begins
to create physical form in the shape of exoskeletal structure leading to the existence
of logical and non-logical expressions of linguistic force as it becomes necessary to
create exoskeletal structure in accordance with the dictates of inorganic laws upon
which life depends in conjunction with a need to imbue the resulting exoskeletal
structures with identity in accordance with their nature as organic forms, so that
language emulates the fixed and fluid expressions of genetic information that
generates physical and decorative organic structure.

Chapter II

Let’s Look at Force

I have been freely using the idea that language is a natural force. This idea
originates with me and I have never seen anything remotely like this idea suggested
anywhere, by anyone. Thus I had better say something about it. That language is a
force of nature is blindingly obvious once you have the idea in mind. If we want to
produce a picture of reality in which humans are included then realising that
language is a natural force is essential ; we can say that the failure of the likes of E.
O. Wilson to perform this act of unification between language and genetics as
forces of information entirely accounts for their failure to make the link between
human society and biology that people like Wilson have ostensibly devoted so
much of their lives to trying to establish. Once we know that language is a natural
force then the structural consequences of this organic force follow on logically from
the structural consequences of the genetic force that carries information at the level
of living tissues.

In addition to making the above statement we need to address the issue of

force itself since a clear conception of the idea of force is by no means something
that is likely to trip lightly off many people's tongues.

The greatest philosopher ever to of lived is unknown to the world at large. I

like to call him the greatest philosopher that ever lived because he wrote a book
called Human Society is a Real Being and he made it plain that he meant this title to
stand as a statement of fact in the most absolute sense that it was possible to mean it
in the newly emergent scientific age that he found himself a part of. It can
reasonably be argued that the ultimate object of philosophy is the discovery of
human nature ...... something that it is impossible to discover for the same reason it
is impossible to discover the nature of God or the nature of the universe. These
things are inscrutable because they are so awesomely incredible that it is impossible
for mere humans to unravel their mystery ! This is the bullshit philosophy we are
forced to chomp our bit on as we pace around the tread mill of life that is built and
managed by those who farm us in accordance with the dictates of nature.
But in actual fact the answer to our unfathomable question is precisely the
title of this forgotten philosopher’s book, when, that is, the idea expressed in this
title is intended to mean exactly what it says in precisely the same sense that any
modern biologist would mean when they define an organism ; and, once again, this
is what the author of the book referred to meant. He lived in the second great
scientific age before this age of freethought was destroyed by the priests, this was
the age of European enlightenment, the first enlightenment being that of Greece.
Hence this unknown philosopher is the only person ever to correctly define the true
nature of human beings as the preliminary proposition of a philosophical work. Of
course it is because the intent of his work was so perfect that he is unknown today
in the post enlightenment world, otherwise we would no longer live in an absolute
theocracy where religion runs free and science is a slave of the church.

And we do live in an absolute theocracy ruled by the church. In our society

all access to knowledge is absolutely forbidden, there is not the slightest pulse of
free expression, and we are abject slaves to whatever we are told we must believe.
If this were not so religion could not exist because science can easily destroy
religion in a moment.

However no one knows we live in a totalitarian state because the avowed

essence of our society is freedom and we are so committed to freedom of
expression, as a symbol of this avowed freedom that we will allow anything and
everything bar the most subversive, evil and perverse expressions of intent, thought,
or desire, to be openly expressed.

How can this contradictory state of affairs be real ?

There is a programme implanted into the brain of the individual in the

process of growth whereby the person acquires the specific language software
appropriate to their location within the exoskeleton of the living superorganism that
is the real being of the human animal, this is a programme that is fundamental to the
operation of the linguistic force. We can only know what the programme will
permit us to know. The programme is not simply a mental implant that we each call
our mind, the programme constitutes a set of instructions causing individuals to act
together in exactly the same way the genome causes cells to act as units of organs
within a body whereupon each organ fulfils a role within the body to make the
whole body into a unified living being. A complex series of subassemblies and
sub-subassemblies unite until the ultimate whole is reached. Each subassembly can
be thought of as a machine associated with an energy gradient where each machine
constitutes a unit of the gradient tapping the source of energy.

This process whereby our minds and the social flux within which our minds
operate act in unison to produce harmony between the individual being and the
whole being of which the individual being is but a functional unit, is exemplified in
our society where the fascism that forbids freedom is so perfected that it is called
freedom and accordingly experienced as freedom because the programme dictates
all that we can know. Hence a slave of Christianity is only free in a society that
respects Christian beliefs ! The social structure is firstly idealised in a software
package and then made to look as it is envisaged it should be in the idealised form,
while of course always continuing to be as it has always been. We live in a
democracy where power is derived from the bottom up and social structure is
organised to conform to the illusion, an illusion which makes freedom real as long
as we do not ask too much. In a discussion on the news yesterday, 14/07/06, about
Russia hosting the G8 conference, critics said Russia was not a true democracy
because it only mimicked our democracy since in Russia power was from the top
down. Obviously in Russia if the Kremlin wants a war it has a war, in Britain or
America, being true democracies, the government is powerless to got to war unless
the mass of society is fully behind it, as we saw with Iraq where a preparatory war
of deception was mounted against our society by our government to get the public
to accept their warmongering.........and so we see no country on earth was ever more
fascistic and autocratic than ours is today, but our society has all the appearances of
a free society and appearances are all that matter because it is the programme that
builds social structure and individuals do not exist in reality as they are pawns of
the game.
Nature’s achievement of this curious inversion of reality, by evolving the
human mind, is truly impressive and it relies upon an extraordinary degree of
control over the manufacture and maintenance of all that constitutes knowledge.
There can only ever be one kind of knowledge, and that must always be the false
knowledge of religion. True knowledge is forever humming in the background and

forcing the mythologists to develop their ideas in order to keep truth revolving
about the core of codified authority that is projected onto the figure of God, but the
truth can never win out against the lies because the whole being of the social
organism is evolved according to those lies. Knowledge does not exist just to
amuse us, knowledge exists for the same reason all information contained within
the living biomass of any planet must exist, to serve the being of a living body. The
being of any organism is the ultimate whole which the organism forms. The being
of an individual can be said to be the person we know and recognise but because no
person constitutes a whole being in themselves there must be a being beyond the
individual, of which the individual is a part, that being is the social organism or
superorganism which is a social entity but this social entity is not synonymous with
what we call society because the programme does not allow us to possess a correct
knowledge of the human being from which to identify the sum of social forces.

It was shortly after reading the opening chapters of the first relevant work by
the greatest philosopher ever to of lived that the most perfect idea I have ever had in
relation to this subject of human nature clicked for me, so that I realised exactly
what language was. Language is a force of nature.

That language is a force is the most powerful idea that anyone interested in
understanding existence could ever come to understand for it is the existence of
forces within the universe that are responsible for all structure and form wherever
that structure and form exists. The conception of force as a responsible agent may
well be an artifact of our existence and our mode of perceiving, this definition of
force as an agent is made with this thought in mind ; after all if we really knew what
the phenomenon of force that we perceive was we would know what the universe is.
Chapter three of Human Society is a Real Organism is entitled Force, as the Cause
of Phenomena in Nature and Society and it opens with this sentence —

‘All material and hence all social phenomena since they are a
continuation thereof, are the result of a preceding dynamic cause,
which we term force.’

I had already grasped that language was the information medium that
created social structure through the agency of human action so it was an easy step
for me to realise this meant that language was a force of nature.

But what is force, how exactly can we understand just what this most
important of things actually is as an attribute of reality ? I can tell you, if you did
not already know, that force is a most fiendish thing to get hold of with the mind,
but then the mind we come equipped with is not supposed to facilitate the
comprehension of abstract ideas such as this, our minds are supposed to force us to
reduce all things to tangible political attributes that serve either a positive or
negative purpose within our world view so that we can praise or attack things
accordingly and thus be dynamic creatures.

However as luck would have it I was rooting through my library recently

while trying to reduce its size by ditching books that were not really useful or of
little interest to me now, and in the course of making my selections I opened a
maths book, or science book of some kind or other, and therein I found the perfect
representation of force that was offered by someone who was trying to explain the
nature of this tricky aspect of reality. Forces, this author said, exist on a chess
board ! Of course, staggeringly simple and absolutely brilliant. This representation

of the nature of force was perfect and exactly suited to the problem of
understanding how language could act as a creative force directing the formation of
social structure quite independently of any will or conscious involvement on the
part of individual humans in any way whatsoever.

This is how it works. If we think of a ‘rook’ or ‘castle’ as a piece on a chess

board then that piece has lines of force occurring at right angles to itself which
determine the actions that this piece can engage in and thus the effect the castle can
have upon other pieces making up the social structure of the chess pieces’ world.
Taken altogether the game of chess with its board and the variety of its pieces
constitutes an elaborate system which takes on the shape of a brilliant game
precisely because of the rules governing the arrangement of forces existing between
the different pieces located on the board. Now it is evident that there is no actual
force emanating from the castle piece, if we wanted to we could move the castle
diagonally or even just smash it to pieces with a hammer, but then chess is but a
A fascinating insight into the nature of this wonderful game and the nature
of human society too arises incidentally from thinking about the forces on a chess
board in terms of a reflection of the forces of life in miniature, because one of the
basic tenets of understanding the dynamics of reality as they apply to human society
in terms of religion versus science, is that there can only be one social authority and
the resolution of the dualistic conflict is the object present on the chess board at the
beginning of the game. The black and white kings are two equally powerful focal
points of authority, we could call them science and religion, or true and false, and
the object of the game is to resolve the impossibility of there being two focal points
of power in one social being—two brains in one animal—by reducing two
authorities to one, wherein the especially interesting feature of the rules of chess is
that the demise of one focal point is never brought about by total destruction but
only by bringing forces to bear to the point where there is no freedom of movement
left. And thus although the alternative focal point of authority remains on the board
and cannot be removed, neither can it express its power ever again, it has been
contained and so the game is over, there is only one focal point of authority left on
the board defined by the success of the player in their manipulation of the forces of
the game of chess. Brilliant ! This is precisely how the church has contained
science today. Chess is an allegory of human social life ; a familiar enough idea I
dare say but I for one never considered the depth of the allegory by taking it beyond
forms to the level of forces.

From this model of society and its forces contained in miniature on a chess
board it becomes as easy as an idle amusement to play with the ways in which the
force of language acts as the determinant of lines of action occurring within the
three dimensional space of society where identities are arranged according to their
association with social structures so that the interactive dynamics occurring
between the identities which define the social pieces are determined by rules which
must be obeyed in order to win the game. In life, as on the chess board, the rules
can be ignored but the point is that the social structure determined by the linguistic
force do actually determine advantageous outcomes because humans are evolved to
work in accord with the linguistic force. Although the flux of social forces can wax
and wane it is a precondition of human physiology that we must evolve strategies
whereby linguistic forces do bring about successful outcomes and these successful
strategies are ultimately defined by what we call religions.

In an absolute theocracy such as ours the game of life is played out, and the
church always wins by arranging the lines of force in such a way that its authority is
never in jeopardy. Our society is however a covert totalitarian state because it
presents itself as free and open and narrows down its enforced constraint to a
minimum as it seeks to direct its authority in harmony with the force of linguistic
information flowing from its autocratic centres of control, our society is of course
directed from the top down like all totalitarian systems run by priests. The way in
which this focus is achieved has to do with the way in which the linguistic force has
caused the ruling authority to become focused within our social organism through
the medium of religious identity, so that the master identity has the inverted
appearance of being the slave that must be protected at all cost. This inversion
causes the master to come in for intermittent rounds of vicious abuse due to the
eruption of collective identity reactions that ensure all attacks upon the master
identity will always fail to destroy the master identity, rather these attacks serve the
functional benefit to the master of ensuring its dispersal throughout the tissue of the
living organism. Again Aesop’s fable nicely illustrates this natural social
mechanism whereby the sun and the wind argue over who is most powerful and
they decide to resolve the issue by seeing who can take a coat of a man that is
walking along the road. The wind huffs and puffs but as he gets stronger the man
holds on tight, then the sun comes out and the man takes his coat of. A simple
moral, but one that is very telling when it comes to evolving a highly complex
social structure in which people must be slaves. Beat them with whips and the they
will resist, sooth them with flattery and tell them they are wonderful while inducing
them to do the tricks that you want them to do and this will get the job done most of
the time, and then when hiccups in the system of abuse occur as the charade wears
thin let their hatred burst forth in such a way that they are caused to associate
themselves with their masters because their master bears the hallmarks of the most
powerless and dispossessed. Neat trick, one that leads to an awful lot of misery,
and never fails to win the game. But this is not a political trick, it is a biological
What we really see in the racial and religious dynamics that animate our
society are the lines of linguistic force directing the flow of human energy in order
to cause a state of fragmentation that will always settle down in favour of the
master. This is precisely what is happening in the case of the outbreak of war
between Israel and Lebanon this week, today being 15/07/06. Israel is not going
away, as Tony Blair said recently, because the Jews are the masters of the earth
(Blair did not say this of course), so it is just a matter of time before people in the
neighbourhood of Israel get the message. War is essential to Jewish rule over
human society because war is the means by which the focal points of identity that
define the players located upon the board of life can be kept in a state of flux so that
there can only ever be one master, that master being the Jews who are the focal
point of the linguistic force as it acts upon all humanity at this time. The centrality
of Judaism in Christian and Islamic myth is self evident and well known, and the
nature of myth is pure language.

Because as individuals we are intimately connected through our emotional

and personal interests with the social dynamics that are the product of the linguistic
force we see the products of this force as substantial and real. We do not
experience these social dynamics as some alien factor with which we have no
relationship. Therefore it will be helpful to try and develop a more subtle idea of
our relationship as individuals to the linguistic force that is responsible for the
social flux in which we live, this flux being the expression of the linguistic force
that animates us

Just as molecules carry positive and negative charges that allow a plant to
control its physiology through a filtering process called osmosis so the human
individual carries a positive and negative charge as a unit existing within the social
structure of the superorganism that causes the individual to be contained or
dispersed accordingly. This social charge reveals itself in a manner common to all
energy charges as a balance between repulsion and attraction that organises material
according to the nature of the structural context. The state of balance between these
two opposite conditions locates the individual person within the social structure.
Thus when Tony Blair spoke recently, today being 22/09/06, of the idea that society
could identify the future social delinquent before they were even conceived his
reasoning was in effect based upon the fact that all individuals necessarily inherit a
social charge that may be more or less positive or negative about a neutral state of
balance called a social norm. The negative condition of the unborn is derived from
the lifestyle of some parents who might be criminals of one sort or another, the
positive condition of a Mr Blair derives from birth within a devoutly Christian
family that is a social structure calculated to serve as a focused product of the
linguistic force that constitutes a perfect social norm.
While language is not the sole component delivering the social charge
carried by an individual language is by far and away the predominant factor
directing the actual activity of the social charge in daily life. Hence language is a
force that creates social structure. The overwhelming influence of the linguistic
force is apparent because it has such a huge influence on all factors of the personal
social charge carried by the person. Because of the influence of the inner attitude
derived from language it follows that language generates the personal social
structure of an individual revealed in the character and personality of the person.
Character and personality are therefore attributes of the social charge created by
the linguistic force. Thus the mind as a product of the linguistic force is responsible
for all aspects of personal display that determine things like appearance and
behaviour that can therefore be said to represent secondary attributes of linguistic
force determining the location of individuals within the fabric of the organism by
virtue of the osmotic process that locates individuals within the social structure that
is the exoskeleton of the superorganism.
The osmotic process in human society is that process which makes us more
or less welcome, more or less successful, and such like. As ever the propaganda of
our society tells us we are all responsible for the degree of success we enjoy, but in
reality this idea of personal responsibility is absurd because we cannot all be
successful since success is a relative condition that depends upon a hierarchy of
those who have made it contrasted with those who have not, and the select few must
always be in an extreme minority. But the propaganda is part of the linguistic flux
that unifies us by virtue of our divisions not despite our divisions because our
capacity for language makes us enjoy the success of others vicariously in a very
intimate way allowing us to imagine their success as if it were ours, or might be.
The expression of admiration for the successful is the summation of collective
charges focused upon privileged individuals and ultimately the special attributes of
the Jewish culture causes Jews to home in on those special social roles within
society which have especially evolved to give collective expression to this aspect of
the linguistic force by forming social structure in which the privileged are displayed
for the joy of all. This is why, apart from the directly religious considerations
arising from the central place of the Jewish religion in world culture, we also have
all the anecdotal knowledge of both a positive and negative nature concerning the
special gifts of the Jewish people. Linguistic force and social structure are
intimately intertwined ; humans do not make themselves, nature makes humanity.

When I was in my late twenties I attended a night class in O'level chemistry,
just for the fun of it, and when we discussed the contrasting attributes of certain
elements I was taken with the idea that I seemed to have the natural qualities of the
noble gases. This was not because I liked to flatter myself with the label 'noble'.
While an element like fluorine is hard to isolate because it tenaciously bonds with
other elements to form a compound the noble gases are so named because they are
extremely resistant to the formation of compounds. I was reflecting upon my own
disposition as a loner. It is the electron distributions of each element that gives the
elements their 'genetic' qualities. Information reveals the presence of energy,
energy reveals itself as information. But each type of energy distribution differs
according to the type of structure the energy relates to, and so therefore the manner
in which energy is recognised as information differs accordingly. So while atoms
and molecules display measurable energy patterns animals do not carry a
quantifiable charge of this kind, just as celestial bodies like the earth, sun and moon
also do not carry an electrical charge determining their relative positions, but these
celestial bodies still obey a force, the gravitational force. Consequently when we
resort to speaking of a social charge relating to the place of an individual in society
and relating to the overall form of the social structure we enter the realms of
analogy. This is done for descriptive purposes. No one would object to the world
being described as a ball, but it clearly is not a ball, the earth is merely ball shaped.
In the nineteenth century the use of analogies in sociological works became so
widespread that people spoke of the analogical method in sociology and as
philosophers sort to elaborate on the equivalence between social structures such as
telegraph lines as compared with nerve fibres in living tissue the method came into
disrepute. So I repeat that energy charges take the form appropriate to their context
and as we have seen forces are not attributes of reality that exist independently of
the structures where they are found, we cannot build a machine to extract the forces
from a chess piece in order that this force can then be used to provide green energy
for our washing machines, believe it or not ! Forces are recognised through the
regularity of structures with which they are associated, and the regularity of modern
social structures are predominantly a product of language, and language is a product
of genetics.

People may be generally disposed to ponder upon the idea that language is a
natural force that creates social structure since it is perfectly easy to demonstrate
that through verbal commands social structure can be created, but I have in mind
something vastly more intense than this superficial conception of the idea. It
follows that as the forces on a chess board came into being as the game of chess
was developed so the expression of the linguistic force developed as the physiology
of language evolved.
I have said that the linguistic force creates social structure and by this I do
not simply mean the behavioural structure found in organized bodies of people that
arises directly from verbal instruction, I mean that linguistic force creates social
structure in its entirety !

How can this be ? What on earth do I mean !

Humans are a superorganic species, the human being is a superorganism and

all social structure constitutes the superorganism's living body, a living body that is
made of inanimate material that houses the living fabric of the superorganism and
as such this living body must be deemed to possess an exoskeleton. Thus I am
saying that it is the linguistic force that creates the human exoskeleton. Anything
that we would ordinarily call artificial is therefore made by nature via the action of

the linguistic force. In order to make logical sense of this argument we must push
the boundaries of our imagination to conceive of things hitherto unconceived.

This is what we must think of : language, to us, means speech, but when we
decided that there is such a thing as a linguistic force then language became
something vastly more extensive than mere speech. We might then say that
language means communication, thus including the insect pheromones or the avian
display of a peacock. But it is not enough just to say this. Language is a force the
creates social structure, therefore language is not only mediated via the isolated
organs of speech, the medium of linguistic force must include the organs that emit
pheromones and the feathers that carry colour and abstract shapes.

But in humans the linguistic force creates all exoskeletal structure, and what
is it that is responsible for the creation of artificial forms ? The hands ! Yes, the
hands !! The hands are organs of language just as much as the tongue or vocal
cords are organs of language. And once we have considered this seemingly odd
idea the truth of the suggestion becomes ever more obvious. Language creates
ideas and when we fabricate items we put ideas into shape.
Our usual mode of thinking habitually isolates elements of the material
world through the power of language so that we see the tongue as being the medium
of speech and language as being the product of speech. But we do not recognise
that language, as the sum of all social communication, represents the totality of our
physical being. In other words our physical appearance is dictated by the evolution
of language, our whole body is shaped in order to deliver the power of language.
To take an example from our everyday world we might say that the engine is the
organ of motive force in a car, and the wheels are the passive facilitators of this
motion. This is correct, but if we seek to understand the car as a whole then we
must recognise that motion is the sum of the car's being and the engine is useless
without wheels just as much as car wheels are of little use without an engine. The
whole being of the car then is an expression of the force of motion, the car is about
motion as the human is about language.

So it is then with the human power of creation as a medium of language.

The physiology of speech, which includes the capacity of the brain to think
conceptually, is the engine of human being and the hands are the organs of motion
allowing the conceptions arising via the power of language to flow from the mind
into the material world in the shape of an exoskeleton which gives the human being
its physical form.

This all embracing idea of language as a force is necessary to merge humans

seamlessly into the natural world. This idea that language makes hands as much an
organ of language as tongues are an organ of language is radical, but once we have
a proper conception of the evolutionary process as being about energy and the flow
of energy via routes defined by forces it is as simply obvious as it is seemingly
incredible. Even more important than the realisation that hands evolved as an
expression of linguistic force is the realisation that nakedness evolved as an
expression of linguistic force. We have said that once we see the linguistic force as
the creative element producing social structure, so that we go beyond the
physiology of speech to the physiology of dexterity, the whole of the individual's
form becomes an instrument of superorganic physiology that is an expression of the
linguistic force. Thus it follows that the linguistic force existed long before
language. This idea seems strange at first but is perfectly natural. It is also true
that human nature existed millions of years before humans, if this were not so then

humans could not of evolved. An easier way to understand this idea of the pre-
existence of forces and natures that define forms is perhaps in terms of the
formation of planets under the influence of gravity where the amorphous dust cloud
from which the solar system originated and acquired its present shape and activity
gives us knowledge from which it can be readily understood that the force of
gravity existed just as much in the gas and dust cloud as it does in vacuous space
punctuated by huge balls of matter today. At first the solar system was only a latent
potential residing in the energy and mass of the dust cloud, a potential awaiting
realisation through the remorseless influence of the gravitational force. So it was
with the evolution of human form. Just because early representatives of the human
lineage did not have anything remotely equivalent to speech does not mean they
were not created at the behest of the linguistic force anymore than the lack of order
in the swirling cloud of proto planetary material meant that these disorganised
zones of matter were not subject to the same organizing influence of gravity that so
precisely regulates the orbit of the consolidated mass we call home today. Today
we see the end result of the process of gravitational attraction whereby a regulated
set of discrete bodies moves in an orderly fashion about one central body, and
likewise in human form today we see the culmination of the force generating human
form by engendering an ever increasing means of social organization reaching its
perfection in the existence of an animal with a full capacity for articulate symbolic
communication enabling shared participation in a consciousness belonging to one
common mind existing across the full extent of a superorganic fabric.

Racial identity is a physiological representation of the linguistic force that

communicates the identity of the superorganism to the individual ; skin and hands
are organs of the linguistic force. This is why humans have a peculiar quality of
nakedness, peculiar for a mammal, hair being retained on the head as an aid to
creating corporate identity, a feature elaborated in white races with their contrasting
colourful range of hair pigmentation. Race is a visual mode of communication, a
body language especially related to the emanation of corporate identity occurring at
a fairly subliminal level of consciousness, that is we take our racial identity pretty
much for granted. With the coming of fully symbolic speech however the linguistic
force delivered a far more potent means of imposing corporate identity and this has
realised its perfection in the Jewish religion which embraces any and all races in
one body under the power of speech, speech as distinct from language if we are to
say race is in fact a linguistic mode of communication, which it is whether we
recognise it as such or not. Our programme no longer allows us to fully understand
the linguistic code of racial identity, although the residual influence of this
communication mechanism continues to cause problems as we shift ever further
away from possessing discrete racial types located in discrete social structures and
more toward discrete religious types located in discrete social structures.
So the force of language only culminates in speech, it does not exist as its
most perfect mode of expression at all times, just as a creature possessing human
nature existed millions of years before humans so the force of language existed
millions of years before language existed as such in the form of speech.

Therefore when we seek out our earliest forebears making their way from
the animal kingdom we mistakenly look for the most significant signs of their
humanity by trying to determine whether a creature could speak, but in fact what we
need to look for is evidence of the force of language. An upright posture is
evidence of the force of language acting on the anthropoid form to direct the
physiology of the individual toward becoming a unit of social physiology that can
act at the behest of the force of language. And when we find artifacts then we have

direct products of the force of language, we have pieces of the animal's
exoskeleton ! The first hominids to leave tools in the debris of their remains may
well of been bereft of speech but they certainly possessed true language, that is they
behaved in a manner that meant they had a corporate nature and as a group they
must of formed an embryonic superorganism.

The measurement of linguistic force

If language is the personification of a natural force that exists independently

of any particular articulate species of animal, and what is more this natural force
that is exemplified to us by our power of speech actually creates physical structures
just as assuredly as gravity creates material forms, then we must be able to measure
this force in relation to the effect it has on these social structures.
We have seen that there are forces present on a chess board that are created
by the material form of the game acting in unison with the rules governing
legitimate action. We have seen therefore that force does not exist independently of
the structure with which it is associated. Therefore when we speak of measuring
force we have in mind the measurement of action, or the measurement of a
structural mass in relation to which certain qualities relevant to the subject of force
have been determined. I am not a technician, I am not a scientist, I am not a
mathematician. Thus I have no idea how to tackle the problem of measuring
linguistic force, all I can do in philosophical terms is to point out that there can be
no logical difficulty relating to this task. It is obvious that linguistic force, like any
other force, can be evaluated in different ways, it can be measured in terms of actual
effect and it can be measured in terms of potential to cause an effect, or in relation
to effects already passed.
An example of linguistic force in action is an advert where the effect is
gauged by the impact upon the target audience. Linguistic potential can be
regarded in terms of the quality and quantity of information. These two parameters
of linguistic force, the information present and the effect induced, are not separate,
they are related to one another. In terms of the role the linguistic force has in the
evolution and growth of the human social organism there must be a direct and
observable link between the size and form of a social organism and these two
parameters of linguistic force, just as there is a direct and observable link between
the size of a planet and the force of gravity centred upon the same object.
Furthermore, while we characterise the natural force responsible for creating social
structure as linguistic because it realises its maximum potential in the creation of a
fully articulate species, namely ourselves, we nonetheless must note that this force
existed before language and therefore before humans ; and so, logically speaking,
the organization of insect societies must also be a consequence of the action of the
linguistic force. Homo sapiens should instead be homo symbolis (or whatever
symbol user is in Latin), especially since humans as individuals are anything but
sapient, since individuals are merely programmed by language, and as such they are
linguistic robots ; how else can we account for the need and effectiveness of
religion ? We are then not just concerned with language as such, but with all
aspects of communication, all communication comes under the ambit of linguistic
force as we use this expression here. An advert exemplifies this idea since adverts
are invariably rich in suggestion while carrying only a slight whiff of language as
such, as if the function of the word content was only to form a channel through
which the bulk of the message could flow directly into the fabric of our minds in a
totality consisting of both subconscious meaningful content and conscious verbal

content, where the conscious verbal content makes us feel like we were in charge of
the whole process as we accept the verbal instructions or reject them, and so take
charge of the whole message ; but nothing could be further from the truth because
an advert, or any instructive command message, is like an iceberg, most of it enters
our mind unseen where it has an effect unbeknownst to ourselves—this is how we
are programmed. Therefore when seeking to measure linguistic force we must
reduce all communication to a common denominator which we can hardly call
anything other than information, information as distinct from straightforward
codification such as we find in genetic modes of communication occurring between
the substance of living structures. Linguistic information then has the quality of
being temporally dynamic, it changes in time according to circumstances ; but its
function, like that of genetic information, always remains the same. The function of
genetic and linguistic communication is identical, the difference between the two
arises purely due to the different physical contexts in which communication is
taking place.

We should then be able to find evidence of action revealing the intensity of

linguistic force in any given context where it is deemed the linguistic force must be
responsible for an outcome, and we should be able to find evidence of intensified
information content revealed in appropriate objects that, being a direct consequence
of the action of linguistic force, must preserve the traces of the linguistic force that
created them. A stone tool is just such an object. A crude implement reveals the
effect of a low level of linguistic force as compared to that indicated by a highly
refined stone tool. Likewise the distribution of a culture tells us something about
the intensity of the linguistic force present, however the relationship between
distribution and linguistic force is not direct, to say the wider the distribution the
greater the linguistic force is not correct. This is because the social organism is a
living being and subject to the same dynamics as all living organisms. Evolution
must progress by developing forms, engines of evolution, which evolve by
ascending an energy gradient within a focused niche and once developed the
resulting organism, or engine, then disperses through available space in a process
that brings the energy distribution back into balance. In respect to human society
energy is distributed via the expression of the linguistic force. A highly evolved
culture could exist in a circumscribed location, such as ancient Egypt, as compared
to a widely distributed culture existing at the same time but reliant upon a much
lower level of information content. When ancient Egypt was alive and well most of
the world was living in the stone age so that uncivilised peoples covered the earth
but at a much lower level of linguistic intensity. Now the basic engine of Egyptian
culture has dispersed around the globe in the guise of Judaism and at the same time
eradicated stone age culture and massively increased the biomass of the organism
within which the linguistic force has become immensely intensified, and wherein
the information content has increased beyond any meaningful comparative measure
I can offer.
The idea of linguistic force is suited to our purposes here because language
is key to human experience and where priests go to so much trouble to force us to
think of language as a gift that humans use as an expression of their God given free
will it is clearly essential for any would be seeker after true knowledge to counter
this all pervasive ploy with a strategy that grounds this illusion in reality. We must
make language a natural phenomenon with a purely biological function that controls
humans just as the need for food controls humans ; yes people can eat bacon and
eggs or muesli and yoghurt, but they must eat ; yes people can say 'shit' or 'dear me',
but they must speak. But having said this, can we imagine an anthropologist out in
the field trying to arrange artifacts according to a scale of linguistic force to produce

a periodic table of tools ? No. This does not sound practical, no matter how real
the idea of linguistic force is. Our objective in conceiving of linguistic force is to
aid our conception of human nature as a natural phenomenon subject entirely and
exclusively to natural forces. But it is fun to try and apply the logic of linguistic
force more intimately to the structural fabric that we assert must be a direct product
of the action of linguistic force where this force must take effect in reality ; how
else is it possible for nature to produce amazing things like stone axes, televisions,
houses, prisons, nuclear bombs, shoes, shirts, etc. ?
It is not for nothing that intellectuals have tended to agree that the use of
writing ought to be made a defining attribute of civilised peoples, and by thinking
in terms of a linguistic force responsible for social structure we can relate the subtle
differences between advanced civilisations that did not have writing as compared to
those that did, and then again those that not only had writing but that went on to
develop more sophisticated written forms that intensified the linguistic force
embodied in the objects making up the exoskeletal form of the living
We must not allow ourselves to be distracted therefore by twisted rhetoric of
the kind that says things like the following

Therefore it is not a right thing to say, for example, that the

mind is a force, because if the mind were a force we should be able
to perceive it. I should be able to perceive your mind and to measure
it, but I cannot ; I have absolutely no means of perceiving your mind.
I judge by analogy that it exists, and the instinct which leads me to
come to that conclusion is the social instinct, as it has been formed
in me by generations during which men have lived together ; and
they could not have lived together unless they had gone upon that

('Body and Mind', W. K. Clifford, in Industrialisation and

Culture 1830-1914, page 216. First pub. 1874)

What a load of twaddle. It does not occur to this one time mathematical
genius that the word 'mind' like the word 'twaddle' is but a word, and just as there is
no such thing as twaddle that can be shot, skinned, and fried for breakfast, so there
is no such thing as a 'mind' that can be treated in a similar culinary manner. Alice
in Wonderland does not exist separately from the book, or other media, within
which the story is contained, and the mind does not exist separately from the brain
or other media within which consciousness finds expression, such as in speech. The
essay quoted from above begins by discussing this exact point, yet still the idiot is
incapable of recognising that minds do not exist in the independent sense implied
by the word 'mind' when used simplistically. Well, it was a religious lecture given
to the Sunday Lecture Society so what can we expect. But this kind of malicious
deviance masquerading as science—Clifford declares that his discussion springs
from scientific insights—is as ubiquitous as religion itself and we must not be
beguiled by the smooth talking silk which weaves an image we cannot help but
empathise with as the brain creates the experience we are aware of as 'our mind' in
response to the words the priest uses to keep us integrally attached to the organism
of which we are a part.
Of course the mind is a direct product of language and it is language, not
social instinct, that causes us to experience mind ; indeed when we think we are not
experiencing our mind we are really experiencing the effect of the linguistic force.

When we think we are experiencing language, mind is how the linguistic force
makes itself known to us and it is not at all surprising that an animal with this kind
of sensitivity to a natural force that has created the animal's structure of sensitivity
should experience the phenomenon responsible for its form in an indirect but
functional manner. This is only like a bird experiencing its wings as a natural part
of itself, rather than experiencing flight as a detached state of awareness relating to
an aerodynamic structure formed to negotiate motion through gaseous fluids. The
human brain is an organ that evolved to enable the individual animal to negotiate
pathways through a social medium that the sum of associated brains engenders, but
not to negotiate in a detached state of awareness that recognises linguistic routines
as directives creating detached material structures, but as a personal experience that
makes sense emotionally so that society appears to the individual as a fluid in which
its swims in blissful unawareness of any constraint, as much as a bird flies through
the air as if the air were all there was or a fish swims in water unaware that it is
doing something that to another creature would be wholly unnatural. The idea that
we each have a personal mind is far too stupid for words, the mind is a collective
phenomenon to which we are connected, the brain is our social swim bladder
keeping us poised in the social flux—how else would it be possible for those
parading before us on our TV screens today 12/11/06, Remembrance Sunday, to
take themselves seriously, they do not have the slightest idea what war is, but they
act out the game, and the seriousness comes from the reality of the pain upon which
these pompous people feed ; it makes no more sense to say that we each have a
mind than it makes sense to say we each have our own language—mind is
language. You may as well say we have our own bodies. Certainly we have
personal bodies, or more correctly, we are bodies. The body that each one of us
experiences has its own isolated experience of pain and pleasure, but these bodies
are made to a pattern, they all experience pain and pleasure, and as such we cannot
isolate the experience of one body and make it distinct from another any more than
we can isolate the bricks in a wall and assert that each one is unique and somehow
independent of the other. Human bodies evolved to be part of an interconnected
network united through a complex pattern of relationships of various kinds, and it is
only as part of a network that the human form makes any sense. The personal
experience of each individual is meaningless if taken individually, which is
precisely why we are taught to take personal experience as being so important, in
our culture we are forbidden to know the true nature of our own being because the
authority that governs our relationships evolved according to this pattern of null
understanding, authority depends upon absolute ignorance of its own nature
amongst those obliged to obey mindlessly precisely because they do not know the
true nature of the authority that governs them. Pain and pleasure are the biological
expressions that have there social counterpart in reward and punishment that act as
the nerves connecting the units to the whole being via the authority that determines
what will be agreeable and what disagreeable. Thus the determination of what is
good and merits reward and what is bad and inflicts pain upon the individual, all of
which is determined by rules fixed by authority, equates to the lines of force created
on the chess board and hence we can measure the effect of the linguistic force in
society when we measure the concentration of activity and use of energy dictated by
social regulations that determine the form that patterns of collective behaviour take
as a consequence of the regulation laid down by those that farm us. It is natural, it
is necessary, for us to take personal experience as unique and real, but it is also
mistaken from an intellectual point of view wherein we seek to understand reality as
it is, where we want an understanding that is real and hence detached from any
personal involvement we have in existence.

But the ultimate lesson that we must derive from our researches conducted
in these pages is that those who farm us do not farm us, they obey the dictates of
linguistic force just as much as we do. It is only that those individuals who have the
job of maintaining and developing social order operate at the level of command
relative to the mass of us, and that because we are driven to take things personally
we perceive the individuals in command as personalities taking decisions ; and of
course the whole system is orchestrated to emphasise the illusion. In reality there is
a pattern, the rules of the game, that are dictated to the commanders and any false
moves will cause feedback that keeps them on track, this feedback is sometimes
called the will of the people, but it is no more the will of the people than the initial
commands are the will of the commanders. This is why we have religion, why else
would religion persist ? Religion is a book of rules, a pattern created in obedience
to the laws of linguistic force that regulate social form. Linguistic force is not to be
thought of as something like magnetism or electricity, it is more akin to gravity, the
force of gravity is expressed in an apple falling from a tree and the linguistic force
is expressed in a single phrase, but linguistic force, like gravitational force, belies
an unseen mass that is causing the effect that is seen, and this is why we get
outcomes on a massive scale that no person would say humanity ever desired, such
as the emergence of a man like Hitler and all that we associate with him, so that we
get actions like the gassing of Jews in a vile act of calculated cruelty which bear all
the hallmarks of individual malice, but which are nothing of the sort, such social
events are a natural consequence of the effect of linguistic force generating social
structure according to its own rules of structural formation that requires periodic
fractures to occur that allow social quakes to throw society into a new structural
arrangement in an act of superorganic growth. How else can we envisage Israel
having come into being as dictated in the Jewish literature which writes the
programme we live by if not through the world wars and their associated terrors ?
The emergence of Hitler was dictated by the linguistic force that creates our society,
his emergence had nothing to do with the man himself ; but of course, those who
enforce the rules of the game exert every effort to make sure we do not see this and
that we believe that Hitler was evil, while our leaders are good, and their respective
associated outcomes are a product of individual action and that where our good
commanders are taking us is where we want to go.

In effect then the real world is in one sense no more real than Alice in
Wonderland, the difference between the two being that the real world is composed
of living beings that have needs imposed upon them by rules laid down at the
material level of existence and hence the regulation of the social order, including
the illusion as to how that order is ordered, has real consequences at the material
level. But the fact that we have fiction as an art form can be made sense of in
materialistic terms by understanding that a fictitious representation of authority is
essential to the ordering of society, and this has always been so, the existence of an
industry dedicated to churning out fiction today is just one more representation of
the power of the linguistic force as it is expressed in an organism that has reached
the point where it covers the whole planet. The bigger the single unified organism
the greater the linguistic force, certainly, but somewhere, even as we speak, an
engine of evolution might be coming into being that will one day make today's
global organism ruled by priests operating in the name of religious bullshit look
puny, one day we may have a society based on science acting in the shape of
philosophy where scientific knowledge dictates the pattern delivering the linguistic
force that creates the social being that we live within and experience accordingly.

Having determined that the social force creating social structure is made
known to us as a linguistic force that has the same macro nature as gravity in that it
causes living entities to take shape on the most massive super-individual scale just
as gravity is responsible for massive forms on a universal scale, we can try to
benefit from this insight by seeing what scientists say about the way gravity reveals
itself over time and how gravity effects the way the forms gravity induces into
existence develop.

Whereas gravity played little part in the earlier stages of the

universe, it now started to assume a more dominant role. In a broad
way we can see that because of gravity, matter is likely to form into
clumps which will attract other clumps, till eventually larger and
larger aggregates are produced. The impacts involved in this
accretion and condensation will raise the local temperature till the
mass becomes so hot that it is luminous. Eventually the larger lumps
of matter will reach such a high temperature that nuclear reactions
will start—a star will have formed.

(Life Itself : Its Origin and Nature, Francis Crick, 1982, page 32)

Substituting linguistic for gravitational force in this image of an evolving

process we would say that in the early stages of hominid evolution linguistic force
played a minimal part in the development of the embryonic social organisms that
were accreting for the most part on the back of genetic developments that were
adjusting anthropoid form to deliver an expressly social being. However as the
precursors of fully human superorganic form took shape through the development
of a bipedal gait, dextrous hands, and naked skin carrying a corporate identity along
with a concomitant instinctive understanding of the social meaning imbued into the
naked skin, the point was eventually reached where linguistic acuity could begin to
play an ever more important role, not at first in the shape of speech as we know it so
much, but rather in the guise of symbolic representation supported by verbal
routines. This stage, where we imagine hominids beginning to support an
intuitively sensed visual perception of symbolic meaning with a proactively
delivered verbal representation that denotes the onset of what we take to be modern
human consciousness, because the proactive use of speech suggests the onset of
what we call free will, we must suppose would act as the means whereby the initial
emergence of embryonic social organisms on the basis of genetic developments
could go further by supporting the establishment of extended family groups leading
toward the establishment of a tribal fauna covering an ever increasing territorial
The clumped stage of development whereby a sparse fauna of human tribes
existing in loose approximation to one another as they dispersed about the globe in
the first act of human globalisation must suggest the earliest stage of fully evolved
human existence, with people living at their most primitive level of development
where all the preceding genetic development had put the necessary physiology in
place and linguistic developments were now able to come to the fore making
cultural expression the next baton of linguistic force carrying mammalian evolution
through the energy portal leading to the latent potential of the social domain. So
now the conditions enabling an intensification of the gravitational like social force
were in place, and these conditions were bound to propel humanity onto the next
stage of development by causing loosely affiliated clumps to merge into larger
aggregates capable of sustaining a greater intensity of linguistic force within a being
unified through cultural cues already representing the most elaborate formation of

an exoskeletal structure ever evolved on this planet ; not forgetting the amazingly
elaborate coral reefs or the impressive exoskeletons created by termites. It is easy
to see that the human exoskeletal structure is held together through the action of the
linguistic force, but logic tells us that the same natural force must be responsible for
the unity of coral reefs and termite mounds, a fact which is not at all easy to take on
board. There are however impressive demonstrations of linguistic force driving the
behaviour of these other social organisms occurring at the behest of the mollusc and
ant engines of physiological being, where corals tune their reproductive cycle in
unison to phases of the moon and termites show their attachment to the queen when
an entire colony is killed by just killing the queen. As with termites, so it is our
superorganism, if Judaism were eradicated our culture would certainly die,
Christianity and Islam would be meaningless without Judaism ; hence the whole
basis of the discussion presented here both for the sake of enlightenment and to
achieve precisely the objective of nudging humanity toward a higher stage of
existence where there is no longer a need for either of the two most pernicious of
bedfellows, religion and terrorism. It was then at this stage, when the linguistic
force really began to kick in on the basis of modern human form that had evolved to
operate primarily through symbolic representation personified in the capacity for
modern human speech, that the human superorganisms dispersing away from their
more benign tropical point of origin met their hominid counterpart, the
Neanderthals, who had been frozen in time by a less exuberant climatic stimulus
favouring stability rather than change, so that the fully fledged superorganism
simply supplanted the narrowly adapted superorganic form that had become trapped
down one of nature's many side roads to nowhere. But hey, it was probably fun
while it lasted, just like the many experiments in civilisation that have been and
gone, and hopefully one day our Jewish civilisation will be no more, Israel will
mean no more to the world of men than Umoogalugalimpongodog means to us
today—what I imagine the first people who ever spoke called their happy hunting
ground—and then a truly human like, as opposed to insect like, civilisation may
come to the fore ; something that can only happen when belief in God is dead and
gone. On the basis of a superorganic superiority that to Neanderthals would of been
as overwhelming as the arrival of Western civilisation on the shores of any of the
various new found lands discovered when Judaism went global, early humans
extended their domain and exterminated their fellow hominids without even trying.
But the accretion of clumps into social planetoids must be equated to the
coming of settled modes of subsistence. Once this new mechanism of accretion had
come into being the stage was set for social masses to become massively augmented
until the intensification of linguistic force in one localised spot induced a radiance
of cultural expression.
Thus far we have only used our analogy to take us as far as the beginning of
civilised life. But the first civilised cultures still had plenty of room in which to
grow and from history we know how they interacted with one another and became
ever more unified under one mode of linguistic expression until truly massive social
organisms came into being. Eventually our own organism emerged from the
process of superorganic evolution realising unity on a global scale, as yet this
development is still in its early phases of consolidation, but with the onset of
globalisation discussed in these naturalistic terms, as opposed to the familiar use of
the phrase 'globalisation' to refer to modern capitalistic expansion, we find that
some five hundred years ago our Jewish culture went global and not too long
afterward, with the onset of the industrial revolution, preceded by an intellectual
awakening that has since been extinguished as the organism has become set in its
ways once again, we nonetheless have the emergence of a mode of living which can

be equated to the explosion of a social mass wherein the linguistic force has caused
the social mass to go nuclear, quite literally in fact !
The evolution of human society then, like the evolution of celestial bodies,
is all about the accretion of mass in obedience to the laws of nature expressed
through the action of naturally occurring forces ; which is exactly as any scientist
worthy of the title would expect to be the case.


What is interesting about Crick's description of universal forces is that the

release of nuclear force on a massive scale, whose origins are pinpointed at the most
microscopic atomic level, depends upon another force manifested on a massive
scale, so that nuclear fusion can only occur as a release of atomic force where
gravitational force has created the necessary conditions. It is as if there is in reality
no such thing as 'gravity', just as there is no such thing as 'God' or 'mind'. Gravity is
really the sum of nuclear force, where it is nuclear force that is being expressed in
the early phases of the universe by being responsible for the initial agglomeration of
particles that eventually form atomic structures that are the basis of matter that
constitutes the building blocks of all universal structure through which what we call
the force of gravity is expressed.
Can we envisage gravity as a nuclear force ? I have no idea, in my hands
such ideas are mere ramblings, we are dependant upon the physicist to say what is
real and what is not. But it is clear enough that the primary biological function of
human language is to create a web of consciousness within which humans can live
collectively, and that the basic mechanism for achieving this illusion of reality relies
upon the recognition of real conditions which are then named in an
anthropomorphic fashion that imbues reality with a human like quality
commensurate with consciousness because human consciousness is itself only the
effect of language. And I think it is fair to say that gravity viewed in this
philosophical manner is a personalising force that gives each lump of matter its own
personal power. Of course each cosmic mass has a measurable gravitational force,
gravity exists, but the question we are in effect asking here is What is gravity ?
And we are answering this question by saying that gravity is the sum of nuclear
forces because without an initial force of attraction occurring at the subatomic level
there could be no gravity.
This speculative philosophical discussion about the nature of gravity is of
relevance here because it has the same logical pattern as our discussion about
language where we say that the priest constantly seeks to impose an illusion of
individuality that denies the true nature of the social force driving individual action.
We accept that gravity is real, and we also accept that human individual decision
making is real, but just as we may suggest that gravity is in reality a sum of nuclear
force so that gravity does not exist in its own right, so we can say that individual
decision making is simply the nucleic expression of linguistic force that in reality
only finds its true expression, its real meaning, in the realisation of the social
organism. So the human individual has no more choice about what they think or
say than an atomic unit has a choice about where and when it will be bonded to
another atomic unit and where and when it will take part in nuclear reactions of any
kind whatever, or in what degree it will contribute to the expression of what we call
gravitational force. The lack of real choice in the part played by individuals in
society must be real otherwise it would not be possible to organise society by
distributing wealth through the allocation of resources. Clearly if authority makes a
position rewarding people will choose to fill those positions accordingly, thereby

making a choice that is no more a choice than the choice any animal makes when it
selects a feeding site.
So gravity leads to the expression of other forces even as gravity is itself an
expression of other forces, and the force of information that creates all living forms
and therefore has the all embracing equivalence of gravity in the none living
domain, is likewise both a product of what we may see as different forces, such as
the force of genetics or the force of language, even as the quantity and quality of
life arising from the accumulation of information leads to an expression of the same
diversity of forces of which the all embracing force of information is composed.
Individial forces in life appear to have their own nature distinct from the overall
force of information just as nuclear forces expressed on a stellar scale appear to
have their own nature distinct from the force of gravity despite the fact that the
expression of nuclear force in nuclear fusion cannot occur without the gravitational
effect that underpins it. One such distinct life force is the force of free will that we
choose to believe is unique to ourselves, and we are right, free will is unique to
humans, just as spiral horns are unique to unicorns ! So all the different forces we
experience and observe derive their integrity as much as anything from our habit of
labelling. In the physical world we can eventually come to understand that
labelling is more or less arbitrary because forces and forms are ultimately of a
piece, so that we get the idea that force and mass are capable of being made
equivalent to each other — E = mc². But in the social domain the delineation
derived from linguistic definition has a functional role, and it is therefore vital that
we do not blur the arbitrary distinctions drawn solely from labelling, otherwise the
social structures that depend upon this arbitrary system of linguistic labelling will
fall apart even as the labelling system decays. How can we have negroes serving as
slaves of Europeans if we lose the logic of racism ? How can we have Christians
and Muslims serving as cattle for Jews to farm without the belief in God that makes
those implanted with these religiously formulated slave identities obedient to their
masters ?
By making the universe subject to one universal process that gives
expression to a force that varies in its nature depending upon the point at which we
focus our attention, our ideas lead to the conclusion that as nuclear force creates
gravity so gravity releases nuclear force, which is reminiscent of the idea of engines
of evolution that evolve in a locally circumscribed space by ascending an energy
gradient until a new universal potential exists that then descends the energy gradient
by dispersing through space. Thus we have made the dynamics of celestial
evolution identical to the dynamics of life's evolution ; which sounds like just the
kind of thing we scientists would like to do. And indeed, we should not overlook
the most remarkable fact, that it is in the stellar furnaces of past aeons that elements
have been cooked up that are essential to the formation of life as we know it ; as
they say, we are all made of star dust, star dust that has dispersed its potential
through space and come to rest in yours truly, borrowed for a moment !
As impressive as the apparent expression of individual free will is in our
world the notion of free will can only be an illusion arising from the power of the
social organism that is created by the linguistic force which creates a state of
consciousness that makes us see ourselves as political entities while blinding us to
our true nature as organic entities. When viewed in dynamic terms our modern
society is the equivalent of a celestial object that has reached the critical mass
where nuclear fusion takes place so that it becomes a star within which each atom
contributes its own personal energy, its own free will, to that expression of solar
release. That is what we do as individuals when we strive to express ourselves
selfishly by trying to become rich or to have ambition, we think we are enabled to

do this by the society we have created, but we have no choice but to do this because
this is the social structure within which we live.
The universe is characterised by a process of structural transformation
mediated by forces that change as form changes, thereby releasing hitherto unseen
engines of potential that have the characteristic of appearing to be more than the
sum of the parts from which they were made because they have qualities that
previously did not exist. The linguistic force is just like any other natural force, it
too builds up structure to reveal forms that have qualities that did not previously
exist. The linguistic force operates by managing the transformation of social
structure that is embodied in the illusion which we experience as consciousness.
Language is a programme that controls us just as much as our genes control us, we
are just beginning to understand the existence of genes and this is allowing us to
manipulate genetic information according to our needs, but the true nature of
language is as yet way beyond our wildest thoughts, without knowing what
language is we have no hope of manipulating language to make language serve our
needs as individuals rather than serving the needs of the superorganism created via
the force of language embodied in Judaism. The first step toward controlling
language is to know what we are, the first step to controlling language is atheism.
Ah if only what I have just said were true, but there is no escape, humans
are superorganisms and nothing can put an end to this fact of human nature. Look
at what genetic information is doing for us, it is not empowering us as individuals,
quite the reverse, our genome is the exact equivalent of that most terrifying of
Orwellian tools, the identity implant that allows us to be tracked in ways that even
Orwell would of had a hard time conjuring up in his imagination. And fortunately,
thanks to global terrorism, the priests who own us are licensed to push through a
programme of identity cards which will be bound to carry our genetic information
one day. Cameras track our every move, satellites will soon track our vehicles, and
one day, no doubt, they will track our gene labelled identity cards. This is for the
individual !! But of course, it makes us safer, all of us who have nothing to hide
from our loving big brother that is. No, this is the superorganism writ large. True,
gene therapy helps the most unfortunate amongst us, but therein lies another ruse of
the Judaic slave programmes, Why do you think life is made sacred in Judaism ?
Because dependency is a vital quality of the individual components of a
superorganism ruled by a master identity that is so subtle that it reduces those it
infects to the status of domesticated livestock, exactly as we can see from the fact
that genetic information is only made useful to the individual because there are
some very rare individuals who need such therapy in order to live decent lives.
This desperately unfortunate minority constitute a powerful limpet like attachment
to the master that, like the dependant Amish in America, force the more
independent majority to value that which enslaves them unnecessarily by virtue of
the empathy instinct which society forces us all either to express, or at least to
acquiesce in, by labelling us psychopaths if we do not.
So it seems that merely using language is an act of anthropomorphism, to
give anything a label is to perform an anthropomorphic act, to call a bird a 'bird' or a
tree a 'tree' is to anthropomorphise. This sounds incredible, but on second thoughts
entirely plausible, after all these forms exist independently of our naming them and
therefore our act of identification is something we perform for our own purposes
and our names are an addition to the things we see that are not part of the things
themselves ; an obvious fact, but we treat things as if they are the names we give
them, How can we do otherwise ? And this observation is no trifling matter for as
time goes by our possession of our surroundings is developed on the basis of our
habit of labelling, we not only label things, we label processes and having labelled
things and processes we then write poetry and sing songs about these joyous things

that we possess ; thus there is a BBC programme being screened at the present time
about Britain which has some drone pouring forth gush about how OUR land was
once a desert and a home to exotic creatures like lions, all in a horrible sentimental
voice of the kind parents use to sooth little babies. OUR land, our land, this portion
of the earth that we own, parcel up and sell as lots in estate agent's windows, oh yes,
it must be OUR LAND ! And so from the simple notion of property ownership we
suddenly find ourselves the possessors of an article of ownership that goes back
millions upon millions of years, way back before humans were even a twinkle in
evolution's eye. This is how language weaves its web in the hands of the priest, the
purveyors of knowledge pervert and corrupt every notion any sane person ever
comes up with, turning knowledge into the basis for an emotional trigger that boosts
political power.
In the news this week, today being 18/11/06, we were informed that a team
of German scientists had succeeded in isolating Neanderthal DNA so that we could
now learn more about OUR own origins ! That is a joke if ever there was one, all
academics work night day throughout their lives to ensure that one thing will never
be known, and that is the true nature of human beings, the last thing the priest wants
is for us to know our origins and biological nature. So apart from the way our
knowledge of genetics is being used to tighten the web within which we are bound
by the social organism in respect to the way our own genome serves as a tool for
authority to use against us, we see how the priests are not slow to use genetic
knowledge as a tool to enhance Darwinian bullshit by using genetic knowledge as a
tool for extending the idea of personal identity to the detail concerning our species'
evolution. They abuse genetics in this way all the time, the priest loves the idea that
we evolved from apes, they say we share 70% of our genes with bananas, 95% with
chimpanzees and 99.5% with Neanderthals. So what, it is obvious that this means
nothing in terms of revealing our biological nature. The words in this atheist
account probably overlap with 90% of the words used in an equivalent volume of
the Bible, that does not mean the two books have a
common nature in terms of what they say.

OK, here is an easy one, an easy transformation, Does ice exist ? No, ice is
simply water frozen, therefore ice does not exist because ice is water. But to say ice
does not exist is ridiculous, we use it in drinks, we skate on it, it carves out valleys
in the landscape and we celebrate collisions between ocean going liners and ice like
nothing else.
Is gravity then merely frozen nuclear energy ? Is mind merely frozen
linguistic force ? Is God merely the social organism frozen in our consciousness ?
Obviously these features of reality that we recognise quite clearly as distinct
and real are indeed impressions of something deeper that can be identified in an
alternative more basic form where the qualities that impress themselves upon us are
not present because the conditions are different, and this is why the idea of force
becomes so central in our discussion of human nature and how we understand what
existence is. Can we therefore reverse the logic applied to ice as water and say that
gravity, mind and God do also exist themselves, but only as some more basic
feature of existence appearing in a different state ? Yes, we could do this
legitimately, we experience gravity, mind, and God, and these could be a
representation of a more basic aspect of existence appearing in a particular state, but
a subtle distinction slips in between the features we have selected for our discussion
as we shift from the physical domain of mass effects revealed in gravity to the mass
effects revealed in the social domain where mind is taken to be frozen linguistic
force, that is to say mind is the product of an ability to freeze awareness into a more
tangible state of consciousness via the use of symbolic representation, and where

God is a developed manifestation of this ability to freeze awareness whereby the
unseen attributes of the social organism that are intuitively sensed due to their effect
upon us are built up into a conceptual image of something real, and where this
conceptual representation then takes on a life of its own as a disembodied
representation of its very real physical foundations. This elaboration of the ability
to freeze awareness is not a disembodied attribute of reality, our ideas are very
much a part of reality. The reason the idea of God exists is because the effect of the
social organism has evolved over time in conjunction with our awareness of the
social organism expressed through social authority, so God is the representation of
the social organism provided by that element of the social organism that possesses
authority over the society in which God is worshipped. This is why the idea of the
social organism is so taboo in our priest ridden society, because the idea of the
social organism must cause the idea of God to melt away to reveal the nature and
origins of this impression of reality that is not all it is said to be. So God is real in
the same way that ice is real because the idea of God is central to the development
of our society, but God is also not real in the same sense that ice is not real because
God is simply a coded representation of the attributes of human corporate nature
that has the latent potential to create the social organism which has been created via
the development of the idea of God as manifested in Jewish religion

Chapter III

The Evidence

The main evidence pertaining to this work is philosophical in nature as it is

composed of the works written by people over time that bear on our subject. We are
not primarily thinking of examining the material evidence, there is no dispute about
material facts here, the foregoing argument rests upon one supreme premise, that
the establishment controls knowledge by starting from a biased viewpoint and
interpreting all appearances accordingly. Thus the objects that are observed are all
of a piece, only the interpretation of their meaning is in dispute. The establishment
makes each individual person the full and complete human organism, here it is
maintained that the social entity, defined by a core religious identity, is the
organism. The social organism is therefore the individual and thus in terms of the
contrast between our philosophical perspective on the nature of humanity, and so
upon the nature of existence, as compared to that of the social authorities that
deliver the public view on these same questions today, our position can be likened
to that of the ancient philosophers who said the earth was not at the centre of the
celestial bodies in contrast to their contemporary social authorities that insisted that
the earth was indeed at the centre of the universe.
When the ancient astronomer philosophers took up these contrasting
positions they all observed the same physical phenomena, the moon was the moon
and the sun was the sun, only the perspective was different. However in terms of
enabling a true understanding of the heavens only one position was correct, and that
was not the position adopted by the bias social authorities. This distinction
regarding perspective is how we can think of the argument we have in hand here
concerning the true nature of human nature.

This said the type of philosophical evidence does vary. There is the
historical evidence providing the first truly scientific ideas about the nature of
humans which developed in the nineteenth century and the corresponding reaction
to that evidence produced by people inducted harmoniously into the identity
medium associated with the defence of the superorganic being. There is also the
evidence of the transition from genuine science to modern pseudo scientific bias.
There are also the more recent, and even modern accounts, of the subject which
contribute to the work of the theocracy by helping suppress the true science of
humanity by reinforcing the false academic material that washes over our world like
an ocean of mud laden waters.
I am now moved to insert a paragraph, or two, as a consequence of the
Heaven and Earth show screened on BBC 1 this morning, Sunday, 24 September
2006, in which Richard Dawkins took part to advertise his latest piece of religious
propaganda written in his capacity as Gatekeeper of the Theocracy ; as I like to call
him. Dawkins apparently launched a harsh attack on belief in God which he
labelled a delusion, and he included a passage in his new book that said teaching
children to believe in God was child abuse. Yes, very nice ! I like it. But, dear me
Richard old boy, if you feel so strongly about this issue why do you not do
something about it and try talking some sense instead of the load of drivel you come
out with all the time ! The challenge hammered home relentlessly by the presenter
was that Dawkins could not disprove the existence of God, a point he accepted
without question, merely saying this was irrelevant because there was an infinite
number of things that could not be proven to be false ; in other words you cannot
prove a negative proposition such as the assertion that God does not exist because
this requires providing physical evidence of something that has no physical
presence !
Dawkins argument is however typically theistic garbage. It is perfectly
possible to prove that God does not exist because the existence of God is not simply
a verbal proposition without any associated substance. God is not the creator of the
universe anymore than mischief carried out in the night hours is the action of the
bogey man. The representation of God as the universal creator is just a pathetic
blind that has no meaning at all in the context of rational discussion about the nature
of existence. The idea of God has a very real and hugely substantial material reality
associated with it, however this material substance associated with God is not of
God, it is of the superorganism. So all a person need do is to correctly identify
what the code word God represents in reality and in this way they prove that God
does not exist by showing what God is. What could be easier than this ! So why
does this mouthpiece of atheistic philosophy not say this ? Because Dawkins is the
Gatekeeper of the Theocracy, the man who fills the void that real atheism would
threaten to occupy if the likes of Dawkins were not taking on the disguise of a real
atheist by spouting the vindictive malice religion provokes while at the same time
failing to provide any meaningful alternative accounts of existence that settle the
conflict once and for all in favour of the only sane position any sane person can
have, in favour of atheism that is. Dawkins however is not to be thought of as
consciously fulfilling the role of Gatekeeper, as a professional academic he has
been trained and selected by the exoskeletal structure of the organism to perform a
role, if he had not been the individual selected then the organism would of had
another million individuals equally ideal for the job to choose from ; the individual
means nothing in the context of professional capacity, they are just an
interchangeable part of the physiological structure.

There is then quite a broad swath of philosophical knowledge to be

addressed in our attempt to shed light on the opening argument that has used the
supreme example of a cult figure from modern times, the dark figure of Adolf
Hitler, to give emphasis to the argument. Because of his imposing presence in the
field of personal responsibility as a real feature of human existence, Hitler is a
useful anchor for our arguments that we can utilise as a point of reference to this
end from time to time. We must try and develop the idea that this man was a man
of his times, a figurehead produced of necessity by the organic pressure of human
nature and that as such Hitler was in no way a political figure, he was in no way
responsible for the last world war or for any of the horrors of that period beyond the
most superfluous sense in which any leader can be said to be responsible for any
social movement that occurs on a grand scale. The absence of personal
responsibility on the part of an infamous or famous leader may seem difficult to
accept, especially in the case of Hitler given the intense philosophical outlook of his
that is implicated in shaping the movement with which he is associated. But it is
precisely the undercurrents of the social flux that created this man and his
philosophy that we hope to catch sight of by following the line of enquiry pursued
here. The translator's notes in Mein Kampf add detail to Hitler's own account of his
development and indicate that Hitler had many rivals in the effort to give voice to
the ideas that he eventually came to epitomise. If it had not been Hitler, then the
establishment that rules our world today would of had a million other equally ideal
candidates to select for the post of supreme defender of the faith required in the
guise Hitler took on at just that moment in time when such a monstrous form was
needed. In Dawkins case discussed above a university selected the religious face of

atheism, in Hitler's case a military institution selected the political face of religion ;
neither person could of existed without the nurturing, support and direction
provided by their institutional operators. The job was going to be done one way or
another, which individual did the job is completely irrelevant and ideas to the
contrary are just part of the propaganda forming the blinkers that make the
biological process that constitutes the superorganism's life function by directing
individual roles within the body of the organism.


Philosophical evidence comes in the form of written works, irrespective of

whether those works are classed as science, religion, myth or whatever. The
argument presented here indicates that there is no such thing as science because all
science is tainted with myth and as such might as well be labelled as an explorative
exercise, so that science, by failing to synthesis its own material into a whole body
of knowledge becomes an object of philosophical endeavour : even those who are
engaged in the pursuit of science are wholly unaware that the entire foundation of
their subject is skewed and as such the exact opposite of science, all science is in
fact political and aimed at supporting a political agenda because we live in an
absolute theocracy in which only that knowledge which is approved by the social
authorities is allowed to exist freely in the public domain.
Aside from the philosophical evidence then, there is some physical evidence
of an immensely significant kind that has come into being over the course of the
century during which the academic authorities have been busy erasing the science
of humanity from existence. Apart from the general philosophical considerations
concerning the manipulation of knowledge the overall argument will be influenced
by the considerable advances made in terms of the physical sciences concerning the
discovery of the double helix indicating how genetic information is relayed and
rewritten, and the physical evidence of human evolution in Africa indicating that
bodily advances preceded cranial augmentation and thus precluded some of the
more egotistical discussion on the nature of human evolution. There are therefore
points to make about the level of understanding that had been attained prior to the
destruction of the scientific study of human beings as organic entities in the opening
decades of the twentieth century, along with an examination of the argument that
can be presented today courtesy of the new material evidence concerning the
evolution of our species that also requires some consideration. But the cognizance
we take of early factual knowledge versus modern factual knowledge will for the
most part only be imbued into the logic of our argument. There will be no detailed
examination of the expressly scientific endeavours which must be secondary to our
philosophical enquiries, so that when we refer to aspects of an anthropological
nature, such as the evolution of human physiology, this must only be as an aid to
our overall philosophical argument which concerns the organic social nature of
humans, something that scientists openly deny can be determined by science. In
this way we seek to illustrate the logic of our argument without encroaching directly
upon the domain of scientific enquiry as such. It is then for the scientist to dismiss
the logic of our argument concerning their facts, if they can.


Why the Social Organism ?

Once the effort had transpired to try and understand humans from a
scientific perspective it followed naturally that human society must be seen to of
derived from the domain of life, and this suggested society had a biological nature.
It was a long standing idea that society had the appearance of an organism, in that
society could be divided up into a hierarchical structure that equated the social
authorities to the head and the mass of the people to the body of an animal. This
organic idea had been a fruitful source of legalistic arguments about the nature of
social authority going back generations before the idea's crystallisation in a more
intrinsically organic form. The actual conception of society as a real organic entity
took on a more serious form with the development of the biological sciences which
emerged in the eighteenth century and began making real progress in the placement
of life forms into an organised pantheon of knowledge from which it was inevitable
humanity could not be excluded.
I have referred to Adrian Desmond's book The Politics of Evolution in
respect to the phrase "Darwin Industry" and this modern piece of work is a superb
exposition of the manner in which emerging biological ideas gradually culminated
in the pseudo scientific work of Charles Darwin that laid the foundation for all the
religious science of humanity upon which the theocracy has come to depend in its
war against science in the contemporary scientific era. Desmond, as a professional
academic, obviously does not speak of Darwin as a fraud, this characterisation of
one of the greatest scientists of all time can only be used by someone who knows
what is real, someone who knows that human nature is corporate and that human
nature has nothing to do with apes but rather has everything to do with bees and
such like superorganic creatures because humans share a common nature with these
social animals. Howard Kaye says that 'Because Darwin viewed the struggle in
nature as in large part between individuals' this indicates an evolutionary process
that does not accord with notions of a social organism evolving according to a
pattern of collective harmony. (The Social Meaning of Modern Biology, page 25).
Desmond meanwhile even states openly that he is "not interested in the eternal
verities, only the reasons why rival groups saw them so differently : why one sect's
science was another's quackery." (Page 23). As disgusting as I found this attitude
when I first read it I have to admit that his approach suits this work perfectly for
here we make Darwinism quackery while proffering a lost account that was reviled
into oblivion as quackery by the theocracy long ago. So the question of an animal's
nature actually has nothing to do with what animal form it arose from but rather
what source of latent potential brought out the emergence of the animal form in
question. The whale for example must of originated in a terrestrial form since it is a
mammal and mammalian physiology evolved as an adaptation to terrestrial
conditions. Whales are actually related to a deer like animal but the whale's nature
is aquatic and as such if we want to understand the form of whales as they exist
today must look to extant fish not extant deer ! The physiological origin of humans,
like the physiological origin of whales, is relevant to the current form of these
animals but only in a general sense, in the sense that these organisms have a
mammalian form. The form and nature of ape and deer has little bearing on the
form of human and whale alike, other than the obvious fact that the original forms
must of had the right attributes to act as physiological portals opening onto the
future emergence of a form gravitating toward the latent potential of the
environment which these species now occupy, for the whale that is the latent
potential of the aquatic environment relative to the engine of mammalian
physiology, and for the human that is the latent potential of the social environment
relative to the engine of mammalian physiology.
Latent potential refers to the potential energy of a physical system.
Thinking of life's evolution in terms of energy potential places force in the central

role of creativity in the evolutionary process. Hence the energy potential available
for the realisation of a social structure that is necessarily latent in mammalian
physiology demands an associated force to allow a social form to emerge toward
the potential energy of latent in the development of a social structure. Hence as we
examine this question we come to see the linguistic force as the expression of the
flow of energy in human evolution and in human existence throughout all time.
The latent potential of the environment was brought into being in both these
cases by virtue of the evolution of mammalian physiology itself, where mammalian
physiology represented the equivalent of a new form of physiological engine whose
special quality, namely an ability to generate warm bloodedness, meant that the
evolution of this physiological model represented the ascent of an energy gradient
relative to all other physiological models evolved thus far, which in turn meant that
all environments became comparatively void of life in so far as they were as yet to
be exploited by a mammalian form adapted specifically to their environmental
Hence once the engine of mammalian physiology had ascended an energy
gradient by come into being at one moment in time and space, this of its of itself
created an energy disparity between the neophyte mammalian physiology and all
other niches of life since mammalian physiology represented and new and improved
form of engine within the domain of life. The inevitable consequence of this
disparity between mammalian form and the biosphere in general was that
mammalian form had to descend the resulting energy gradient through a
crystallisation of mammalian forms adapted to each and every available niche,
including the aquatic niche pertaining to whales and the social niche pertaining to
humans that existed as a latent potential of mammalian physiology itself. It is the
uniquely convoluted nature of the social energy potential, as compared to the latent
potential of all other environments, that has caused humans to evolve their
exceptional abilities that sets them apart from all other life forms. But this degree
of separation, as astounding as it certainly is, is nonetheless not beyond the bounds
of comprehension linking humans to the biosphere in perfect harmony with all other
life forms, as we are illustrating right now.
The only other remark we might feel obliged to make with regard to the
nature of environments in relation to the process of organic evolution is with
reference to the special case of the social life environment which we have just
equated to the physical aquatic environment. The emergence of a physiological
form brings into being a physical environment in its own right to which life can
make further adaptations which can, in some cases, take the form of a convoluted
adaptation. Any given physiology, although a living phenomenon, is nonetheless,
at one and the same time, a physical environment from the perspective of any other
physiological forms not of the same kind ; hence the habit of life feeding upon life !
But the elaboration of this evolutionary process becomes convoluted when a
physiological form comes to address its own physiology as a potential environment
open to a process of adaptation that is able to bring into being a still greater mode of
adaptation to the basic body plan—thus in the case of humans mammalian
physiology adapted to exploit the latent potential of mammalian physiology to bring
into being a mammalian social organism with the same organizational qualities as
we see in other superorganisms such as ants and bees. In the case of such
convoluted evolution the outcome results in what we can call an expressly social
environment where individual bodily form is made the unit of adaptation leading to
a still higher stage of physiological adaptation than that allotted to a less integrated
individual form. So the actual physiology adapts to itself to bring into being a
social environment, exactly as we see in the case of ants, corals, bees and humans
etc. The social environment is therefore a facet of existence to be placed alongside

that of the land, sea and air, and all basic body plans are, as a matter of course,
bound to be drawn by the process of evolution to generate forms able to exploit the
latent potential of this convolute, social, life environment, just as they are drawn to
adapt to an entirely external physical, none life, environment. Where, by life
environment, we mean an environment seamlessly composed of structure integrated
into a living form because it is the product of the directed as opposed to the passive
activity of a life form. The product of passive activity leading to the formation of
new environmental conditions can be illustrated by noting the effect of plant
respiration on atmospheric conditions which created the oxygen rich atmosphere
that had major consequences for the future development of animal life. The only
thing that is special about the social environment is that it can only be said to come
into being when the actual animal that is going to realise the potential of the social
environment shows its first signs of emergence. Since humans are the mammalian
physiology's answer to the exploitation of the potential of the social environment
latent in mammalian physiology itself, then the first appearance of the creatures
moving toward the exploitation of the convoluted mammalian environment which
would envelop this creature in social structure mark the point at which human
corporate nature made its appearance, albeit that this point will be located at a time
several million years before actual humanity. The true superorganic mammalian
form can be identified by its hallmark quality of fully symbolic speech which is first
revealed in traces of symbolism found scratched onto pieces of African ochre
associated solely with the art of decoration that are tens of thousands of years old.
The people who made these marks were part of groups representing the embryonic
forms of our living superorganism.
In the case of human evolution the point of departure from other animals
that led to our dominance occurs at that time when the domain of superorganic
organization, while still lying vacant and awaiting exploitation by a mammalian
form, came into conjunction with a mammalian form with suitable attributes to
open the gateway to the realisation of that latent potential of social physiology. The
apes held the key to the portal through which a superorganic mammal could arise,
but in entering upon that path the relevance of the anthropoid form became
increasingly irrelevant to our comprehension of the resulting human animal because
the individual ape became, from the outset, the unit of adaptation to be transformed
toward an alternative end that was not itself the individual but rather the unification
of the individual into a super individual. In seeking to trace the process of
adaptation leading from animal to human we only need look for adaptations that
furthered the reduction of the individual to the status of a component while at the
same time revealing the projection of form beyond the limit of the individual body.
Thus we seek evidence of increasing unity amongst individuals on route to
becoming human, and so we must look for the adaptations that evoke the sense of
an extended organic being coming into existence at a level beyond that of the
individual, at the level of social organization. Physiological and behavioural
features that can be interlinked under the same logical scheme, features such as
those expressed in the evidence of upright posture and tool use, can be associated
with superorganic qualities if we recognise that the emergence of superorganicism
would shift toward the creation of an exoskeleton from the outset in the process of
drawing individuals into an ever increasing state of dependency upon the social
being and the ever increasing development of that attribute of human life we call
On what authority can this scheme of human evolution be justified ? This is
the kind of account we would expect if we assume that humans have evolved to
exploit the latent potential of mammalian physiology in the domain of social
physiology that we see other physiological body plans such as that of the mollusc

and the insect exploiting. If humans are not the mammalian answer to the latent
potential of social physiology which unites individuals into a super individual then
we should be asking where the mammalian form evolved to exploit this potential is,
why we see no sign of it in the present or the past, and what humans are if we are
not this creature that science tells us either must exist, must of existed, or must be
due to emerge at some point in the future ? Unless, that is, mammals become
extinct before this body plan has the opportunity to evolve a social form ; and
always assuming that we feel obliged to think of ourselves as a social animal. And
lets face it humans are capable of believing anything that suits them.
To reason in this manner about the patterns of life on earth is to reason as
Mendeleev reasoned on the strength of his periodic table of elements which
revealed gaps in the distribution of elements, gaps that had to be filled.
Mendeleev's impressive foretelling of future discoveries in the range of naturally
occurring elements was made possible because of the integration of energy with
form in a model based on observations of known elements that revealed the
predictable essence, or nature, of all possible discrete forms of a like kind. By
recognising the role of energy as the fundamental arbiter of all existence in its
relation to life forms we can extend predictions of a similar kind to those of
Mendeleev to the organic domain ; as we have just seen in the preceding paragraph
where we make it plain that superorganic species are a naturally occurring
consequence of the existence of any basic 'life engine' that produces a range of life
forms. An element is only an 'engine' operating at a more fundamental level of
material existence because engines are naturally occurring structures that mediate
the flow of universal energy.
We can think of a machine—such as a watch—consisting of sub-
subassemblies united into subassemblies that eventually come together to form the
finished article. When speaking of subassemblies we invoke the sense of material
structure inherent in the watch we see and handle. But the structure of a complex
dynamic object like a watch involves the transmission of energy through the
medium of the structure toward a purpose, and thus, while static parts of the watch
will be skeletal, we can also apply the idea of an engine to the other structural
components of a watch and speak of the subassemblies as a series of engines
allowing the transfer of energy from a source to a final outcome, which in a watch
is telling time. According to this dynamic conception of structure even individual
elements of some subassemblies will have the attributes of an engine, such as the
individual toothed cog or wheel. This dynamic conception of material structure
offers us the kind of model we need in order to understand human society according
to a naturalistic plan.

Although Desmond's 1989 publication does not directly impugn Darwin as

being a pseudo scientist it does lay before us a mass of philosophical evidence
indicating that there was an ongoing battle between the defenders of the established
social order that is equivalent to religious authority and those who wanted to bring
forward alternative accounts of social form based on new ideas about the nature of
human beings and life in general, new ideas that negated religious authority. It is
clear that Darwin rejected the radicals agenda and sort to be a friend to the
establishment, things we all know anyway but Desmond's account makes the point
in a substantial and detailed manner. It is worth noting however that the political
movement that sort to unseat the establishment was just that, a political movement,
it was not a fraternity of intellectual idealists seeking knowledge for the sake of
knowledge as we presume ourselves to be as we are engaged in this
uncompromising discussion of human nature now. Thus in the shape of the radicals
indicated in Desmond's account it seems to me we have something approximating

to the roots of the Marxist movement versus the establishment, rather than the
realist movement versus religion, so it is little wonder that this highly polarised
issue came to a head over the course of a century in the collision between Marxists
and Nazis. And since the Marxist mantra gave communism the characteristics of a
pseudo religious movement we can view Marxism as a politically formulated take
over of the new scientific ideas that were impinging on how people understood the
nature of human society. We have observed that all real knowledge is always
subverted toward a political end wherever revelations have a bearing on social
authority, and by teasing out these abstruse links between political ideology and the
scientific exploration of existence we appear to make the world wars of the last
century an end product arising from the age of enlightenment, an enlightenment
ending in two massive conflicts which reorganised society and effectively settled
the form public knowledge would take as the period of active enlightenment came
to a close with a veil of darkness and ignorance wrapping itself snugly about a
grateful humanity once again. We are still secure in our home, we are not lost in
the depths of a cold dark infinite space.
Desmond does not mention the social organism, I refer to him for a picture
of the political aspect of social dynamics pertaining to this kind of naturalistic
apolitical knowledge. It is a matter of some significance that knowledge relating to
the nature of human beings seems to have an infinite capacity to mutate into many
entirely distinct strands of enquiry which makes it a damn tricky business picking
up a good lead and following it as the ideas that you think will take you where you
want to go invariably lead nowhere and never in a month of Sundays does it occur
to you that those subjects you should be following are of any interest at all ! All of
which resulting confusion is perfect for the academic authorities that seek to control
knowledge by a process of well constructed obfuscation and misdirection..
It always struck me that the way to go in order to discover what human
nature was would be via the subject entitled the study of man, that is anthropology.
Not a bit of it, might as well of studied entomology or Latin dancing for all
anthropology was ever going to tell me about human nature. The central
importance of anthropology in the revelation of the nature of human beings had
made this subject an early target of the manipulators. Indeed after Darwin centred
our attention upon the individual form of the person as derived from the anthropoid
line the anthropological field split into two quite distinct branches, the physical and
the social, and the social was fixed squarely upon the subhuman, that is the none
European, varieties of the species. Naturally anthropology did not refer to pre-
civilised people as subhuman it merely treated them as inherently distinct from
ourselves and thus acted as though primitive society could be studied while we
moderns remained beyond such sordid endeavours. It simply never occurred to me
that if I wanted to know what the true nature of humanity was I should study
sociology. I thought sociology was about the way in which modern society works,
and it is, sociology has absolutely nothing to say about the nature of human beings,
sociology treats modern people as if they were some sort of divine being that
created itself by a sheer act of willpower !
So if our objective is to begin from an absolutely atheistic perspective that
assumes humans are animals and they evolved on this planet as an integral part of
the planet's biosphere then we are doomed to bounce from pillar to post until
kingdom come if all we ever do is hunt around all the available knowledge in the
public domain. Our task is hopeless. We can get nowhere by turning to the
academic establishment nor any other form of media, we are lost. The public
domain of knowledge is a maze that always leads to a dead end, as its developers
and guardians intend it should.

However, with determination we can be our own point of discovery. The
fact is that humans are animals and they did evolve on this planet and there has to
be an explanation of this fact that accords entirely with how we live today. It is just
a matter of finding that explanation. The explanation is that humans are a
superorganic species but the most remarkable thing about this explanation when it
is discovered is that the reason it is so hard to find is because of the immense effort
put into hiding this knowledge ! Who would ever of thought it ? Not me I can tell
you, I am English, my culture is based upon one principle above all others,
freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of thought FREEDOM GOD DAM IT !!
It just never occurred to me that we live in a slave society where there is no freedom
of thought, no freedom of access to information and no freedom of expression. We
live for freedom of expression, we are taught to engage in freedom of expression,
we are awash with knowledge and our media bombards us with information in
honour of this fact. How can it be that all of this is a sham ! I have to say, now I
am use to the idea I am well impressed, how on earth is this fraud achieved ? It
really is a phenomenal exercise.
What I would say however is that when you realise that the sole objective of
the First World War was to erase science from society and to reassert the authority
of religion, and of course the Second World War built on the objectives of the first,
then it becomes less and less surprising that this level of control over knowledge
can be achieved. Any organization able to deliver a war on this scale, against its
own people, clearly has the capacity to control all knowledge even via the ruse of
opening the floodgates and making freedom of expression the supreme object of
existence. The achievement is still impressive though, and the subversion of
knowledge as found in our society today must represent the greatest achievement of
the human species. But once we understand the process of knowledge manipulation
its central method of substitution makes perfect sense. Knowledge is a free flowing
medium that social authority channels to give a uniform product in which the
keepers of social authority preserve their authority by modulating the message that
is broadcast. The first point to note then is that knowledge is free flowing, therefore
it must either be blocked, or the content of the flow must be controlled ; or
preferably both methods should be made to act in unison while complimenting each
other. The control of content is a response to the free flowing nature of knowledge
that is necessary because the capacity to know means that human consciousness
cannot tolerate a void in the understanding of important events. This is why people
believe in absurd ideas like black magic in relation to illness or a realm of the
ancestors for the dead. Humans fill voids in their knowledge because the capacity
for knowledge cannot tolerate a void, that is our consciousness cannot tolerate a
phenomenon begging for an explanation, someone provides an explanation that
satisfies and so this explanation becomes part of the knowledge base even though
its true point of origin was an imaginative flourish. So knowledge control by social
authorities is all about filling the void with selected material rather than leaving a
question to go begging. Consequently authorities come to depend upon the art of
generating imaginative flourishes and they build social structure to aid in the
process. Once we are clear about this dynamic operating in respect to the
fabrication of knowledge then the consequences as we are discussing them here,
where we see elaborate schemes concocted to substitute for the simple truth, all
begins to make perfect sense.
So, there is no way through the mire of misinformation except that you
which you make for yourself ; and should you be lucky enough to find the right
path, and know what it is when you see it, then there is also whatever anyone else
who has made it through might of made available that you then have the knowledge
to recognise. But needless to say an individual has scant chance of revealing the

truth and the effort to see that this does not happen is being waged on a massive
scale at every moment of the day and night in every possible venue that can be
imagined. The war of religion against science is relentless ; it continues generation
after generation.

All this said then we can reveal that the correct thread to follow, despite all
modern appearances to the contrary, is sociology. And given all that we have been
saying about the function of the academic structure in the control of knowledge it is
most appropriate that once we have settled down and got ourselves focused on the
subject in hand then we find that not only was sociology once a true scientific
subject but that it even displays the remnants of the critical time when sociology
transferred over from science into myth, and there are seminal works that speak in
the most overt terms about this transition, only they speak in glowing terms about
how the sterile ideas of the early sociologists were finally laid to rest as a real
professional sociology emerged from the darkness of truth into the brilliant light of
sheer unadulterated stupidity ; except they call truth a dead end—which in fairness
it is, and always should be—and stupidity they revel in.

The Historical Period

The historical period is that which existed prior to the eradication of

scientific sociology that is simultaneously demarcated by the emergence of
professional sociology, and since the devastation of the First World War was
essential to eradicate the science of society from society we need not be surprised
that this event marks a distinct, although not absolute, line allowing us to see the
end of the idea that humans are organic beings. After the First World War the
priests working in the academic world, now perceiving themselves to be
professional sociologists, had finally formulated a religiously complimentary
account of humanity that could be used to fill the void left by the exclusion of all
meaningful scientific thinking applied to the subject of humanity. I bought a book
recently, published during the Second World War, in which the phrase social
organism is used in earnest, and this is the latest use of this phrase I have found
used in its own right. The book was however of no consequence, just a collection
of essays about life by various thinkers writing at a time when people were having
the stuffing bashed out of them by the priests who farm and manage society.

"There were animals before there were men, and there were men
before there were those social organisms which we know as families and

(my italics)

(Matter, Form, Evolution and Us, by Joseph Needham, in This

Changing World, page 37. First pub. 1944)

It is a strange statement — there were men before there were .... families and tribes
— there were social organisms before there were men would be more like it, but
even that would make no sense because it implies that today human societies are no
longer social organisms but that human societies are now composed of individuals

who exist as an end in themselves, which is utterly ridiculous. It is clear that
Needham is trying to say that humans are individuals, and they do only exist as
social aggregates because they choose to do so in order to live a preferred lifestyle.
Even without the benefit of modern knowledge about our early precursors a more
idiotic and twisted idea could never of been uttered by any sane person in the entire
history of humankind ! Today however it is a provable fact that hominids were
social organisms before they were men, or more correctly before they were homo
sapiens since there is no such thing as men as a distinct kind of animal, this is
provable because pre-human creatures like were already leaving exoskeletal
remains in the form of stone tools in the deposits where their fossil bones are found.
Trying to keep track of the varieties of prehuman ancestor identified by
anthropologists is a bit confusing, I have long had the idea in my head that
Australopithecines were our earliest identifiable ancestor and I am inclined to think
that these creatures made stone tools, but referring to a modern work that is simply
laid out has cleared up my confusion on this point. The BBC produced a book to
accompany a programme called Walking With Cavemen and here we find a simple
presentation of the relevant evidence wherein Australopithecines are identified as
the first definitive prehuman because they bear the uniquely human bipedal posture
and they existed some three to four million years ago. Meanwhile it is with the
arrival of Homo habilis ('handy man') that tools, (or exoskeletal remains), first
appear some two million years ago. Homo habilis we are told was apelike and
hairy, and had no language ability (Introduction, page 13 and 14). But if scientists
were allowed to interpret these finds from a scientific as opposed to a religious
point of view wherein the creatures were deemed to be an emerging superorganism
instead an emerging representation of God, then many ideas would change and
instead of presenting one disjointed fact after another—which facilitates the notion
of advancement focused upon the individual as set out by Darwin and the
consequent emergence of free will—we would have a long series of complimentary
facts conforming with the idea of an organic process, wherein the relationship
between bipedal gait, tool use, nakedness and speech would all fall into place quite
naturally and thus lay the foundation for the modern study of human society as a
strictly biological science ; exactly as it should be. It is a matter of logic that
Australopithecines must of formed exoskeletal structures if only in the shape of
nests for sleeping in, but they must of either worked with entirely perishable tools
and materials or only used stone as it occurred naturally. And likewise even
Australopithecines, never mind habilis, must of had a linguistic capacity quite
unlike anything any animal has today which, if we could hear it, would certainly
suggest the latent potential for what we possess as full blown symbolic speech.
But of course as an academic priest Needham's idiocy is to a purpose and as
such probably offered with the sincerity of unwittingness, this kind of nonsense is
what keeps the masses enslaved to religion by chains of ignorance fashioned by the
theocracy. Why, we might ask, did rabbits not choose to live in towns and organise
themselves into defensive states to protect themselves from foxes instead of just
digging burrows ? The answer being that rabbits have not evolved the individual
physiology that forces humans to develop their elaborate social structure ! And if
rabbits had evolved such social physiology it would not be the foxes they would
have to worry about but their fellow rabbits, for that is the nature of social
physiology, it is introverted, social physiology turns the focus of evolutionary
pressure inward upon the animal so formed ; this is why man alone of all the
mammals kills his own kind as a matter of routine. Such internecine behaviour is
necessary to bring a true social organism into being, war is good. In a nineteenth
century anthropological work by Lewis Morgan called Ancient Society we find a
scheme set out whereby social institutions were developed according to a fixed

pattern denominated as savage, barbarian and civilised, where people were
represented as having learnt to perfect these modes of existence. But such an idea
is too idiotic for words, it is self evident that this kind of development can only be
accounted for in terms of an emerging potential latent in the evolved individual
human form that was capable of developing these social forms. Needham was just
another priest doing his nasty little job, and we can only say the same of Morgan ;
trying to find academics working in the scientific field that cannot be categorised as
having a malevolent intent toward knowledge is nye on impossible, as it needs to be
for the theocratic method of knowledge cleansing and substitution to work. And,
never tiring of doing their dirty work perverting truth, these people then have the
sick gall to excuse the stupidity of religious belief by saying that the masses need
the comfort of the idea of an omnipotent loving being watching over them. Yeah,
just as the poor sods who have been terrorised by hoods need the comfort of
protection, so the masses need the comfort of religion because the priests have
erased all real knowledge and left us poor uneducated worms grovelling in the dark
and wondering what the hell is going on. Priests are criminals working in the field
of knowledge. The last book ever to mention the social organism for real was
indeed just part of the management programme and the author in question was
obviously harking back to the old ideas, but only in the role of the intellectual
terrorist seeking to destroy knowledge. Soon there would be none of his kind left,
there job was done, no more would we hear the delightful idea of the social
organism voiced by any, friend or foe, as the decades drift by we only find a
scattering of clues that any real ideas about the nature of humanity ever existed. In
a book from the post scientific era that continues to apply the religious principles
developed to suppress science while pretending to deal with the relationship
between human biological nature and social phenomena we find a suggestive
illusion to the mechanism whereby the priests erased science from society. Having
extolled the virtues of Darwin our priest belittles those weak spirits who could not
adapt to the new intellectual world ushered in by Darwin, he says "As one writer
put it, moribund ideas do not expire until those who have generated them do."
(Under the subheading Broad Social Phenomena and Some Great Theorizing About
Them, by James Chowning Davies, in Biology and Politics, 1976, page 99.)
Darwin was the covert saviour of religion now available to be pushed in our faces
by the priest-scientists as a demonstration of their independence and determination
to engage in the search for knowledge without let or hindrance. The process
ensuring the eradication of real scientific knowledge worked perfectly so these three
aforementioned authors represent the kind of academic dregs left with an open field
in which to freely spout their arrogant bullshit while making derogatory remarks
about those who were no longer present in the aftermath of religion's triumph over
truth. To the victor go the spoils, today we only hear what the priest has to say, the
vanquished scientist is silenced forever more. And this is why today, despite all the
talk of the triumph of science, we have the likes of the Creationists, the Ickes, and
the Danikens of this world to contend with, because science is corrupt from within,
so what else can we expect from without !
Although I have condemned Morgan outright in the preceding passage I
love reading works by nineteenth century anthropologists as they were living in a
world where the last remnants of wild humans still roamed free and as such these
authors were trying to think like modern Westerners while still facing the reality of
a world that was occupied by pre-civilised people who had an air of viability about
them unlike the tail end survivors that today look like the last sweepings. Morgan
was a priest serving the subversion of science for the sake of religion, just as his
contemporary Darwin was, and just as Dawkins is today. But the modus operandi
of knowledge subversion is programmed into all of us via the language we speak so

the faulty reasoning of people like Morgan only appears in the concluding analysis
of their observations. It is this fact, that the observations are correct and the
interpretation is plausible from a consistently bias point of view, that makes it
possible to produce such monumental frauds as that bequeathed to the world by
I want to take a section from Morgan that will allow us to see how the
conclusion given by the author manages to be theophilic and politically correct
while telling us nothing scientific, in comparison to an alternative conclusion we
will draw by starting from a scientific premise.

"Commencing, then, with the Australians and the Polynesians,

following with the American Indian tribes, and concluding with the Roman
and Grecian, who afford the highest exemplifications respectively of the six
great stages of human progress, the sum of their united experiences may be
supposed fairly to represent that of the human family from the Middle Status
of savagery to the end of ancient civilization. Consequently, the Aryan
nations will find the type of the condition of their remote ancestors, when in
savagery, in that of the Australians and Polynesians ; when in the Lower
Status of barbarism in that of the partially Village Indians of America ; and
when in the Middle Status in that of the Village Indians, with which their
own experience in the Upper Status directly connects. So essentially
identical are the arts, institutions and mode of life in the same status upon all
the continents, that the archaic form of the principal domestic institutions of
the Greeks and Romans must even now be sought in the corresponding
institutions of the American aborigines, as will be shown in the course of
this volume. This fact forms a part of the accumulating evidence tending to
show that the principal institutions of mankind have been developed from a
few primary germs of thought ; and that the course and manner of their
development was predetermined, as well as restricted within narrow limits
of divergence, by the natural logic of the human mind and the necessary
limitations of its powers. Progress has been found to be substantially the
same in kind in tribes and nations inhabiting different and even disconnected
continents, while in the same status, with deviations from uniformity in
particular instances produced by special causes. The argument when
extended tends to establish the unity of origin of mankind."

(Morgan, page 17-18)

In concluding that humans have a common origin, that is to say humans did
not evolve in more than one place, Morgan offers an important conclusion which
was far from obvious to nineteenth century Westerners who had a panoply of social
and racial forms to compare to themselves and which suggested human kinds
evolved all over the planet just as we see in relation to other types of animals.
But for us today the idea that black and white people, for example, might
represent two distinct evolutionary lines that must be denominated as varieties,
species, or subspecies, does not cloud our thoughts for one moment. Thus the real
significance of the passage enunciating the uniformity of social evolution revealing
a natural human logic constrained to move along a predetermined course, when it
does move, leads not to the, for us, self evident conclusion that humans are one
species derived from one original source, but much more significantly these facts
prove that the human species must have an organic nature that is revealed in the

uniformity of social dynamics noticed by Morgan. This human nature therefore
only needs to be discerned, meanwhile our modern state sponsored science
expressly denies that human nature can be determined as this would mean that this
biologically given nature would be revealed at any point in time that we may
choose to observe humans, so that whatever determined our behaviour 100,000
years ago would necessarily determine our behaviour today just as certainly ;
something the theocracy will not stand for because the theocracy relies upon the
idea that we choose to live as we do today to disguise the foundations of its power
which is based upon the priesthood's ability to impose religion upon the population
they rule over. Here however our object is to make it known that human nature is
corporate because humans evolved to form a superorganism and this accords
perfectly with the observations Morgan makes in the above passage. So what
Morgan calls 'the unity of origin of mankind' is not so much a location in either
time or space, but rather a quality, our common point of origin is really the organic
nature of humanity — our common point of origin is our human corporate nature !
The passage quoted concludes chapter one, chapter two, Arts of Subsistence,
opens with a statement that human progression from a low point to a higher
condition is revealed in the arts of subsistence and that humans were the only
"beings who may be said to have gained an absolute control over the production of
food" (Page 19). And furthermore, Morgan tells us that had humans not acquired
such control they could not of extended their reach from one niche to another.
Without changing their form just like other animal kinds, such as the feline animal
that is made for the jungle here and the mountain there, and so varies from place to
place, this is so, since the opportunities for subsistence would change radically and
demand a commensurate change in the form of species occupying the alternative
niches. But because a superorganism adapts from within humans, so to speak, took
their niche with them wherever they went. Hence, while we cannot fault Morgan's
reasoning on this point, we must contradict the claim of exclusivity said to apply in
the department of human subsistence. I note elsewhere that other superorganisms
like ants, bees and termites have evolved a form of food based economy giving their
superorganisms the form of an exoskeletal stomach and adipose tissue from which
all individuals draw their sustenance. And, bearing in mind the vast difference of
scale between an insect and a mammal, we have some fascinating examples of
insects managing their niche environment, only the other day, today being 1/11/06,
I saw a fascinating programme on The Life of Plants narrated by David
Attenborough showing so called 'devil clearings' in jungles where only one type of
tree grew, clearings that local people thought were created by spirits. The real
explanation was that ants had evolved a symbiotic relationship with a tree that grew
structures on its branches to provide a nest habitat for the ants to live in, and in turn
the ants provided protection from other insects and when saplings of any other tree
appeared in the vicinity the ants destroyed them. Taking into account the scale of
the ants versus the human I would say this behaviour proves that the habit of taking
"absolute control over the production of food" is a feature of superorganic
physiology and not in any sense unique to human superorganisms, indeed in this
case we can see that the ant has gone a great deal further than merely taking charge
of food production, they have shaped their ecosystem, which is a very human habit
that has now reduced the entire planet to the status of a single human niche. It
might be said that the recklessness of humans in respect to their exploitation of the
environment, in comparison with the ants state of balance with their environment,
indicates that humans are not automatons, but I think the size differential indicates
that the space differential between individual humans and individual ants is what
sets up the different outcomes between harmonious ant behaviour and destructive
human behaviour, this destructive outcome might be likened to the special

circumstances Morgan mentions as leading to different outcomes in the case of
people living at the same stage of development but under different conditions. And
when we review what priests call our human history according to a scientific mode
or reasoning we get an entirely different view of this aspect of the human animal.
The Chinese culture provides proof that humans at an advanced stage of existence
do still have the capacity to reach a state of balance with their environment that is
characterised by a fixed exoskeletal form. However the mechanism of growth
written into the code of Western civilisation based upon the Jewish identity is
different because the Jews evolved a culture especially adapted to the civilised form
of superorganic physiology, so that Jews evolved to be a master organ of
superorganic form and they came into their own when their specialised adaptation
eventually gave rise to the next tier of Jewish structural form represented by the
Christian identity. This means that for the Jewish identity programme there is no
natural limit set upon the extent of growth, the Christian structure acts as a growth
factor, or phalange of Judaism, and the Jews act as the motive factor or master, so
that the Jews farm the Christians and hence we have evolved an immensely
complex technological society driven by the mechanisms of capitalistic growth that
relentlessly treat humans as if they were just any other natural resource available for
exploitation. And we must note that exploitation is best done via a symbiotic
method, not by crudely defined political means, and Judaism is a highly symbiotic
method, especially in combination with its two tailor-made substructures of
Christianity and Islam. The Jews farm their hosts then, that is what this organ of
superorganic physiology evolved to do, and this is why Western, or more correctly
Jewish civilization, has taken the miraculous turn it has where technology has taken
off in the most astounding fashion over the course of the last two centuries. And,
when the time came, the stable Chinese organism simply collapsed before the
pressure coming from the ever expanding Jewish superorganism ; all of which
developments we are use to comprehending in a rather more fairytale like fashion,
or nightmarish fashion, if you prefer. Thus Jewish civilization is in an exploitative
phase and even when, as earlier this week, today being 2/11/06, we find a major
report being promoted by the government that says global warming is going to be a
catastrophe the talk is all in terms of cost, 1% of global wealth now or 20% later.
Global wealth — what the hell does that mean — the soddin planet is nout more
than a damned market stall now.

We have been talking freely of ant life and human life as if we were making
a perfectly obvious comparison between bats and birds or whales and fish, now I
want to give a piece of evidence that indicates that this scientific approach to
understanding the organic nature of organisms whereby bat/bird have a common
aerial nature, and whale/fish have a common aquatic nature, is absolutely forbidden
in professional scientific circles when it comes to making the equivalent connection
due to the social nature of both parts in an ant/human comparison.

"Viewed from a suitable height, the aggregating clusters of medical

scientists in the bright sunlight of the boardwalk at Atlantic City, swarmed
there from everywhere for the annual meetings, have the look of
assemblages of social insects. ........
It is permissible to say this sort of thing about humans. They do
resemble, in their most compulsively social behavior, ants at a distance. It
is, however, quite bad form in biological circles to put it the other way
round, to imply that the operation of insect societies has any relation at all to
human affairs. The writers of books on insect behavior generally take pains,
in their prefaces, to caution that insects are like creatures from another

planet, that their behavior is absolutely foreign, totally unhuman, unearthly,
almost unbiological. They are more like perfectly tooled crazy little
machines, and we violate science when we try to read human meanings in
their arrangements."

(On Societies as Organisms, in The Lives of a Cell, Lewis Thomas,

page 11, 1980. First pub. 1974)

No wonder humans end up defying scientific explanation as they stubbornly refuse

to fit into any category of life that makes sense, other than that category which is
uniquely defined exclusively by humans themselves ! But from the perspective of
the knowledge that we are unearthing and reconstructing here which, in the 1970's,
had so recently been brought under control by the priesthood, and at such cost in
terms of the action that had been necessary to support the process of intellectual
subterfuge, that action being namely the two world wars, we need hardly be
surprised that the academic priests were so sensitive, although, that said, I can
assure you that the scientists are just as liable to go ballistic if anyone dare so much
as suggest a scientific explanation for human existence today — the professional
scientist hates science with a passion, that is their job, that is what their high social
status depends upon. And no sooner had the essay just quoted seen the light of day
than along came Wilson with his Sociobiology causing consternation and generating
a massive pulse of activity as academics across the board sort to resist knowledge
and truth, there is even a book about this period called Defenders of the Truth : the
Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond ! Can you believe it ?
the priests whose sole objective is to subvert science are cast in the role of
defenders of science ; no obscenity is too great for these people, like typical priests
they have no more shame than the most base criminal from any walk of debased
humanity. The academics from all fields worked away producing layer upon layer
of misinformation to heal the wound Wilson had opened in the theological pseudo
science woven from the point of attachment to reality offered by Darwin. And so it
goes on.

I have a piece of lay work from the mid-seventies that evoked the
superorganic idea in a weak fashion unconnected with the nineteenth century
science that is nonetheless referred to in the vaguest of terms ; this book is all
imagination and no knowledge, written by an author that toyed with the most
profound questions of human nature in order to promote a ludicrously formulated
feminist ideology without having the least notion what the hell she was talking
about. Such were the seventies ! In the aftermath of Wilson's new synthesis a wave
of anti-scientific works were pumped out by American academics to forestall the
threat of the genie's release from the bottle and a sham history of the social
organism was produced by a pseudo academic in support of this effort to nip
freedom of thought in the bud. I have the only copy of this book in the UK that I
know of, no libraries at all have any copies of this book, and while it is well
produced and looks the part, and was at the time the most expensive book I had ever
bought, it is worthless priestcraft disguised as sincere inquiry purporting to be by a
friend of true knowledge. I do not care to name these pathetic works, find them if
you can.

Now I keep harping on about this real idea and its eradication and so it must
be time to pause and give some consideration to this line of thinking. At rock
bottom the basic logic of this whole argument can be defined in terms of theism
versus atheism. The atheist is often said to be nothing more than a kind of

misanthropist as they just want to destroy what is good and they have nothing
constructive to offer by way of alternative ideas. This is a bit rich when you
discover that the priest has a massive social structure covering every department of
life, a structure that is dedicated to preserving religion while ensuring that those
same structures cannot serve as repositories of the real knowledge that an atheist
needs to explain the existence of humans without referring to some notion of divine
creation. Once we have recovered the true scientific knowledge of human existence
then there is no stopping us. With the idea that humans are superorganisms and the
human form evolved to bring an organic being into existence at the level of social
organization then the atheist can answer any question that can be asked. This is
why this knowledge is so precious and so powerful, and so hated by the social
authorities who exist by virtue of their association with the social structure
generated via the force of language which imbued social structure with a religious
identity precisely in order that a long lived superorganism could come into being.


Any overview of the history of sociology is bound to refer to the Frenchman

Auguste Comte fairly early on in the exercise as he is sometimes called the father of
sociology and he coined the word sociology for the study of society in his work
Positive Philosophy published in the 1830's. This work uses the phrase social
organism, for example in the Contents pages we have "Interconnection of the Social
Organism ...............461" (The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte : Freely
Translated and Condensed by Harriet Martineau, 1856.) After this splendid start
Comte went nowhere, in common with most of those who followed the social
organism routeway the founding fathers of this supremely scientific idea seem to of
been completely incapable of grasping the significance of their own thinking. This
is a fact that has caused me immense frustration and consternation, not to say a
tremendous amount of effort and expense in a search for works that make sense.
The basic problem that no one I have come across thus far seems able to bridge is a
conceptual problem, people seem to be incapable of thinking apolitically, that is
they seem to be incapable of realising that they do not exist. Taken at face value
the idea that in order to make sense of reality a person must realise that they do not
exist must seem ridiculous. But we have already had to deal with this question of
the manner in which language is understood. We, as individuals, are not simply
lumps of flesh and bone, we are, more than anything else, our characteristic
attributes, we are defined by our language, nationality, religion, job, interests,
education and such like qualities which exist as cultural patterns occurring within
the social organism, patterns that we connect with as individuals and download
according to our placement within the body of that organism. The superorganism is
thus the original world wide web, and the world wide web is only an extension of
that originality. How can we possibly be said to exist as individuals once we realise
that we are what the cultural flux in which we exist makes us ? Given this it ought
to be easy enough for someone in pursuit of human nature, who sees that society is
a superorganism, to easily recognise that there is only one possible outcome arising
from this idea and that is the realisation that we do not exist as individuals in any
true sense.

But this seems to be unthinkable, nowhere is there any indication, at any

time, that anyone during the century long period when the idea of the social
organism was at the forefront of sociological enquiries ever developed a proper
scientific conception of humanity based on this perfectly scientific idea.

Why not ?

My experience teaches me that the idea that humans are related to ants, in
terms of their nature, is absolutely horrific to most people. More than this, people
have evolved along with a need to be enslaved to the organism of which they are a
part so that they only actually feel free when they are in their proper state of
enslavement that they evolved to occupy. This instinctive human sense of
contented dependence is not undiscriminating, contentment has to be realised at a
personal level, but as long as people feel good about themselves then they are not
concerned about any abstract account of their nature. And this affinity for absolute
authority makes perfect sense, both scientifically and politically. The point at
which I get frustrated is the point at which I seek knowledge about the human place
in existence that makes sense. For this I turn to science only to find that all the
scientists are professionals who are even more committed to this natural affinity to
authority than most of us. These priests-cum-academics have a vested interest in
preserving ignorance and as such they act exactly as secular priests by preserving
and promoting that layer of knowledge concerned with none scientific matters that
has been formulated to accord with that area which is expressly religious. So
politics supports religion and science, or academics, support politics so that a triadic
authority structure emerges once again.
The recognition that attachment to a ruling authority is not wholly
undiscriminating implies that people do revolt against authority, and a young man I
happened to be talking to at the bar last night, 27/08/2006, who liked my
explanation of human nature, objected that we could not be insects because insects
never revolt. This is an argument used by the priest-scientist who says that ants are
robots and as such not like humans. I could not think of any easy way to get this
young man to understand me, his being pissed did not help, but his objection is
useful as a guide to the type of objection an ordinary person might make to the
science of humanity. The basic answer is however that humans mostly conform
and only rarely revolt, and when they do revolt it is usually orchestrated by the
people in control to suit their own ends, so that even large scale rebellion is really
unwitting conformity to a master. Witness the rise of Marxism opposed by the rise
of the Nazis. Did either of these two revolutionary movements give freedom to the
masses, or anything at all that they ever promised ? No, these two strands of bias
argument just formed a pair of reigns running through the nose of collective
willpower that lead the biomass in its remorseless obedience to the force of human
nature through a rough patch of terrain just until the reigns could be past back to the
traditional priests once again. The theocracy always remains in absolute power no
matter what face rules society because the theocracy is yoked to the naturally
occurring force of human nature via the religious formula that gives the theocracy
its identity.
I think it is fair to assume that at all times and in all places the instinctive
affinity for mindless obedience to authority has always been the bedrock upon
which the theocracy has been founded. It is evident from what Comte went on to
do that he understood perfectly the consequences of the idea that humans are a
superorganic species, that he comprehended politically, for the idea that humans
constitute a social organism is the proof that God does not exist, and this idea
makes belief in God impossible while leaving humans with the responsibility they
say they have already, that of being their own masters. Realising this Comte
developed his own substitute for religion, the whole manifestation of his idea is an
insult to science, an insult to humanity and so disappointing and unnecessary that it
just leaves me numb with contemplation of what it is that makes people tick. The
results of these endeavours by Comte to solve the problem he had created in

relation to religion by unravelling the secrets of nature can be found in his System
of Positive Polity, I only have volume two of this work but it is fantastically
tormenting because it is so coloured by the logic of the idea of the social organism
while being at the same time a total corruption of the same idea.

As if this major blow for the science of humanity were not enough, with the
founding father of the science of sociology being as effective an enemy of
sociology as the theocracy could ever wish to find, the tragedy we have next to
contemplate is that of the English Comte, Herbert Spencer. Everything we have
just said of Comte can be said about Spencer by way criticism. Spencer cannot be
said to of generated an abstract religion to replace the religion that had been stunned
by scientific ideas he and others were promoting. He took a more political tack
focused on the authority of the state which appeared as an ogre in Spencer's mind as
the realisation that the idea of the social organism meant that the individual could
only of evolved to serve authority sank in. Spencer wrote a short chapter entitled A
Society is an Organism in The Principles of Sociology (Vol. 1, Third Ed., 1885.
Page 437.), but still he evidently came to hate the idea. Spencer, like Comte, was a
prolific philosopher and in his later years he went to war with his earlier philosophy
that had extolled the idea of the social organism by writing such works as The Man
Versus The State which is concerned with the rights of the individual and as such
can easily give the impression that it is a personal reaction against the idea that the
individual does not exist which arises logically and inevitably from the realisation
that humans evolved to be like bees or ants, automatons serving the master.
We must remind ourselves that knowledge comes in two basic forms, the
political form concerned with defining the organism and associated primarily with
the establishment of identity and identity's associated structure, and the scientific
form concerned with all reality without discrimination. Therefore science must
actually include the political form of knowledge, which of course it does when it
can ; hence only science can tell us what religion is. So what we are seeing in the
case of these two early philosophical exponents of the idea of the social organism
just mentioned is a reaction occurring within the people concerned against the ideas
they had found themselves producing as a consequence of a scientifically inspired
and unbiased examination of human existence. Given that political knowledge,
which includes religion, is central to our personal existence we should not be too
surprised that most people find themselves reacting against their own findings when
science causes them to examine themselves. The allergic reaction that the human
mental system has to true knowledge, as seen in the work of two of the great
philosophers of the social organism, provides a clue to the general mindset of all
people, a mind set that tends to foster a reaction against the unlimited pursuit of
science and an opposing desire to set the limits of science to suit the needs of life as
we know it. Given that this is the reaction we see in those who devote their lives to
the discovery of knowledge it is small wonder that combined with the pressure from
the overt protectors of religious authority the gradual development of knowledge
over time will result in a transformation of science into a form commensurate with
religion. Everything favours the subversion of science, nothing favours freedom of
thought. To this end of organizing knowledge purposefully religious knowledge
evolves according to the conditions set out above where we stated that the linguistic
force projects a supra-individual image of humanity onto the social world in the
form of social structures to which individuals are attached by way of an affinity
acquired during their growth process from child to adult. And thus, we say again, a
grateful humanity comes to wrap itself in a cosy blanket of ignorance and blindness,
blindness achieved through knowledge however, not through an end to sight, but
through a wealth of knowledge. Hence the profession of Gatekeeper whose job it is

to keep us blind by stimulating our immense capacity to receive information with a
rich and never ending bounty of knowledge, knowledge that is as close to
nothingness as we can get.
There is no implied criticism intended in this account of these two noted
nineteenth century philosophers, they display a natural reaction to the human
condition. However it has to be said that resistance to a true idea such as that
displayed by Spencer's individualism is necessarily futile, it is obvious that if
science indicates that humans are evolved to be like automatons then any ruse that
reveals that humans are in fact free can only be an accommodation to that
nightmarish fact revealed by science. And accordingly, the true realization of
individual freedom is therefore to know that we are evolved to be automatons, it is
as if, as the saying goes, The Truth Shall Set You Free. I do not know where this
line originates, I have a book of that title written by David Icke ; but nothing this
man says can be taken at face value that is for sure. Besides which this catch phrase
is nonsensical anyway, nothing can set a person free from dependency upon the
social organism if human nature is corporate ; which it is.

This brief discussion of the historical phase of the idea of the social
organism gives us some sense of the difficulty we are faced with in seeking to know
ourselves in a full and unrestrained manner in a way that accords with the modern
way of knowing that we call science. The fact is that science is a staggeringly
powerful tool and it places within our grasp knowledge about so many things that
our power of understanding, should we choose to exercise it, has become God-like.
Meanwhile we are left grovelling about in the dirt, burying our heads in the sand so
that we can live our lives in a dream. This is no use to me, but it evidently suits
most people perfectly. We have just reviewed the first two attempts to exercise this
God-like power, and seen the result, a headlong dive earthward taking those who
glimpsed the light head first into the dirt to the limit of their shoulders. Phew! blind
once again, thank goodness.

And yet think about what we have already considered. It was because of
this denial of the true significance of the social organism and a refusal to face up to
the implications of this knowledge that the scientific product of sociological
evaluations was left flailing in the social flux of ideas where the resulting loose
ends could be knitted together into a political creed that gave rise to the world wars,
Hitler, the Nazis, the holocaust and the foundation of Israel from which the Global
War of Terror draws its inspiration. And so now the process goes on as we
continue to be subject to the linguistic force channelled through the structural
medium of religion as today, 21/08/2006, we hear that eight young so called British
Muslims are to be charged with attempted mass murder. The growth of the
superorganism goes on in accordance with the laws of nature which have created it,
I for one do not see how we benefit from ignorance about the role of religion in
these affairs. I would rather know what is real, I would rather the human race
became extinct than live in a world shared with people who call themselves
Muslim, Jew, Christian, Sikh, Hindu and so on ; because there can be no freedom in
such a world except the freedom of the slave who loves slavery born of ignorance.
The social structures which form the exoskeleton of the superorganism are
coloured with the religious identity from which the priests get their motivation that
is committed to the relentless preservation of religion and the promotion of all
things, and anything, that aids that preservation. This disposition promotes the
globalising domination written into the religious creeds dominating our world today
in obedience to the natural imperative of human superorganic nature that tells us
there can be only one ! As we can see from the things being said now, the religious

blends with the scientific as we reduce the religious to a scientific explanation and
reveal the underlying politics of religious identity.
Without religion could humanity organize itself ? I suspect the sad answer
is no, we evolved to operate at the behest of the force of language and unless this
force can be redirected into some secular expression of collective willpower it is
difficult to see how the religious expression of the linguistic force can be
superseded. Religion is the real nightmare in our lives, the nightmare we wake up
to after the merciful release of unconscious sleep.

Notes : —

I am playing fast and loose with the facts when I presume to state that I have
found the last ever serious use of the phrase 'social organism', but I do this for
effect, a philosophical version of poetic licence we might say.

To get real, which is the supreme objective of this philosopher, I will

provide a later example which I did not think of because it is not in English and so I
have no precise idea of what the book is about. In Der Mensch in der
Gesellschaft : Die Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus als Urbild und
Aufgabe there is an essay called Die Mitte des sozialen Organismus.

My computer translates these titles thus —

The person in the company the three arrangement of the social organism as
an Urbild and task

The middle of the social organism

Not brilliant, but anyway here we have the phrase 'social organism' used in earnest
in a book published in 1977. But the fact that this is the only such example I have
to offer indicates how rare this mode of thinking is in the post scientific age that we
live in today.


Note 2

On the subject of the post scientific age, I would like to mention a book title
that asserts the same thing in reverse fashion, namely Christianity in a Post-
Atheistic Age. Obviously science and atheism are synonymous in philosophical
terms because science makes nature its point of attachment to reality and implicitly
disregards the linguistic point of attachment called God. If science did not do this
then science would be synonymous with religion, which it is not, and therefore it
follows that if we live in a post-atheist age then we must necessarily be living in a
post-scientific age too ! Of course the reality is that in our theocracy science is not
supposed to have any philosophical role, science is meant to be a merely a technical
pursuit that serves to create and maintain the fabric of the social organism.

Nature, the art whereby God hath made and governs the world, is by the art
of man, as in many other things, so in this also imitated, that it can make an
artificial animal. For seeing life is but a motion of limbs, the beginning
whereof is in some principal part within ; why may we not say, that all
automata (engines that move themselves by springs and wheels as doth a
watch) have an artificial life ? For what is the heart, but a spring ; and the
nerves, but so many strings ; and the joints, but so many wheels, giving
motion to the whole body, such as was intended by the artificer ? Art goes
yet further, imitating that rational and most excellent work of nature, man.
For by art is created that great LEVIATHAN called a COMMONWEALTH,
or STATE, in Latin CIVITAS, which is but an artificial man ; though of
greater stature and strength than the natural, for whose protection and
defence it was intended ; and in which the sovereignty is an artificial soul, as
giving life and motion to the whole body ; the magistrates, and other
officers of judicature and execution, artificial joints ; reward and
punishment, by which fastened to the seat of the sovereignty every joint and
member is moved to perform his duty, are the nerves, that do the same in the
body natural ; the wealth and riches of all the particular members, are the
strength ; salus populi, the people's safety, its business ; counsellors, by
whom all things needful for it to know are suggested unto it, are the memory
; equity, and laws, an artificial reason and will ; concord, health ; sedition,
sickness ; and civil war, death. Lastly, the pacts and covenants, by which
the parts of this body politic were at first made, set together, and united,
resemble that fiat, or the let us make man, pronounced by God in the

(Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes, Page 5, 1946. First Pub. 1651.)

Part II

What then of other advocates of the idea of the social organism and the
developments coming after Comte and Spencer's efforts in the middle of the
nineteenth century ?
Spencer is the only English speaking advocate of the idea that human
society is a social organism and because of his wide breadth of philosophical
interests, much of which contradicted the basic logic of this idea, he is finally worse
than useless as an advocate of this idea. Indeed I usually place Spencer along with
Darwin as an enemy of science, but I always try to resist the idea that people are
conspirators, I prefer to think of them as unwitting agents of natural forces such as
we have been discussing, namely the force of language which creates social
structure and orchestrates the behaviour of the living fabric occupying the resulting
exoskeleton of the superorganism.
Americans were big fans of Spencer, apparently, yet there is no indication
that anyone in America directly took up the idea of the social organism as the
foundation of any well organised philosophical or scientific outlook. The only
book I have by an American which has a flavour of the idea of the social organism
is The Nation : The Foundations of Civil Order and Political Life in the United
States, by Elisha Mulford, 1887 which, for example, has the sub-title "The nation is
an organism" appearing on page nine. I do have an American book entitled The
Social Organism and its Natural Laws, by Henry Rawie, 1926 which is some kind
of economic treatise where for the life of me I cannot see why the phrase Social
Organism is included in the title, it looks good on my shelves and amuses me even
as it otherwise bemuses.

Overt advocates of the idea of the social organism are few and far between
but they come in various forms and there is just one book actually written on the
subject of these Organicist philosophers at a time when the idea was still alive and
which gives lots of food for thought about this question, this book is Organismic
Theories of the State : Nineteenth Century Interpretations of the State as Organism
or as Person, by F. W. Coker, 1910. This has to be the corner stone of any
enquiries into the history of the idea of the social organism, it gave me, once I had
found it !, my first pointers and from it I selected my main man of the genre, a
Russian whose main work was published in the 1870's in German. (And halleluiah!
I just, 22/08/2006 22:26, found the fifth volume of his main work in Austria, I
cannot believe my luck, just hope it arrives safely now—5/11/06, not yet, oh dear,
money has been refunded, I do not believe it, the book I wanted most of all in the
world, incredibly rare, and I let it slip through my fingers.) The other major work
expounding upon the idea of society as a physiological entity was written by a
German called Schaffle and as it is printed in Fraktur, a type face not amenable to
scanning to turn into text ready for machine translation, I have had to buy an Italian
translation, not that the German original is actually readily available.
But the work we are engaged in here is not intended to be some dry
historical survey of past philosophical ideas and the fact is that no philosophers I
know of give a proper account of human nature as corporate, and none identify the
true living social organism properly or relate the person to that social organism
properly either. As we seek to immerse ourselves in this nineteenth century
material however we can pick up the less philosophical and more scientifically
oriented material that sort to make the link between humans as a superorganism and
the relationship of humans to the general phenomenon of social life that pervades
the animal domain. Thus we can move away from a direct focus upon the idea of
the social organism and see the supporting network of ideas pervading the academic
structures of the exoskeleton that would have to be erased by way of internecine
warfare if the theocracy was ever to recover a firm grip upon the society it manages
and farms. To this end a most notable work is Animal Societies by Alfred Espinas
first published in the 1870's which developed the idea of society as a natural aspect
of life to which human society could be related ; this book is now classed as a
founding work in the field of ethology, ethology being the study of animal
behaviour in its natural habitat, but it means a lot more than that to those interested
in the idea of the social organism as Espinas is frequently cited in works of a
sociological nature in the period leading up to the First World War. The general
principle of life evolving toward a latent energy potential wherein the social
environment is acknowledged to be an environment on a par with any physical
environment is naturally enhanced by the logic of a work that seeks to elucidate the
phenomenon of society on the broadest possible scale.

At the same time we also find works revealing the emergence of the two
camps involved in the war between science and religion which culminated in the
First World War that destroyed science and left a world in which we live like
zombies, where we think we are as free as can be when really we are made fools of
by the priests who manipulate society and farm us as if we were pigs in living in a
parlour where we are amused by lots of bright shiny play things and promises of
trips to the moon some day soon. Thus we have the French philosopher Alfred
Fouillée's Contemporary Philosophy which contrasts the naturalistic versus the
idealistic, that is the scientific versus the religious conception of society plus his
own blend of the two which only seems to be a form of the religious argument since
clearly it is all or nothing, either humans are animals created by nature or they are
divine beings created by God. Fouillée also wrote a book on the force of ideas
which reminds me of my idea that language is a natural force, my idea being
infinitely more powerful than Fouillée's because language is a physiological
phenomenon and ideas are by definition a product of language. By making ideas a
force this philosopher placed the power of nature in the hands of the people who
had ideas, no doubt exactly as he intended to do. Whereas by making language a
natural force I do the exact opposite and make ideas a product of nature, thus taking
the most cherished possession of humanity away from people and placing it where
it belongs.

From the early initial expression of the idea of the social organism, decade
by decade by decade, the arguments developed. Various names came to be
associated with the naturalistic camp and new terms for the views expressed came
into being so that the monists as opposed to the dualists emerged. Ernst Haeckel is
an example of a monistic oriented scientist but at this early stage in the unravelling
of the idea of organic evolution the arguments of these people were limited in their
ability to elucidate the nature of humans by way of the direct application of the
science of biology. The temptation to engage in a ragbag of name dropping and a
sprinkling of book titles and subjects must be resisted as we seek to discern the
trends that are relevant to our central idea, this true idea of the social organism had
been discerned and it was only a matter of formulating this idea correctly and of
expounding it publicly.
But the correct formulation of the idea of the social organism never came
and the public exposition that did emerge was of little use. The main problem is
indicated in the title to Coker's work where he mentions the focus of people's
attention upon the state as the organism, and likewise in Mulford's book The
Nation. This was the supreme error and it is surely easy to intimately associate this

error with the formation of our argument's anchor point attached to the infamous
German nationalist Hitler. The idea of the social organism became associated with
the idea of the nation by everyone who dealt with the subject, no one saw the true
significance of religion because no one escaped the grip of the political mindset.
Had they done so they may of seen the relevance of language and identity as natural
phenomenon associated directly with the essence of human corporate nature. This
said linguistics was another major area of investigation throughout the period of the
idea of the social organism and some authors wrote books in which the evolution of
language was associated with the evolution of religion, exactly as it should be ; just
one example I happen to possess a copy of being The Origins of Religion and
Language, by F. C. Cook, 1884. This mode of reasoning readily accords with
Fouillée's notion of ideas as a force. Unfortunately I have so far only touched on
the subject of linguistics in this period and so I cannot comment on just how the
early investigators actually related language to organic evolution, but I am sure we
can assume there were no realistic developments, all ideas will almost certainly of
been stuck in the political idiom, they certainly are today. None of our
contemporary linguists have the slightest idea what language is, all adopt a strictly
political interpretation that involves understanding linguistic structure as something
that is put to use by individuals rather than comprehending the nature of language
which is a strictly biological phenomenon responsible for the generation of
superorganic physiology. To do other than adop this blinkered perspective would
lead instantly to the total destruction of religion and thus to the end of our
civilization as we know it ; as we can easily see from what has been said so far in
this essay.
There have been only two authors I have had in mind when I have ventured
to discuss the nearest that people got to realising the true nature of the social
organism as being not the state but rather an entity brought into being with a far
more diffuse constitution about the linguistic nub of religious ideology and the
associated force of identity that all religions possess. These two authors, who wrote
in English, are Bagehot and Kidd. I was not intending to discuss Kidd despite the
fact that his Social Evolution does appear to be the pinnacle of the organicist
argument in so far as he makes religion the key to understanding the social
organism. The trouble with Kidd is that he sets Christianity apart and makes it the
basis of the extraordinary European civilisation while at the same time failing to
relate Christianity to Judaism in an organic sense, so I have not been inclined to
read his book despite the excellence of his focus upon religion as the essence of the
social organism. Kidd therefore makes exactly the same mistake as all other
commentators upon the social organism in his day who equated the nation to the
social organism, except, instead of the nation Kidd made a discrete religious
identity, as defined by its own advocates, the equivalent of the social organism. No,
wrong !! Only one man saw further than Kidd in terms of the true extent of the
social organism as defined by a correct scientific interpretation of human organic
nature, and we will get to him eventually. Kidd's work made a big impact in its day
and I have a critique written by a religious advocate which says this

"He [Kidd] defines the social organism as "a social system or

type of civilisation founded upon a form of religious belief." This is
at least a unique definition. It contains a truth which there is a
tendency among natural scientists to overlook or deny, viz., the
essentiality and power of religion in human society As a
constructive, regulative, and integrating force, religion is the
supreme factor in the social organism. It is true that Christians have
held religion to be the most important interest in life ; but it cannot

be denied that the future rather than the present life has been chiefly
held in view, both for the justification of the power-holding classes
and the consolation and submission of the oppressed. It is therefore
the more remarkable that godliness should be declared, from the
standpoint of natural science, to be not merely profitable for this life,
but the very centre and foundation of the social organism."

(Sprague, Page 17.)

The priest is as ever skilled in twisting arguments and Sprague's

compliments are designed to misrepresent Kidd's conclusions ; as ever the priest is
totally disingenuous. There is no conflict between atheism and the idea that
religion is the supreme power in human life, on the contrary, this fact is
encapsulated in the title of this work There is no God ...... But ...... there is
something, Even Better !
The title of Sprague's book is a perfect example of an important feature of
charlatan work which always mimics true work when religion and science clash.
The Laws of Social Evolution suggests we are about to be treated to a scientific
exposition of social laws, nothing could be further from the truth. This device of
mimicry has cost me a fortune and loaded my bookshelves with junk due to the
purchase of books from the internet that prevents any evaluation of the contents.
While a bounty of pseudo scientific books masquerade as genuine science we never
find any real scientific books of our modern period adopting the same
presumptuous persona, this is why I end up buying book after book in a futile
attempt to find some real science of society. At street level this contemptuous and
arrogant imitative behaviour is what we call taking the piss, religion is in truth the
art of piss taking.
Still, in all fairness, what can the charlatan say when they seek to impose
their lies upon their defenceless victims. Truth tellers determine the slant the priest
must take and this is possibly how complex and powerful religious ideologies
evolve to form the successful mythologies that rule our world today, mythologies
that have ruled the world continuously for thousands of years ! The success of the
charlatan is the reason why there must be an atheist science running in parallel with
the religious science that is sponsored through the machinery of the state. In the
context of this discussion it is interesting to hear the current references to parallel
communities developing in Britain due to the self organizing segregation of
Muslims from indigenous English people in places where there is a high percentage
of Muslims. This naturally occurring parallelism is bad for social cohesion, but
parallelism is essential for the development of a real science of humanity in a
theocracy so it is necessary to try and force science out of the hands of the priests in
order to achieve freedom in a parallel universe of understanding.

My ongoing dogged effort to engage with the idea of the social organism is
currently involved in turning a French work into text, this work is Objet des
Sciences Sociales, by René Worms, 1913, in which he states that it is the state that
is the organism and in which he deals directly with the question as to whether or not
religion can be considered as defining an organism. I only speak English but by
turning foreign works into text they can be run through a translation programme
that gives a vague idea of the meaning and French comes out not too bad without
any extra work, unlike German, and so by doing nothing more than this it is
possible to obtain an approximate sense of the way Worms deals with the question
of religion as a basis for defining the social organism.

On page thirty five he mentions the crucial fact that religion can be spread
across an immense space, but, he seems to say that these pan-state identities do not
supersede distinctions of nationality, race, profession, morals, law and culture.

"For person, to recognise itself "fellow believer" of such or such

individual does not be equivalent to itself some to recognize "fellow
countryman ". It not at all there has identity, it not at all there has
appropriateness between these terms."

Someone recognising a "fellow believer" is not the same as someone recognising a

"fellow countryman" according to Worms. This is a very poor conception of the
dynamics of the social organism and it indicates just how difficult it seems to be for
people to overcome the political expression of the force of language. It is very easy
to how people like Hitler would of gained confidence in their view of national
identity as the supreme expression of identity in opposition to the poison of Judaism
from such ill conceived ideas about human nature and religion. But if it is difficult
for those feigning an unbiased point of view to recognise the true nature of
existence this does not apply to Nature, Nature knows exactly what human nature is
and has no problem in creating people who live according to that nature, even
though the people Nature creates have not the least idea why they live the way they
do. Thus the Islamic religion consists of an identity pattern that does indeed make
the identity of a believer synonymous with the common territorial identity wherein
the whole planet becomes the rightful domain of the Muslim. We frequently hear
Muslims telling us this regulation is at the heart of their concern for the way
Muslims are treated around the world. Any British Muslims will be happy to
confirm that while they are British citizens they are first and foremost Muslims and
as such their loyalty to other Muslims must take precedence over their loyalty to the
state in which they happen to live if their should be a conflict between these two
objects of identity. This is of course perfectly in accord with the motive force of
Islamic terrorism, and although the Jewish and Christian versions of the Jewish
identity programme do not make it an overt point of definition applying to their
respective religious identities, as the Islamic-Jewish identity implant does, the very
nature of the Jewish situation as dispersed peoples makes the precedence of
Judaism over the host state implicit, and in Christianity there is also a strong sense
of the religious identity being a common foundation of action expressed in the
evangelising force characteristic of Christianity, even if Christians are the greatest
devotees of nationality as a discrete identity.
It is of course impossible to be British and Muslim, but since the object of
the theocracy is to reaffirm the religious attachment of British people to their Jewish
slave identity, slavery to Judaism being equally effective in the form of the
Christian or Muslim identity, the large scale introduction of Muslims backed by
legal changes to suppress any negative reaction by the indigenous population while
protecting the Muslim's religious identity, mean that few would dare say it is not
possible to be Muslim and British. Propaganda tells us repeatedly that there is no
conflict between these two identities. However this religious propaganda coming
from the establishment is an insult to those of us who are English and proud to be
British because it effectively says that there is no such thing as Englishness or
Britishness, an idea that is backed up by the documentaries that are made
periodically to try and discover what the indigenous identity is, a challenge the
propagandists always fail miserably to meet. Let us make it simple for them. No
British person could ever, under any circumstances, agree with the notion of a fatwa
being imposed for blasphemy, nor could they, for an instant, think to criticise the
authors of cartoons that deliberately set out to insult the Prophet and cause offence

to Muslims. The fact that British people do join in the criticism of people who
enjoy making gratuitous insults up to offend Muslims is all the proof we could ever
need that Muslims in Britain are corrupting our values and undermining our
freedom. For we learnt long ago that religion, if a necessary evil, is a nasty thing
that has to be kept in its cage with a few good pokes of a sharp stick delivered on a
regular basis precisely to stop it getting uppity. This is something we have yet to
teach the arrogant, ignorant Muslim. But something we need to teach them if our
culture is to survive the attack from Islam. Causing offence to religious people
could perhaps be called emblematic of what it means to be British, in a manner of
speaking. No Muslim can ever be British who takes their faith more seriously than
they take their British secular identity. It is as simple as that. But the supreme
show of independence from priestly arrogance demonstrated by showing contempt
for religious self importance is no flippant act of anarchism, many extremely
important consequences flow from this free thinking outlook to do with individual
freedom, civil rights and ideas concerning equality in law, education and other such
like social privileges which use to be important to socialists before the ever
gnawing priests got their teeth into the Labour Party and corrupted it out of
existence by bringing the blasphemers of socialism, Blair and Brown and their
cohorts, into power. They say Blair is the most successful leader Labour has ever
had, sure, and this is because at last labour has come of age as a social institution
and allowed a Conservative personality to become its figurehead, a supporter of the
establishment, a committed defender of the right wing religious fascism that has
always been the enemy of the people—nice socialist—a Tory socialist, a bit like a
feminist misogynist, a religious scientist or a black white man !

There are plenty of Muslims in the world who can be called good people by
any reasonable standard, including in this country, but the presence of Islam in
Britain, as things stand today, represents a decay of British freethinking values and
the solution is to convert Muslims to our civilised values, and not to tolerate their
medieval and naturally fascistic outlook that the priests who rule us have
deliberately nurtured in Europe in order to enable the theocracy to reassert its
control over a society that had become too free of religious fear and ignorance to
suit their purposes.

Political Interlude

This week , today being 07/10/06, a row has occurred after an MP said that
Moslem women should not wear uniforms that cover their face ; a truly disgusting
habit it has to be said. What is of interest that I wish to report here was the
comment of a Muslim women who appeared wearing her offensive outfit on local
television last night to answer the rebuke aimed at the arrogance of Islamic women
who think they can parade about our towns and cities in their disgusting outfit that
symbolises their hatred of our free society and their contempt for our way of life
that they cannot wait to see erased from our land. One female viewer sent in a
question stating that when she was living in Muslim countries she had to obey the
laws requiring her to cover up so why should people coming to Britain from
Muslim countries not adhere to our cultural values ? This arrogant Muslim
quickly, and intelligently, replied that to her knowledge there was no dress code in
Britain. What was the dress code ?, she said. Very good, a nice response that
neatly uses our values of freedom against us.

So once again it appears we English have no culture, and how lucky are we
that these aliens are invading our land and thus introducing a culture into this
godforsaken place ! Not lucky at all.

But how do we answer this attack upon our culture coming from these alien
invaders whose culture we despise and for which we feel nothing but contempt ?

We answer this attack by knowing who and what we are ! Possessing the
knowledge of who and what we are symbolises our freedom. Knowledge of what
we are as living entities empowers our freedom by giving us the power to know
what our freedom loving culture means, so that our values of freedom cannot be
used against us by these nasty and dangerous demons introduced from alien lands
by the priests that rule us in order to bring us back under the yoke that these same
priests are attached to more directly. Humans are a superorganism in which
individuals do not exist as an end in themselves, therefore we value freedom of
expression by the individual and we despise organised demonstrations of unity such
as that displayed by way of the Islamic Nazi style black female garb of ugliness.

In political terms this women's defence seems to be a good chess move, one
without any defence. However humans are not free agents living in a world of their
own making where rules are created by people to benefit themselves as individuals.
Humans are animals living in a biological structure where rules constitute the
elements of organic structure that are responsible for the organisation of the lives of
those people living within the social structures. Rules dictate how people will live
because the rules of the game determine the flow of social energy. By imposing, or,
if you prefer, by freely choosing to obey a strict set of rules associated with an
exclusive identity, a regularity is imposed upon the social pieces operating
according to the narrowly focused game rules which causes the living tissue
composed of the social pieces following these focused rules to form an engorged
channel within the mass of the living tissue of the superorganism along which social
energy flows, ultimately toward the priestly figures that act as focal points of social
energy. This is how a theocracy like ours come into existence, by capturing social
energy through the imposition of rules that create social structure and hence channel
social energy back through the social structure toward a central point, which is
ultimately the temple on the mount in Jerusalem. Religion channels social energy
away from alternative none streamlined avenues of social form. In this way Islam,
like Christianity and Judaism, acts as a mode of territorial occupation that evolved
to take over otherwise relatively unregulated social structures, such as the beautiful
social structure we have evolved over generations to the point where we now know
just what we are and just what the parasitic priest that farms us is too.
Accordingly what we are witnessing in this attack upon British values by
these Muslim intruders into our free society is a neat move that tells us exactly why
this nasty Jewish creed has this dress code. This ugly dress code that removes
individuality in the most extreme and offensive manner allows these aliens to take
over otherwise virgin territory by virtue of imposing their own rules in a land where
our open system or regulation leaves us open to this mode of organised cultural
attack because we have lost sight of what our hard won openness means. From
reading Hitler's description of the Marxists and seeing reports in the news of
Islamic businesses funding organized thugs to defend themselves and to attack none
Muslims, as in the case of the dairy businessman who was in the news this week
and who wants to establish an Islamic training centre attached to his business, we
see that the Muslims in Europe at the beginning of the twenty first century appear to
serve a similarly militaristic role within the biomass as that served by the Marxists

in Europe at the beginning of the nineteenth century. All of which is very
It is also interesting that females are acting as the vanguard of Islamic
fascism even as we Westerners feel a deep sense of pity for the oppressed women in
Islam, so what should we make of this conundrum ? Beats me, that's pussy for you,
a treacherous breed at the best of times. No, seriously, the Jewish programme of
identity enslavement leads to the creation of a highly feminised social structure in
which men are effectively brought to heel. In Judaism itself the female has an
especially important role, and in Christian dominated social orders it is the female
that especially cherishes the religion and all it stands for with its cringing
obsequiousness about love and devotion, and all sorts of similar ideas that are
enough to make many a man throw up, if that is his mind had not already been
trained to be pathetic by his mummy in infancy. So, in short, no, we should not be
at all surprised to find the oppressed female leading the war of Islam against
civlized society today exactly as Judaism and Christianity has led the war against
free society for millennia. These creeds think a society is civlized when it is
adorned with pretty things, I like pretty things too, but I say a society is civlized
when it displays freedom epitomised by devotion to pure knowledge untainted by
political bias.
When we raise the question of the female role in the promotion and
propagation of Judaic identity we should bring to mind the Biblical story of Adam
and Eve which finds its counterpart in modern academic exposition in the debate
concerning the shift from hunter-gather communities to worker-domesticated
communities that shifted the emphasis from a dominant free male spirit to a
dominant bound female spirit. In making these comparisons we need to apply a
subtle sense of what this shift actually signified in terms of an expression of gender
characteristics. We should not think in terms of the physical attributes of individual
men and women, we should think in terms of the social energy flux represented by
the accumulated effect of the gender composition of a superorganic being. It is
logically inconceivable that the actual gender polarity of the organism could of
altered in the shift from a naturalistic mode of subsistence to a domesticated mode
of subsistence. And appearances to the contrary can only be apparent. Therefore
while women often appear to attract a lower status than men in a political hierarchy
it is clear that in a society conceived of as an organic structure women have a much
more physiologically constitutional role that lays the foundations for the fabric of
society and this role must be reflected in the command structure even if that
structure is invariably fronted by male figures of authority. The political mindset
focuses upon the individual and has led to the fight for gender equality based on
personal sentiments, but we can interpret this political progress in terms of
reinforcing the illusion that we live in a human made social world. Feminism is
therefore a by-product of Jewish religious mythology, gender equality is part of the
subtle method that attaches the biomass to the religious mantra via a secular
expression of the mechanisms of attachment belonging to the religious myth. In
this way women are made to serve a role supporting the theocracy by being
inducted into the priesthood when they are offered places within the upper echelons
of the priesthood. This is why when women do obtain power, as in the case of
Margaret Thatcher, these women are indistinguishable from their male counterparts
in the sense that they are just as dishonest, manipulative, arrogant and downright
nasty. Society is not one jot different or better in terms of social justice as a
consequence female emancipation, indeed it is much worse for the majority of
women in that women now have to work where once they had a comparatively
blissful life spent slaving at the kitchen sink—not very appealing to a devotee of
feminism who from her comfortable position in the priesthood spews forth gush

about equality, but try working for a pittance in a mill and see how the idea of a
kitchen sink welded to your ankle sounds then !
The shift from hunting to farming does indicate the complete loss of the
male preserve whereupon all people come under the umbrella of gatherers. And
certainly this process definitely leads to a domesticated form of human being taking
shape whose obedience to the dictates of social structure is all too evident. But any
idea that humans were ever free agents not subject to a social structure is a product
of our myopic sense of self that fails to see in tribal customs a powerful network of
commands. The mode of attachment to society changed for women as it did for
men and both men and women have found themselves willing compliants in the
shift toward civilised forms of existence.
Women have their own way of obtaining status in society and control over
their sexual powers, both in terms of sexual activity and the associated acts of
nurture arising from this activity, must provide females with their key method of
determining their social status. A social structure emerging from a pre-civlized
mode of subsistence must reflect the female attitude and interest, and in the
Christian religion the work ethic is the personification of the demand a female
makes of a man. The work ethic, although made out to be the most fundamental
male value, is not a male value at all, the work ethic is first and foremost a female
value imposed upon the male by the female but accepted gladly by the male
because of the complimentary composition of male and female natures. But it is
this underlying dynamic of imposition put upon the male by the female by virtue of
the biologically ordained gender differences that makes a female prone to male
abuse as the inevitable tension arising from their complimentary differences means
there will always be losers in the effort to obtain female favour, and sometimes a
strategy of abuse may become a normal mode of acquiring that which is desired.
Accordingly to our modern European ideas certain forms of marriage constitute
such institutionalised abuse and are not part of our modern ways, and likewise
Muslim female attire of the kind under discussion in our society right now is pure
unadulterated institutional abuse of the free expression of the natural qualities of
female gender. The power of the female is not lost through this exploitation, it is
diverted towards the support of a social elite, and hence the female gender is given
expression in a repressive, rather than free mode. Which, quite apart from its
extreme ugliness, is why Islamic dress is inherently offensive to our British values.
But overall societies strike a balance and women will favour a social structure that
delivers a balance in their favour and a social organism that accommodates this
balance will achieve a more robust degree of stability as a result because the gender
dynamic is an important aspect of superorganic physiology.
Meanwhile the dynamics of female imposition upon the male are mediated
via the social structure through its body of regulations and in this way the fabric of
the social organism reflects the gender characteristics of its living tissue. From this
fact it follows that any notion that individual Muslim women are freely choosing to
wear the complete veil is shown to be absurd because there is no such thing as an
individual of any kind. As we have indicated Muslims are deft at using our ideas to
their own ends and so, based on the principle of individual integrity, they make
point by point arguments that allow them to attack freedom one moment and then
defend freedom the next. But by recognising that there is no such thing as an
individual and that social norms are elements of an organic whole we put the
adoption of intensely moralistic dress codes alongside rightwing expressions of
religious belief, proclamations of global brotherhood and the practise of declaring
death sentences on any outspoken opponents of Islam wherever they may be in the
world, plus an ongoing war of terror in which people use there own bodies as
weapons of war serving Judaism—and yes, I do mean Judaism. It is in this light

that we must take a view of Muslim clothing. But it has to be said that the damage
has been done, the plague is amongst us and since our masters have made it so and
are determined to see it remains so we are powerless to do anything about it but
So we should not be surprised that a women's interests are expressed in a
religious creed that imposes upon her a code of modesty in sexual expression. This
is how the natural sexual power of the female gender is captured by the priesthood
and made to serve the formation of a superorganic form accordingly. We might say
clothing constitutes a bag in which female sexuality is contained and hence in a
society where it serves the priesthood's purposes to give the illusion of individuality
as an end in itself women are allowed to employ their natural gifts as they see fit,
whereas in a society in which the theocratic structure is overt women are obliged to
accept containment in one clearly and uniformly marked sack. Therefore while this
regulation looks like an imposition to those of us who do not follow such a pattern
of social regulation, those who do obey strict rules of this kind are empowered by
doing so. Once again we find rules of conduct determining the flow of social
energy but because rules are about the flow of social energy, and not about any
moral truth. Rules may vary from one extreme to another and still serve the same
function so that a woman may be empowered by being a sex goddess or by living in
veiled seclusion. The social context determines the appropriate strategy and as we
have seen the rules vary because this provides a means whereby competition
between social structures can deliver overall control to a superorganism that extends
itself by imposing unity about one ultimate mode of identity that units a complex
array of apparently antagonistic social structures.

In this work I have explained how the process of evolution works by

developing engines of organisation that are able to tap into latent pools of potential
energy. Our free and open society represents just such a pool of latent potential
relative to the engine of Islamic organization precisely because we have fought for
the right to be free of mechanisms of enslavement like the religious dress codes that
enslave people to a priesthood. This alien, although completely Jewish slave
identity, is able to insinuate itself into our land because we are ruled by a Christian
priesthood for whom freedom represents a decay of identity. In seeking to reassert
the Jewish master identity the Christians, after their war of reorganisation mounted
against the people of Europe, introduced this newer and more vigorous Jewish slave
identity into Europe in part to take the place of the decadent Christian slave form
that had lost its vitality in the face of our emerging freedom loving culture, but also
thereby to revitalise the remaining flagging Christian slave identity, exactly as we
can see Islam has done. This is precisely why a massive complex superorganism
reaches maturity in the form of a triadic macro physiology that gives the organism
the flexibility it needs to sustain the core identity about which the constitution of its
body is centred by manipulating the massive population structures which are
composed of varieties of the central core identity programme that can be shifted
from one location to another on the back of cleansing operations that prepare the
way for adjustments to be made. War is fundamental to religion. Muslims coming
into Britain find the land, in biological terms, vacant and unoccupied because there
is no comparative body of tissue imbued with a strong sense of identity. Thus if we
value our freedom we must understand that we cannot allow religious creeds to
exist in our society that are organised in this way, this Islamic expression of
freedom to be a slave is no different to what Hitler organised under his Nazi
banner of liberation for the German people and we would not let the Nazis invade
so why should we let the Muslims invade ? Answer : because the people who own
and farm our society have deliberately invited Muslims into Europe and ensured

they will thrive and thus eradicate our culture to ensure Europe remains enslaved to

This discussion reminds me of the stories that come up from time to time
about open spaces created long ago for the benefit of the people which have come
under attack from developers. It is inevitable that if land is set aside by a
philanthropist in the Victorian era then by the time we hit our modern world where
land values have rocketed and inner city space is at a premium then the people who
farm society and have no interest in the people and their privileges are going to look
upon such space with the eyes of a man seeing gold lying upon the ground and
begging to be picked up and pocketed by these pick pockets of the people. Old
parks in city centres are in effect pools of latent potential energy that develop an
ever increasing force drawing attention upon themselves from those who would
occupy that space. To those who have no interest in taking a walk in the park the
grass is simply wasted space, and in precisely the same sense a land without
religion is likewise a body of people living in a void, a land without values that
represents an affront to Allah — "piece of shit be upon him". Here we have an
example of a gratuitous insult, inspired by the ritual exclamation uttered by the
offensively cloaked female being interviewed on TV last night, a gratuitous insult
intended to cause offence equivalent to that caused to me by those presenting a
provocative display of their religious impudence. As long as such insults succeed
in provoking a hostile reaction we must continue to hurl them at our enemies. Once
the Muslim has learnt to accept that in our society they have the freedom to hold as
sacred whatever obscene views they like, but they cannot ask others to do likewise,
so that when our defamations of the prophet—"shit on him"—no longer provoke a
reaction, then we need no longer react to ritualised infantile behaviour by behaving
like puerile idiots. Do not provoke me and I will not provoke you seems like a
moral stance to me.
I know what I value, I know what freedom means to me. If, as a society, we
do not know why we value freedom as an idea, and as a principle to live by, if we
do not even know what the true meaning of freedom is, so that our enemies can turn
our values against us, then we do not deserve freedom ! We must be able to show
that we have the capacity to live in a world that acknowledges the principle of
freedom even when that freedom is made to look like weakness and degeneracy,
otherwise it is degeneracy and it will be taken from us accordingly because then
freedom will not be a sound basis upon which to build a social order. Freedom and
religion are the antithesis of one another, as up and down are the antithesis of one
another. But you cannot have up without down and without the base ugliness of
religion we cannot have the higher beauty of freedom because civilization does
require organization, this is precisely the point Hitler was making in his
condemnation of atheism. We are obliged to concede the point Hitler makes when
defending religion as a pillar of the kind of fascistic society he loved, but just
because nature imposes limitations upon human action is no reason why we should
give up the struggle and let nature take its course unchallenged. The fight between
these two opposites is eternal, it must be waged relentlessly and to fight for freedom
we must keep in mind what freedom is. The first move the priest has to perform is
to take away our power of sight, to blindfold us by taking away our self knowledge
and replacing self knowledge with a slave identity that the priest controls. Here I
make self knowledge available once again, but for how long, take it while you can.
Muslims in a free British society must learn that just as they like to tell us that
freedom of expression does not give us a licence to say anything we like neither
does freedom of action allow us to maintain any ideas we like and to promote them
in any way we choose. When Muslims want to attack freedom of expression used

to present cartoons defaming the prophet—"shit on him"—they tell us freedom of
expression is not unlimited. When the same people want to defend a dress code that
goes to the offensive extreme of hiding a women's face from view, they tell us there
are no limits on freedom of expression in dress. What right has anyone to tell a
women to remove an article of clothing they say ? Language is not just verbal, in
Germany wearing a swastika is illegal, in Muslim countries not wearing clothing
can be illegal, and in Greece, and, come to that, in Britain it is an offence against
public decency to omit covering the genitalia in public. So lets have a bit less of
this clever deviance—we already know that the religious devotee is a master at
taking the piss. Just because an established group holds certain values to be sacred,
like covering up in a display of female modesty, it does not mean adherents can
expect to be tolerated for what appears to most of us as an arrogant assertion of
primitive values that deny freedom of expression while seeking to impose
conformity in the name of political power. Arrogance begets arrogance, Islam
begets arrogance, I make no apology for my uncompromising attitude toward this
appalling fascist face of the Jewish slave making religion.
We can draw a small but significant example of the point of view that says
an irreligious population is to be held in contempt from a case that has been in the
news recently when a young Scottish girl ran off to Pakistan with her father,
whereupon being interviewed in Pakistan he complained that the mother was not
bringing up his daughter with any values, not even Christian ! We can be sure that
to a Muslim our whole so called secular society represents just such a forlorn and
rotten body of human society. The presence of Muslims in our society is the evil
that our masters who farm us have inflicted upon us, and just as we looked set fair
to eradicate the poison of Christianity. Of course we will not have to live with the
consequences of this treachery in terms of its most pernicious consequences, where
we become Muslims, this will be for our children's children to suffer and by then
they will be enslaved and know no different ; Ouspensky's grim tale of degeneration
into mindless Muslim insects will of come true. A society like ours that has given
up its obedience to a strict religious identity has become like the open green space,
ripe for invasion by a more rigid body of people who do follow a strict code of
collective identification. If we do not know our own culture, if we do not
understand our own reasons for living the way we do then we can hardly blame
these aliens for taking advantage of the invitation to come to our land and take over
our world by attacking and undermining our culture.
We live the way we do because we are committed to values of freedom in
which the individual is paramount, we agree to organize our society according to a
civil code of cooperation, not in obedience to a mechanistic slave identity imposed
upon us via the Jewish triad of slave identities. We had Christianity on the run, and
this is why we have suffered internecine warfare leading to Islam being imposed
upon us by the priests who own us and farm us. I have already indicated that the
solution to our problem, the Muslim problem, is not to adopt a violent strategy such
as that adopted by Hitler in respect to the Jewish problem. The solution is to
understand ourselves and to know what and who we are and to see that we defend
ourselves accordingly. You fight a slave identity by possessing a true identity that
can withstand an attack from parasitic invaders. So we must insist that Muslims
living amongst us become like us, we must neutralise the poison of the Muslim
identity to make it powerless to convert our free society into a religious society.
We must not allow Muslims to assert their arrogant offensive identity in opposition
to our freedom loving identity. All this talk about the virtue of Muslim women
symbolised in total enclosure is sickening and disgusting, but this is what we get for
allowing the poison of Christianity to rule our world in the name of the Jews.

Our social territory is like virgin land, or land built upon but where the
buildings are in a state of decay and disrepair, what the enemies of our culture, the
Muslims, call decadent. Life is a jungle and sadly Hitler's notion that only the
strong can claim the right to rule has the force of reality behind it. The religious
slave knows this, and this is why they love their slave identity, because it empowers
them, this is what these evil minded women in their long black Nazi style uniforms
are telling us. And we sit by and let them pour out their condescending puke at us.

Why ! Why do we put up with this deeply offensive behaviour ?

Because we are slaves of Judaism too, and the masters that rule our world
force us to accept this evil through the rules of the game that regulate the flow of
social energy that we all depend upon for our existence. But we live in a territory
of the superorganism controlled by the Christian arm of Judaism and as such we
must recognise that all that Hitler said of the Jews really applies to the Christians in
our country, for in our country the master race goes under the title of Christian.
The superorganism is made by nature and it has the form it has because this
form makes it strong. The masters who rule us destroyed science and brought
Muslims into Europe in order to continue unfolding their purpose which emerges
toward the latent pool of energy embodied in the prospect of humanity unified
under one identity programme which is being achieved in obedience to the laws of
human nature to which the masters gave the title God while making themselves the
servants of this titular figure of their imaginations in order to attach this object's
power to themselves. This is a natural process and I do not see what we can do
about it when all is said and done. But it is at least nice to know what is what
instead of just flaying around like morons blind to everything and made to look like
imbeciles by these vile ugly and sick minded aliens that have come to our land by
invitation of the masters who rule us in order to bring us back under the control of
our slave masters.

To hell with all religion !

The triadic macro physiology of the human social organism is a regular

feature that can be discovered in the history of various civilisations. A couple of
hundred years ago before the modern global industrialised society had taken shape
the old system of delivering this macro structure was still familiar to philosophers
and historians and they recognised the qualities of the triadic macro physiology in
the old form of monarchy-cum-priesthood, a civil elite-cum-warrior class and then
the mass of the people. A Japanese saying spoke of the triadic hierarchical structure
of society in terms of the flowers, branches and roots of a tree, wherein ' Shinto is
the root embedded in the soil of the people's character ...... Confucianism .... the
stem ...... of legal institutions, and ethical codes, ........... Buddhism ........ gave the
fruits of spiritual life. ' (History of Japanese Religion, Anesaki. Page 8.). We have
a formalised representation of this observation in the Theory of Integrative Levels
which offers us a number of laws of organization including this one :

"For an organisation at any given level, its mechanism lies at the

level below and its purpose at the level above. This law states that for the
analysis of any organisation three levels are required : its own, the one
below and the one above. To analyse a mechanism we drop down one level.

This is obvious when we consider that analysis moves from the whole to its
parts. For we should not expect the parts to be on the same level of analysis
as the whole of which they are the parts.
Similarly, to find the purpose of any organisation we would move up
one level, for then we are considering the organisation as itself a part of
some higher and more complex organisation."

(British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Volume V No17, May 1954,
Theory of Integrative Levels, James K. Feibleman, Page 61.)

Thus it follows from this proposed law of organisation that a triadic macro
structure is inevitable in the organisation of any complex living body in order to
deliver the purpose that all living bodies must have to constitute a life form. Thus
the Jewish religion, in its capacity as master identity, constitutes the organising
element of the superorganism that is itself part of some higher and more complex
organisation, where that higher and more complex organisation is the genetic basis
of human corporate nature that brings the physical form of the human
superorganism into being that can then become infused with new organising
principles such as that embodied in Judaic identity. In this way society and religion
evolve hand in hand by empowering each other, or, more correctly, the
superorganism and its identity evolve in unison.
When we give some thought to the subtle differences between the three
elements of Western civilisation's physiological macro hierarchy we can see that the
way in which the overtly Jewish identity has been made to differ from the covertly
Jewish Christian identity and then the way the covertly Jewish Islamic identity has
been made to differ from its two predecessors is in accord with the subtle
differences between the ancient mode of defining the triadic hierarchy of the social
organism. And this is exactly what we would expect to find. Thus the Jews are
destined to be somewhat detached from the executive element of the social
structure. Their existence as dispossessed people with a spiritual attachment to a
territorial homeland set in the future forced them to live as aliens in lands ruled by
indigenous populations that had been defeated in war and had a watered down alien
Jewish identity imposed upon them to enable the Jews to live amongst them and act
as a nervous fabric connected to the working tissue. The Jews were so to speak
grafted onto the populations who had their flowers and branches torn away leaving
only the root stock. Thus the Jews were set apart from all others and made
dependant upon the abstract authority of law which acknowledged their right of
residency. This abstracted or rarefied identity programme which gave the Jews
their identity had to be associated with particular ways of making a living and hence
the association of Jews with managing affairs rather than forming the backbone of a
society. Jewish culture evolved to deliver the quality of nervous tissue befitting a
social organism to those who were implanted with Jewish culture, wherein the Jews
were made valuable to an authority that had under its control a mixture of
conquered peoples. Jews were, in political terms, the mediators between the power
and the masses. Jews were, are indeed, the carriers of the message, they are, as they
put it, God's chosen.
At this point we must bring to mind the value of Darwinism to the
preservation of Judaism. Darwinism puts the horse before the cart, the individual
before society. The conventional idea is that people make society what it is, this
places the horse before the cart by asserting that conscious ambition precedes
material realisation. This reversal of the true order of authority is able to disguise
the true nature of an appropriately formulated master identity where the master is

made to appear in the guise of the dependant. Thus, in the case of the Jews, the
Jews supposedly found themselves in the position of having been chosen by God to
be who they were, from this time on their humble ambition to obey God's command
meant they have faced trial and tribulation in an overbearing world where the Jews
were forced to beseech the mighty to permit them to subsist. But, putting the cart
before the horse, we need to understand that the civilised social form came into
being and existed as a social environment which caused the specialised Jewish
culture to evolve as a culture of priesthood whereby a social identity defined a
specialised social entity and thus established a master identity that existed on the
basis of its own cultural integrity without the necessity of a fixed mass of people
attached to a fixed territory. The evolution of a master form set the stage for the
history of the Jews to unfold as a natural consequence of the evolution of Jewish
culture which brought into being a people that had evolved to be a mobile body of
people adapted to living in any suitably formed, that is in any civilised society. The
Jews in effect had evolved to be a specialised superorganism, a superorganism that
consisted exclusively of linguistic code suited to the function of an elite organ. As
can readily be appreciated, any such transformation of a human biomass into a
detached organ of master identity must acquire two inherent qualities relative to all
none Jewish superorganisms, firstly the quality of dependence, and secondly the
quality of master. This is why the Jews are characterised by the dichotomous
phenomenon of being at the heart to human existence while also being the supreme
victim of human fickleness. Thus as the Jews moved from one established civlized
society, that is a society based on written law, to another, the evolutionary process
gathered pace so that instead of just moving from one established society to another
the influence of the Jewish master identity provided a social pattern furthering the
development of social physiology according to the dictates of Jewish identity itself.
This is what caused the comparatively ephemeral half way house of Roman social
structure to emerge virtually from nowhere yet based upon highly developed legal
procedures and institutional structures that became intimately linked to the
development of the second Jewish physiological hierarchy in the shape of
Christianity. Rome was transitional between Judaism proper and Christian
Judaism. Roman society represented a prone superorganic form of the kind that the
Jewish organ of superorganicism evolved to exploit and which the success of this
Jewish organ over a long period had in turn helped to produce via the familiar
mechanism of evolution whereby form and nature act as bipolar points of focus in a
feedback loop inducing evolutionary development ; Roman was the form, Jew the
essence, or nature. In the shape of the Romans the Judophilic superorganic mass
had reached a magnitude and extent hitherto unknown in the Mediterranean region
and this induced a reaction in the expressly Jewish fabric of the inherently
intertwined Roman-Jewish superorganism whereby the linguistic force represented
by the Roman culture acted as a catalyst upon the Jewish expression of the
linguistic force so that the traditional Jewish identity crystallised out in a Judaic
form destined to coalesce into the Christian sub-Judaic identity that would build
exoskeletal material providing a second level command structure attached to the
primary level command structure via the threads of identity imbued into the two
resulting deeply uniform, but nonetheless superficially distinct, organic social
structures. So that Judaism would effectively replace Romanism altogether, except
in so far as Christian identity was known predominantly by the Roman agnomen for
a further fifteen hundred years, and although superseded in places it continues to
have a major influence in this primitive Catholic form to this day. Thus Jewish
history is as natural as the history of any living organism adapted to a niche, and
this is why Jewish ambition has been fulfilled and why Jews represent the only

ancient identity still living on this planet, in any sense still reflective of its ancient
When the time was ripe for the organism taking shape about the core
identity of Judaism to split into a second hierarchical layer the Christian identity
came into being and developed its ideological structure to attach people who
possessed land by virtue of their indigenous identity to the Jewish master identity.
From this argument we see the logic of developing the ideology of statehood
overstretched with a supra-national religious identity, as in European Christendom
that shaped the structure of the social organism we know today, because this
political state based structure accommodates an extended superorganic form
emphasising religious identity over racial identity. Thus the Christians have this
central command to proliferate and to take territory and convert all peoples to their
own slave identity and its associated state based exoskeletal structural format.
Meanwhile as the Christians spread so they took the Jews with them, obviously, that
was the point of Christianity, to act as a vehicle for the core identity. Eventually the
time was ripe for the third tier of organic physiology to receive its defining identity
programme and this also had to be appropriate to its position in the organism. And
so this takes us back to where we began this discussion of the macro physiology of
superorganisms because this is where we see why Islam has this regulation which
denies the ultimate significance of the state and claims the entire world as it natural
territorial domain. Islam takes the Jewish Christian slave identity one step further,
exactly as it had to do to make sense from a biological perspective. As such Islam
represents the perfection of Judaism, but we should not become confused by this
effusive mode of expression, Islam is an extension of Jewish superorganic form,
Islam is not a progressive evolutionary development foretelling the advance of
Islam to the exclusion of Judaism which denotes the eventual fading away of
Judaism to leave only Islam reigning supreme.
The preceding analysis of the Jewish superorganism should help us make
sense of the political difficulties experienced at the person to person level that are
illustrated in the Political Interlude above.

A footnote on page thirty five of Objet des Sciences Sociales indicates that
the Jews often strike us as being unique amongst human races and it is clear from
what I have just said that the Jews have a very special role in the superorganism, so
much so in fact that I would say that Western Civilisation, properly understood,
should be called Jewish Civilisation. However, unfortunately, the political
necessity of supporting the complex physiology of a superorganism with the
potential to go global, as the Jewish organism has done already, requires that each
element of the organism must be contained by the linguistic flux of its own self
centred identity. This means that we have no way of noting the true nature of the
Jews without stimulating the political expression of the linguistic force in such a
manner that in time all hell is bound to break loose as a reaction against the
emergence of knowledge that degrades the exclusivity of the Jewish core identity.
It should be obvious that what has just been said connects us directly with
our anchor point since the general theoretical consequences that we have just set out
in the preceding paragraph can be seen to of been realised in the coming into being
of Hitler on the back of a nationalist movement running in tandem with the anti-
Semitic flux associated with this movement. The anti-Semitic outcome is hard to
fathom at first sight. Why should Judaism invoke a reaction that makes the Jews
the victims of a horrific event that is actually essential to the salvation of Judaism !
The answer is simple enough to comprehend, on two counts. Firstly language is the
natural force that creates human social structure and the Jewish identity is the
vanguard of that force as it currently dominates the evolution and growth of the

human species. All identities are obliged to obey the logic inherent in the linguistic
pattern that created the Jewish identity, and the Nazi identity is no exception to this
rule. In other words the Nazi identity is a Jewish identity and a study of Hitler's
philosophy via Mein Kampf indicates Hitler was in reality an honorary Jew by
virtue of his obedience to the same principles of social organization that he so
despised in Jewish culture. It is the focus of the linguistic force upon Jewish
identity that is recognised by the Jews when call themselves the chosen people.
Clearly the Jews are the centre of some power, there has never been any culture,
people or nation like that of the Jews, they are completely unique and only by
utilising the science of sociology based on biology can we make sense of Jewish
history and contemporary life in a sense meaningful beyond the scope of the Jew's
own account of themselves. With the rise of a global Jewish civilisation consisting
of Jews, Christians and Moslems, the focal point of the linguistic force is centred
upon Jerusalem as the core of the exoskeleton, and in that city we see the actual nub
of the linguistic force appearing as a pivotal structure in the exoskeleton in the
shape of the sacred building with the golden dome.
Secondly, the horrendous slaughter of the Jews in the holocaust is easily
translated into an idea commensurate with our biological conception of human
nature if we think of this event as an act of sacrifice on the part of the
superorganism whereby it sheds some of its core organic tissue in order to preserve
the whole body that this core tissue has given rise to. In other words if we look at
the holocaust from a scientific, biological point of view, rather than from a political,
religious point of view, then we erase all value judgements and see the holocaust as
a natural and healthy event that a human organism goes through as part of its
growth process. An event that makes perfect sense given the nature of the human
superorganism and the manner in which its macro structure is made up and
differentiated, it is inevitable that periodic bouts of exfoliation of tissue are the only
way the organism has of retaining a properly balanced constitution composed of
differentiated cells, or people, as we call these cellular units. At the same time as
the inner core is trimmed we have the sacrifice of the outer fabric of the biomass
which erases the tissue that was threatening the inner core identity by developing
ideas that conflicted with the core religious identity. So the whole process of war
can be understood as a physiological process in which the fabric of the biomass is
shed on mass in a manner that befits the need of the superorganism to preserve its
integrity in the face of a challenge, and also the need to continue the process of
growth that gives rise to what is called progress in political parlance. The outer
fabric bearing the Christian identity is shed in an act more correctly called an act of
protection because its gradual break away from the inner core identity induces
conflict by posing a threat to the integrity of the organism. While the inner core
carrying the Jewish identity is shed in a more dramatic way that reinforces the
uniqueness of the core tissue, and as such the Jews are not shed to clean up the
organism as the Christians were, the Jews are shed in order to obtain a state of
balance and stability in the composition of the physiology of the superorganism,
and as such the Jews must be seen as being shed as a true act of sacrifice of
otherwise sound material still carrying its identity in tact. Jews cannot break away
from Jews even though the fractious politics of Israel might suggest otherwise at
times. If Jewish culture fractures then we just get another kind of Jew, a fact most
potently demonstrated in that it is even possible to have atheist Jews ! If that is not
a contradiction in terms I would like to know what is ; but we would be retracing
our steps to comment further on this elaboration of priestly duplicity. Such fluid
dynamics are to be expected in the structure of a superorganism and we see a fluid
shift in other superorganic species when insects relocate the colony or divide to

produce new colonies. Warfare seems to be the manner in which the human
superorganism facilitates the equivalent growth related behaviours.

All this leaves us in something of a dilemma since we find that a scientific

analysis of human existence leads to a political position that cannot be permitted to
exist, and yet this is exactly the point we wanted to arrive at since we have said that
we live in an absolute theocracy in which there is no free access to knowledge, and
this is precisely why the idea of the social organism was erased from the social flux
generated by the force of language by way of a two pronged attack which
physically erased the exoskeletal structure that had formed as a consequence of the
development of the science of humanity, and where the void necessarily created by
this process of destruction was then filled by the emergence of a newly constituted
priesthood appropriate to the newly constructed exoskeletal structure known as the
secular institution. These newly formed priests were called professionals and their
role was to keep science out in the cold by ensuring the messages of the pseudo
science developed prior to the second world war continued to be the foundation of
the bias informing all future ideas broadcast by the academic establishment from
which all official agencies of the theocracy take their information.


Yesterday, today being 25/09/06, I finished reading chapter one of the

second volume of Mein Kampf taking me to a little beyond half way through
Hitler's philosophy, and I am very impressed, especially with the analysis of the
Jews. The ideas I have expressed above entirely originate with me and they are a
consequence of my realisation that humans are a superorganic species. While at all
times my outlook was also informed by an atheistic imperative directed toward the
understanding all things, so that the nature of the Jews leaped out at me some five
years ago immediately I began to think about the idea that humans had the same
nature as creatures like ants and termites that form social bodies. It took me years
to discover that I was not the first person to think of this idea and once I had found
out that this was the dominant scientific idea in the nineteenth century I looked in
vain for some discussion of the role of the Jews in the organism. But at last, in
Hitler, we have it, the most perfect scientific account of the Jews as an organic
entity, except, not quite. Hitler denounces atheists as "fools or criminals" and he
values Christianity as irreplaceable in the role of binding the organism together.
Thus he took on the arguments of the atheists in his political movement and rejected
them. While he uses the logic of the social organism throughout his philosophy and
applies it to the Jews perfectly, he gives us a political interpretation. Everything I
say about the priesthood farming society Hitler applies specifically to the Jews, as I
acknowledge that the Jews are the master race then I can but agree with Hitler on
this point. But Christians are Jews, as are Muslims, so the correct focal point of
attention is not the Jews per se, it is the priesthood. Within the priesthood we may
say the Jews play a crucial role way beyond their numerical significance which
accounts for the attention Hitler was inclined to give them at a time when the
Jewish influence in Europe was seemingly more prominent than it is today. We
will be looking at this subject in more detail but this is such a touchy subject that an
immediate comment was needed as I have just revealed my conclusions on the
nature of the Jews in the social organism and indicated their close approximation to
Hitler's own evaluation of Jewish culture.
The fact is that Hitler's hatred of Jews is a lot more friendly toward Judaism
than my detached interest because to rage against something is to acknowledge the
meaning of that something on its own terms, whereas to merely discuss something

in an abstract manner is to dismiss any passion or significance that something may
assume for itself. Hitler speaks of the relish with which he welcomed the hatred of
the Jews because failure to attract such hatred was the surest sign of failure in the
war against Judaism. Jews would presumably not lay claim to this bring-it-on
motto, but the danger in a Hitlerian-like philosophical account of Judaism that
however bears no malice toward Jews must be apparent to all Jews since it says
Hitler was essentially right in his observation and analysis of Jews, but wrong in his
reaction toward the Jews.

Chapter IV


We concluded the last chapter by recognising that the new face of the
priesthood especially formed to act as the mediators of the theophilic dogma of the
secularised academic institutions had self styled themselves professionals.
It is perfectly obvious to anyone who seeks to track the idea of the social
organism that something extremely odd happened in the realms of academic
endeavour. The idea of the social organism was clearly correct, notwithstanding the
total failure of the genuinely scientifically oriented thinkers to take the science to its
natural conclusion by advocating the state organised destruction of religion, which
is the only way a genuine science could possibly be enabled to come into its own.
And we have just noted how the problem of applying science to an understanding of
human nature hit a brick wall, and how the intellectual solution to the salvation of
religion was finally consolidated through the emergence of the Nazis. If we try to
talk about Judaism from a rational point of view today we cannot help but sound
like a neo-Nazi because the Nazis stole the genuine science of humanity and turned
it into a political creed which made race, the naturally occurring antithesis of
Judaism, Judaism's avowed nemesis. The Nazis ghost now stalks the earth in the
role of supreme defender of the Jews, and the Jews never hesitate to call their spirit
foe to their defence ; after all there is not much point in making a supreme sacrifice
and then failing to reap the benefit ; not that there was ever any question of the Jews
failing to draw strength from the swollen nipple of anti-Semitism that connects
Jews to their hosts and has nourished Jews since the birth of their kind. The nipple
of anti-Semitism is a facet of social structure generated via the action of the
linguistic force. Social energy builds behind this nipple due to the relationship of
Jews to their host cultures so that when trouble strikes the force of release feeds the
Jews because the entire physiology of the superorganism is determined by Jewish
ideology which is based upon the nature of the Jewish master identity relative to the
host status as dependant body. Our history and politics reveals this physiological
dynamic, or, more correctly, our history and politics disguises this natural
The linguistic force, although biological, is felt as a political force. This
should not surprise us as behavioural dynamics amongst all animals constitute
political activity when they are concerned with interpersonal activity, yet such
behaviour can only be biological in its nature and origins because animals other
than humans do not have politics in any meaningful sense of the word. Unless of
course instead of saying animals have biology and humans have biology we decide
instead to say that animals have politics and humans have politics ; what is in a
word ? A lot so it would seem. Do you see ? there is no real difference between
humans and animals at all, only the difference conjured up through the medium of
words gives us the impression that there is a difference between humans and
animals. This difference is the programme running in our heads and as the
programme determines what we can and cannot think the programme appears real
and causes us to relate to the surrounding social structure produced at the behest of
the programme. So the illusion of real difference is made real, just as the idea that
there is something truly different between teams of people playing football is made
real through the device of imposing different identities until the point is reached
where individuals are so overwhelmed by this sense of difference, which is nothing
more than the effect of the linguistic force made real through the programme, that
the players are to all intents and purposes different, and so they act accordingly.
Words, words, words ..... what is in a word ? Everything !
But words are just the latest effervescence of linguistic force and Hitler's
selection of race as a defence against the power of words embodied in Judaism is an
indication of the underlying fabric of superorganic physiology that causes periodic
ructions as the latest skin seeks to knit itself into the underlying racial fabric and, as
Hitler quite rightly observed, thereby erase race as the embodiment of corporate
identity. These ructions in the superorganism's epidermis relate to a swelling in the
social fabric through which energy becomes channelled into social activity
expressed in anti-Semitism and its associated social structure, the holocaust was, for
example, a feature of the social structure. We can think of these particular
consequences of social pressure as creating a nipple to feed the master organ
because the Jews are always empowered as a direct consequence of the political
events experienced as persecution. The reason Jews are empowered in this way
may be likened to the way living tissues focus resources upon a wound, the focus of
superorganic physiology upon Jews necessarily involves a focus of resources in the
initial act of rejection which then has lasting consequences applying to the
structural layout of the organism. So that what appears to us politically as a wound
in our social flesh actually develops organically into an opening in the body's wall
that emulates the qualities of a birth channel from which a vibrant package of the
social organism's being is ejected to settle elsewhere. These positive structural
consequences of anti-Semitism are seen in the special relationship between the
Romans and the Jews, the long term benefit vital to the Jews as a master race of
being ousted from Spain just as Spain took possession of vast new territories in the
New World, and the establishment of Israel after the holocaust. Anti-Semitism is
then a natural feature of the Jewish superorganism, although the negative political
interpretation of this dynamic is essential and therefore it is vital that Jews feel duty
bound to think of anyone who would discuss their nature in these detached terms as
a typical enemy of the Jews, even though it is perfectly obvious that I have not got
the slightest interest in hating Jews for the sake of hatred, but only a desire to
understand Jews for the sake of science, knowledge, truth, and freedom.

Science hit a brick wall.

So we cannot think of any way that science could of survived, and there is
no reason to think that science can be free today either. The only real work we can
do therefore is to try and shed some light on just how the new priests emerged as
part of the secularisation process that added extra exoskeletal bone and muscle to
the body of the organism so as to build up a new public face for the theocracy. We
shall continue to do this now.
Trying to find the threads of the process whereby the political expression of
the linguistic force was woven into a public image which could bury the science
that the two world wars had served to erase from society is difficult to do. The
basic reason why it is difficult to track the death of science and the concomitant rise
of academic professionalism is simply because there was never any process
whereby a genuine argument took place leading to the replacement of old ideas with
new knowledge. The people who sort to destroy science did so in obedience to
their relationship to the theocratic structures of the exoskeleton and they knew
perfectly well what the threat to their interests was. In Desmond's Politics of
Evolution the head-on collision between those who sort new ways of understanding
existence and those who declared war on the innovators is laid bare. Today the
pseudo science of Darwin is opposed by the overtly religious science of

Creationism and this pattern of behaviour whereby like-minded opposites play each
other off to defend the same core authority is never ending, it gives us our form of
British politics where left and right camps rotate about an eternal point of authority
which ensures never ending security for the theocracy that rules the world.
Volumes have been written on the war of religion against science and it is obvious
that religion is winning hands down otherwise religion would not exist. Today
those who have a public voice say the war between religion and science is over as
these protagonists have settled their differences and now live in harmony by
recognising each other's rightful domain of autonomy and letting each do its own
thing. And it is true to say the war is over, the war between religion and science is
over because science as an independent search for ultimate knowledge has been
erased from existence so that only the outer husk has been preserved to cover the
dutiful technical role that science now plays in the fabrication of the exoskeletal
material that the theocracy imbues with its religious identity. I recently bought A
History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, by Andrew White,
1896, in two volumes, and History of the Conflict between Religion and Science, by
John Draper, 1875. Both are entirely religious works, the latter was described as
having caused outrage when published, at first sight I can see nothing good in it for
the freethinker, the former is an excellent book, but as I say it claims to be
dedicated to a better love of religion.

So having developed a presentable, if utterly untenable alternative to real

science, the next requirement was to let true knowledge wither and die while
ensuring false knowledge thrived and dominated. To this end an important tactic is
not to mention the idea of the social organism at all, for a modern sociologist to
refer to the idea of the social organism would be like a Ptolemaic astronomer
including a discussion of the idea that the earth went around the sun in their works,
they would be shooting themselves in the foot because no one would accept the
stupid idea that the earth is the centre of the universe if they had the alternative
pointed out to them. The same applies today, it is crucial that the idea of the social
organism, so powerful, so real, so true, must never be mentioned, no pseudo
science, not even Darwinism, would stand a cat in hell's chance against this idea.
And this is why it is so difficult to find any discussion revealing the way in which
the trick was pulled off whereby science was erased and bias put in its place in the
name of religion, because there is no modern discussion of this transition.
Beginning with Comte we go from one safe stepping stone to another in the shape
of Spencer, followed by a leap into the modern age which takes us to Durkheim, so
that as initiates into the study of human society we rapidly exit the fiery cauldron of
creation and find ourselves standing on firm dry land in a world cleansed of any
noxious scientific realities and blessed with the perfection of mythological dreams.
This said the fact is that the break still had to be made between scientific
sociology and modern sociology so that some pretence of a justifiable reason for
leaving behind the real science of humanity and generating a God friendly
sociology had to be provided for appearances sake, and this was especially so
during the period of transition when people still had ready access to genuine
scientific ideas from which society had to be weaned. So it was a matter of saying
something, but saying it as quietly as possible, saying it in a manner that involved
no actual discussion of the idea of the social organism, and saying it in a way that
only set out the logic of the new extension to theology, the secular extension to be
managed by the newly created professionals. So there is a thread to be found, and it
is this thread that it is nice to try and pick from the swath of material washing over
us in the muddy ocean of academic misinformation. Where the English played a
minimal role in the development of the idea of the social organism, if we dismiss

Spencer as a traitor to the idea, the English speaking slave nations of Judaism have
played a leading role in the formulation of the counter scientific science. Thus
while it is murder trying to locate and read anything about the main ideas pertaining
to the idea of the social organism in English we are rather better off in respect to the
cover up organised by the new priest-professionals.
One such book gives me the term I use for the new kind of priests, this book
is The Emergence of Professional Social Science, by Thomas L. Haskell, 1977,
hence the term professional. I had hoped to read this book but it is just too lame a
piece of propaganda for me to sit and read over the course of a month or so. In the
light of how repulsive these sociological works are to read it is amusing to see the
way Hitler's Mein Kampf is described as a bad piece of work in the introduction to
the translation that I have. I find Mein Kampf just like any other book, and the
sections where Hitler condemns democracy I find delightful—parts singled out by
the translator as especially nasty—delightful because they so perfectly describe
British democracy today. But of course once you have realised that we live in an
absolute theocracy where all knowledge is perverted to protect religion then the
whole charade of a free society is blown and Hitler's thoughts on democracy then
seem so true in the light of this revelation as he sheds light on how the democratic
system becomes a tool that the priesthood can use to retain control of society as
long as they ensure that religion continues to thrive by way of the religious schools
that programme the slaves these priests depend upon for their power.
But if I cannot read Haskell's book that does not mean I do not think it is a
fantastic find, because I do. This book is a piece of the actual structure put in place
to defend the priest-professional from science, and as such it bases its argument
upon the few preceding pieces written to perform the same function. As part of the
umbilical cord leading from an embryonic foetus of real knowledge to a substantial
body of pure fiction Haskell's book is of immense importance in this discussion. All
science is aimed more or less directly at protecting religious authority from
dissipation due to the encroachment of scientific knowledge, while still allowing the
organism to live and grow under the dominion of its priesthood. This is inevitable
because all approved science is obliged to adopt the false perspective that the
individual is the organism. But works such as that of Haskell actually outline the
way in which the professional priesthood emerged from the true scientific
professionalism of early freethinkers. All that professionalism really means in
practice is that practitioners have the sanction of the state, while ideally
professionalism means work carried out in obedience to the integrity of an ideal
objective. It was the amateur philosophers and early academics who were the true
professionals according to an ideal standard, and hence their work produced the
most real account of human society and human nature.
On the back of Haskell's book I bought Consciousness and Society : The
Reorientation of European Social Thought 1890 - 1930, by H. Stuart Hughes, 1958,
and the book that Hughes' work stemmed from The Structure of Social Action by
Talcott Parsons, 1937. From Parsons we get some information on the people who
actually opened the portal leading away from science thus creating the umbilical
cord that allowed professional social science to come into being as it is now,
complete and, once the cord was cut, free of any scientific essence. Of course
modern science observes the same phenomena as the first scientists, the only
difference between the moderns and the originals is that the moderns now adopt a
strictly bias focus upon the integrity of the individual as an end in themselves. Thus
the modern sociologist would say they do not mention the old school anymore
because it is out of date and found to be worthless, but this is not the reason,
anything but. Of course the modern sociologist will have no idea they are being

used as tools of the theocracy, they are just teaching what they have been taught,
passing on the values of society to the next generation, bla, bla, bla.
Without the benefit of these three works I had still found myself directed
toward Pareto who appears in Parson's book as a central figure, I had bought a book
by Pareto some years ago and read the relevant section dealing with the social
organism. Once again, although this man is singled out as the supreme exponent of
the arguments against organicism, when you see what he said he actually says
nothing fit to print and his reasoning, such as it is, is so inane as to be an insult to
any intelligent person seeking knowledge.
The three books mentioned give us the main theme of the story indicating
how the people of the time, in each succeeding generation, justified their work that
was dedicated to the foundation of an artificial science of sociology, developed to
protect religion and hence society from the corrupting influence of true knowledge.
The section titles of Parsons' work give us the best indication of what this was all
about with his use of the word voluntaristic which was obviously associated with
the bias assumption concerning the will of the individual as a free agent operating
in a society that people create through reason and choice.

Aside from this trail of professional rigmarole reaching back like a life line
into the gloom to reveal the course these intellectual criminals took to escape from
the light of reason, there is also a trail of information extending from the scientific
period toward the end point of social science located about the opening of the First
World War, two names we have to think of here are Gumplowicz and Bristol.
Aside from these works there are a number of essays in periodicals that sort to
develop an alternative account of society to that provided by genuine scientific
works, genuine works that assumed humans were living creatures that evolved and
could only be understood by applying biological principles to human society. I just
bought a book advertised as a new account of social evolution and written by a
sociologist which is introduced with the declaration that the author believes that
sociology must connect with its biological roots. This sounds like perfection, but of
course, it is a fraud, Ecodynamics : A New Theory of Societal Evolution by Kenneth
Boulding, 1978 is just another brick in the wall forming the prison for our minds.
You wonder that these people do not get sick of writing bullshit, but then people
never tire of extolling religious nonsense, so what can you say ? Sociology is just
another form of the same, and after all these fraudsters are the ones that get to
become professors and to publish books !
Gumplowicz and Bristol are notable for their transitional characteristics, in
both cases their books openly make statements that recognise the difficulties caused
by a rational account of society and so they openly dismiss there being any
possibility of such rational accounts of society being supported and sustained. This
is naturally interesting because these kinds of observations effectively admit that in
a sense, to use modern idiom, science openly applied to society is simply not
politically correct, that is to say irrespective of the truth or otherwise of the idea
that human society can be regarded as a social organism the idea is untenable as a
public account of existence. And as can be seen from my ruthless account of
religion, which refuses to apply bias values in the evaluation of historical events
such as the rise of Hitler and the holocaust, this indicates that a real science of
society is indeed untenable. But this cuts no ice with me as I regard this excuse as a
convenient device tailor made for the priests to use to sustain the existence of
religion when I want to see a world freed from the primitive animalistic religious
ideologies that oblige us to live like slavish insects barred from ever knowing the
truth that our ability could open up to us if the priests did not ensure that by hook or
by crook this freedom will not be tolerated.

Gumplowicz was a Polish sociologist, in Social Adaptation Bristol
presented an overview of organicist philosophy and related sociological works. But
what is of telling interest in respect to these two authors is that while Gumplowicz
attacks my hero, the greatest philosopher ever to of lived, asking where we are
supposed to go after we have concluded that human society is a real organism,
Bristol's evaluation of Gumplowicz makes virtually the same criticism of
Gumplowicz and says that, even as we reject Gumplowicz for going too far, we can
at least thank him for having taken the logic of the organicist argument as far as it
could be taken and therefore having established the limit of this scientific line of
reasoning applied to human society. So we see that these two authors provide us
with the most eloquent display of the academic pas de deux whereby two pseudo
academics spin about the bias point of focus selected especially for the purpose of
hiding the truth from society at large thereby shutting out any discussion fixed upon
the pivotal foci of truth. And given the overt admission that this pair give of the
concern caused by organicist ideas it is interesting to see that in the same works
they offer a solution.
From these small beginnings the impetus has grown as two became four,
four became sixteen and so on, always spinning about the same point of focus
established by these early enemies of science working within the academic
establishment that has created a concentration of intellectual force that it is now
totally overwhelming, producing a flood of utter garbage in every possible form.
Garbage that is often magnificent, brilliantly clever and deeply fascinating, but all
absolute garbage just the same. There was a delightful film on the Galapagos
islands on BBC 2 this week, today being 11/10/06, I loved it, and it included some
discussion of the importance of the greatest scientific idea ever to of come into the
possession of humanity through the inspired work of Charles Darwin ! Ah yes,
wonderful, if only it were true. Darwin went to these islands, no doubt, the story
goes that the isolated examples of evolutionary adaptation occurring on Galapagos
provided the clue that inspired Darwin, but a clue to what ? A clue to the bullshit
logic the priests use to keep us from knowing what human nature is, that's what !

So what should we make of professionalism ? If we step away from the

obvious questionable value of professionalism in sociology we would probably say
that it is only by means of professional practice that any of the many skills our
complex society relies upon can be organized and made possible. But the fact is
that the method of organizing occupations through professional qualification has
always been prone to the generation of a self policing elite in those situations where
people are likely to run into conflict with the public. Doctors are notorious for
being an aloof body, the medical profession's attitude to alternative medicine is a
clear line of conflict with popular views, whether or not the lay person in this regard
is rather over optimistic. Police, again, are a law unto themselves, we never trust
the reviews of the police when there has been any question of unprofessional
conduct, the recent killing of the Brazilian in the underground being a classic
example of this "police above the law" situation. So the general flaw in the idea of
professionalism as a means of creating integrity is common enough in all walks of
life as professionalism tends to lead to the modern equivalent of the medieval
lodges that were a kind of trade union for the professional trades of their day.
The fact is that the nature of knowledge based occupations invokes the
dualistic dynamic of service versus exploitation since this juxtaposes the capable
with the incapable in a situation where both are equally dependant upon each other
for what they need from life but where only one has the power of action. Viewed
like this the possession of knowledge is seen to be synonymous with the essence of
wealth where the power of action is focused upon the wealthy person. In effect

these power differentials cause two social elements to be located within a dualistic
dynamic where one has a positive power of action based upon knowledge relative to
the other's negative power of action that equates to inertia due to the need for the
benefit of their opposite's knowledge. This gives us an insight into the origins of
the social charge which is organised into a social structure through the operation of
the linguistic force that mediates these power differentials through an identification
process that incorporates appropriate procedural operations delivering the
superorganic form accordingly. The evolution of a master class involves the focus
of identity united with procedure into an ever greater concentration of mass which
in turn induces an ever greater extension of social power, hence the Jews evolved
and induced the Romans to come into being which induced the Jews to bifurcate,
and so on. This creates a social dynamic which can only become magnified when
knowledge based occupations become the basis of an organization. Thus in
knowledge we have the makings of a priesthood, and while this arrangement seems
reasonable in terms of practical knowledge we find that in reality it is, as ever in
life, the packaging enveloping the real goods that becomes the true basis of power.
Hence once the trick has been learnt that power derives from possessing knowledge
that others need then it is a short step to figuring out that if all you want is power
then the thing to do is to fabricate knowledge and then make people need it. Thus
we have true priestcraft and true religion ; acting like hoodlums selling protection
from their own acts of violence. Belief in God is said to be based upon fear, so,
create the fear, then provide the cure, salvation. The need for religion does not
come from the people, but the need for people to think the need for religion comes
from the people is essential to the priesthood that possess the religious knowledge.
Shifting away from the political description of these social dynamics we must
understand that in nature the social organism comes into being centred upon a body
that incorporates both facets of this power dynamic into its cultural programme, so
that the culture of a master race is composed of real knowledge wrapped up in
fancy packaging.
In the academic domain the problem goes somewhat deeper because here, as
we have seen from the preceding overview of sociological developments, the
organization of a professional academic discipline where one had not existed
previously, orchestrated on the back of an excising of the popular expressions of the
discipline, and introducing a new theory altogether, brings the whole role of
professional organization into question as in this case we not only have a body of
people who police themselves in the exercise of their discipline but the very
foundation of the discipline as the basis of a professional body has itself been made
the expression of a political predisposition. Thus the modern science of life is all
wrapping and no content.
As we tease this story out and give wider thought to the matter of
professional organization this must remind us of traditional professional bodies and
the relationship between their intellectual pursuits and religion as personified in the
Masonic lodge which makes a link between architecture and the Christian church.
Thus we have practical knowledge wrapped in a fancy package giving us a fine
example of an idea generating the form of exoskeletal material as churches were
constructed under the influence of this relationship and then built in symbolic
representation of the body of Christ in which people were supposed to dwell. We
cannot help thinking that academic disciplines like sociology are prone to this kind
of attack from an acquisitive priesthood seeking to insinuate itself into the flesh of
the living being they call God, and by this means of command over the information
flowing through the living body the priests take possession of the superorganism to
themselves. So the priests develop a relationship whereby they serve as they
exploit through the possession and delivery of knowledge ; the bizarre thing being

that from beginning to end the knowledge thus made is not knowledge at all but a
mere figment of what knowledge should be. Sociology is therefore a religious
science, and from my overview we see how the form of this discipline has been
organised according to its religious nature by being based upon the individual as an
end in themselves.
The secularisation process involved shedding an outer layer of the theocratic
command structure to produce, amongst other things, professional sociologists.
The manner in which this gradual transformation occurred via the generation of
specialised secular exoskeletal material means the professional practitioners of
sociology are oblivious of their role as advocates of religion. They may be
communists, Marxists and vehement atheists, but if they are sociologists then they
are unwitting priests of the church, and they are reduced to this condition of
unwitting slavery because of the fact that the human organism is a superorganism
and the exoskeleton in which individuals live sets the limit of the individual's
potential consciousness of self. Obviously if the limit of an individual's
consciousness were not set by the segment of the exoskeleton with which the
individual is associated then it would not be possible to raise people with different
religious and political outlooks, there would then be no possibility of creating a
society based on differentiated roles and so there could be no priests, and hence no
sociologists. This is why the foundations of social ideology had to be sorted out as
part of the process of establishing authority over what people could be allowed to
know within the official field of social science.
We can think of the individual professional sociologist as being the modern
counterpart of the ancient initiate into the mysteries, for that is what the modern
sociologist is. The process of formulation that created the body of pseudo
knowledge suited to the ongoing rule of society by the theocracy, that is the subject
of this work, having been established, it was then simply a matter of ensuring that
all academic institutions throughout the world adhered strictly to the basic mantra
that delivers control into the hands of the priesthood. Communist, capitalist, fascist,
democrat, all have one thing in common, none want the masses to know what is real
; the uniform an army wears varies from army to army but the mantra must always
be the same — to rule. How can a raw initiate, that is a student, compete with this
structure generated by the controlling influence of the linguistic force that creates
the form of sociology that the student has chosen to study ? The individual cannot
compete with this overwhelming force, they have no basis upon which to question
the basic dogma, and moreover the better informed they become the less motivation
they have to question since the further they go along the road to initiation, and so
further beyond the initial stage of the degree level and toward professional status,
the more their own personal life becomes dependant upon their attachment to the
dogma they are learning how to reproduce. I bought a book from my local Oxfam
shop last week called Thinking Sociologically, by Zygmunt Bauman and Tim May,
second edition 2001, which is unusual in that a different author wrote the second
edition in collaboration with the original author. The point we are discussing is
illuminated through the exuberance of the language the author uses to eulogise
about his beloved subject of sociology "we are both devoted to our subject in terms
of the understanding it offers for making sense of our experience within the social
environments we inhabit." (Preface, page VII). This is a value laden statement that
is as characteristic of the sociologist's mindset, as it is characteristic of the religious
priest's mission to make sense of the world for his flock. And this illustrates the
common mentality shared by the modern priest-academic and the ancient initiate
who obtained his high status in society by being inducted into the knowledge that
was interwoven with the structure of society.

But the whole point of science is to understand society, not to be a part of
the fabric of society. And amazingly enough in the sociological material offered by
the Open University this organization's priests of sociology actually deal with this
issue of detachment versus integration directly and naturally, being secularised
religious priests, that is being professionals, they state categorically, without any
explanation or justification worth spit, that it is not possible to be outside the
society we are part of. Thus they flatly deny that a science of society is possible
while at the same time purporting to offer just such a science ! But we can see from
the likes of the gush poured forth in all innocence and ignorance by Tim May that
these advocates of modern sociological science are oblivious to who and what they
are. They are priests helping to nurture the flock, like the domesticated ewe hefting
her lambs to the fells who, for all she knows, carries out her duties for the sake of
her offspring while the farmer, who is responsible for her form and location, sees a
higher truth beyond the ewe's consciousness, a higher reality in the sheep's
behaviour that in truth the farmer is responsible for. These academics are not
scientists, so of course they cannot see the simple fact that it is theoretically
perfectly possible to have a true science of society it is just not actually possible
given that society is always a theocracy. There in lies the catch twenty-two, we can
likewise easily prove God does not exist by showing what God is—God is the
superorganism—but it is not possible to prove that God does not exist because of
the nature of proof which is always dependant upon the acceptance of the parties
upon whom judgement is dependant. Which is why we get such sayings as
possession is nine tenths of the law. As long as religion rules society it does not
matter a toss what people say in contradiction to religion, and this, at rock bottom,
is why faith schools are sacred to our government as indicated in the announcement
yesterday, 24/08/2006, concerning the subject of multiculturalism which expressly
excluded from the commission appointed to look at the working of multiculturalism
in society a remit to consider faith schools. And furthermore, if you are going to
have faith schools in order to preserve the foundations of the priesthood it follows
that faith schools must give the very best education possible in terms of ascending
the ladder leading up the hierarchical social structure. This academic excellence,
that is the proficiency at turning out initiates into the system, explains why the
excuse for not questioning the existence of faith schools, because they are such
good academic schools, is so often available to be used. This raises the question as
to how faith schools manage to obtain the results they do, but this only takes us
back to the question as to how the priesthood controls any facet of society, how did
the priests manage to oust the scientists from sociology and replace them with
pseudo scientists ? This question that we have been addressing directly and the
actual manner in which this process is achieved has to do with the force of language
constructing social structure in conjunction with a linguistic identity programme
that unites people with the exoskeletal fabric of society, thus empowering those
people who are expressly united with the power base formed according to the
process driven by the energy channelled through the linguistic force. Thus between
these elements of the organic being, the power preserved in the exoskeleton and the
power thereby vested in the living tissue associated with the exoskeleton, the whole
form is preserved over time as the people with power always seek to preserve the
core religious structure which gives them their personal political power, no matter
what. And so the whole thing pulls together and ultimately, as we have seen, all
threads, all lines of force emanating from the linguistic force of nature lead back to
the temple on the mount in Jerusalem. Quiet a remarkable thought at first sight, but
equally obvious upon consideration, else how can we account for the survival of the
Jews and all that can be associated with them.

The police provide me with my basic model for the academic institution
when I wish to speak about academia as a corrupt institution because the nature of
the police provides us with a readily understood image of an institution in which
corruption can be illustrated in black and white terms, an institution moreover
which exists precisely to counter corrupt behaviour, exactly as academia exists, in
effect, precisely to counter corruption in the field of knowledge. I particularly use
the example of the police to emphasise the fact that it is perfectly possible to have a
corrupt academic institution, all you need is to have people working within the
system who are also occupied in pursuits that are precisely those pursuits the
institution exists to oppose. Thus in a police force these enemies within would be
criminals, and in a university the enemies within would be anyone who is not
dedicated to an unbiased account of reality. By definition only an atheist can be
unbiased in relation to reality, although an atheist is obviously biased against the
social reality they are a part of which is necessarily biased in favour of social
authority. So in an academic institution anyone professing sympathy with religion,
even if they are atheists themselves, such as humanists, is by definition a criminal in
relation to the knowledge of reality.
Needless to say this description of a valid academic structure could not be
more alien to the academic structure that actually exists. Along with Oxford
academic Richard Dawkins appearing on the Heaven and Earth show referred to
above there was a colleague of his that had converted from atheism to faith mainly
because of the provisionality of scientific knowledge, as he put it. So criminals are
welcomed with open arms in academia. This man presumably believes that the idea
that the earth travels about the sun, as definite as this motion seems to be, as
scientific knowledge it must be deemed provisional, and as such forever awaiting
new revelations that may yet put Ptolemy ahead of Copernicus. And Oxford
University welcomes this deviant into the fold — now why would they do that !
The only alternative way of making sense of the notion that scientific knowledge is
provisional is to assume that this man does not think that all scientific knowledge is
provisional but that much of it is, so that unless, and until, such times as humanity
knows every single detail about existence and can reproduce a universe within a
laboratory the words of the Bible must be taken as the nearest we can get to
understanding existence. Either way to let such a person attend a university as a
student, never mind as a professor, is a clear admission that universities are
institutions dedicated to the service of authority, and as such they are institutions
that have nothing whatsoever to do with the propagation and promotion of true
knowledge of reality detached from human bias.

Before the police can uphold the law the law must be laid down, and no
matter what the law says the police must seek to enforce it. Hence one year
homosexuals must be prosecuted, the next year the right of homosexuals to be
respected on a par with all others must be enforced ; in their role as a police officer
a person must be a mindless tool, not a person, when a police officer expresses
personal attitudes, as they often do, these passionate beliefs must be in line with the
law irrespective of what the law says. A police officer cannot have any opinions of
their own, their brain must be as a sponge, able and willing to soak up whatever
their controller tells them to think. This extreme position of the professional
enforcer in relation to the nature of the law is what makes the police such a useful
tool for homing in on institutional dynamics. The same basic dynamics apply to
academics because knowledge must be determined before a professor can uphold
knowledge as professors can only teach what they have been taught. Professors are
enforcers of knowledge. Except of course this both should and should not be the
case in the realms of knowledge. If I as an individual provide knowledge superior

to that of all the academics then my knowledge should become their law, but this
can only happen if there is room for change and any individual from anywhere in
existence can bring about that change. However by definition professionalism is
designed to prevent just this degree of flexibility, to prevent influence from
extending beyond a select, authorised few. Conversely then, this being the case,
when facts are established beyond contradiction then all academics must be forced
to teach only those facts otherwise science is set up to fail. In other words science
is sabotaged by attaching the standard of scientific proof to material structures that
can be manipulated while allowing free speculation about the results of such
manipulation to take place within academic circles without obliging those who
speculate to adhere to established scientific facts, such as the fact that humans are
animals that evolved.
In actual fact the academic world utilises both of these contradictory
dynamics to ensure that the theocracy remains in complete control of all public
knowledge. Academics are free to take the view that God either exists or does not
exist, and there are actually Catholic universities that by definition promote officers
of knowledge who honour religious bias in all their work. Then, because these
inherently corrupt universities are accepted amongst the family of academic
institutions, this makes inherently corrupt material freely available for use in all
institutions so that by accepting these overtly religious universities as valid
members of academia this establishes an officially approved source of poisonous
and corrupt knowledge that can then filter throughout academia where the dispersed
agents of religious corruption can deliberately select religious fabrications to use as
scientific truths so that religious dogma is taught everywhere in preference to real
knowledge. This osmotic form of institutional fabric serving a central religious
authority offers a very subtle method of control that operates unbeknownst to
anyone because its structure is woven from the finest threads of identity that are too
vaporous to be seen within the bulwark of the institutional form. Thus the idea that
infanticide is child abuse is taught in classes of a scientific nature when dealing
with the question of infanticide as practiced by pre-civilised people. This beggars
belief, this view of infanticide is an example of pure religious dogma dictating
scientific teaching. When I complained about this teaching practice I was told I did
not have to accept the arguments being offered ; they were presumably provisional !
But that is not the point, the professor should of been obliged to accept the view I
hold because my view is not a matter of debate, it is a fact that primitive peoples did
not kill babies as an act of abuse, this was the normal way of controlling the
population for the good of all. If we want to load this practice with emotional
motives then we would have to say infanticide was a sacred duty of the highest
moral necessity at the hunter-gather stage of superorganic development. Without
such methods of population control humans would more than likely of become
degenerate and of died out, and never of made it to the civilised stage that now
judges its forebears according to modern cultural standards. The capacity of
humans to reproduce logarithmically is due to their nature as a superorganism, this
is why human individuals no longer have a natural birth cycle but instead can breed
at any time, a useful development helping the organism to increase its biomass to
the maximum whenever the opportunity arises. And from this observation we can
understand why there is the inclusion of a mechanism within identity implants
designed to control the primary biological mechanisms augmenting the biomass of
the organism, a mechanism expressed in extension, that is from the biological to the
social, or we can say from the genetic to the linguistic, where Jewish identities
make life sacred and define infanticide as a vicious crime. And we may note that
the knowledge delivered in this paragraph is not taught in any university, it is far
too real !

The corruption of academia by the theocracy is insidious and therefore
appears malevolent, although it is biologically functional as the unity of the
organism must be sustained for the organism to exist. The objectives of the
corruption of knowledge just outlined is not really to judge past peoples, the
objective is to retain control of the minds of living peoples and this requires a kind
of backdating of modern morals which are supposed to be divinely ordained and
therefore must be made to apply even to the past. This practice may be likened to
the rewriting history except in this case it represents the rewriting anthropology.
This practice of backdating contemporary notions of political correctness may well
bring to mind the bizarre habit politicians now have of apologising for the slave
trade, or for flooding villages in Wales to supply water to Liverpool, or for
pardoning a soldier executed for cowardice a century ago ! What kind of lunatic
could see value in this ? The mind boggles as the limit to this weird regressional
mode of thinking seems to be unbounded as humans are said to murder animals, or
animals are said to love humans. Now people want to do things like bringing
wolves back to Scotland. In the hands of priests all sense of who we are as
creatures of this earth is turned to so much slush flowing down the gutter. I think I
will start a campaign to get Europeans to build a three mile high mountain made of
concrete imbedded with flints topped with a plaque declaring our atonement for
exterminating our closest ever fellow humanoids, the Neanderthals, to be built on
the spot where the first remains were found, that should keep the nutters busy for a
bit ; then again, best not give them ideas !
Abstract reasoning is so contrary to the world of academic knowledge that it
is too overwhelming to think of reasoning along abstract lines as academia
ultimately exists to assert political objectives. Universities were founded by
priesthoods for the very purpose of preserving dogma and to prevent knowledge of
reality from threatening the position of their dogma in society. Universities exist to
serve the priesthood and they always have existed for this purpose. Therefore we
are obliged to take a less idealistic view of the academic world and to reject the
facile image this world projects of itself as a bearer of true and free knowledge, and
the home of unbridled freedom of enquiry and expression.
Again, the police provide a nice clear cut model for us to use as a point of
conceptual reference for our thinking about the more vaguely defined nature of the
academic world. The police are a tool established to enforce laws that are written
down, this is what gives the police their clarity of form. Academia would never
accept that it is a policing agency established to enforce adherence to the knowledge
formulated within its bounds, but that is precisely what it is. A church or
priesthood of whatever kind is more openly akin to a police force because faiths
tend to have a bedrock of scriptural dogmas that it is the acknowledged function of
the priest to enforce adherence to. But when we place these three institutions
police, academia, and priesthood, along a line of affinity defined by the objective of
maintaining authority we can recognise their common features as social institutions
that are intended to deliver order and conformity, where the feature we want to
home in on is the production of the "knowledge" that the institutional tool exists to
serve as an agent of fixity. So we have law-officer, knowledge-academic, faith-
priest which can be reduced to the triad of conceptual affinity law-knowledge-faith,
all made to serve one common end, the preservation of the theocracy, or in
biological terms, the preservation of the superorganism. The servants of the
resulting institutions can all be classed as priests within the theocracy thus : law-
priest, knowledge-priest, faith-priest. Faith and law are openly formulated to be
obeyed unquestioningly, and it is from this method that order arises. The only
question remaining after this is how an adequate degree of consensus emerges from
the social process to make whatever formulas are established functional. But

whatever consensus does emerge the core religious identity must be preserved, this
core is Judaism and the sub-Judaic identities of Christianity and Islam are formulas
that emerged to extend the organism while still preserving Jewish core identity,
which is why the Jews are the master identity and the true identity of the global
superorganism that constitutes our world today.
In the third case we have a twist whereby the written material is supposed to
be independent of any social authority, it is the duty, in theory, of the guardians of
knowledge to seek and present only what is true. This is simply not what
universities were invented to do however, it is only what their propaganda says they
do, just as democracy is a means of allowing the autocratic priesthood to rule with
absolute power while appearing to be in the hands of the freely empowered people.
Secularisation, with its democratic institutions, is the means by which the
priesthood rule society today. So the question arises as to how the social
institutions have managed to transform themselves from overtly autocratic
institutions like monarchies and churches with direct political power into covert
autocratic institutions with all the same autocratic powers as before ? This is the
story we have been seeking to present here, and in the preceding few paragraphs the
object has been to approach the nature of academic structures from another angle so
that we can see their practitioners as tools, as a police officer is the tool of the law,
whose function it is to lay down the law in the field of knowledge. Tim May is
evidently a highly respected police officer in the field of knowledge control as he
has been allowed to write a book that expounds upon how we can help ourselves
conform to the dictates of our masters as regards how we should think for ourselves
when aided by what May calls sociology, his understanding of sociology being
dictated by what the master he serves has laid down as being sociology. So in
effect what we are recounting here is how the sociological law was formulated and
laid down, and as we can see it is essentially just another facet of the way religious
law or civil law is laid down in order that it shall be obeyed.
As we proceed to develop a structural model of social institutions in relation
to the control of knowledge we can remind ourselves that language is the natural
force that creates social structure and as such we can say that humans live in flux of
linguistic information which causes material to condense into an exoskeletal form
by virtue of the effect this flux has on the orchestration of human activities. This
linguistic flux can be understood as an ethereal medium akin to the electromagnetic
spectrum and with this conception in mind we can then think of the three broad
categories of the linguistic flux associated with the three differentiated exoskeletal
elements as being bandwidths of the linguistic flux. The three bandwidths of the
linguistic flux creating the global superorganism are Judaism, Christianity and
Islam. This triad of identities can be related to the structural triad instituted in the
name of order as law, knowledge and faith. Thus we have Judaism-Christianity-
Islam linked to Law-Knowledge-Faith respectively. As a general outline of the
social organism this linkage between the macro elements of the social structure that
provide a personal link between individuals and this structure has some immediate
sense of validity in terms of the different roles these religious blocs fulfil in our
world. And the different social structures that condense out of the influence of
these different bandwidths of identity in the human domain must ultimately be a
reflection of the underlying qualities of the nature of living matter in terms of the
energy flux which brings life forms into being from none living material.
Now there is something for you to think about. What do we have here, the
abstract science of sociology ? Sociological Physics ? Sub-atomic Socionics ?
What a lovely flux language looks when you play with it like this. The poetry of

When all is said and done, whether theist or atheist, there is only one pivotal
difference between the knowledge generated from these two positions, that is the
point of attachment of humanity to reality. Consequently my all embracing
atheistic account is essentially identical to the all embracing religious account, the
two respective images woven from words are merely imbued with a different
linguistic pattern due to the adoption of distinct focal points of authority concerning
the origins and nature of reality. It is therefore nice to find a religious essay that
discusses the unity of Judaic, Christian and Islamic identities under the general
premise that all of society should form a church, thus implicitly conceding that
there is no such thing as a secular society because all social structure is drawn into
the vortex of Judaism. To this end the example I have to offer is Judaism,
Christianity and Islam, F. E. Peters, 1990 where Chapter 7 has the title The Church
and the State / The Church as the State, page 341, Volume 1.
Furthermore, while we are on the subject of mirror images of knowledge,
anyone who takes the trouble to read Mein Kampf will see that Hitler simply takes
an impression of Jewish culture and transforms the image of Judaism into an image
of Nazism by attaching the material elements of Judaism to an alternative focal
point of reality that then informs the pattern of words and phrases used to unite the
same material elements Judaism uses to empower itself, thereby creating a
functionally identical product imbued with a different identity. Hitler in no way
alters Judaism in his production of National Socialist philosophy, to do so, given
that he implicitly recognised the Jews were the masters of the earth, would be sheer
stupidity. Hitler says that if things continue as they are then the Jewish prophecy is
bound to be fulfilled and 'the Jew would really devour the peoples of the earth,
would become their master' (Page 411). This is precisely why he is committed to
religious values and makes himself an implacable enemy of atheism and truth, even
though, as we have seen, this is absurd since Christians and Muslims must be
denominated slaves of Judaism within any scientific scheme of human evolution
since this is the picture superorganic physiology paints for us when applied to the
human animal. Hitler of course saved the Jews from this most terrible of all
realisations, by not realising it, and by converting this scientific knowledge into a
political creed and so wrapping it up in a form that made it taboo for aeons to come.
And it follows therefore that if a Nazi state tolerated Christianity the Nazis would
be just as much slaves of Judaism as the Christians and Muslims are themselves.
Hence the Nazis are just another face of Judaism, another face of the superorganism
that is, another expression of human corporate nature.
The difference between Judaism and Nazism as ideologies of power is akin
to the difference between a horse and a modern car as modes of transport. The
Jewish focal point of attachment of humanity to reality is God, God being a
linguistic device, while the Nazi point of attachment of humanity to reality was
race, race being a genetic mechanism of attachment that is inherently inferior to a
linguistic mechanism of attachment precisely because it cannot reach beyond the
localised limits of race. This is specifically why the Jews evolved to be the core
identity in the global superorganism in the first place, to be the master race in other
words. One can but wonder why a person with so much knowledge and insight
would fail to grasp the real significance of religion, it is not as if Hitler did not face
up to the pertinent questions, at least long enough to reject them out of hand. He is
like a man on a mission to self destruct, as if what he wanted was to self destruct,
which is what he did of course. Speaking of the need to adopt a ruthlessly exclusive
sense of self worth for the new movement Hitler likens this attitude to the Christian
view of heathenism, and says that intolerance is vital to a new movement that is
trying to make its way in the world. But then he says that it may rightly be said this
Christian intolerance came into the world directly from 'Jewish modes of thought'

(Page 413) but that such unpleasantness is part of life and now anyone wanting to
redeem the position of Germany only had to concern themselves with how this was
to be done. So, in other words, he is saying that if Germans must make like Jews
in order to free themselves from slavery to Judaism, then so be it. Thus, logically,
despite the hatred poured forth upon Jews per se, it seems he has no objection
whatsoever to any aspects of Jewish culture, he only objects to Jews being the
master, he wants to be the master. He was just a big girls blouse. Not that I do not
sympathise with the sentiment, but for my part I want freedom from fascism full
stop. I do not want my own pet version of fascism. Freedom from fascism means
freedom of access to knowledge, end of story.

26/08/2006 11:10:56

Red, White & Blue : Men, Books, and Ideas in American Culture, by John
William Ward, 1969 has just arrived, shortly after I finished writing down some of
the immediately preceding thoughts. I ordered this book because of a reference to a
couple of essays on individualism Mill, Marx, and Modern Individualism seeming
particularly relevant to the subject matter I concern myself with, as you should be
able to see. However in the light of what I have just written The Intellectual :
Cleric or Critic ? seems particularly relevant at this moment and worth using as a
sort of immediate response to my remarks that can be thought of as having been
spontaneously drawn from the all pervading linguistic flux.
This essay opens by defining the function of the university along dualistic
lines, wherein two main objectives are contrasted with each other, somewhat
matching therefore the sense that I have been inferring when I say this institution
really serves the social authority vested in religion while still putting forward the
image of a free institution devoted to the service of truth independent of social
authority. But of course Ward's book exists, therefore it is approved, it is written by
a practicing priest-professional, and it is therefore a piece of pure unadulterated
propaganda serving the ends the theocracy. The seemingly untwisting twist this
priest-professional puts on the duplicity of the academic world asserts that the
university exists to transmit "knowledge and the values of the culture to future
generations " (page 315). So, rewritten according to my mode of interpreting
institutional functions this statement would, if applied to the police, read like this,
the purpose of the police force is "to enforce the law and to commit crime" ! Given
that the values of a society are religious, which they are, how can an institution act
as the guardian of social values and as an advocate of real knowledge ? The idea is
insane in the extreme, it beggars belief that anyone can get away with coming out
with something as deranged as this. It has never, in my wildest dreams, occurred to
me that a school or a university existed, in any way whatever, to transmit values. I
always thought of a school, and especially a university as a place of adult learning,
as places that served those who attended them by giving them an education. But am
I not the fool for thinking this !
In effect then, given the benefit of the knowledge contained in this work, we
have a bare faced statement that academic institutions exist to programme people
according to the religious dogma that enslaves people in accordance with the laws
of biological evolution that have created humans to form a superorganism in which
individuals exist to serve the super individual. So I am not really having to struggle
to make my point here since my argument is conceded by the priest-professional
without any apparent embarrassment, academic institutions exist to induct people
into the slave ideology of the day, that Ward calls culture and values.
I am not an initiate of the system, I am not a priest of any kind, I have no
affiliation to any system, I just want to know the truth. Interestingly Ward actually

has a passage in another essay which calls for the old values of the amateur, whose
sole passion was for his subject, to be respected ! He values this idea because he
somehow associates this disposition of the amateur with traditional values ! Too
bizarre ! In saying this he seems to mix the adoration of everything I stand for with
the love of everything I hate and despise in a manner which, upon first impressions,
leaves me perplexed and quite frankly not really interested in sparing the half hour's
concentration that would be necessary to try and get to some kind of resolution of
what is being said here. I can't be bothered because I am sure that it will just be
some demented priestly contortion which these professional people never tire of
exuding in honour of the programme they serve which, by way of reward—like a
drop of honey for the worker—gives them their priestly status and associated
privileges in life. We can directly reveal the likeness of financial reward in human
society to that of the supply of bee honey in a hive, by making honey the currency
of the bees.
As I expound the theme of language as a force in human society that
generates social structure underpinned by the economic laws of biology we can also
include bees in the same picture of social dynamics by using terms ordinarily
applied to humans to bees. Bee language therefore creates social structure just as
human language creates social structure, all social structure in the animal kingdom
must therefore be the product of the linguistic life force, and the obedience of
individuals to the dictates of the structure that emerges from linguistic organization
brought about by bee language must also be linked to the underlying laws of
organic economy through the currency of activity produced as part of the social
organism's physiology. So the linguistic force expressed in bees is supported by the
laws of economics just as the linguistic force expressed in humans is supported by
the underlying laws of biological economics that can be more directly associated
with genetically programmed needs such as the appetite for food. By describing the
role currency has as a medium linking individuals intimately and physically to the
force of language via the exoskeletal structure of the superorganism that language
produces we identify the essence of currency, whether in the shape of honey, coin,
fungus (in leaf-cutter ants) or bacterium that break down cellulose (termites), the
essence of currency being that of an engine of superorganic physiology that taps
into the energy potential of individual physiology which evolved to bring into being
a living entity at the level of social organization. Thus not only tongues, hands,
naked skin, but now honey and cash can also be denominated as naturally occurring
organs produced by the linguistic life force.
Currency, acting as an engine tapping into a latent source of energy
potential, causes social energy to flow from a myriad of point sources in one
uniform direction toward the focal point of social authority at the core of the
superorganic being. From this it follows that the evolution of a superorganism
involves the evolution of individual physiology in such a way that individuals
become linked into a super individual where the mode of behavioural linkage
evolves in unison with the structural underpinnings of interconnective behaviour.
This must involve a seesaw motion whereby structure evolves and generates
behaviour which in turn generates structure, and so on. The two counterpoints we
are focused upon at this point in our discussion are the force of language and the
form of currency. The mechanisms of language and currency work together to
constitute a feedback loop tapping the latent potential of individual physiology that
has been brought into being by evolutionary processes that have, in the case of
humans, made individuals bipedal, ambidextrous and fluent. Thus humans, not to
say all life forms, evolved by acquiring features that first acted as engines of
exploitation in their own right and then became a source of latent potential to be
exploited because attributes of physiology that act as engines tapping an energy

potential inevitably, over time, create a pool of latent energy themselves, which in
turn induces a new engine of physiology to evolve that is able to exploit the freshly
accumulated energy potential arising due to prior evolutionary developments. And
we may suppose that this mode of evolution occurs about a common theme centred
upon a uniform energy potential applicable to each new development, so that each
new engine in the sequence of engines is related to every other engine already
established as part of the physiology of the organism in question. And the common
point of potential energy accessed by a series of related engines of energy
exploitation explains why the end product is a life form perfectly adapted to one
mode of exploitation, one environment that is, and why, despite the considerable
change over time, the realisation of potential has at all times been at the pinnacle of
potential exploitation applicable to any given life form at each point in the process
bringing about the ascent to a perfectly adapted life form.
Perfection, though forever being perfected, is always perfect because
perfection is always and forever the one and only judge of its own perfection. In
other words, in nature, perfection is what is. However, this said, there are natural
developmental cycles such as we noted when we spoke of the evolution of a
planetary system and the realisation of a latent potential that means a force may
exist that does not reveal itself until the fullness of time has brought forth its full
potential, so that we say the linguistic force existed millions of years before
language, as strange as such an idea must seem to us mortal beings who might sit
upon that pinnacle and natter about how tricky it is to imagine the power of
language without speech.

Having broached the question of the provisional nature of scientific

knowledge earlier on in this chapter we now find ourselves teasing out an account
of the evolutionary process that can aid our conceptualisation of a knowledge of
reality which, despite being subject to interminable revision, is nonetheless always
perfect. Genuine scientific knowledge has an organic nature that is always perfect
in the same sense that an evolving organism is always perfect at any given moment
in time, but still liable to change over time. This is so because scientific knowledge
is nothing more and nothing less than a perfect representation of reality. If I take a
walk from my house to the town centre and record the number of every house that I
pass then, even though at the mid-point on my journey my task will be incomplete,
and as such subject to revision of a sort, the task at any given moment in time will
be perfect and complete and not subject to revision beyond that which may be
necessary due to human error. Genuine scientific knowledge is not really revised
since true science never accepts knowledge into the fold that is not final and
absolute, and the only reason this ideal is not borne out by the evidence is because
we live in an absolute theocracy that subverts academia to its own political agenda
and will neither reject false academics nor allow academics to present established
knowledge as fact unless it suits the purposes of the church, or at least does not
conflict with those purposes.
Needless to say, genuine scientific knowledge does not exist because the
definition of science is the personification of an ideal. We might say that genuine
science exists under certain conditions where knowledge is isolated, as if in a
laboratory, in the same way that physical elements may be isolated even though
they otherwise rarely exist in any pure form under natural conditions. If this is so
then all that philosophy can do in terms of synthesising genuine knowledge is to
develop a more refined analysis, a new count in other words, bringing knowledge
up to date, and thereby to assist in a more useful understanding of the social
amalgam. But even here we see that the best philosophy, like science, is always as
good as it can be because the social amalgam is forever changing in response to the

overall conditions of which philosophy forms a part, and hence understanding
forever requires a new philosophical synthesis to preserve the purity of the
philosophical product of the age. This interminably fluid dynamic is to be expected
from within the living fabric of an organic being, it is only the artificial nature of
political interpretation that imposes the unrealistic notions of perfection versus
provisionality that so plagues our intellectual life, for by means of this political ruse
the priest can point out the inadequacy of science as compared to the perfection of
divine revelation ! But there is no duality, there is, and can be, only one ; as
Parmenides pointed out, much to the consternation of the Ancient Greeks, long ago.

So, returning to our thoughts preceding those contained in the paragraph just
gone, we might speculate that bipedalism created a latent potential for social unity
to increase by inducing an ever greater facility for dexterity. So that human legs
can be deemed an embryonic expression of dexterity in obedience to our logic of
the pre-formation of perfect form lying dormant in unrelated forms that possess the
same nature. Pre-formation is implicit in the idea that human nature existed
millions of years before humans and in the idea that the linguistic force was driving
human evolution millions of years before language came into existence. It is
implicit in the idea that the potential for a social form is latent in mammalian
physiology that if such a social physiology is to emerge it must do so by producing
physiological elements that are characteristic of the same social nature in stages that
lead from one perfected form to another until the maximum expression of the initial
potential latent in mammalian physiology has been realised. Hence the realisation
of human legs contain the latent potential for human hands because bipedal legs are
evolved as an element of social physiology on route to producing dextrous hands as
a further expression of that same social physiology. And so the ladder is climbed
by way of social evolution, not by way of social progress as Sprague claimed when
reviewing Kidd ; social progress is just a coded phrase capturing the power of the
evolutionary process for political ends just as God is a code word capturing the
power of the superorganic form for the same purpose.
As dexterity reached a high degree of development it fuelled the next stage
whereby language was to be the engine that would exploit the latent potential of
dexterity to increase the power of superorganic physiology and where the language
pertaining to this initial stage took the form of visual encoding by shedding hair to
make race a primary factor in the communication of corporate identity arising as the
power of dexterity produced the exoskeletal support to allow a mammal to go naked
and vulnerable at the level of individual physiology because the limits of the
organism were now supra individual. Eventually, with the arrival of fully fledged
linguistic capability the next stage in human evolution was the emergence of
complex cultural forms within which currency could eventually emerge as a potent
tool qualifying as an engine of evolutionary transformation because currency brings
about a high degree of uniformity and focuses social energy more readily upon a
focal point of authority. Thus conditions were laid down for a none racial identity
to come to the fore capable of giving rise to a true complex superorganism, and
hence Judaism, so often linked to financial dynamics of one sort or another,
emerged. It is rather interesting that Hitler argued that the idea that the Jews were a
religious community was a piece of Jewish intrigue, that Jews were really a race
masquerading as a religion in order to be able to insinuate themselves into the
Aryan host community that so loved religion, whereupon all pretence was dropped
and the feeding began ! He was a weird sod, but there was some logical necessity
for reducing Jews to the common category of race in order that they could be
tackled as a genuine foe. The truth was that race as a means of defining the
superorganism went out of the window a long time before the Romans slaughtered

the indigenous hierarchy of northern Europe to replace it with a Judophilic slave
priesthood in the shape of the Christian church. It is perfectly obvious that the Jews
would never of been allowed to settle in Europe prior to the advance of the Roman
phalange that paved the way for the advance of Jewish culture, and since Hitler
notes that the Jews first appeared in Germany on the back of the Roman invasion
you would think he might of put two and two together and seen the connection
between the Romans and the Jews and hence between the Christians and the Jews.
But no, once again we can but note that Hitler seemed hell bent on self destruction
to no apparent purpose. At least he took science with him to the grave, thereby
ensuring that never again would people be free to disparage the Jews in any way
whatever, whether vindictively, or incidentally while in pursuit of truth and
knowledge. It is enough to make you think that this was his real intention ........ ah
well, a pawn is as good as a pawn whether it knows the reason why it does what it
does or whether it does not.
And today the Roman legacy of military arm to the Jews lives on in the
British army as a leading British soldier recognised just the other day, today being
14/10/06, when he said the Judeo-Christian ethos was the foundation of the British
army ; we continue to clear the way for the Jews to take over the world just as the
Romans did before. But as someone said on TV in the aftermath of the row that
broke on the back of this soldier's comments, he was wrong to make this claim
because of the demoralising effect on Muslim soldiers in the British army, indeed,
there has to be a triad.
So articulate language can now be viewed as an engine that exploits the
latent energy pool created by dexterity, and then language becomes the generator of
a new pool of latent energy exploited by the development of cultural practices
leading to civilised modes of subsistence ; hence biological evolution continues into
the modern domain of life and dictates what some would call progress. Life
evolves by standing on the shoulders of those leading features of evolution that
have gone before, as someone once said of their intellectual achievements, Einstein
I believe, Newton too, in an apparently facetious manner, but it is a common
enough observation to make and here we connect this observation on personal
creativity with its biological roots. I am not going to review books on superorganic
physiology from the post scientific era of the second age of science but bee
superorganics are an important element of this post second age of science material
and so I will mention a book I read this summer that gives me the confidence to talk
so freely about the common evolutionary interface shared by humans and their
superorganic cousins, this is The Wisdom of the Hive : The Social Physiology of
Honey Bee Colonies, by Thomas D. Seeley, 1995. I should say that Seeley, as a
post second age of science scientist would never dream of applying science to
humans, but prior to the destruction of science in the opening decades of the
twentieth century people did associate their knowledge of insect superorganisms to
human society, The Social World of the Ants Compared with that of Man by
Auguste Forel, 1928, is a remnant from the original scientific school of thought that
religious forces erased from society, and The Soul of the White Ant by Eugene N.
Marais, 1937, is another example of the rational mindset the theocracy had to deal

Take note therefore—it follows from the above that humans have no more
choice in their use of money than bees have in their use of honey. This is an
extremely important point to make because today the most sacred mantra of the
priest-politician says that humans have the power of choice over how they live.
Humans live as they live because they choose to live as they live, the priest tells us.
Nothing could be more false than this. Does anyone seriously think that humans

choose to live in a world in which money mediates all activity ? Does anyone
seriously think humans could decide to live in a world without currency of any
kind ?
The suggestion that humans decided to live subject to these cultural devices
is so insane as to be beyond contempt, it is plain ludicrous. Few of us would
choose to go back to the jungle or to live in a world without money, we like our
world as it is, but that does not mean we chose to make our world the way it is.
Shifting back through time a couple of centuries to pre-industrial England, prior to
the sequestration of public land by the state however may well appeal to many
people. The choice made by the farmers of society to take the common land away
from their cattle was a decision that elevated money to number one priority in
everyone's life and led inexorably to the present conditions we all find ourselves
living in as modern consumer slaves. But hey, we love shopping ! Love shopping
or not we did not choose to become consumers rather than remain producers, our
masters and owners made the choice for us way back then just as they make all our
choices for us today, such as our choice to start an unprovoked war in Iraq and
thereby stimulate global terrorism guaranteeing that we would experience suicide
bombings in our capital city, exactly as we have done ; Thanks Tony ! thanks for
nothing. Nice legacy ! After his departing speech in Manchester yesterday,
26/09/06, I just want to say good riddance — bring on the next jerk-off.

We like having legs for walking or kicking a ball, we like singing songs and
writing philosophy, but that does not mean we chose to have these abilities. Nor
does the enjoyment we take in being what nature has made us mean we express our
abilities for the reasons of personal gratification that we are conscious of when we
express ourselves joyfully. We do what we do because nature shaped us to do what
we do. This is the only possible outlook anyone can hold who presumes to call
themselves a scientist. Anyone can adopt a label, anyone can call themselves a
scientist, an atheist, a feminist, a philanthropist, but it is the substance under the
label that tells us what a person really is. The existence of an authority that
determines who gets to wear the label scientist is no promise of the substance
within either, and we should never take the values provided by the authorities that
rule us at face value ; unless of course we really do want to end up back in that
Darwinism leads the world down a blind alley in terms of understanding
ourselves because it leads us toward the individual and away from the universal
force of energy. The idea that discrete elements of a structure act as machines
drawing energy into the structure that they serve is the most readily comprehensible
way of seeing our modern world in universal terms, providing an image easily
comprehended because we are so familiar with machines in the modern world and
we know how a large array of machines form a machine hierarchy in relation to the
production and maintenance of the total structure of society, the total structure of
the exoskeleton that is. Once we have the idea of the machine in place we can then
see that any body of organised people must also constitute a machine in terms of
their relationship to universal energy and the production of social structure ; after all
we know that machines replace human effort so it follows that human collective
effort must of been an expression of mechanical activity to be capable of being
taken over by a mechanical device ! Thus even the people sent down holes in the
ground four thousand years ago to obtain metals to make copper and bronze
implements constituted machines, and in this context the metal represented currency
which was the basis of bronze age capitalism that was banked by the masters in the
shape of axe heads. There is, as they say, nothing new under the sun. But the
whole point of this system whereby groups of people constitute machines building

the superorganism's exoskeleton is to keep the superorganism alive and while we
easily see the relationship between miners grafting and the work done by modern
machines it is not nearly so obvious that the masters who organized society and
accumulated the bronze wealth were just as much machines as the miners in exactly
the same sense that brains are machine-organs just as much as arms and legs
constitute machine-limbs. Recognising that the elite are also structural machines
tapping into a latent source of social energy resident in a human population is
important in facilitating our ability to understand how modern religious identities
evolved as part of the organic evolution of the superorganism.

Ward uses the word amateur in conjunction with the word dilettante, and
rightly says of the latter that it has become a term of derision but, he tells us,
dilettante originally referred to a person who loved something. One of the journal
articles I referred to above, written by an enemy of the scientifically minded people
who promoted a biological idea of society, applied the label dilettante to the most
forthright advocate of the idea that society was a living organism, indicating that by
1900 dilettante was being used by the emerging priest-professional class of
sociologists to undermine the genuine work done over the course of decades by
independent amateur thinkers by disparaging the value of the people who devoted
their lives to their beloved subject simply for the joy of knowing and the benefit
they evidently believed came from true knowledge. So we see that as the idea of
the professional sociologist was formulated a term of abuse was also needed as a
counterbalance to aid the mental contortion intended to cast the professional
fraudster serving the social authorities in a good light while placing the individual
person of honour in the shadow of contempt ; a typical strategy of the social
manipulator. How else is authority to be established in any manner that is of use to
a political order ? The goodies must have their baddies. The Nazi had their Jews,
the Jews have their Nazis. We should not distinguish between Jews and Nazis in a
scientific account of human society because both these social elements served the
same master. Nazis sort, and Jews continue to seek, to be the high priests through
which the master finds the yoke of human nature to which we are all attached one
way or another, and those who mediate that attachment reap the reward especially
unto themselves, but perhaps, it must be said, not without benefit to all.
The polarity of phenomena that we have just alluded to is an expression of
Newton's law of motion saying that for each action there is an equal and opposite
reaction. We think of this law applying in simple physical terms, to a moving
snooker ball striking a stationary ball for example. But this law must apply in all
physical systems, but in a manner appropriate to the system. Thus in the living
tissues we have haemoglobin circulating the body and extracting oxygen from the
atmosphere via the lungs, and in the process of removing oxygen carbon dioxide
and water vapour are exhaled. The overall objective being to capture the latent
energy that has been imparted to gaseous oxygen in the process of photosynthesis
which releases oxygen as a by-product of capturing radiant energy emitted by the
sun due to the transmutation of elements occurring at the level of nuclear reactions.
At each stage there is a balancing of the energy account that means that even the
somewhat complicated action of breathing can be looked at in terms of an energy
distribution having the quality of a Newtonian equation determined by this law of
motion. Haemoglobin then is an organ that evolved to perform a task where the
evolution of haemoglobin involved the creation of an artificial energy gradient
operating selectively in the interest of the whole organism that the blood-machine
serves. The creation of this energy gradient causes energy to flow from a pool of
energy imbalance into the organism where it can be put to use in the act of living.
Looked at in terms of energy differentials then an organism appears as a valley in

the energy landscape through which energy flows according to the law of least
resistance. When people are organized into a distinct social body by the force of
language creating a religious identity the same Newtonian law applies to the
resulting social organ as applied to the evolution of the blood-organ. Just as the
blood becomes a type of engine driving a system by creating an energy gradient that
draws energy into the total system that the engine serves, so the concentration of
social forces upon a social body causes that body to constitute an engine that
likewise has the nature of an organ causing social energy to be drawn via itself into
the resulting whole organism that is served by the social organ that has been created
via the mechanism of linguistic organisation that caused a priesthood with a distinct
identity to come into being with its associated dependant mass of social tissue. The
logic of this idea is utilised to account for Muslim female attire in the political
interlude to be found in the last chapter. Relative to the global superorganism that
is alive today the Jewish people as a whole represent such a social engine created
by the force of language. And at the core of the Jewish biomass itself the
machinery of social dynamics must be further concentrated into diverse structures
so that a still more focused engine of identity lies at the core of the Jewish machine
that serves the whole superorganism ; thus once the human superorganism has
grown to the extent of a planetary wide body its physiology, considered in terms of
energy distribution, takes on something of the form of a star because the complexity
of the social structure that involves the coordinated distribution of a mass of
complex energy equations merging into a uniform pattern orchestrated and
contained along lines of linguistic force. It is hardly surprising therefore that we see
eruptions of energy along these lines of linguistic force where segments of the
human biomass touch one another as the identity determinants defining these
segments interact under the influence of the linguistic force from which they get
their identity and structure. Neither is it surprising that even as alternative focal
points of linguistic force emerge and set themselves at odds with the established
focal point a close examination of the detail reveals in each case that all contenders
are but more or less inferior mirror images of one perfect overarching authority
which is the authority of human corporate nature itself that dictates that humans
must form the most perfect superorganism possible by whatever means.

Language is a natural force that produces a flux of information the control of

which is the means of controlling the knowledge that anyone can know, and thus
the means of controlling society itself, exactly as our discussion indicates.

Chapter V

The Echo of Organicism

The truth will out, so they say, and in the case of truth about reality there is
good reason to think this is so, though it takes its time. We are lucky to have a clue
to indicate that people did early on in the first known age of scientific endeavour
think that the earth might be a normal feature of the universe because this provides
us with a prior example to that can us in our investigation into the modern
suppression of knowledge by an absolute theocracy. What makes this of special
benefit is that this type knowledge, true knowledge in conflict with authority that is,
is very prone to loss and once lost it is extremely difficult to conjure up indirectly.
In addition intellectual knowledge viewed in the manner we are seeking to view it
here requires a deep perspective, indeed it is one of the greatest joys and privileges
to be alive at just the right moment in time to carry out the investigations of the lost
knowledge of the second age of science as that age is just now on the verge of being
smothered out of existence by the ongoing theocracy that will not die.
We need knowledge existing over as great a length of time as possible to
help us formulate our argument and the work of the ancients is our remote resource
aiding us in these objectives, once again making the category of our enquiries lie
very much in the field of philosophy. The record of our counterpoint idea to
organicism, which is heliocentrism, the idea that the earth goes about the sun,
indicates that a period of some two thousand years elapsed between heliocentrism
first being muted and its emergence at a point which saw its eventual rise to the
status of official knowledge. This does not bode well for the idea which is the
subject of our intellectual devotion, the idea that humans are a superorganism that

This chapter should consist of the works appearing post Second World War
in the age after the death of science, works which despite being obliged to pay
homage to the idea that individuals are human beings nonetheless deal with the
superorganic dynamics of society, of which there are many works from an array of
fields. However at the outset I indicated that this work was a piece of
developmental philosophy and as such I would not overburden it with material,
while I would, for the purpose of illustration, nonetheless include the opening page
of a chapter that I thought ought to be part of the subject matter and was something
that I want readers to be aware of, but that I do not want to include in this
provisional work.

I have mentioned some relevant books that are part of this post scientific age
in other sections of this work, an example being The Wisdom of the Hive : The
Social Physiology of Honey Bee Colonies, by Thomas D. Seeley, 1995. And here
are two more whose titles alone give some idea of the kind of work still being done
on superorganisms in general and humans as superorganism in particular, without
admitting humans are superorganisms of course :

Bees as Superorganisms, by Robin Moritz and Edward Southwick, 1992.

Cities and Regions as Self-Organizing Systems, Peter Allen, 1997.

Chapter VI

The Transformation of Logic

We have said that the central point of this discussion concerns the shift from
one focal point to another whereby the same observations are transformed from
what is real to what is bias. In the process of shifting from one logical position to
another logical position a transformation of logic occurs, and this is what we have
been seeking to illustrate and discuss. We have given the familiar example of the
shift from an earth centred logic to account for celestial phenomena to a heliocentric
logic where the earth is understood to orbit the sun. In our era the two alternative
positions relevant to the ideas that inform our understanding of existence relative to
ourselves give us the two alternative focal points of individual versus society.
Society does not orbit the individual anymore than the solar system orbits the
earth !
We have been saying that the initial impulse of the first scientifically
minded thinkers of the second age of science was to project their scientific ideas
onto the seemingly none biological form of society, whereby they assumed society
was open to scientific interpretation but only if it is was included within the
pantheon of organic reality. As this idea generated a detached understanding
according to its own logic resistance emerged about the opposite logical pole, that
of the individual.
Just as it is with question of the earth's position in the heavens, so it is with
the position of the person within the social sphere. According to whether the earth
or the person is made supreme or whether the earth or the person is made uniform
with all surrounding phenomena, so we obtain a radically different view of reality.
Thus two patterns of logic emerge from the adoption of two alternative focal points
of observation. Although there is a motivation to attack religion and promote
science inherent in the effort that has gone into understanding the argument
presented here, as we get closer to a consistent idea of what processes are actually
at work in the war between religion and science and we manage to obtain sufficient
materials to tell the story of how nature has managed the evolution of our current
social milieu then the whole subject takes on a more detached and less personal
aura, and as a result there is a certain amount of delight and fascination at the way
in which our ideas are controlled and managed along lines laid down by nature in
the process of allowing a mammalian superorganism to come into being.

My greatest insight is that language is a natural force, this is such a powerful

idea because it seamlessly carries the logic of evolution based upon genetics into
the social domain by making information the carrier of energy that creates structure.
Under these circumstances it is irrelevant whether the carrier occurs in the shape of
genes or words, the effect is the same, only the zone of effect is different. Forces
are the expression of energy and we recognise a variety of forces according to the
context in which we see them operating, hence in the social domain we have the
force of language. We cannot imagine a modern sociologist discussing the nature
of force but if we look to the nineteenth century American sociologist Lester F.
Ward we find force playing a leading role in his scientific analysis of society. It is
gratifying therefore to identify other major lines of enquiry that are in harmony with
this logic and accordingly I have noted Fouillée's thinking on ideas as a force. But,
as we know, a transformation took place that moved scientific thinking away from
the focal point of human biological nature and toward the focal point of human
political behaviour. It has to be said that Fouillée, although much concerned with
our subject of a naturalistic conception of society, was preoccupied with a desire to
harmonise the old with the new, this can only mean taming the new in order to
preserve the old. So Fouillée can only of been aiding the process that was
politicising scientific knowledge. As none of his relevant work has been translated
into English I cannot make a firm judgement on these questions. But another author
has just caught my eye as I peruse my bookshelves who also evokes the idea of
knowledge as a force generating social structure, this is the American William
Graham Sumner and the relevant work is Folkways : A Study of the Sociological
Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals, 1906.
This is a delightful book from the point of view of a scientific conception of
society, or it is at first sight, however there is something not at all nice about it,
indeed something quite insidious. The book can be thought of as functionalist
rather than organicist and as such it is transitional between true science and pseudo
science. I like to dip into this book to see the delightful manner in which Sumner
discusses the constitution of society in a matter of fact way, but because I know that
we live in a world which wholly rejects any suggestion that society is subject to
forces beyond the control of all of us I see the dark side of this seemingly good
work. The most famous functionalist is the French sociologist Durkheim as he is
thought of as the first functionalist sociologist and his work is like Sumner's in its
matter of fact as opposed to moralistic approach, and as such it is treasured today by
the academic priests because it is the corner stone of the temple composed of
political ideas that these priests have built to ensure religion remains at the heart of
society. The trouble with functionalism is that it lends itself to a political mode of
thinking despite appearing to make people automatons of nature. Thus, for
example, Durkheim said that people worship themselves when they worship God, or
worship society— here I am writing from memory and I cannot locate the reference
for this remark. This is a vastly different way of expressing functionalism to the
one where we state that God is a code word for the superorganism so that people
unwittingly relate to the organism they are part of when they worship. This latter
description of religious behaviour does well and truly take human actions out of the
hands of the people performing those actions and so reduce us all to the status of
automatons, in as much as we can say any life form is an automaton. It may seem
as if humans have more power of choice than a dandelion or a worm, but if we
think of the fondness some wildlife commentaries have for offering comparisons
such as the one that says fleas have an immense power to jump that would be like a
human leaping as high as a ten story block of flats, or whatever, then, to reverse this
ego boosting logic in which we conceive of ourselves as a new kind of superhero
with the power of a flea — Fleaman, we can say that by comparison with the
freedom of action we actually exercise in reality, for all our abilities, the amoeba
has, if no more, certainly no less freedom of choice than we do. If our size were to
be shrunk to that of an amoeba for the sake of comparison, as the flea has just been
magnified, and a city were to viewed as it were under a microscope set at this scale,
then humans would appear to do no more than quiver like a host of bacteria on a
laboratory jelly. The object here being neither to inflate nor deflate our sense of
self but to force a realisation of our purely organic nature.
So the shift to a detached functionalist approach redolent with cold hard
scientific logic is an important stage in the transformation of logic away from
science and toward pseudo science. And, interestingly, Sumner makes a point of
discussing precisely this topic of transforming ideas ! He does not concern himself
with the transformation of intellectual knowledge, this was not on the agenda at that
time, and indeed perhaps this work here is implicitly seeking to put this topic on the

agenda now since it is not on the agenda yet. Where Sumner was concerned with
the observation that morals and such like were essentially abstract because all
morals were always functional, as indicated by the fact that what was good in one
place might be bad in another, such as the wearing of an all enclosing veil which is
good in Iran where it enhances social unity but bad in England where it emphasises
social divisions, there is no equivalent observation applying to the field of modern
intellectual ideas, until now, brought to our attention in this essay where we see that
academia plays a vital role in the transformation of real observation into knowledge
compatible with religion. Thus on page eighty seven of Folkways under the subtitle
the Possibility of modifying mores we are told that while mores are highly resistant
to change, change can nonetheless be effected by gradual manipulation exerted over
a sufficient length of time. This is a most apposite observation at this point in our
ruminations. In the above some of my political leanings have been expressed
regarding the manner in which the people who farm society have introduced
Muslims on mass into the biomass of our society precisely in order to ensure we
remain enslaved to the Jewish identity core, and to that effect they have brought in
laws to control the indigenous population while ensuring the aliens have every
opportunity to become established and serve their purpose as a tool of the
priesthood. This mode of manipulation orchestrated by a priesthood set on
preserving itself by managing the identity of the social biomass is precisely what
Sumner is talking about when he says "The same drift in the mores of the time bore
down the Albigenses when they denounced the church corporation, the hierarchy,
and the papacy." (page 87).
As we discuss this process of transformation in the dominant logic of the
times in terms of the scientific versus the political we find that in actual fact
scientific explanation includes descriptions of human behaviour that are political,
and as such we contradict our basic outlook that asserts that the situation is either
scientific or political for by accounting for political outlooks science should in
effect reduce politics to a mode of scientific expression by decoding the political
message into a naturalistic formula of superorganic physiology. This brings us to
an important consideration in our discussion of the social organism, here we must
refer to the evolution of the core identity—the master, the priesthood, the farmers,
the parasites, the Jews—as the core body has been variously known down the ages.
There are many terms that have been applied to this physiological feature of the
superorganism. These various terms represent a variety of political viewpoints, as
scientists we wish to try and adhere to appropriately physiological terms, but the
fact is that as an individual human struggling to bring an idea to the fore we are
obliged to use political terminology because there is no established terminology for
the superorganic physiology we are interested in at this moment. We need to bear
this difficulty, the lack of terminology, in mind at all times. The official lexicon
channels thought and expression and when we try to think outside the box this
lexicon blurs our thinking forcing us back along the tramlines of linguistic force
that keep us within the box of official dogma that we are forced to live by. Our
brains are like magnetised balls of steel in this respect, fixed thereby within a
linguistic flux, if we try to free ourselves of the unseen mental force by expressing
errant thoughts or ideas we are immediately exposed to linguistic expressions of
conformity that either realign our position, silence us, or direct our relocation to an
appropriate place of correction.
Evidently it is implicit in the kind of discussion Sumner engages in with
respect to the transformation of mores that if manipulation takes place then it must
do so in a political fashion since we have already recognised that the essence of
political behaviour is bias, where one body of people act in a different manner to
another body of people in order to obtain advantages associated with themselves as

defined by a distinct identity. When we speak of a priesthood conniving to ensure
that a population remains attached to a religious identity we invoke the language of
conspiracy in which people are made proactive and fully conscious actors in pursuit
of a goal. This is the worst thing we can do from our preferred scientific point of
view, so why do we do it ? We make these observations because this is the only
way to describe what goes on in society, but we then intersperse amongst these
statements the crucial observation that there is no such thing as an individual, that
the superorganic physiology inducts individuals into its fabric and obliges them to
act according to the programme they acquire during their growth from child to
adult, and so the whole political framework is ultimately not political at all but
biological. So the political mode of discussion we engage in is provisional, it is an
aid to offering a description of processes and events, but at all times we have the
precondition in mind that whatever political motives might be expressed by
individuals or groups of individuals acting in collaboration the final object of our
remarks is directed at the conclusion that the sum total of all activities is the order
and well being of the superorganism.
Provisional, provisional ; I have got a bee in my bonnet about provisionality
now. I was just thinking that the genuine evolutionary process I am describing here
in contrast to Darwinian evolution that the priesthood use to blindfold us does
support the idea of provisional creatures in the sense that I have said the potential
for a social form to emerge from any basic body plan by evolving a form of unit
exploiting its own physiology does mean that the nature of the resulting
superorganic form is present long before the actual form appears. The notion of a
missing link, half human and half animal, has been a popular subject since Darwin
first foisted his nonsense upon the world as a ruse to protect religion from science
by subverting science from within. Australopithecine is a prime candidate for our
half human animal with its upright posture and bipedal gate, while still being of
short stature, small brained and with an apelike visage, and living several million
years ago. But this animal was a self contained package living for itself, not for us,
it would not of seen itself as provisional. And the fact is that Australopithecines in
there own day were vastly more advanced toward being human than any other
animal and as such they were a fully evolved superorganic species in the sense that
even at this stage there would no longer of been any such thing as an individual—
capable of living outside society—amongst the Australopithecine fraternity,
individual physiology had already evolved especially to deliver a unit of a
superorganic physiology, we know that this is what bipedal gait means because
upright posture is so characteristic of ourselves ; but the superorganic potential had
much further to go. And what of ourselves ? We might make like H. G. Wells in
Men Like Gods and imagine a time in the future when people live on a peaceful
planet without war, without hunger and free from advertising—imagine that if you
can ! We dream of a world without war and poverty and any world able to exist
without such trials is as futuristic a vision, relative to ourselves, as the world of the
Australopithecine is primitive by comparison with our world ; so, are we
provisional ? I doubt very much that we would accept such a view, although
portrayals of heaven do offer a curious anticipation of a perfect world and the
Christian slave implant definitely does make our mortal life a provisional existence
endured for the sake of our true destiny to come in life after death, and there can be
no doubt that this vile idea is designed to deal with the misery of life imposed upon
people through slavery to the Jewish ideology that evolved as a means of creating a
global superorganism on the principle of subjection to a master race whose role it is
to farm people as cattle.
So the word provisional is a good example of a political word as opposed to
an organic word. A political word is contrived to impart power over a subject and

thus to serve a purpose. Political words are the stitches used to make up the cloak
draped over our existence, so that political language creates a version of reality, and
as such political words are cannot possess any real meaning beyond that which they
bring into being themselves. Nothing is provisional, everything is either extant or it
is not. If we were to explain to the person we had just run over in the street that we
were not responsible for his injury because the hire car we were driving was
provisional, and therefore it did not really exist, we would be surprised if our victim
let out a sigh of relief while declaring that they were delighted that the car was only
provisional because that meant they were not really lying in a congealing pool of
their own blood ! However in the course of our own activities we do take measures
that are intended to serve as temporary solutions to a problem awaiting more
permanent developments, and from this basic reality the manipulator conceives of
the idea of provisionality and with this conceptual device in their sowing kit they
weave away until a whole nonexistent world has been created to wrap around the
mind of their victims and thereby to make slaves of them, bound from within as
they are.
Speaking of H. G. Wells, a shadow has been cast over one of our great
national figures by modern Jewish propaganda because Wells made the mistake of
aiming his sights at the Jews. No one gets to criticise the Jews for long without
coming under attack, one way or another, if that means kicking a man when he is
dead, and unable to defend himself, what the hell. The Invisible Man by Michael
Coren is very interesting, I did not know about this side of Wells political ideas, so I
am grateful for the Jewish slander. Wells asked a perfectly legitimate question of
the Jews, and in the process he accused them of causing trouble because they would
not give up their arrogant vision of self importance and join the rest of humanity in
making a world in which all were equal. The problem with this attitude is
exasperating from my point of view because Wells lived while the idea of the social
organism lived and he had no excuse for not being well informed about this idea,
but despite all his vast learning and experience he was as blinded by the political
mindset as much as anyone and he analysed the Jewish problem as a socialist and
offered a stupid political solution because in failing to understand what human
nature was from a biological point of view he failed to understand anything about
the questions he was dealing with. Yet another example of blind stupidity in the
brilliant and well informed. Tragic.
And we might just note that the vision of an ideal world can be anticipated
by means of the scientific understanding of human form by recognising that such
perfection is only realisable when the main biomass of the social organism is
composed entirely of exoskeletal material in the form of machines that do the work
so that only the upper echelon of the social organism remains in the form of living
tissue. Such a superorganic form can only be possible in the shape of a space ship,
or space station, it could not be realised on a terrestrial platform because the
physiology would have to be strictly self contained. And from this it follows that
the destiny of the human superorganism is out in space, we evolved to be
extraterrestrial beings ! God, we might say, is a spaceship.
I sometimes think a cruise ship has something of the quality of a self
contained superorganism, and the plans some people have concocted for virtual
communities based on super cruisers that provide the ultimate in a gated
community keeping out the riffraff do have something of this quality about them.
But of course such a closed community must still rely upon the usual division of
many workers supporting a few elite and as such it is not a vision of utopia. It
would not be possible to have an egalitarian composition because a complex human
organism must have its grafters and its directors, unless machines can be made to do
all the graft leaving only intellectuals to provide a different expression of direction

to the organism whose purpose is normally dictated to the directors by virtue of the
need for the main biomass to be organised from above. Under these circumstances
we can imagine that for a society composed purely of intellectuals a suitable
purpose would be needed and being out in space would provide such a purpose in a
search for life sustaining stars, after all what would such people do here on earth ?
In musing along these lines we find we have traced our steps backwards
through recent human evolution for in our vision of the future we have projected the
essence of Jewish society from the past which has already undergone exactly that
process of specialisation whereby it became detached from any fixed biomass to be
released from any fixed territorial bonds to float about the territorial space of the
planet looking for suitable locations to settle and take root and spread the wisdom
of statecraft imbued into its own master identity.

We may think that a culturally circumscribed religious community such as

the kind represented by the Amish in America constitute some kind of self
sustaining egalitarian community where there is no division according to a triadic
hierarchy, but any such impression would be an illusion born of the automatic state
of indoctrination we fall into by virtue of our use of language that makes us take
words at their face value. Applying a Hitlerian political terminology we could
denominate the Amish as parasitic upon the society that gives them shelter. Amish
do not believe in violence, butcher five of their little girls and they say God allowed
this to happen so we must forgive, all of which is very sweet, but as such a tragic
incident indicates these slaves to appalling ignorance would not last long if they did
not have the protection of those who do place a premium of violence. This is a
clear indication that the Amish are an integrated element of the American
superorganism which is itself an extension of the Jewish global superorganism.
America was settled only very recently as an extension of the Jewish superorganism
implanting itself upon what was in effect virgin territory since the sparse and loose
confederation of indigenous peoples represented non-existence in comparison to the
massive and dense Jewish form of the human animal.
Clearly from the outset the primary objective had to be the extension of
Jewish slave identity to the new territories occupied during the period of global
expansion that is in its early phases of consolidation today, hence the reason we are
only now seeing the initiation of a Jewish global war attacking all humanity without
discrimination, a war mounted under the flag of Islam, but obviously just part of the
ongoing multimillennial war of Jewish domination. Due to the nature of the
challenge presented by the new continent the priests had to employ special devices
in respect to slave identity and apart of the pilgrim fathers who were notoriously
fanatical about their attachment to Judaism in the Christian puritan style America
has presented a panorama of extreme elaboration in the expression of the Jewish
slave identity ; witness the Mormon obscenity ! Not least amongst these
expressions of slavery I suppose we must take note of slavery proper, where the
physical body is rendered to the fabric of the superorganism without recourse to any
pretence of attachment by bonds acting from within. Today however the black
slave people of America are amongst the most devoted slaves to Judaism now they
are attached by the inner threads of mental slavery they care not about the physical
bonds arising therefrom because they do not know their bodies are enslaved via
hooks located in their brains.
Today then people like the Amish function as part of the ongoing excessive
expression of attachment to religious priorities which is so essential to the
maintenance of a Jewish slave territory in a region like the Americas at this time,
and as such while the Amish are undoubtedly parasitic in political terms the Amish
are at the same time perfectly integrated into the complex physiology of a Jewish

superorganism when viewed in scientific terms that recognise the organic nature of
human social fabrics that are bound together by means of religious identity patterns,
within which the Amish serve as a particularly strong, limpet like muscle of
attachment, helping unite the Americans to their masters so that America acts as an
attachment to Israel on the world stage and wags with glee when bid to do so ; a
behaviour the Islamic terrorist wing of Judaism call Zionist imperialism. They are
so cute these humans, they see and know nothing, while evincing they care about
all, and while professing to know everything. Nature has certainly come up with a
fine concoction in the shape of the human person that evolved to be a cell in a living
body, suitably programmed these units will even blow themselves up in order to kill
innocent people for a cause about which they have not the least idea of its real
meaning. Even my damned computer has more free will than this, how the shit do I
turn off automatic formatting !
In recognising the value of the Amish as an organ of conscience that acts as
a sinew within the superorganic physiology of the Jewish organism, helping to bind
the more flexible muscular fabric of the regular Christian biomass into the corporate
body as it exists in America, we are enabled to add substance to our conception of
Muslims serving as an imported infusion of a particularly invigorated expression of
the Jewish slave identity likewise intended to have a similar effect in Europe today.
In Britain just now the debate on the full veil can be related in physiological terms
to the Amish practices involving the extreme expression of devotion to a slave
identity through miserable self-effacing attire, bizarrely worn with pride instead of
the shame it truly denotes as an expression of servility to a sick ideology. This
allows us to see the direct benefit accruing from taking a genuine scientific view of
society enabling us to think sociologically about the world in which we live and so
to make sense of otherwise bizarre human behaviours that make no earthly sense
when taken at face value in the terms expressed by those engaging in these
behaviours. How, without the aid of a scientific sociology, could we ever make the
direct functional link between the Amish in America and the devout Muslim
women in England ? Extremist Christian groups in America denounce the
Islamification of Europe, as they call it, while being oblivious of the true nature of
these dynamics, which can only be seen by atheists that have no identity blindfold
binding their power of thought.

Lester Ward is the man of the moment in my line of sight as I am now

homing in on him because I have just become aware that he gave a good deal of
thought to the idea of social forces. However as I prepare to buy his most
appropriate work to examine exactly what he had to say on the subject I find I
already have an essay of his from a sociology journal from 1893 in which he
actually says that the laws of biological economy were repealed

"the advent with man of the thinking, knowing, foreseeing,

calculating, designing, inventing and constructing faculty, which is
wanting in lower creatures, repealed the biologic law or law of
nature and enacted in its stead the psychologic law—the law of

So that has saved me wasting another lump of cash ! Since recognising that
language is the force responsible for the creation of social structure I have
wondered in what manner this knowledge was expressed in the period of the social
organism, the answer is nicely provided by Ward who wrote a book on the
psychological factors of civilisation, so there we have it, that is right, language was
transformed into psychology so that as with functionalism replacing organicism the

resulting subtle shift in emphasis can be made to relocate the whole point of
perspective away from an observation of the collective being and onto the
individual unit, exactly as we see Ward do in this quote when he dismisses nature
and puts man in Natures place !
So this man was working during the period dominated by the idea of the
social organism and he was a man that associated with those very people promoting
this idea to its maximum—he must of known my hero of philosophy personally—
and yet we see that he was an arch enemy of the scientific conception of humanity
and a stalwart friend to religion who took on the persona of being committed to a
genuine science of society. This is tragic, but finding people in the organicist
circles writing in English is extremely difficult and so we must be grateful for small
mercies and here we can at least look at the work of the enemies of scientific
knowledge even if we would rather look at the work of advocates of real knowledge
; but such friends of humanity, alas, are as rare as rocking horse poo poo. Aside
from myself I know of no other advocates of science applied to the study of human
beings, there may be works in foreign tongues but translating them is such a big
task that I have not got very far along these lines yet as I use my computer to
perform this task, and in any case there are few candidates for the accolade of true
master of the human sciences anyway, even if I could read all languages. Science
takes nature as its sole source of authority and reads nature as a Christian reads the
Bible, the only possible interpretation of nature as regards human existence tells us
that humans are superorganisms therefore unless this incontrovertible fact is openly
espoused no other arguments on the subject can ever promote science, and indeed
without the precondition that humans are superorganisms being stated any pretence
of scientific validity must corrupt real science. This having been said, using the
language of the social organism does not lead inevitably to science either, anymore
than simply rejecting God leads to atheism in any meaningful sense beyond that of
a mere label. All the original exponents of scientific sociology failed to free
themselves from the political mindset and as a consequence they simply could not
recognise the meaning of the ideas they devoted their lives to. All politics is part of
the organism, politics is not a feature of human behaviour beyond the dictates of
natural biological law, quite the opposite.

How can it be that I alone of all modern humans, of those living in the last
two centuries, have tried to apply science to understanding humans, and
succeeded ?

The idea is preposterous, either I am mistaken, or we need another

explanation. Is there anything in what I have written above that might shed light on
this problem ? We can discount any question that I might be wrong, the mass of
evidence proving that the idea I rediscovered was the idea that all thinkers
originally came up with vindicates my logic. The mass of modern material, which I
have not introduced above, exploring the superorganic dimension of life and human
society in particular without evoking the basic scientific imperative that humans are
a superorganism indicates that this subject just will not go away, again therefore
supporting my logic.
The answer is obvious, this knowledge has been erased, so I have
discovered it firstly because I have seen the void and refused to be distracted by the
mass of material thrown over the question of human nature as a cloak by the
organization that has subsumed the idea in order to preserve its own being. And
secondly, keeping with our theme of universal energy flowing through all systems
via a series of structural engines building energy gradients that cause this universal
energy to pass from one pool of latency to a further pocket of potential that then

awaits a new engine to tap it in turn, whereby we are encouraged to think of
information as the vapour trail revealing this flow of energy, we accordingly come
to see language as an all pervading flux filling the social domain. Then we can see
the suppression of knowledge as akin to the building of a dam to hold back the
truth, and we know the trouble the theocracy has had trying to hold back knowledge
throughout the civilised era. So I represent a microscopic fissure in the dam wall
that hopes one day to become a fracture that will unleash a flood to wipe the priest
away once and for all. So we do know why the seemingly impossible idea that one
person alone has discovered what is real is in fact true. All those who normally
seek after this question are diverted along tracks driven through the landscape of
social energy via the organization that exists at the focal point where the lines of
linguistic force meet thereby creating an energy gradient leading toward a central
point that all individuals must follow by obeying the dictates of social authority
because the laws of economics dictate the behaviour of all organisms according to
the niche in which they exist ; this logic is a fundamental law of living beings, the
economic law of life, and this is why linguistic force creates all social structure, all
laws, all property, all order, because linguistic lines of force dictate the flow of
social energy at the economic level of organization, this is what makes it possible
for the theocracy to always gain control of all institutions, as we have been
discussing. Because of this fundamental law of existence that links the basics of
life to the organization of knowledge few have the chance to forge a new track on
their own, and even less succeed in opening the portal sufficiently to force all
people to follow an alternative flow of energy that must go the way thus forged
through to the source of superorganic energy at the point of contact made with
reality by science. My lifestyle has defied, or more accurately short circuited the
law of economics, and allowed me to do what I always wanted to do, allowed me to
think the unthinkable.

Think of the conclusions I have drawn—they are horrific, to those who rule
society and to the masses whose interests are bound up with those who rule them,
just imagine if the establishment allowed free science to arrive at the same
conclusions as I have about the origins and nature of Judaism—and think of the
supreme guardian of these ideas, Hitler. The truth is made to wear the mask of a
monster. It was the creation of the monster, on the back of the scientific logic I
have rediscovered and applied as an atheist that has, more than anything else, set
the truth beyond reach, making true knowledge of human nature a taboo
condemning any that try to touch the holy grail of true knowledge once again open
to automatic expulsion from the human race, from the superorganism. This is how
the organism protects itself, this is why we have our dark side, the likes of Hitler are
the face of the superorganism's immune system, the likes of Hitler are not the
problem, the likes of Hitler are the cure. It is the truth teller that is the devil
incarnate in the human world. Thus we have the perfect defence, a barrier that none
dare even approach, a force field of unapproachable evil protecting the supreme
good. Hence good needs its counterbalancing evil and the social system provides
evil relentlessly so that whenever there is a need to reinvigorate the social
constitution about the core identity the linguistic force envelops a section of the
biomass in a new configuration, or stimulates an old configuration lying idle or
dormant, such as race or nationalism, thereby generating an invigorated segment
that serves to keep the overall unity focused along the original structural lines by
causing conflict to force reorganization. It is the dynamics of linguistic
organization associated with identity that brought the monster into being, that
monster is as much a part of who we are as any other part.

Is all of this that I have said a good enough explanation for the cover-up I
describe that has occurred on so monumental a scale that we who are part of it are
so close to it we cannot see it ? You betchya.

Chapter VII

Organicist Philosophy in Mein Kampf

I do not intend to provide an analysis of Mein Kampf, it is a lengthy book

covering a variety of philosophical areas where I am only interested in the role and
influence of the idea of the social organism in Hitler's philosophy. This influence is
not overt, Hitler does not acknowledge it, the logic of the social organism is infused
into the mode of thought Hitler gives expression to when, for example, he speaks of
society as an organism that his new movement must shape accordingly, and in the
way he generally thinks of the Jews as an alien intrusion into the living fabric of the
national organism which is a concept of the Jewish people redolent with organicist
logic. A lengthy analysis would require a full reading of the book with these two
ideas in mind during which a careful note might be made of each relevant reference
and then an evaluation of the theme could be produced. But once again this degree
of commitment would be absurd in a book that is presumptuous by its very nature
because it is so outside the conventional wisdom on the nature of society, and as
such can only be offered to the public as an experimental piece to test the reaction it
may draw from people. As such the analysis of Mein Kampf must be more a
sampling exercise intended to justify the inclusion of Mein Kampf in a
philosophical work that purports to be a scientifically oriented look at the true
nature of human nature in which Hitler's work has a central role to play because of
the part the Nazis played in the demise of a true science of society that could of rid
society of all religion and laid the foundations for a genuinely free human society
for the first time ever in the history humanity within civilised society. Hitler
deprived humanity of the chance for freedom by perverting science and thus saving
religion, thus we must turn to his work to see how this happened, and I am
delighted to say it is a well written book that more than amply rewards the
endeavour, as long as you know what you are looking for.
It is, to my mind, inconceivable that any author has previously adopted a
naturalistic philosophical approach to Hitler's philosophy, but I am not equipped to
dismiss the possibility, if I can do it then so can others. In The German Problem
Reconsidered by David Calleo we have a pocket analysis of Hitler's philosophy that
includes a slight characterisation of Hitler's attitude toward the Jews where, after
indicating that antiliberal ideas were popular on both the right and left of the
political spectrum, Calleo says "Hitler, however, linked his nationalist
antiliberalism with anti-Semitism, a politically potent if logically unnecessary
combination." (Page 91.) Accordingly, while Calleo goes on to tell us that Hitler
put Germany's woes down to subservience to an alien exploiter in the form of the
Jews Calleo dismisses there being any justification for this approach. Nonetheless
Hitler did take this approach, so he must of thought there was some justification for
it, but of course there is no way any post Hitler author could possibly publish a
book that genuinely sort to discover the logic behind Hitler's attitude toward the
Jews. Thus I am sure my work is the first of its kind as I come from a philosophical
angle that observes the organic basis of Hitler's attitude that is revealed by taking a
scientific approach to human nature, an approach that it is strictly taboo to go
anywhere near in our society today.
From a naturalistic perspective Hitler's attitude was vital to the survival of
the Jewish civilisation, as the supreme exponent of anti-Semitism Hitler was the
saviour of the Jews, in the same counter intuitive way that Dawkins, as a most
virulent public defamer of religion, serves as the Gatekeeper protecting religion
from atheism. But we must note that these convoluted defenders of religious
gobbledegook only serve this function because they adopt a political perspective
based on the golden rule of political priestcraft that says the individual is an end in
themselves. Thus by focusing on physical form, to the exclusion of essence or
nature, the ideology that has invested these latter two qualities in the artificial image
of divinity is preserved from decay by any rational account of existence that would
locate nature or essence in its rightful place within the being of the human
superorganism. So, assuming we class religion as a purely political force, which we
must do, Calleo could not be more mistaken to assert that there was no political
necessity for linking the Jews to German political troubles, no necessity for Hitler
maybe, but for the Jews their very survival depended upon this linkage being made
as firmly as possible because of the influence of the idea of the social organism
which informed Hitler's approach to Judaism and made him offer the analysis of
society that he did. For the sake of Judaism the idea of the social organism had to
be placed beyond the pale of humanity ; and it was, by Hitler.
When Calleo uses the term 'potent' in the above sentence he evidently means
to imply that the "logically unnecessary combination" of anti-Semitism with
antiliberalism was a political ploy by an unscrupulous and ambitious individual, but
this pathetic propaganda style is a typical example of our academic priesthood's
superficial comic strip logic that tells us nothing about Hitler's motives but
everything about Calleo's desire to serve his master dutifully. Calleo uses the term
'antiliberalism' as the point of conjunction with anti-Semitism in Hitler's philosophy
so we might just note that it is clear that liberalism in our society is in fact itself
antiliberal for our freedom of expression is an affectation of covert fascism imposed
in the name of overtly fascistic religious indoctrination that hides behind the
illusion of liberal political structures. This is not to say that Hitler's antiliberalism
was not antiliberal, as personified in his rejection of democracy, even though
democracy is not really liberal, for it was, rather we are indicating that in reality
there is no such thing as a truly liberal society for such a society is merely one in
which power is so complete and so extensive that an illusion of liberality can be
created that puts all under its spell, and therefore, by successfully imposing a
display of liberal meaning people actually experience their society as liberal. Thus
although all Christians are by definition slaves of an alien identity imposed by the
Romans two millennia ago these people are so attuned to their slave identity that
they can only feel free in a society that is Christian ! Incredible, ants or what ? We
will see below that Hitler elaborated upon the triadic macro physiology of social
structures wherein he recognised the final stage of authority being realised in the
establishment of tradition built upon the foundation of popular support linked to
physical power, and in respect to the foregoing argument we can see that what
Hitler denominated 'tradition' is expressed in our society through the self
assuredness of the theocracy that provide the illusion of liberality because the
foundation of popular affiliation and power is so well established.
It is of course clear that since Judaism is a slave identity and the world wars
were fought to destroy the scientific knowledge that would reveal this fact our
society cannot be a liberal society, I at least hope this is obvious by now anyway !
From this analysis we see why it is so important to have overtly fascistic ideologues
to contrast with covert fascists, as we are elucidating here, for when a person
producing a real account of existence, an account revealing that the Jews are the
true master race, as here, we already have an antiliberal anti-Semitic body in place
with whom to associate the truly liberal truth teller who would dare to remove the
cloak of deceit that the real fascist uses to enslave us in a pretence of liberality. So
where I would claim our society is not liberal because it would silence me if it
could, and it has destroyed science and replaced science with garbage, the answer

will be that I am the real fascist because of the similarity between my argument and
the things that only Hitler ever said, so that I have no claim to a voice in a liberal
society ! Thus we see again that Hitler was, and is, vital to the Jewish hegemony.
Human beings are evidently vastly more complicated creatures than any of
the stuff we are fed by the intellectuals would lead us to imagine, these academics
are people who tell us all the trouble we have in life is down to the malevolence of
individuals, but it is obvious that individuals could not possibly be responsible for
the great social events of our history, which, no matter how calamitous on
occasions, nonetheless always seem to generate the most impressive order most of
the time.

So far then we have seen that taken on the widest possible scale of
comprehension that can be applied to human social phenomenon there was the
necessity for linkage between Hitler's programme and an attack upon Judaism, for
the sake of the Jews. But this is something of a projection that leaps beyond the
circle of ideas that Calleo was dealing with and we might just step back and ask
why Calleo did not even attempt to get at the links between Hitler and anti-
Semitism that Hitler himself sets before us. The term communist and Jew are fairly
interchangeable in Hitler's vocabulary and thus if we imagine Calleo's sentence
rewritten "Hitler, however, linked his nationalist antiliberalism with anti-
communism, a politically potent if logically unnecessary combination." this
invalidates the sentence altogether because communism would neither be potent nor
illogical in this context. From Hitler's perspective Marxists were the supreme threat
to Germany and Marxism was essentially a Jewish terrorist movement. So if Calleo
was to make Hitler's obsession with Judaism invalid then he had to break the link
between the Jews and the communists. I have not had access to any material that
allows me to question Hitler's assertion that Marxism was a Jewish movement
acting as a means of capturing the biomass of the state body, but it is evident from
Hitler's own account that his movement came to be engaged in a civil war with the
Marxists and it is difficult to think that Hitler did not know his enemy and so there
would be no reason for him to accuse the Jews of being the puppeteers behind
communism if this attitude were not justified on some real basis. However, as I
say, it is for the likes of Calleo to indicate that this association between Jews and
communism was not real if they want to dismiss Hitler's focus upon the Jews as
mere political opportunism of the sickest kind.
In a similar way it is inevitable that, as I just indicated, the propagandists
would wish to associate me with the Nazis in order to destroy my factual account of
human nature and thus to protect the Jewish master identity. Given much of what I
have said there is plenty of opportunity to make this linkage. But I would say here
that just as Calleo has to show that communists in Germany at the relevant time
were not the slaves of Judaism through the domination of the worker's movement
by a Jewish leadership, any critic of mine wishing to liken me a Nazi would have
prove that Christians are not Jews. Thus, in essence, in order to refute the core of
my argument and to reduce my argument to a political panegyric against the old
scapegoat of Judaism it is necessary to prove that Jesus was not Jewish (this has
been denied by Christian theologians before now), that Christianity did not
originate in Jewish myth, and that there is no evidence of any kind linking the Jews
to the Christians. If anyone can do this then I will throw in the towel and admit to
I am not concerned to try and worm my way out of a hole I have spent my
life digging for myself, but I am not in the least bit concerned with attacking
anyone, my sole interest is in the pursuit of knowledge. However the argument I
am presenting to the world is bound to cause a stir if I manage to get it into the

limelight and so I should acknowledge this at some point in this discussion and
make some declamation that will offer the reasonable amongst us the explanation
they will naturally feel in need of as a consequence of reading my arguments. To
the extent that my ideas do conflict with Jewish interests and smack of anti-Semitic
sentiments I can only say that this is not my fault as I am only seeking to understand
reality in honour of the cultural imperative I grew up with which told me to value
knowledge as truth. If it were not for Darwin and the whole morass of lying
charlatans devoting all their energy to the love of God so that Judaism in all its
forms could be prevented from disappearing from the face of the earth over a
century ago then I would not be forced into the position I am now. The criminal
may cry foul at being knocked off his pedestal but that is too bad. I have often
amused myself by saying that if it were not for Hitler I would not exist — my
parents, a Scouse Wren and a southern naval officer, met in Malta while serving
during the Second World War — now that wisecrack has more than incidental
significance. I went to college in 1975, aged nineteen, to study anthropology and
psychology, the psychology was obligatory, what I wanted was the study of man
and I wanted this because I wanted to know why my pet hate, religion, still
persisted in our modern society. I dropped out after one year because as much as I
enjoyed the anthropology it was a useless course in terms of what I wanted to know.
Obviously as long as the college failed to teach anthropology students about the
superorganic nature of humans the course was bound to be worthless to anyone who
attended the course in the hope of learning something specific, as opposed to just
selecting a subject and taking an impression of whatever had been mashed into a
pulp and pressed into the form of an academic course. There was not the slightest
mention of the idea of the social organism, apart from any other considerations the
priesthood has allotted this idea to sociology, which, to be fair, is where its
exponents placed it before the priesthood erased it ; but I still think of this
knowledge as belonging correctly to anthropology, I see no need for sociology as
distinct from anthropology since human societies are entirely biological entities.
This said, can we imagine any college teaching the knowledge I am making
available here ! No we cannot. Of course I did not know this then, it was to take
me quarter of a century of living the question before I would get an answer. I
continued my quest as an act of living in which I made life be my teacher, I
dropped out of society and everyday things meant nothing to me, what I did was
done to test life, to make life give up its secrets to me. This aesthetic attitude was
facilitated during the decades of my youth, English society at that time provided a
ripe setting within which to carry out such an inquisition, the cultural flux was an
act of rediscovery itself and the social structure after the Second World War was
amenable to the anarchic frame of mind that was necessary to the inquiry I had set
my sights on from the first awakening of my intelligence as a small child. The
seeds of the attitude that I bear, that has born fruit in this work, were sown in my
childhood. So after many years I was led to the solution I sort. And when I got to
grips with the solution I was stunned to discover that the reason we do not have a
successful science of humanity today, the reason we continue under the dark
shadow of religion, is because we live in an absolute theocracy in which there is no
freedom of access to knowledge, no freedom of expression and no freedom of
thought. Stunned !
Once I had realised that humans formed superorganisms the logical
consequences of this realisation led me by the nose and the first obvious fact,
always bearing in mind that my nose is automatically operating in atheist mode,
was that the Jews were the master race, to put it in political terms. Naturally I
longed to find Jews placed within a scientific model and my failure to discover any
organicist works discussing the Jews forced me ever closer toward an investigation

of anti-Semitic works, but here I found no indication that the roots of twentieth
century anti-Semitism lay in scientific revelations, even though I knew there had to
be some connection. My failure to discover any scientific insights into the nature of
Jews eventually forced my attention upon the man who in this department was the
ultimate exponent, and so I turned to Adolf Hitler. To my amazement his book is
full of the most fantastic discussion of Jews that accords exactly with the kind of
ideas I was looking for in supposedly open and honest scientific works ; albeit in
Mein Kampf scientific logic was intertwined with evil hatred and political venom.
The question is would the Jews give up their religion if science ever conflicted with
their claims to be God's chosen ? The answer is, obviously not. We are entitled to
assume that the Jews taken as a whole would rather see the extinction of humanity
than the end of their culture, I believe. This was precisely the argument Wells made
for which Jews today label him an anti-Semitic degenerate, as already noted. We
know for a fact therefore that come hell or high water the theocracy would never for
one moment consider giving up the game and accepting the truth ; centuries of
experience affirm this. So, as to the more specific matter of my encroachment on
the sensitive subject of Hitler's anti-Semitism, I am forced to see something very
sinister in this monster's sole possession of the true science of Judaism which can
only have something to do with the way the Jewish theocracy retains control of its
slave population. Otherwise why do our secular academics not also say what Hitler
says about the Jews, but without the venom and hate, accounting for the Jews
exactly as I do in other words ?
Inevitably my ideas are bound to draw an intense and menacing hatred to
rain down upon me, this is only to be expected when touching religious nerves.
There is however no justification for anyone to develop any kind of phobic
reactions on the basis of what I have to say. I say the Jews are masters and we are
slaves, but this is as much a benefit as a trial, a benefit produced by nature. Judaism
is a biological device that serves a purpose. We have just reached the time when we
are forced to ask how we can live without fossil fuels because after having raised us
to a high stage of development the use of such an energy source is now altering the
balance of global conditions which affect our well being. This situation can be
likened to that regarding Judaism which has served as a mechanism raising
humanity to its highest ever degree of development by causing us to converge under
one unifying purpose. But as with fossil fuels so with Judaism, these powerful
agents of development have deleterious consequences inherent in their related
processes that make it inevitable that a time will come where these 'fuels' pose a
threat to us. Judaism has been a source of motivation suited to development in a
way that does not lend itself so well to a state of stability that will preserve the
benefits Judaism has brought in terms of a free and open society. Just as fossil fuels
must give way to renewable energy so Judaism must give way to a mode of
understanding that is absolute and final yet despite such absolutism nonetheless
commensurate with freedom and openness. There is only one kind of ideology that
can combine freedom with absolutism and that is an ideology which is fixed upon
the unbiased knowledge of reality. Through an absolute yet free ideology we learn
who we are so that we can accept that we have reached the end of the road of
discovery as it relates to ourselves on this planet. We know all there is to know
about ourselves, and now is the time to settle into a mature period of millennial long
consolidation based upon a fixed conception of who and what we are as determined
by nature.
We have reached a goal of global unification and high cultural development,
now we need consolidation. Consider the question of flight, I watched a debate on
Newsnight last night, today being 18/10/06, where a young man said flying was
poisoning the world and the mature business representative said flying was the basis

of prosperity. This businessman's attitude is an eternal feature of human social
dynamics and it is the delineation of macro social structures brought about by
Judaism that has allowed this mechanism of development to be exploited to the
point where it now threatens not just a localised ecosystem but the entire planet.
There are examples of finely balanced systems of management that allowed people
to live in stable harmony with their local environment, but these finely balanced
systems tend to have the look of fragility about them. More evident are the
numerous cases of people eating themselves out of house and home to leave nothing
but an impoverished environment behind for a pathetic remnant of a great people to
eek out a living upon, that is if they do not disappear all together. Successful
balancing acts take an immense degree of commitment and intelligence that our
society does not lend itself to because it has been based upon exploitation of virgin
opportunities. There is no reason to think we can behave differently now even
though we are on the verge of wrecking the whole planet. I say this is due to the
positive dynamics of Judaism as a social expression of linguistic force just as much
as it is due to fossil fuels as a physical expression of creative force. Jeremy Paxman
asked the flight advocate if he would at least concede that an end must be called to
airport expansion. He would not, and the fact is he could not. If it could be proven
that a million people would of died tomorrow, because for the last week a million
people had died every day, and only by stopping airport expansion could the deaths
be stopped, then, this man would not even then think of admitting that this was the
solution. A politician exists to tell lies, that is their function. A headline in one of
today's papers shown on TV last night had a picture of Blair and Bush and asked if
these were the only two men on the planet who did not think the war in Iraq was not
a disaster ? If ten million Iraqis and fifty thousand British troops died then both
these men would be extremely up beat and they would tell us that if it took tens
times the figure, if they had force people to emigrate to Iraq from Britain so there
were enough people to be murdered then this would be done, nothing, nothing,
nothing, ever, ever, ever makes a politician admit any negative outcome of any
action that is ever taken. The recent exception on the part of an ex-Home Secretary
who admitted the failure of the immigration service is the exception that proves the
rule. He was praised effusively for his honesty, and it cost him his job, and so he
still whinged on interminably about how he had been ill used, thereby
demonstrating that his honesty had been a last resort intended to get him out of a
hole, it was not a real sign of honesty. You can no more expect to find an honest
politician than you could expect to find a blind snooker player ! We really ought to
ask why the word liar and politician are not synonymous in the dictionary. Under
what circumstances might these two words not serve as synonyms ? I cannot
imagine. "Oh you are a liar ! How wonderful I hope to be a liar one day. I voted
for you at the last election and I love your lies. I use to vote for the other party but
they are just a bunch lying liars, nothing they ever said meant anything. I had to
find liars I could believe in, all liars are of course liars but there are still liars and
liars. It is not the lying which matters but the degree of sincerity with which a
person lies, this is why we all loved Mr Blair, there never could of been a more
sincere liar than him. Mr Blair, ooh, now there is a man who puts the ping into
lying and makes being lied to a joy to behold !" Yes, slightly confusing, but I think
we should make the word politician obsolete, and just use the synonym instead.
And of course a businessman is just another sort of politician, as I say priest is the
all encompassing word I like to use for these sycophants of the system. All of this
dishonesty is inevitable because we live in a world run by priests, as this whole
work is screaming, this is because of the need to make religion the basis of all
reason. If a society can tolerate religion then any degree of lying talk is not only
bound to be perfectly acceptable but rather it must be essential. Now imagine

switching to my model of knowledge and self understanding. Suddenly telling the
truth does not conflict with taking positive action, a leader can speak the truth based
upon who and what we really are because they are not always forced to promote
some illusion about heaven or progress to come. The young man on Newsnight last
night declared himself to be part of the last generation that could do anything about
the problem facing this world and hence he felt justified in picketing airports. Well
you young activists should look to my philosophy and make it your standard, and
then start picketing Churches, Mosques and Synagogues and fight to have religion
outlawed, for it is religion that is the root of all our problems because religion is
what creates a system that is anathema to open and honest values.
Having taken a breather after indulging myself in a little rant about
politicians I now find it necessary to explain that this attribute of politicians is of
course dictated by the nature of humans as social organisms whose form is dictated
by the linguistic force that evolved language as a mode of creating social structure
by fixing human interests to reality at biased points of attachment from which lies
could be woven into cloaks with which to dress reality and thereby make reality
serve human purposes that were then possessed exclusively by weaving a social
identity into the cloak that determined how reality should be known. Clearly within
this scheme of linguistically driven arrangements the role of the politician is to act
as a bearer of the thread running between the biomass they represent and the bias
point of attachment to reality that this mass's interests depend upon by virtue of
their identity being interwoven with the bias representation of reality. Blair and
Bush are not really lying at all from one point of view, just as a member of the Ku
Klux Klan living in America in the nineteenth century who might of declared that
black people were subhuman was also not really lying, in a sense. The social
system, acting in combination with the Klu Klux Clan member's views, made the
claim that a negro was subhuman true, in effect. In order to know what makes
Blair's and Bush's satisfaction in a highly successful mission ongoing in Iraq today
valid we need to know why they took us to war, and therefore on what basis they
evaluate this war a success. Unfortunately there is no way for us to obtain this
information directly because it is the most appalling reason anyone could ever
contemplate. Both these fanatically right wing Christian politicians are in politics
for one reason only—to serve the interests of the Jews ! See, I told you the reason
was terrible, we need Hitler to come back from the grave to say these things for us.
In Hitler's absence I will, on this occasion, act as his go between. It was always
obvious to me that the reason for the war in Iraq was to serve the needs of Israel, a
reason that is only voiced by the Muslims who call the alliance between Israel and
America a Zionist plot. The Muslims only happen to be correct by virtue of there
position relative to this war, they do not know why the 'Zionist plot' exists ; the
Muslims, poor sods, forever blasting their guts all over the place as they are wont to
do, do not even know they are a central pillar of Zionism ! So, given that the war
was dictated by Jewish interests that wanted Saddam out of Iraq, the war has been a
major success. No amount of collateral damage anywhere on earth could possibly
compromise that evaluation since from a Jewish point of view the Jews own the
planet and everything on it, so unless things are being made to serve Jewish
interests there is no point in their existence. If, due to the homicidal antics fostered
by Bush, North Korea is emboldened to make nuclear weapons that lead to a
nuclear war in which millions are wiped of the earth this would be utterly irrelevant
to the callous Jews who, in effect, ordered the war in Iraq when they did to take
advantage of the window of opportunity offered by 9/11 ; exactly as we can see
from their reaction to the two world wars already fought simply, and solely, to
enable the Jewish identity to be preserved. Now, knowing this, we can all jump and

applaud these two faces of Judaism, Bush and Blair, for it is true, the war is a huge
success, now we know why we are there !

What I write here is the sum total of my existence, some people build
bridges, some paint pictures, some raise a brood, others get wasted and still others
revel in creating mayhem for the sheer joy of it ; I leave this deposit in my wake, for
which I need no approval and seek no approval. This philosophical fruit of sixties
drop-out mentality has taken its time to ripen, but now it is ripe and ready for the
eating, and it is yours.

We may wonder at the degree of intelligence Hitler displays in writing such

a book while incarcerated in a prison cell, given that he is so often characterised as
madman, but he indirectly gives us some information regarding his own view
pertaining to this question. He is a politician, not an intellectual, he wants to take
power for a purpose, all things are a means to this end. Specifically, he tells us that
a good speaker will write than a good writer can be speak (see page 427), and he
tells us about his own prowess as a public speaker skilled in communicating with
the masses. So if we find ourselves impressed by Mein Kampf as an act of
expression, putting aside any judgemental evaluations of the philosophy itself, and
wondering where Hitler's ability to write such a piece came from he effectively
gives us the answer, his power of expression was forged on the anvil of public
oratory. But one thing is for sure, whatever else Hitler may of been he certainly
cannot be simply labelled a fool. And from the autobiographical content we gather
that Hitler had a sincere lifelong devotion to an understanding of his subject—the
German nation ; of course such passion does not translate directly and inevitably
into sound reasoning when considered from the abstract point of view that is not
loaded with the bias imposed by a self serving passion.
I have not stated what organicist philosophy is as yet despite freely using the
term organicist. This term was in use by the end of the nineteenth century to
describe those sociologists who took the view that society was a social organism.
The general outlook that society was to be considered a living entity was also
discussed under the guise of the naturalistic school of philosophy, which was in
effect the same as the organicist school of sociology. Thus naturalism and
organicism are one and the same thing, they are interpretations of human society
that adhere to the idea that humans are part of nature and that no other factors
determine the attributes of human society than natural factors. Even so there were
interpretations of society running along naturalistic lines that went further than
others, the nature of the subject involving as it does the most profound act of self
analysis being applied to humanity itself tends to induce reticence in observers who
are under immense pressure, overt and subconscious, to see human life in political
terms. With this in mind we might say of Hitler, considered as an organicist
philosopher, that he was not in any sense whatever an organicist. In all fairness,
despite the considerable body of philosophical content within Mein Kampf, I do not
even think Hitler can be described as a philosopher. Hitler was a politician,
politicians mouth philosophy as an aid to practical ends in the pursuit of power, as
such power comes before philosophy and so philosophy cannot be made the subject
of a politician's outpourings because the politician will always sell their philosophy
down the road to get where they are going in the social field of life, and they will
have no compunction about it because they are not philosophers. Thus we see that
we define a person's political nature according to the primary objective of their
social actions.
And so the suggestion encompassed in this chapter is not that Hitler was an
organicist philosopher, but rather we are looking for the influence of organicist

philosophy in the working philosophy of this real life politician. Organicism came
to a head at precisely the time when Hitler was a youth, and organicism was a
significant influence in intellectual circles in Germany at this time. Hitler refers to
the famous Viennese mayor Karl Lueger who was a hero of his. Lueger was a
committed anti-Semite and when he was a young man he accepted the scientific fact
that society was a social organism, as we are in informed in "I Decide Who is a
Jew", Richard Geehr, 1982, page 27 where we have 'Two well thought out student
essays from this period [1860's] reveal Lueger's conception of the state as a living
organism.' Thus the general scientific idea that humans were a part of the living
domain had become infused into popular thought and we can see that this thinking
was to be found in those political figures Hitler admired. Geehr goes on to make an
observation in respect to Lueger that must apply equally well to Hitler when he says
Lueger's interest in intellectual subjects like philosophy and the classics was
'motivated by his own political ideas' (Page 28). It is in the nature of knowledge
that profound ideas become desirable objects to be possessed hence the
development of bias in the representation of otherwise neutral attempts to
understand life and existence. Furthermore, since this practice of possessing
knowledge has laid the foundations for authority, it follows that new knowledge
cannot help but be drawn into the fray of social machinations, as Desmond amply
shows in his work touching on the politics of knowledge that we have referred to
We need not be surprised by the fact that scientific conceptions of reality
applied to humans have a tendency to be reduced to a political interpretation, the
same interpretation has applied to Darwinism leading to the eugenics movement
whose inspiration was encapsulated in Spencer's phrase so often associated with
Darwinian evolution "the survival of the fittest". Hitler's ideas are thoroughly
tainted with Darwin's theophilic—God friendly—theory of evolution. And today
we live in a world where science is shaped to meet the demands of the theocracy.
Following the Second World War the propaganda organisation UNESCO — United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation — was set up and as part
of its initial programme it ordered scientists to provide proof that race had no
meaning, which scientist have dutifully done to this day. But as we have already
seen race is one of the most important features of the human animal, as a visual
medium of corporate identity race is the precursor of the linguistic medium of
corporate identity that we call religion ; and herein lies the problem with providing
a true account of race. We can provide a sound scientific argument dismissing race
as facile and beneath contempt as a basis for social organization such as that
promoted by Hitler, but we can only do this honestly, that is scientifically, by
applying the same logic to the religion that rules our world today as we would
thereby apply to race. By using the pseudo scientific principles derived from
Darwinian ideas on the nature of evolution as a process setting the individual
against the environment, so that the strongest individual survives and reproduces,
scientists are able to show that race has no meaning because race must thereby be
understood as an arbitrary consequence of where we happen to live that has no
more real meaning to a person than the suntan acquired from a fortnight spent on
the Costa del Sol ! And if you can believe that you can believe anything.
The crucial factor in the understanding of race is not a consideration of the
vagaries of racial variation, this is of no more significance to an understanding of
race than a knowledge of the mode of kit manufacture and the variety of team
colours adopted by football teams that gives the illusion of difference and thereby
creates useful social structure would be to a proper understanding of football or
sport in general. What is important to a proper understanding of race is an
understanding of the origins and nature of the blank canvas upon which race is

imprinted. Thus it is the evolution of naked human skin that is truly significant, and
starting from this foundation each individual superorganism then acquires its
peculiar identity wherein the local environment does indeed act as the determining
factor. But, as commentators recognised prior to the proscription of free scientific
investigation into the subject of race, in order to achieve localised racial unity
attached to territorial domains there had to be a limiting psychological factor
causing the integrity of race to be preserved, since otherwise the well known fact
that races became diluted when mixed would mean that racial identity could not
exist in the way it was seen to exist where different races occupied the same
environmental conditions side by side with one another. There had to be a feedback
loop of information between human self consciousness and the identity of the social
organism so that one reinforced the other and thereby brought the superorganism
into being by giving it its power of integrity.
This feedback loop clearly involved the integration of the genetic and
linguistic modes of communication in the realisation of social form ; an observation
which reiterates our guiding principle that human evolution is a product of a
naturally occurring linguistic force that creates all social structure. The
foundation of the corporate identity belonging to the superorganism upon racial
identity experienced by the person evidently laid the foundation for the evolution of
language via the psychological attachment that linked the personal sense of self to
racial identity. Racial variation occurred where territorial boundaries were crossed
and not simply when radical alterations occurred in the physical environment.
There had to be a selection process going on at a psychological rather than simply at
an exclusively genetic level, racial variation could not be due to environmental
conditions affecting the form of living tissue, even though it certainly is true to say
that racial expression via genetic variation must indeed of been an incidental by-
product of localised environmental conditions. Modern pseudo scientific ideas on
race therefore select the arbitrary factor in racial physiology and fail to observe the
nature of racial physiology itself. This is like trying to develop a science of life
based upon a colour code whereby red means aquatic, black terrestrial and pink
aerial, or some such absurdity ; which is exactly what science gives us in the case of
humanity, absurdity heaped upon absurdity. And all this nonsense is generated in
the name of preserving social authority derived from the power of superorganic
integrity channelled into religious identity.
When we say there is a psychological factor operating in the fixation of
racial identity we should think back to our previous discussion of how the idea of
language as a force was subsumed within nineteenth century philosophy in such a
way that language became a personalised attribute that people were in complete
control of, for we noted that what we have determined is a naturally expressed
linguistic force was then said to be a psychological attribute. We do not want to
inadvertently appear to be endorsing the notion of psychological attributes as
features of individual free will utilised by the individual. The innate psychological
bias acting as a determining factor in the creation and fixation of racial identity is
anything but an expression of conscious free will, people may well be fully
conscious of their racially directed leanings but this in no way means they know
why these impulses or inclinations exist within themselves, unless of course they
have read this work. The psychological bias acts as an extension of the same
linguistic force acting at the genetic level of information. We call the linguistic
force linguistic irrespective of where we see it taking effect because we know that
this force realises its ultimate expression in the evolution of an organism through
the attribute of fully articulate symbolic speech wherein we find the perfection of
this force.

A perfect example of the unwitting expression of psychological bias
favouring the preservation of exclusive identity is to be found in the Muslim
female's free choice of head to foot enclosure. The notion of individual free choice
is utilised by the priest-cum-politician in this case to protect a social power
mechanism in the shape of a dress-code from being undermined. As we reveal the
broader implications of a connected series of such 'free choice' personal decisions
reinforcing a localised identity, that allows a localised power base to be
accumulated, we reveal the true biological significance of these free choices as a
means of developing a line of connectivity between a section of the biomass and the
superorganic force of human nature so that social structure is brought increasingly
under the command of a centralised authority vested in a religious leadership. This
process is liable to be dismissed as a figment of the imagination, but over time,
maybe over the course of several centuries, the imperceptible effect of these actions
will infuse an alien identity operating according to a strict set of identity reinforcing
codes, in contrast to an open and unorganised social biomass, until the alien
becomes the resident and finally absorbs the remnant of the original indigenous
population. Thus we note a process of identity based supplantation that has been
recorded by history many times over, not least in our own territory. It is the
Muslim's time, the Christian has done its work in this region. The Jewish
superorganism needs an invigorated slave identity to take the place of its trusty, but
now defunct, old slave.

As an aside I suppose we might just mention the only acknowledged

mammalian social organism, the naked mole rat, which lives in underground
burrows where it forms social organisms some one hundred strong, they are likened
to the insect superorganisms because they have reproductive arrangements that are
reminiscent of the queen insect that acts as a primary source of offspring. But they
also have one peculiarly suggestive quality in the light of the preceding discussion
that makes me see fit to give them a mention, yes, they are naked.

Returning to our discussion.

And from this we see the wonderful manner in which race served its natural
function. Race not only defined the superorganism and located the individual
within it, but at one and the same time race also attached the same organism to an
indigenous territory to which it was attuned via an obvious psychological bias
inherent in the human brain causing people to seek affiliation with a common kind.
This instinctive psychological tendency toward bias gives us the political
expression of the linguistic force which is responsible for so much of the social
structure we know as politics. Modern religion implants a mode of identity
imprinting that has the potential to breach the limits of race by resetting the mental
conception of what constitutes a common kind. But race still has a powerful
influence on our instinctive sense of self which is why race continues to serve as an
undercurrent of political power that is forever bubbling up to the surface.
However for a full understanding of modern religious dynamics, wherein
religion acts as a medium of superorganic identity, we must be aware that the
evolution of the power of fully symbolic speech did not inaugurate an age of logical
transformation from visual mediums of corporate identity to linguistic mediums of
corporate identity in one fell swoop, by no means. Humans, as defined by the
power of speech, as we posses speech today, must of existed for tens of thousands
of years. The shift from racial cues of belonging to the organism to the modern
religious cues of belonging was relayed via the baton of culture. There is a
delightful passage in a book on the origins of art that illustrates the importance of

culture as a bridge between racial corporate identity and religious corporate identity

"When Darwin gave a piece of red cloth to a native Fuegian he was

astonished to see that it was not used for clothing, but was torn into small
bits, which the receiver and his companions bound round their freezing
limbs as ornaments. This observation does not characterize the Fuegians
alone. Darwin might have made it as well in the Kalahari Desert and in the
Australian bush as at Cape Horn. With the exception of the arctic tribes
who could not live at all without complete clothing, all hunting peoples are
much more richly and carefully decorated than clothed. What Cook once
said of the Fuegians may be said with no less truth also of the Australians,
the Mincopies, Bushmen, and the Botocudo : "They are content to be naked,
but ambitious to be fine." Those writers on the history of culture who
devote themselves to the pleasant task of demonstrating in a popular
scientific way to cultivated people of all conditions how magnificent our
achievements have been, are wont to regard this disproportion of clothing
and ornament as a pleasing example of the childish simplicity of savages,
which can not distinguish the superfluous from the necessary. This
demonstration has, in fact, only the one fault of proving a little too much. If
savages are really the great imbecile children they are represented to us to
be, it is somewhat hard to comprehend how they can still continue to exist,
for by rights they should long ago have perished, to be warning examples
against their irrationality to all more highly gifted beings. Creatures who are
not qualified to know their own wants can certainly not live more than a
little time. But primitive peoples, with all their lack of clothing and excess
of decoration, have already maintained themselves on earth for a whole
series of millenniums, although the higher peoples have solicitously tried to
make it not too easy for them. Either the primitive peoples have no right to
existence, or have the historians of culture not been able in this case to
distinguish the superfluous from the necessary ? Possibly the decoration of
the primitive peoples is not so superfluous as it seems to be to the practical
sense of the nineteenth century. Perhaps it is, to the "savage" at least, as
necessary and indispensable as clothing is to us."

(The Beginnings of Art, Ernst Grosse, 1899, page 53-4)

Nothing can be more important than belonging to the superorganism that we

evolved to be part of and as such the evolution of the modern global superorganism
based on the principles of Jewish identity provides the latest in a series of
physiological batons of corporate identity thus — racial baton-cultural baton-
religious baton — that together blend into a complex array of identity cues
dominated by the latest and hence most powerful addition to the pantheon of
corporate identity mechanisms. All of which, in truth, should be perfectly obvious
to all who have any justifiable claim to be modern students of human nature, but
which, in the light of the remarks just considered that were made so long ago by an
astute observer of all cultures, modern and ancient, we need not be surprised to see
is not the case.
The fact is that if decoration is a mechanism of induction into the
superorganism then it must serve at one and the same time as a mechanism of
exclusion. Hence if the modern person is inducted into the superorganism via the
impression of a religious identity infused into them and reinforced via visual and
behavioural cues making up the trappings of civilisation in the shape of modesty,

decorum and duty that accord with modern living, then it is inevitable that modern
people will no longer have the power to see the meaning of the strip of red cloth
worn about the arm ; religion by its very nature excludes acknowledgement of its
precursors, it has to in order to work. Hitler himself, as we have already noted, said
a new movement must set itself upon a pedestal and declare its irreproachable
superiority. But post the drop-out sixties with their slogan of free love and social
reformation that broke with the visual and behavioural bonds of modesty and
conformity linked to traditional religious values it is interesting to see the
primitive's cues shifting ever more to the fore as each generation comes along and
makes its own instinctive search for identity within the 'great being' according to
triggers so ancient that we have no more conscious idea why we do what we do
than an ancient tribesman had technical knowledge of why they breathed air. Much
to my amazement, only last weekend, today being 28/09/06, I found myself looking
at a young girl standing beside me at the bar who had a ring of black plastic, I guess
plastic, inserted into her ear lobe in the manner of an African tribes women. The
ring being perhaps half an inch diameter ; in the international language of French
measurement that is some one and half centimetres I think. Cor, looked orrible !
What would her ear look like when she took that out ! Somewhere to hang the car
keys I suppose.
We know what we know, like what we know, and as Grosse rightly says
these likes and dislikes exist for a reason ; but there is no reason to think we know
what that reason is ; unless that is we apply science to the question. Having said
this, Grosse does say of the tribal dances used to signify peace after conflict
amongst Australian tribes in which the tribes unite as one organism does at least
suggest these people have an awareness of the social bonding function of the dance.
But they will of course not be aware that humans evolved the capacity and need for
such social strategies because humans form superorganisms any more than we
know this biological reason lies behind all our political activities. But we should
still not take Grosse to mean that the Fuegians really knew why they wanted
decoration rather than clothing, anymore than we would think that a magpie knows
why it wants shiny objects for its nest. What Grosse means, or certainly should of
meant, is that these people knew what was most important within their life setting,
just as a Muslim knows that it is of paramount importance not to let the prophet be
defamed without mounting a protest. The inductee into Islam has no idea why this
obligation to defend the honour of the originator of their slave identity exists in any
sense that connects this command to the biological level of human nature, indeed
they do not even know they are the slaves of Judaism, they only know what the
outer skin of consciousness tells them, and that is exactly what the magpie and the
Fuegian know too.

The full reference for the copy of Mein Kampf I am reading is Mein Kampf :
With an Introduction by D.C. Watt, translated by Ralph Manheim, published as a
Radius Book January 1973. This edition first published 1969.

Watt's introduction is of some interest in the context of this chapter, he

rightly says that Mein Kampf cannot be separated from the time and context of its
writing, and we have to think about how this influenced the development of the
author's ideas (see page xxxiii), and he also says the book has three main themes,
the first being the nature of Hitler's views on state, race and nation in relation to
German destiny, secondly the political method and thirdly the nature of foreign
policy. Watt tells us that the last strand of thought is the one that has been given
most attention but having read up to page 515 I have yet to take notice of anything
on foreign policy ; I guess you see what you are looking for. The first part on race,

nation and state as it relates to the nature of German identity and destiny is the facet
we are interested in and this chapter on organicist philosophy as a major underlying
influence of the period that influenced Hitler's ideas in this area is what we are
focused upon. To this end we do find an interesting comment on page xxxvii to the
effect that a renegade monk was one suggested point of origin for Hitler's ideas, the
monk being described by Watt as 'a socio-biological crank of the first order' (Page
xxxviii). Thus the organicist connection is recognised, albeit in this insulting and
largely unhelpful manner typical of those who are reviewing and presenting Hitler's
work, as we might expect. We must remember that in terms of the superorganism
the whole point of a Hitler emerging from the linguistic flux at this time was
precisely to bring science into disrepute and it is the function of the academics to
make use of Hitler accordingly. But we cannot discover what this monk's ideas
were because they are simply not available, not to my researches anyway. As it
happens however I do have a book written by an esotericist author which includes a
very bizarre application of the organicist idea to human and ant society which
throws some light on just how cranky such ideas can get, but I hope that the work
engaged in here has indicated how respectable the organicist idea was in scientific
circles and these perversions written by monks and religious nutters can be seen as
useful aids to the academic priests seeking to undermine true knowledge. I will
give an extract I made from this work a couple of years ago :

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

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

preparatory to the formation of man. Nor could they be regarded as the by-
product of human evolution. On the contrary, insects reveal, in their
structure and in the structure of their separate parts and organs, forms which
are often more perfect than those of man or animals. And we cannot help
seeing that for certain forms of insect life which we observe there is no
explanation without very complicated hypotheses, which necessitate the
recognition of a very rich past behind them and compel us to regard the
present forms we observe as degenerated forms.
This last consideration relates mainly to the organised communities
of ants and bees. It is impossible to become acquainted with their life
without giving oneself up to emotional impressions of astonishment and
bewilderment. Ants and bees alike both call for our admiration by the
wonderful completeness of their organisation, and at the same time repel
and frighten us, and provoke a feeling of undefinable aversion by the
invariably cold reasoning which dominates their life and by the absolute
impossibility for an individual to escape from the wheel of life of the ant-

hill or the beehive. We are terrified at the thought that we may resemble
Indeed what place do the communities of ants and bees occupy in the
general scheme of things on our earth? How could they come into being
such as we observe them? All observations of their life and their
organisation inevitably lead us to one conclusion. The original organisation
of the "beehive" and the "ant-hill" in the remote past undoubtedly required
reasoning and logical intelligence of great power, although at the same time
the further existence of both the beehive and the ant-hill did not require any
intelligence or reasoning at all.
How could this have happened ?
It could only have happened in one way. If ants or bees, or both, of
course at different periods, had been intelligent and evolving beings and
then lost their intelligence and their ability to evolve, this could have
happened only because their "intelligence " went against their "evolution",
in other words, because in thinking that they were helping their evolution
they managed somehow to arrest it.
One may suppose that both ants and bees came from the Great
Laboratory and were sent to earth with the privilege and the possibility of
evolving. But after a long period of struggle and efforts both the one and
the other renounced their privilege and ceased to evolve, or, to be more
exact, ceased to send forth an evolving current. After this Nature had to take
her own measures and, after isolating them in a certain way, to begin a new

(Ouspensky, page 60)

You would think the man was telling us a fairy tale, he makes Lewis
Carroll's world look positively normal.

On this note let's get on with the job in hand and turn to Mein Kampf. :

Look One

13/09/06. I reached chapter five of Hitler's work of philosophical biography

today and the last pages of chapter four are of immense significance for our
purposes as devotees of the organic method applied to the understanding of
humanity and with reference to the fall of this knowledge through its subversion by
way of political interpretations.
On page 137 Hitler displays to the fullest extent the manner in which his
philosophy was informed by organicist theories of human nature. He directly
refutes the common idea that the state is in essence an economic organization, a
state Hitler tells us is

"the organisation of a community of physically and

psychologically similar living beings for the better facilitation of the
maintenance of their species"

When Hitler refers to 'species' in respect to man he treats human species as being
defined by their racial identity, and thus breeding true to racial type, not breeding
healthy fertile offspring in the sense that species are defined by science. So his

definition of a state is worthless as a scientific statement because it is a hodgepodge
of organicist, political, and pseudo scientific thinking. But this amalgamation of
conflicting logics gives us an example of science in the act of being subverted to
political ends, and this shows us just how science became degraded and eventually
outlawed in modern society. Today science is expressly rejected by professional
scientists because of its association with anti-Semitism and on the next page we find
the most fascinating continuation of the same superb logic, superb logic that is
perverted to political ends. Thus Hitler says

"Peoples who can sneak their way into the rest of mankind
like drones, to make other men work for them under all sorts of
pretexts, can form states without any definitely delimited living
space of their own."

(my italics)

So here we have the greatest scientific insight any human being could ever make,
just what I have been looking for—the fruit of all nineteenth century philosophy
and the supreme expression of the science of humanity—and who gives voice to
this undeniable fact, the devil on earth, Adolf Hitler. Now why is that ? Why can
we find no other reference to the Jews as alien implants in society that exist to serve
as the masters and farmers of their hosts ? There is a vast trail of work proving this
conclusion is inevitable, written by people who devoted their lives to this subject
and who knew a vast amount more than Hitler could even begin to imagine, why
did none of them see what I saw immediately I had the idea that humans were social
organisms ? This lack of similar observations amongst established academics is
unbelievable. I have struggled to find philosophers who reveal the truth but none
exist, this is the very first, and the only blunt statement of fact touching the pinnacle
of self understanding derived from the scientific insight into the nature of human
beings. Is this coincidence ? Of course not, it cannot be, it has to be a summation
of calculated and deliberate actions directed by the structure of society which today
continues to ensure that this knowledge remains hidden so that the Jews can
continue to fulfil their role within the superorganism, the role which Jews evolved
to perform, the role that we all need Jews to perform if our world is to continue to
thrive as we know it.
From these remarks Hitler comes to the direct statement that Jews are
parasites and he makes some amazing remarks wherein he says the manner of
existence of the Jews is the most remarkable way ever thought of upon which to
constitute a state

"one of the most ingenious tricks that was ever devised,

[was] to make this state sail under the flag of 'religion', ........... For
actually the Mosaic religion is nothing other than a doctrine for the
preservation of the Jewish race. It therefore embraces almost all
sociological, political, and economic fields of knowledge which can
have bearing on this function."

I have to say again I am overwhelmed by this superb account of the nature of

Judaism, it is just what I have been looking for amongst philosophers and
sociologists for years since it is the obvious conclusion to be drawn from the
organicist conception of society as a social organism. This section of Hitler's work
is a superb piece of philosophy and I know of no philosophy to equal it and yet we
find this truth imbedded within a book of hatred created by the monster of modern

times, if not the monster of all times. Which is exactly where the masters must
want such dangerous ideas to be located ; if they must exist anywhere at all. The
most infinitesimal hint concerning the significance of the Jews in our world is to be
found in just one other nineteenth century work that I know of, this is Physics and
Politics by Walter Bagehot in which there is a passing remark to the effect that we
have a special reason for caring for the Jews, but Bagehot declines to expand upon
this suggestive statement. Thus Mein Kampf appears now in the guise of a casket of
sorts, like a canister made of lead within which a few dangerous particles of
knowledge are kept secluded only to be released on those special occasions when
some reckless seeker after truth should stumble so close to the truth as to pop the lid
on this casket and let the venom spill forth. And the venom is there, the antidote to
true knowledge. No sooner has Hitler enlightened us as to the true nature of
Judaism, which we must bear in mind most people would of understood in his day
because the theocracy at that point had not yet managed to rid society of all
scientific knowledge relevant to the subject of human nature, than we find these
malignant remarks

"feeling of cohesion ..... similarity of nature and species, ......

willingness to stake everything ........... which in peoples with soil of
their own will create heroic virtues, but in parasites will create
hypocrisy and malignant cruelty"

As I read the above passage to review my work I find my mind's eye

bringing forth the opening of the ark of the covenant by the Nazis that was
portrayed in the Indiana Jones movie when, in the search for ultimate power, the lid
was lifted upon the rediscovered ark and all hell was let loose. I am lifting a lid
right here and now, and I think we can be sure that if I am successful in my effort to
lay the reality of human corporate nature before the world, as I hope to be, then
there can only be one outcome, all hell will indeed be let loose again as it was in
1914 when the priesthood was faced with the same challenge arising from the free
flow of real knowledge. As a consequence the priests launched their war against us
and made us fight each other so that we could remain slaves exactly as ants are
made to fight each other by the alien insects that spread confusion within the ant
nests they attack. We fight for freedom in order that we can be slaves ! Now there
is a sick joke if ever there was one. We slaughtered each other on mass, cleansing
our own society of the knowledge of freedom in the process, and so the priests got
us back in line. But I want knowledge, and to hell with the consequences. And lets
be clear, hell is not an inevitable consequence of true knowledge, it is within the
power of humanity to face the truth and thrive ; so I believe. In this I make an act
of faith, expressing my belief in the possibility of a free humanity able to live and
thrive in the full knowledge of their real human nature.

So we learn from this part of Mein Kampf that Hitler's political outlook was
informed by the most potent conclusions of modern scientific knowledge regarding
the true nature of human nature, and as we read on we find him applying the
resulting scientific logic to his interpretation of contemporary historical events
leading up to the outbreak of the First World War. Thus we have a familiar
example of the politician's habit of taking possession of scientific knowledge,
leaving scientists dispossessed of that which they create in an act of implicit good
will that defines all unbiased efforts to discover true knowledge. The same
occurred when physicists discovered the laws of subatomic physics, the politicians
built a bomb and used it, while the scientists had the blame for tampering with

nature foisted upon them by the politicians ! And here, in a more subliminal
manner, we have seen how as scientists discovered the true nature of humans the
politicians used that insight to start a war for which the scientist was blamed by the
politicians who had subverted the knowledge brought forth by sincere investigation.
All this is grist to our mill in our search to know who we are and why this
far into the scientific era religion rules our world while science is nowhere to be
found. But we must not make the error of interpreting these outcomes in political
terms, these are organic outcomes arising because humans have the power to make
knowledge in order that knowledge will serve the biological objectives inherent in
human nature, so it is right and proper that all things become the tools of war in the
name of superorganic authority ; as much as it narks me to admit it.

Look Two

Chapter five, The World at War, is a remarkable chapter for in it we have

the logical basis for the holocaust expressed in philosophical terms that apply
precisely to the whole argument we have been seeking to make sense of here when
we recognise that we continue to live in an absolute theocracy whilst still being in
the midst of a supposedly freedom loving scientific age !
The ideological face of Judaism in Hitler's world was Marxism,
unsurprisingly originating in the work of a Jewish priest, and evoking the
internationalism so essential to the Jewish master identity that today we see
powerfully expressed in the Jewish slave identity of Islam where internationalism
inspires the modern day terrorist in pursuit of the Muslim slave goal of a global
territory under the dominion of their master's identity ; the master identity of Islam,
as the seemingly antithetical Jewish identity, being unbeknownst to the Muslim of
course. In the course of discussing Marxism Hitler points out that it is not possible
to eradicate an idea by brute force alone, force must be accompanied with an
ideological alternative, in his case this was to be National Socialism set up in
opposition to Social Democracy presumably, I have not got that far yet but he loved
Nationalism and hated Democracy and this polar terminology therefore suited his
thinking as I understand it thus far. In our case the ideological substitute for the
natural science of society was an ideal science of society and the manufacture of
the pseudo science associated with idealism which eventually led to sociology as
we know it today that constitutes much of the material with which I work.
It is amazing to see Hitler discuss the method by which the priesthood kept
Europeans enslaved to Judaism in face of the threat to religion from science by
uniting an alternative idea to that of real science to an act of murderous violence.
And all this discussion appears within a chapter on the First World War, the very
war that served as the physical act of attack upon the society within which true
science had emerged. Here we find discussed how a young idea is most easily
erased before it gets beyond the close circle of its advocates and the institutions that
support its survival and progress ! This is just stunning, it so perfectly describes
everything we have been talking about and it exactly describes the plan of action
carried out by the priesthood in their recovery of control over society. Here Hitler
is talking about his new political movement but since this movement emerged from
the expression of the linguistic force found in organicist philosophy then his
political movement becomes an outer cloak for the philosophy, a linguistic skin
made to dress the kernel of a real being, the embryonic form of a potentially new
superorganism that had to be killed off. So when Hitler speaks of his new body
needing to be nipped in the bud by the Marxist foe he is actually, unwittingly,
telling us what was really happening. He could not possibly of known what the real

meaning and significance of his life's work was since the knowledge of the real
meaning of the Nazis movement and the world wars associated with its rise and
downfall are only now coming to light, decades later, as the full picture is made
visible through the passage of time. Remarkable. We can also note that while
unwittingly describing what happened to science Hitler's analysis of how to control
knowledge cannot be taken to apply to the relationship between Marxism and the
world in which we live, albeit that when Hitler names an alien ideology it is
Marxism that he identifies ; this is so because we have all heard of communism but
few of us have ever heard of organicism. Organicism was the real enemy that the
priesthood had to eradicate, but Hitler did not know this, nor did he know that he
was conveniently wrapping organicism up in a neat little package called Nazism
which could then be conveniently dealt with. The human species is indeed an
extraordinary animal, a mammoth sized ant nest, and we are living in it.
It is almost as if Hitler knew what was going on for real, even though there
is no reason to think so beyond a spooky suspicion, somehow the idea of such
purging of the social body must of been in their air. And he speaks of purging the
body, perhaps most incredible of all are his that words prefigure the future
holocaust, without having any real idea of the holocaust at this time presumably,
when he speaks of a blood sacrifice on the part of society, which is exactly how I
have been forced to understand the holocaust as an act of sacrifice by the
superorganism in its behavioural movements aimed at preserving its integrity about
a core identity structure. So chapter five, short as it is, is a truly remarkable piece
of work for those who have some inkling of the underlying logic informing Hitler's
ideas, ideas that pervaded the social flux of the time.

Peeks and Pieces

Page 211-2

Without naming the Jews Hitler gives us a nice analogical account of the
function of Jews in society, exactly the sort of account we wanted from men like
Schaffle or Worms, noted exponents of the superorganism. And why did Spencer
not try to describe Jews as parasites, viruses or alien diseases, or as nervous tissue
diffused through the fabric of the social organism and culminating in the will of the
superorganism, thereby forming a knot of nervous tissue constituting a superorganic
brain ? Spencer was not short on analogical comparisons between body parts and
social structures. This failure on the part of organicists is only accountable on the
assumption that no one dared make such statements. Thus Hitler alone reveals the
existence of such ideas, genuine scientific ideas which he then goes on to bring into
the most serious disrepute by using them as an excuse to commit mass murder in a
most horrific manner.
Hitler's behaviour offers us a perfect example of the way language relates to
social structure because by developing ideas and associating them with social
actions and structures, where we include groups of people in the definition of
physical social structure, these structures become cloaked in a force field of ideas
which may be positive or negative, or both depending upon circumstances. Thus no
one can freely expect to say the sort of things Hitler said about the Jews today
because of the holocaust which induced an immense force into Hitler's anti-Semitic
ideology thereby fending people off the subject of Jewish nature and origins
considered on a scientific basis. A lone individual can still take a look, but the
establishment has a licence to prevent anyone from giving voice to scientific ideas
concerned with human nature on any official platform, and this is exactly what we

see, with scientists openly declaring that it is not possible to know what human
nature is. Yet this assertion is as insane a notion as it is possible for a scientist to
possess since it means that from a scientific point of view humans cannot be
considered as part of the universe since all phenomenon amenable to science must
be the product of universal processes that as a matter of course impart a nature to
those phenomenon. No phenomenon can exist that does not have a discernable

Page 221

Here we have the yoke of international capital under the command of its
masters, the Jews. So from being parasites the Jews have become masters. Very
good, but this should be expressed in none judgemental scientific terms not in
political terms. Where were the scientists to give this explanation and thus rid us of
dependence upon religion and at the same time pull the rug from under Hitler's
feet ? Why did no one during this period make the associations I am driven to make
now ?

Page 223

Hitler expounds a fundamental scientific principle that Nature rules. But

this mantra is made to spring from Darwin's politicised nonsense instead of coming
from the idea of the social organism that places humans within nature in a
harmonious manner and so emphasises progress via unification of precisely the kind
delivered by the Jewish culture, so that by way of organicist science we can
understand exactly why the Jewish slave identities of Christianity and Islam have
evolved to give rise to an amazing social organism on a global scale, that has indeed
gone super-global by having made its first moves toward existence on a solar scale.
Nothing could be more natural or more in harmony with nature, with human nature
to be precise, than Judaism and with the Jews being the masters of the earth ; no
matter how I or anyone else feels about this outcome.
If nature rules and the Jews are the masters, as Hitler repeatedly implicitly
concedes, then the Jews must be made masters by acting in accord with the laws of
nature. To avoid this logical trap Hitler speaks of people acting against nature, by
mixing races for example, thus by failing to understand the laws of nature people
build up trouble for themselves for which they are eventually and periodically made
to pay. Ouspensky utilises the same logical ploy in order to extricate himself from
the illogical hole he had created for himself when trying to account for the downfall
of ant people as intelligent beings. But these are insane models of existence, a "lets
have our cake and eat it" model typical of the priest. If Nature rules then Nature
rules and it makes no sense to say people can ever act against the laws of nature.
The illogical device used by Hitler here deliberately conflates the long term effect
of natural laws with the short term limitation of human action. His argument seems
reasonable because he shifts from one level of the structural hierarchy—human
action in real time—to another—the accumulative effect of human actions over the
long term—while treating both levels as being subject to the same consequences
determined by the laws of nature. But nature does not act in this way, if it did then
neither race nor religion could of evolved to serve as mechanisms for uniting
superorganic physiology.
This discussion also applies to the ongoing political debate concerning the
argument that says women freely choose to obey restrictive dress codes where we
see this assertion of free will is an attempt to win the debate by snapping the chain
of causal links between culturally driven individual choices and collective outcomes

that determine where political power is focused. The mechanism disguising the
causal link between moral injunctions and political power indicates the value of the
idea of free will to the priest who commands a flock on the basis of fixed moral

On page 257 we have a perfect scientific statement in perfect accord with

organicism which tells us nature rules human society, but here too this principle is
misapplied to the individual and the state as an individual, rather than being
correctly applied to the social organism defined by the Jewish religious identity as it
appears in a variety of complementary forms.

Page 243

Hitler gives us a summation of his religious philosophy, or a pragmatic

simile of the same, wherein he says that anyone who would seek to destroy religion
is either a fool or a criminal because there is no alternative foundation for social
order. Coming from this fascist I can live with the criticism

Page 264-8

This expression of Aryan supremacy sounds like an apology for the Chosen
People and only needs the substitution of Jewish for Aryan to make the passage
valid. The argument that people have a distinct identity of their own separate from
that of the Jews was the most perfect defence the Jews could ever of hoped for
given the discovery of Jewish organic nature by science. Here then we see exactly
how Hitler performed the greatest service on behalf of the Jews that any human
ever performed for the Jews by diverting people's attention away from the truth and
toward the age old lie that is more usually provided by the Jewish slave identities of
Christianity and Islam. Christianity and Islam were in effect generated by the same
process that gave rise to the Nazis, but in their case a pseudo Jewish identity was
produced to induct the mass of humanity into the orbit of Jewish influence
harmoniously, thus extending Jewish power. In Hitler's hands the German national
identity was the raw material acting as the clay from which a new Jewish identity
could be moulded, and that is what Hitler did, he moulded a new Jewish identity,
that is a new master identity, from the German identity. However this new
formulation of Jewish identity was not in accord with the core Jewish identity, it
was at odds with the established core identity because it wanted to be a new core
identity, and as such it was doomed from the outset. Nazis Jewish identity therefore
never had the potential to be a real alternative to Judaism, as is pretty obvious all
things considered, even without the benefit of hindsight. I frequently find myself
amazed that this man could seriously of concocted his vision of a new age with any
sense of seriousness, it shows a degree of myopic vision the exact opposite of that
displayed in the Jewish idea of chosenness which is so phenomenally longsighted as
to be awe inspiring. Saying this I suppose I should say, before others do, that the
ideas I present here have the same quality of being unbelievable that must provoke
the incredulous to think I cannot be serious too ; but I am, very very serious indeed,
in the post holocaust age I would not take on Judaism if I did not feel the clear
conscience of an honest man committed to a genuine search for knowledge. Hitler's
political version of a Jewish master race in the guise of the Nazis did serve the
function of tapping into the energy of identity knowledge arising from the pressure
of the linguistic force represented by the accumulation of knowledge under the

influence of science applied to the subject of human nature. The Nazis never had
the makings of an alternative to the Jews but they did tap the pustule of knowledge
that was poisoning the superorganism which bears the Jewish identity. When that
pustule was burst in the destruction of World War Two the Nazis disappeared and
took the contents of that sore with them to leave a thick scab behind marking the
spot where the damage was done and so warning future generations not to try and
seek knowledge of humanity ever again. We are now trying to prise that scab open
to recover the poison so it can be reintroduced into the body, because this poison is
true knowledge and true knowledge is the hallmark of free people. And the fact is
that our future lies in the future, not the past, so we need to know what science has
to say about who and what we are if we are to have a long term future on this planet
of a kind most of us aspire to in our finer moments.

The above relates to chapter 11, Nation and Race, pages 258-299 and my
notes suggest I copy the whole chapter as it is here where Hitler gives his account
of the history of the Jews as a parasitic body with his extended thoughts on how the
Jews infiltrated the West. I guess this is a little overenthusiastic on my part and my
notes indicate the following pages to be significant :

Page 270

Society as an organism. The noblest action is to be found in relinquishing

individuality when trying to become as one with the organism. This description of
Aryan qualities seems to describe the slave qualities of Christians in relationship to
their masters the Jews, and as such this suggests the way the Jewish slave identity
of Christianity evolved to do the work of managing tasks that were organised and
directed by the motive force of Jewish master identity. When we speak of slave and
master identities in this context we are not speaking in political terms, we are
speaking in terms of relationships arising from the organization of superorganic
physiology, where these various identities are associated with different
physiological structures as defined by their different functions, and hence those
individuals possessing these respective identities act differently according to their
location within the superorganism and their respective identities reflect these
functional differences.

Page 277

This is a remarkable page for its contents are presented exactly how a
scientist should speak of the Jews in relation to the social organism, but no scientist
or philosopher does this bar Hitler. Hitler however makes a mockery of science
exactly as he says the Jews make a mockery of all true knowledge. From this it
follows that Hitler is a Jew, if we go by his own definition of a what a Jew is. Of
course it follows from the idea of the social organism that we are all Jews of one
kind or another because we all form part of the superorganism which carries the
Jewish identity. For this reason we should not hate the Jews despite the natural
inclination to hate a master that enslaves us. We have to think of the relationship
between Jews and Gentiles in precisely those terms that this relationship is
represented to us in the New Testament under the guise of the fictitious figure of
Jesus Christ as the shepherd who cared for his flock. Gentiles are domesticated to
the Jewish cultural system, and this process of domestication is precisely identical
to that imposed upon none human species by humans. The Jewish domestication of

humanity has not only altered the Gentile, it has also altered the Jew, just as human
domestication of sheep has not only altered the sheep but the human too. The
nature of the resulting relationship between Jews and Gentiles is symbiotic, despite
Hitler's hatred of the result and the natural dislike we must all feel for such a cold
blooded analysis of the situation as that provided here. Hitler's solution to the
problem, if we can grace his ideas with such a term, was never of any use as he had
not the slightest notion what the situation was, he took an image of the science of
the social organism and made it real in his imagination, this imaginary fabrication
had no substance to it and it disappeared in a puff of smoke along with Hitler.
The observation that Jews can only exist by developing a religious creed is a
perfect insight into the evolution of religion that can only come from adopting a
correct attitude to the superorganic nature of human beings. Hitler is able to make
this observation because he is delineating the differences between Jews and
Germans in terms of racial factors and so he correctly recognises that Jews are a
product of religious factors, but he has not the least idea what the real significance
of this knowledge is. Or he gives no indication that he understands the real
significance of this knowledge. As with the Christian, Moslem or the Fuegian, so
with the Nazi, to know why we care about the things we care about is to know what
human nature is in purely naturalistic terms, to know we are a superorganism, and
who knows this apart from me ?

Page 289

Lead the fight against themselves, this is the standard ruse of the theocracy.
Hence science is turned into the enemy of religion in a neutered form shorn of its
dangerous elements to give us what I call religious science. Evidently Hitler saw
this mechanism in action in the form of the Marxist attack on capitalism acting as
an inverted ploy created by the Jews to misdirect the energy naturally opposed to
their means of forming society on the basis of capitalism. This sounds highly
plausible and it is nice to see how he recognises all the same mechanisms of
exploitation that I see in the priesthood in his account of the Jews. But we should
not distinguish between Jews and Christians in our discussion of the social
organism because in becoming attached to the Jewish identity via the Christian
identity people become Jews in the fullest sense of the word. Thus if an official in
the BBC bans a person from using the BBC's internet forums because this person
says things deemed to conflict with Jewish interests then this official is a Jew, even
if they are a Christian or an atheist, because they are acting on behalf of the Jews
and against the legitimate interests of others. This is why as organicists we should
always speak of the priesthood even when we talk of people like sociologists or
scientists, anyone who serves the unity of the social organism, unwittingly or
otherwise, must be denominated a priest, including Hitler. Hitler however took this
principle and narrowly focused it upon the Jews, this may seem valid in the light of
the fact that Jews are indeed the master identity, but it is not valid, it is an
oversimplification that prevents a true understanding of the subject. The unification
of all individuals and all social organs or structures under one identity is implicit in
the idea of the social organism. Hence, to take a none emotive aspect, we can say
that a police officer is a banker in the sense that a bank cannot exist without security
and if the police are the bank's organ of security then a police officer is by
definition a banker. To relate this idea to the physiology of living tissue we can
note that a fluid organ such as the blood also has a complex and fluid identity in that
it not only serves to distribute energy through the body but it also has policing
duties to do with the prevention of disease, this multiplicity of roles affiliates the
blood to all organs of the body thereby making the blood a heart, a kidney, an eye, a

hand, and so on since all of these structures need blood in order to exist. Thus
Germany is now subject to Jewish authority for the Nazi emblem is outlawed, and I
think Mein Kampf may be banned in Germany, even though ostensibly Germany is
ruled by the Germans. Likewise in Austria the law banning holocaust denial is by
definition a Jewish law, even if Jews as such had absolutely nothing to do with its
formulation or implementation, our social organism is Jewish, and that is that.
Sociologists, we may note, recognise the complex functionality of human
individuals but they reduce this organic phenomenon to a political formula
discussed under the ambit of roles.
In pointing out this fact that the superorganism by definition can only have
one identity, and that identity is Jewish, so that everyone is a Jew irrespective of
who they think they are, at the same time we show exactly why the uniqueness of
the individual is the most sacred principle of any Jewish ideology, such as we find
in Hitler's Nazi ideology of race. This is so because otherwise language could not
perform is function of generating social structure at the level of social organization
where Judaism emerges as a the leading expression of identity, for this is where
structure becomes based upon a highly purified linguistic identity that is largely
detached from racial forms, although still closely linked to symbolic visual identity
cues such as the cross or swastika. The policeman must be a policeman, and not a
banker, the BBC censor must be a BBC censor and not an agent of Jewish authority,
the Austrian judge must be an agent of the Austrian state and not an agent of Jewish
power. And so we see just how dangerous organicism was, and how
inconsequential the two world wars were, and the holocaust that went with them, in
terms of what scientific knowledge put at stake, which was the existence of the
5,000 year old Jewish civilisation itself !
See page 449. The Jews as puppet masters. This account of an anti-Marxist
flag that in truth is a symbol of covert alliance with Judaism nicely evokes the
principle whereby all knowledge is controlled by setting up friendly foe, as with
Darwinian covert religious science set in opposition to Creationist overt religious
science where, in reality, both schools of thought are slaves of the theocracy.

Page 307

Here we have the subject of genetics versus language as expressions of the

force of human nature that I call the linguistic force because a uniform force is
responsible for the drive of human form toward a superorganic outcome.
Extermination of the priest - yes - but the Christian, not the Jew. The Jew dies
when their host, the Christian dies, as Hitler notes when he says Jews must have a
There is logic in opposing the genetic racio-cultural constitution to the
linguistic culturo-religious constitution but religion is of its nature a vastly more
potent expression of the linguistic force of identity than racial expression can be.

Page 308

Hitler says that knowledge of racial identity is the key to understanding all
things, and he certainly makes it so in his dogma. However he is mistaken. Race is
a false key just as the idea of God in Judaic mythology is a false key. The real key
to all knowledge is the idea of the social organism for this is the key used by Nature
itself, that is to say any question about human existence can be answered beyond
the possibility of valid dispute by knowing that human nature is corporate.

The idea of a key to the understanding of all knowledge is an extremely
important idea, where the key is in effect the point of attachment of humanity to
reality that we spoke of in the main body of this work where we said that logical
bias is generated by selecting a point of attachment to reality for all human interests
and then from that point all the detail of our understanding is woven into ideas
conforming to the logic of our chosen key idea. We have seen that God is a code
word for the superorganism and so all knowledge about the real nature of humans
and the force responsible for human existence is woven to accord with this code
word's meaning. Hitler adopts race as the alternative key idea to the Jewish
formulation, for the obvious reason that he wants to set himself up as the
protagonist of the Jews. And we have seen that race was indeed the precursor to the
idea of God attaching humans to the yoke of human nature, so race is a perfectly
valid key to understanding all things, it just is not the correct key, race is a bias key
as God is a bias key. Indeed race and God are the keys used by nature to operate
our individual minds, what we want however is the key to Nature's mind so that we
can turn the tables on God.

Page 315

The need for a core identity is equivalent to the explanation for the Jews

Page 320

As I have repeatedly pointed out the cult of the individual is central to the
power of all false knowledge because it blinds us to the true corporate nature of the
human animal wherein individual physiology evolved to bring an organism into
being at the level of social organization, and Hitler is committed to placing
maximum emphasis upon this principle of individuality exactly as the Jewish priest
knows he must do. Combined with Hitler's love of Christianity this emphasis upon
individuality means that Hitler is therefore an honorary priest of Judaism.

Page 471 & 2

The opening pages of chapter nine include a variety of statements on the

triadic division of social structure which are worth noting due the discussion of
triadic macro physiology which forms part of our understanding of the human
superorganic form. These remarks of Hitler's are however more politically inspired
and do not bear the hallmarks of organicist thinking in the manner of their

Page 471 tells us that the old German state rested on three pillars, the
monarchy, the civil service and the army. And these pillars are the basis of state
authority, what is more the First World War had destroyed these pillars in Germany.

Then we are told of what the three elements of all authority are composed,
firstly popularity, then, secondly popularity must be supported by power, where
power means the ability to exert force. Having equipped popularity with power a
truly strong entity can come into being on the basis of tradition so that

"If finally, popularity, force, and tradition combine, an authority
may be regarded as unshakable."

On page 472 we are informed that all nations can be divided into three
major classes, the best, the worst and the indifferent middle. The worst Hitler
describes a "the worst human scum". When Hitler expresses himself like this he
does himself no favours and brings his considerable intellectual effort into disrepute
in a needlessly self destructive fashion. Clearly he is venting heart felt anger when
he constructs a rational format within which he uses crude words to classify a social
hierarchy where talk of 'scum' makes a nonsense of his model. This can only add
to the feeling that his whole approach is not serious and that he wanted to create a
suicidal political organization for some other unspoken reason.

Page 473

Having set out the basis of an argument on the management of a human

population by defining the three primary elements of social structure, on page 473
Hitler treats us to an evaluation of how the best portion of the population were
creamed off by the war, leaving the indifferent bulk of the population open to
capture by the remaining worst element. While this analysis is rather self-serving it
does bear all the hallmarks of organicist logic as it resonates with our understanding
of the function of the First World War as being the reorganization of the European
biomass with the express purpose of cleansing society of the prevailing genuine
scientific knowledge of human nature so that truth could be replaced by the gush
that passes for science today that is based upon the pathetic ideas of Charles
Darwin. This intellectual cleansing would in turn prepare the European biomass for
reattachment to its Jewish slave identity by way of a further bout of cleansing
arriving in the shape of the Second World War that opened the way for the infusion
of the Jewish slave identity of Islam into the ancient fabric of the European
Page 483 uses this logic of cleansing a society of its greatest assets in the
shape of those who are devoted to its existence. Irrespective of all other
considerations this idea chimes beautifully with the logic of organicism which has
been used to inform our discussion throughout where we have presented the
Romans as a phalange clearing the way for Judaism by eradicating the old order
that had occupied northern Europe for thousands of years, eradicating the ruling
bodies such as that of the Druidic priesthood slaughtered in Anglesey, and
enslaving the decapitated biomass to the provisional Roman culture in preparation
for permanent attachment to Judaism, where we find ourselves to this day. The
bleeding away of those committed to a localised social structure is therefore rightly
seen to be a basic method essential to an invasive alien identity that must be grafted
upon a population. And while this method obviously applies to the Judification
process carried out by the Romans because they were entering new territory, so that
it also applies to the Judification of America by the British, Spanish and French
Jewish phalanges, the principle also requires to be exercised as required on an
ongoing basis to keep the fabric of the invaded host body in a state of flux that
allows the alien authority to maintain control. And so here Hitler is in effect telling
us something about the reason why war is so important to Jewish society.

Page 476

Quote paragraph "The real organiser .... "

The organicist logic inherent in the political argument appearing in the
paragraph beginning with the words quoted here perfectly illustrates why
organicism was such a danger to Judaism. In this passage Hitler applies the logic of
a triadic physiology to Russia wherein the elite layer is seen as a loosely affiliated
master prone to replacement by an alien, as we have just been discussing.

Page 482

Here Hitler provides us with a definition of the purpose of human existence,

human purpose being to serve the homogenised collective being, a definition which
is in perfect accord with the organicist conception of human corporate nature.

the "making possible and safeguarding on this earth the existence of a

community of spiritually and physically homogenous beings."

Which is precisely what Judaism does.

Page 485

Quote "In both cases ....defenceless to the Jew."

It has to be said that if Hitler was prepared to account for political

movements in terms such as those appearing here, and to conclude that by falling
prey to Jewish political guile people become prone to the alien Jew, then why does
he not see that by comparison with the political machinations outlined in this
section the Christian religion is by far and away the greatest imposition of Judaism,
and indeed it is Christianity that opens the gateway to Jews in the first place. It is
truly incredible that Hitler did not make the link between the Jews and the
Christians at a deeper organic level, it is amazing that despite his hatred of Judaism
he loved and respected Christianity ! In this passage we see the best evidence that
Hitler may well of known exactly what he was doing in making racism the basis of
a German society. How do we avoid the conclusion that Hitler must of known by
this means that he was aiding the cause of Judaism ? I personally will not tolerate
any suggestion of conspiracy as this is poison to organicist science since it smacks
of politics instead of linguistic force. But when we spoke about Kidd we asked the
same question, How did Kidd fail to see that there was an organic link between
Christianity and Judaism ? In Hitler this question reaches a crescendo since we see
just how focused upon the Jews Hitler was by contrast with Kidd who appears
unconcerned with the Jews so that we may suppose Kidd did not apparently regard
the Jews as a significant element of his society that had to be accounted for.
There is something suggestive about these remarks in that it is clear that an
alien master race infused into a biomass by way of an associated slave identity
needs to be kept in balance, and when that balance is upset this is when the attention
of a Hitler is caused to focus on the Jews eventually bringing the physiological
balance back into line through the mechanism of a pogrom. And it is clear from
this suggestion that it is the victims of the pogrom who are the beneficiaries of the
violence that slaughters them. This sounds like a gross affront to the victims of
ethnic hatred but once again this only reiterates the necessity of ensuring the
individual is made the object of existence and that the notion of the superorganism
is not allowed to come to the fore because if we assume the social organism is the

organism then the feelings of people who have to bear the brunt of physiological
processes become irrelevant to the resulting account ; as we have just seen.

Page 486

Several points are found here. Firstly we are told that the purpose of the
Nazis was the foundation of an organic state.

Second, we learn something of the inherent link between terror and religion
as we are told that terror on its own will not destroy a "philosophy of life", terror
must be combined with a philosophy of life. So that it is the philosophy that takes
the victory. This was evidently Hitler's justification for the presumption of offering
his racist doctrine as the successor to Jewish religion.
Terror represented by a philosophy makes an inherent link between religion
and terrorism, something we could not be more aware of than we are today. But
this link is more specifically essential to Jewish religious forms and terrorism The
reason terror is vital to Judaic religious forms is that in breaking from the instinctive
racial corporate identity pattern the religious identity pattern takes on a
predominantly conceptual form that is inherently detached from the instinctive
force that racial identity connects with emotionally, and accordingly corporate
identity based on ideology must find some basis for reaffirming the gut level sense
of need for the new more esoteric form of identity. This is where fear comes in, it
is no accident that theologians have long declared that fear is the basis of the love of
God. Judaic religious form therefore recovers its organic roots through terror, this
is in accord with Hitler's assertion that first comes popular support, then popular
support aided by power and only lastly are these two transformed into established
order. Terror is therefore likely to be associated with Judaic identity modes during
their developmental periods, or during periods when attachment needs to be
reinforced, as in the case of Ireland in recent times, or as in the situation today
where Islam is threatening to take over the world and needs to be galvanised into an
active mode in order to make it a formidable movement that none dare oppose.
Hitler does not mean to say terror is necessary to serve as a motivator of
attachment, he means terror is vital for the defence of a new movement, but at its
heart terror is not a physical act of protection, to describe terror as such is to offer a
political evaluation of terror. The real significance of terror is not the organised
defence of a social body but the galvanising of emotional energy that focuses
individuals into contrasting organs of social structure. Terror then replaces the
spontaneous effect of racial identity as an emotional trigger by connecting the
corporate body with the organic fabric of the individual through the mechanism of
fear. This is why Christians were purged on the cross in the first period of their
existence, and why periodic outbreaks of church sponsored terror have plagued
societies subject to the Jewish religion down the ages, and why we now have a new
global war of terror in the name of Islam to contend with today. Our modern idea
of bomb totting terrorists does not lend itself to a comparative image of terror in the
ancient world but according to the ancient Jewish historian Josephus terror appeared
on the streets of Jerusalem in the shape of knife wielding terrorists who struck at
random in the shape of faceless assassins. Terror is about galvanising obedience to
an identity, this is why terror goes hand in hand with religion. The priests who own
our society and who farm us tell us that Al Qaeda is not the real face of Islam, but
that is like saying prison is not the real face of law enforcement, as if the protection
of the innocent victim is all that law consists of. Religion has a glowing mask of
love that it wears proudly and these days when it needs to wear an evil face it slips

into another disguise, but the evil is much more the real thing than the good,
without the evil to back them up and give them power the priest would never wear a
happy face. The happy face just says "Now you are mine, I own your ass".

Page 511

Quote "In 1918 ...... sleeve."

Here Hitler speaks of the struggle to put anti-Semitism on the political

agenda, a quite remarkable thought by our contemporary standards. The Jews were
an immense evil that humans had to deal with, was the assertion. But what is so
delightful to me in this passage is the concluding remark that makes the Jews the
enemy of all Christendom ! Christendom was, and is, the powerhouse of Judaism,
as Islam is too in a slightly different way. How can this man not see this given how
well he sees all other machinations ? Well we have already named Kidd in this
respect and we also have Wells to refer to from our previous discussion of a person
of immense intelligence, experience and education who concerned himself with this
Jewish question and likewise failed to see the simple fact that humans are
superorganic mammals and Judaism is an organ of the organism just as much as
Christianity is an organ of the same living organism. I keep making the point, I will
never fathom this blindness, but then I cannot comprehend the ability of anyone to
believe in something so puerile as the notion of God in the first pace. What I will
say is that I am well aware of the duplicitous facility that intelligent people have for
adopting a position to which they apply themselves with a devotion that is only real
as long as the position remains valuable. But I am disinclined to say that a man like
Wells or even Hitler were playing this game, disinclined, but nonetheless convinced
that to a great extent this most human disposition of self deceit is at the root of these
bizarre acts of blind stupidity in the service of self interest. And I would add that
this mode of self deceit is a hallmark of those gifted with a high degree of natural
intelligence, it takes a truly clever person to be a moronic fool, convincingly. The
value in a unification of these contradictory qualities in the same person is that this
provides the leader to whom the less gifted masses can attach themselves in an act
of obedience to a simple idea with which they can feel at ease because a clever
leader is proactively promoting the stupidity they are asked to commit to. This sets
up a functional feedback loop whereby the clever person provides a simple formula
able to unit a crowd and in so doing the crowd provides the power base a clever
leader wants to serve their ambition and ego. Some of Hitler's own discussion on
pandering to a crowd tells us something commensurate with this explanation as to
why stupidity serves the interests of both the clever and the stupid. But in
comparison with these political explanations science gives us a vastly more
convincing explanation for these odd arrangements. Science indicates that since the
individual is but a cell associated with a superorganism some such mode of
unification as that induced by the collaboration between the clever and the stupid in
an all embracing act of stupidity has to evolve as part of the effect induced through
the influence of the linguistic force that is responsible for creating all human form
and structure.

Page 513

This is an interesting page in respect to Hitler's thoughts on the value of

religion in society and the respect religion is due. He discusses the way religious

identities form physical boundaries that are absolute and must be respected on their
own terms, such as that between Protestant and Catholic. But of especial interest to
us is the remark he makes to the effect that anyone who fosters internecine religious
feuds is an ally of the Jews for they distract attention away from the Jew and toward
a false enemy.
There are certainly difficulties in trying to make sense of religious quarrels
on their own terms, but again we have here clear evidence of Hitler's considerable
dedication to the question of what a Jew is in the wider context of religion.
Organicism does not distinguish between religions, true science recognises that all
religions are identical in their nature and do indeed exist to bond social organisms.
But more importantly science recognises that Christianity is Jewish, that it is not
possible for anyone to be more Jewish than a Christian is, there is a political
distinction between a Christian and a Jew but no biological difference, except in
terms of physiological function within the superorganism. So why did Hitler never
express an opinion along these lines, why did he not say to hell with all religion ?
Well we have already answered that question when we noted that Hitler indicated
that religion was essential to the unification of the state. Fine, but then why not
recognise that Christian religion was Jewish religion, why not look at the religion of
Auguste Comte or some of the other offerings that sort to replace Christianity ?
Answer : Hitler was himself a Christian and as a Christian Hitler was a Jew acting
in the service of the theocracy. Today it is perfectly clear that this was Hitler's role
because he disappeared in a puff of smoke while the eternal Jew has been massively
empowered by the service rendered to Judaism by the Nazis and the two world wars
associated with the rise and impact of the Nazis. By contrast with the primitive
Jewish religion which marches on as victoriously as ever science is nowhere to be
seen, we live in the bleakest, darkest abyss of ignorance that any human person
could ever possibly conceive of applying to a whole human society. Religious
knowledge imposes the most horrendous state of stupidity upon its victims leaving
them powerless to defend themselves from the priest. Already the controllers are
creeping out of their holes to adjust the collective consciousness in the veil debate
and ensure the locally new slave identity of Islam is protected in these territories, as
yesterday, Saturday, 21 October 2006, I caught a moment of Sky News where a
female priest was saying that the MP who had said he did not like Muslim veils was
intentionally pandering to the white working class masses, the station's priest said
"Oh yes, I know, we have had thousands of emails and a theme has been that if they
do not like it here why do they not go back where they came from ........" said in a
voice using the sickening intonation of dear, dear me, what are the little people
saying, shock, shock horror, and shock ! And how can we little people defend
ourselves from our master's malicious, evil intentions, when they own our minds
because we do not even know what human beings are ?

I have just fished a degenerate piece of intellectually styled, post war

religious propaganda off my shelves that is absolutely brilliant for, coming so soon
after the theocracy's war against its slave society, it deals with some of the issues
we are concerned with that were still fresh in people's minds and which we could
not hope to find discussed very much today now the objective is to push our
collective ignorance as far into the blackest depths as possible. The book in
question is Modern Nationalism and Religion by Salo Baron, 1947. Here we are
informed that the Germans did see that Christianity was a facet of Judaism and the
idea of recovering a form of German paganism was considered but rejected as
impossible. Heinrich Pudor is quoted as having spoken thus in 1909 :

"Get rid of Judaism and Christianity and go back to the
sources of Teutonism.....Christianity is a Jewish invention ........ All
Christianity is Judeo-Christianity and as such the most stupendous
fraud ever committed on races and peoples in world history."

(Page 77)

No honest person could ask for anything more wonderful than this, Baron the
religious propagandist however says that "hysterical denunciations of this kind"
occurred periodically prior to 1914 but they became a "deafening chorus" after the
war. Hitler we are told expressed an appreciation of religious power that was
shown to be a sham as he betrayed his "innermost belief" when he said "We will
have no other God than Germany".
Hitler appointed Alfred Rosenberg to supervise Nazi propaganda in 1934
and Rosenberg said that "Teuton heathenism" could not be revived and "The Nazis
should, therefore, take over from Christianity teachings and rituals of Germanic
origin, and repudiate all that stemmed from Judaism or—a new bogy!—was of
"Etruscan" provenance." (Page 81) Baron must be saying that the Nazis had
selected the Etruscans to add to the Jews as a new bogyman. From this we may
suppose that the mysteriously mystical people who are intertwined with early
Roman origins might of been viewed as a source of some kind of Judophilic
influence that caused the Romans to take the social form they did through being
taught certain rules of civilization, that the Romans evidently got from somewhere,
and which we have seen did in reality make the Romans a vehicle of Jewish
imperialism. We then hear how Jesus was shown to of had Aryan blood ! So,
enough of that, but, as I said, this is a lovely find in terms of getting some nitty-
gritty on how the Nazis were managing the preservation of the engine of Judaism
while attacking the brain of Judaism. In all of this of course there is not the least
sniff of organicism, this is pure politics.
How contrived Nazism was, what earthly point could there be in such
shenanigans ? it all smacks of priestcraft. This makes me think of David Icke today
—who says, amongst many other things, that the world is ruled by an
extraterrestrial race of reptiles—this man is just as active as Hitler was, and a lot
more prolific in his writing, but it is perfectly obvious that he serves as a front for
the priesthood he pretends to attack, for Icke touches the most delicate subject, just
as Hitler did, but in the most absurd manner ; and accordingly he his attacked in
turn by the Jews who recognise him as an anti-Semite in drag. Icke's role, like
Hitler's, is to scatter a particular variety of misinformation that all adds to the
difficulty bound to be faced by any lone explorer trying to discuss the kind of the
things we are discussing now because we have the likes of Icke to add to the likes
of Hitler as examples of lunatics that those who would venture to write a work
promoting the notion that humans share a common nature with ants or termites, in
direct conflict with all of academia, God forbid, can be categorised with and thereby
dumped in the lunatic fringe department. There is method in the priest's madness,
never doubt it.
The Nazis wanted to become Jews by another name, or, the Jews persisted
as Jews by becoming temporarily transformed into Nazis ; now that is much more
probable, but only probable from an organicist point of view where we understand
that the linguistic force creates social structure and hence human structures can
emerge merely at the behest of a linguistic flourish, and whereby emergent
structures will only persist as long as the linguistic flux sustains them. When the
energy surging through the linguistic flux subsides the form it sustained will

disappear, this is why the organism lays down exoskeletal material at the dictates of
the linguistic flux to preserve the expression of linguistic energy that resonates with
the organism's established core identity. So we are saying the emergence of a true
science of humanity revealing humans were a superorganism represented a
wavelength of linguistic energy which caused the Jewish core identity to generate
the material variation we call the Nazis. But the Nazis were not in accord with the
core identity, they emerged as a defence mechanism, so when the Nazis were burnt
out the energy spectrum of natural science that engendered them also burnt out.
This would explain why the Nazis, who appeared to be enemies of the Jews in all
they said, nonetheless proved to be the salvation of the Jews in all they did ; this
interpretation is valid as long as we are making sense of events in terms of biology
and not politics, that is in terms of superorganic being and not in terms of the
interests of the conscious individual. So, just as we have spoken of a linguistic flux
pervading social space, so we now have a complimentary material flux existing in
the biomass of living tissue, wherein the highly dynamic and complex medium of
social identities attached to individuals, that animates and directs the behaviour of
those same individuals, can be related to the pervading mythologies in a perfectly
direct manner such as we would expect to observe in a naturally occurring physical
system. Humans evolved the capacity to produce knowledge in order to initiate the
force of superorganic existence in a mammalian form. The resulting knowledge
therefore exists for a very specific biological purpose and knowledge serves this
organic function by blending the bandwidth of acquired knowledge with identity
knowledge to create spectrum. The human individual is equipped to see the identity
spectrum, and indeed cannot very well live in society without being able to see and
to know the significance of the identity spectrum that delineates the social structure
they are part of. It follows from this conception of knowledge as a biological
phenomenon that any suitably significant change in the neutral bandwidth of
knowledge must force an identity to occupy the new addition to the known
bandwidth and it is from this perspective that we come understand the never ending
struggle between religion and science in its most basic terms. Knowledge is a
product of the linguistic force and identities are wavelengths of linguistic force
making up the bandwidth. By virtue of these wavelengths of identity linguistic
force creates human social structure. The need for a superorganism to generate
exoskeletal form with which its units are associated is enabled by this intimate link
between knowledge of material existence and wavelengths of identity, so that
exoskeleton is formed according to physical constraints that are 'coloured' by
wavelengths of social regulation that are a product of the superorganic mind. We
are not imputing any intent on the part of Jews when we imply the Jews wanted to
become Nazis, we are just saying that in a superorganism where the Jewish identity
is the core identity that necessarily informs the whole organism of the identity it too
must possess in the form of an infinite series of variations on the core identity, then
this event, that is the emergence of a Nazi variation on the Jewish identity, will
occur spontaneously when conditions existing in the knowledge flux cause elements
of the biomass to emerge as a definite structure. On this basis it is clear that the
structure should always be Jewish, whether it is Jewish-Jewish or Nazi-Jewish, or
anti-Semitic-Jewish, Christian-Jewish, Muslim-Jewish, Al Qaeda-Jewish is entirely
irrelevant, all organizations must be Jewish and that is exactly what we have been
saying is the case all along. The idea of the social organism did represent a suitably
significant addition to the knowledge pool in terms demanding a material response
in the shape of the social structure, and accordingly this idea led to the emergence
of Jews, that is would be masters, in the shape of the Nazis.

Page 526

Churches are not limited by political boundaries — exactly ! And in the

context of a discussion about how National Socialism must not be limited by
boundaries within Germany so that a greater social organism could be formed does
this observation about religion not tell us something about the superorganic nature
of religion ! Apparently not.

Page 527

Chapter eleven is Propaganda and Organisation and here we find some

material of interest to the seeker after organicist logic in Mein Kampf. We are told
that "organisation is a thing that owes its existence to organic life, organic
development.". In this chapter we have some very useful discussion that is imbued
with organicist logic in the way Hitler describes how the movement's structure is to
be organised.

Page 528

Speaking of how the true leader must be a psychologist who understands

people Hitler says of this person "he must endeavour to take weakness and
bestiality equally into account, in order, considering all factors, to create a
formation which will be a living organism, imbued with strong and stable power,
and thus suited to upholding an idea and paving the way for its success."

Page 529

The selection of a priesthood is facilitated by distinguishing between

supporters and members, here Hitler has a highly organic sense of the function of
social structure in relation to the way this structure houses a hand picked
priesthood. The idea of an organisation housing the membership resonates with the
idea of social structure acting as an exoskeleton.

Page 530

Propaganda relates to the supporters, organization relates to the members.

The supporters are the biomass, the members are the priesthood. Hitler recognises
that the priests must be selected by the organization and kept in a degree of
seclusion, then these people devise and control the propaganda that will control the
supporters. The membership is prone to be too large rather than too small, this is an
important idea as it ties in with remarks on the balance existing between the alien
elite and the enslaved biomass they farm which is kept in balance by the Jewish
mechanism of pogroms that rebalances the living fabric of which the Jewish
superorganism is composed.
If propaganda has done its job only a small guiding elite is needed to exploit
the biomass exposed to the propaganda message. This can be seen to be true in the
way the Jews control America thus making it plain for all to see that America is a
tail wagged by Israel, as seen where the Jews launched the war on Iraq by taking
advantage of the window of opportunity offered by 9/11, as we noticed above. This
degree of control by the Jews is made possible through the extraordinary

effectiveness of the Christian slave implant which equates to Hitler's propaganda. It
is of course a personal assumption of mine that the ongoing war in Iraq was started
as part of the long struggle to bring the Middle East under control in the first
decades of Israel's existence that was brought about through an act of imposition
upon the region. But there is no other possible, and at the same time rational,
explanation for this war. Damn, silly me, I forgot, WMD, WMD, of course,
weapons of mass destruction, just like those we know the North Koreans possess, I
forgot, sorry Mr Jewman, hope I did not hurt your feelings by forgetting the real
reason for the war, sorry !

The difference is so great between the full translation I am reading and the
abridged version that it is like reading two different books and the organicist
philosophy does not come through at all in the 1935 copy I bought specifically to
quote from so I cannot offer useful quotes even when the relevant passage appears;
as is the case regarding the section above.

Page 531

Further elucidation of the principle of superorganic control where

Christianity appears as an idea and a historical reality that has been created by the
Jews to rule none Jews. We are told Jews keep themselves exclusive and distinct
from their new propaganda movement. The detailed idea Hitler has of how a
movement must be developed must come from observation and it seems evident
that this lesson is taken from a close observation of the Marxist movement, and at
the same time it seems this talk of founding an organisation on the back of an idea
must of been exactly what happened when Christianity first emerged from the
drawing board to be taken up initially by Jews before being projected onto the mass
of dispossessed people that had been left headless by the development of the Roman
empire, just as workers in nineteenth century Europe had been detached from their
roots by capitalism and left open to exploitation by a new Jewish creed which Marx
obligingly provided. And these thoughts on the need to limit an organisation and to
delineate between organisation and support tell us why a social organism must have
a triadic hierarchical physiology to allow these organisational divisions to come into
being in accord with the theory of integrative levels.

Page 533

Highly organic sentiments here saying that social order is delivered in

obedience to laws, not human insight.

Page 546

The words "state organism" appear as part of the description of how social
structure must develop from a sound base and not have a leadership grafted upon an
already established structure. In this section Hitler is speaking thus because he is
talking about how the trade union question is to be handled given that the trade
union movement already exists in the hands of the Jews. So should the Nazis take
over by infiltration, or should they set up new unions of their own and compete ?
He has no answer but he does not approve of grafting a leadership onto an existing

Page 551

Hitler says that the trade union movement constitutes a massive well
established organisation developed down to its smallest detail and as such it is
impossible to take on by a would be usurper wanting to rid unions of their Jewish
overlords. If he saw trade unions in such terms then you would think he might of
recognised that the Jews were themselves vastly more well established than trade
unions and as such that much more difficult to supplant as the masters of Western
civilisation. Yet, seemingly, he does not see the Jews in this way, certainly it is
necessary to have a scientific understanding of what human society is in order to
recognise that the Jews have a hold on identity in the same way Jews had a hold on
German trade unions ; but Hitler does not see it.


There is a lengthy discussion of the way the Jews duck and dive as they
adapt to all possible situations in their on going project of world domination, in the
course of which they decimate society. While it is true that for Judaism to spread
the resident master identity must be eradicated and a Judophilic alternative
implanted but having done this it is then necessary for the result to be beneficial
overall by making the enslaved population more productive, and this is precisely
why Christian society has proven to be so fabulously creative, because it is farmed
by an alien body. In effect Christian society is a human society specially created to
be farmed by human beings, Christians are in effect domesticated humans. And as
we know domesticated animals are much more productive than wild animals, this
productive result evidently applies to humans. So as usual Hitler gets at the gist of
Jewish nature as he offers us the only scientifically based account of Jewish
behaviour available in our society but he does so in a stupid and malicious manner
that tells us nothing, gets us nowhere, and only serves to keep us enslaved while
protecting our masters, the Jews, from a more potent, because well informed,


The message presented here is that the Jew stands to benefit from the
collapse of Japan because should just one nation be able to resist the onward march
of the Jewish strangle hold on human culture then the Jew loses. Certainly Judaism,
understood in purely scientific terms, cannot rest while any society that is not
organised according to a Judophilic social structure exists. Judaism cannot tolerate
any non-Jewish culture such as Japan or China as indicated in the news last week,
today being 28/10/06, telling us that the ongoing Judification of China is moving at
a steady pace as China's people are being increasingly implanted with the Jewish
slave identity we call Christianity. Therefore Japan has to be eradicated as an
independent cultural entity just as much as Druidic society had to be effaced from
the territorial space we call Britain twenty centuries ago, or Inca culture had to be
effaced from Central America five centuries ago.

Hitler says that for Judaism the arrangement of European states is such as to
make these nations function as tools in the plan to take over the earth through "so-
called Western Democracy" or via direct control through "Jewish Bolshevism". In

terms of superorganic physiology Hitler is essentially correct to say this, where we
merely see Judaism as the core identity associated with the unifying mechanisms of
the human life form. Hitler quite rightly notes that

"Within this great herd of denationalised colonial territories,

a single independent state might still wreck the whole work at the
eleventh hour. For the Bolshevistic world can exist only if it
embraces everything."

(my italics)

This is essentially an organicist conception of human society that Hitler

represents as a political phenomenon because his argument validates the meaning
encapsulated in the names used in political parlance to describe the structural
elements of the human superorganism. If we take away the meaning of linguistic
labels such as state, Bolshevistic and independent and see these words for what they
really are in structural terms, where of course there can be no such thing as truly
independent elements, then we can say that Hitler's analysis is correct but politically
bias because he makes his own selection, this being German nationality, serve as
the lynch pin of his account of how things should be. The lynch pin is the point of
attachment to reality of the human form from which Hitler's description emerges as
a philosophy of life, to use Hitler's own catch phrase for such an ideological
framework as that founded upon race that provided the logical foundations for the
National Socialists — the Nazis that is. Judaism is no different to Hitler's account
in respect to the nature and form of the idea, but Judaism is a vastly more powerful
product emerging from the same power source of linguistic force because Judaism
has a vastly more comprehensive form, it is more ancient and altogether superior to
the ridiculous parody of Judaism that Hitler has set up as his counterfoil to the
inevitable effects of human organic nature taking its course. But we must
remember that as stupid as Hitler's ideas are they do serve a vital role in the overall
programme of Jewish world domination for they prevent a real interpretation of
Jewish organic nature such as we are offering here from becoming public, an
outcome that could otherwise only mean the certain destruction of Judaism.


It is here that Hitler says that if only one state preserves the sanctity of its
nationality then the Jewish global empire must be overwhelmed by the nationalist
idea. This is idiotic and shows how little Hitler understood the subject of
nationalism for which he had such a passion ; the passion of a school boy with the
wit to match.
There is a delightful passage in which he says

"The Jew knows very well that after his thousand years of
accommodation he is able to undermine the peoples of Europe and
bring them up to be bastards without a race, but that he could hardly
do the same to an Asiatic national State such as Japan."

(My Struggle, page 251)

I have quoted from My Struggle as the desired passage happens to be available and
it cuts down on my pinching from a book subject to copyright restrictions, but it
does not quite have the same bite to it that we find in the full translation. Where
My Struggle makes "accommodation" a focal point of meaning in the passage above
Mein Kampf focuses its equivalent intent upon "adaptation" (imparting a truly
organic meaning) which, I assume, is likely to be far more true to the original
meaning. Then "bring them up to be bastards without a race" is given as "train
them to be raceless bastards" which imparts a more intense impression of the Jews
acting as a malicious master race and as such must be closer to Hitler's intentions.

The apparent difficulty posed to the Jews of transforming so alien a culture

as that of Japan into a Jewish fiefdom is of course why nuclear weapons were used,
and they did the job overnight. Nothing, and no one, can resist the force of human
nature that is focused upon the Jewish identity and captured therein. There can be
only one !
Of course today we pride ourselves on being raceless, we are trained to
value multiculturalism, and we are subject to severe penalties if we do not obey our
owners command to be so ; a sure sign that we are well and truly under the cosh of
Judaism. A story on my local TV a couple of weeks ago, today being, 28/10/06,
said a fourteen year old Scouse girl was arrested by the police, locked up,
fingerprinted, DNA swabbed—the whole shebang—because she refused to be in a
class full of aliens from other countries. The girl came across as very pleasant and
intelligent and she said the issue had nothing to do with race, there were some half
dozen girls in a group, including her, and only one of the foreigners spoke English
and she was translating for the rest. This is what we have been brought to ! How
do the police get involved in a situation like this ? If we do not live in an insidious
police state today then I would like to know what it means to live in a police state ;
when thoughts are policed freedom is dead. Not that I approve of racism any more
than this fourteen year old girl did, I am just not very good at making like mindless
cattle ; still most people are perfectly adapted to mindlessness, and indeed they are
lost without the comfort of blissful ignorance, and I am sure that as time goes by the
population will get better and better at forming a herd that will bring joy to our
master's hearts.


Here Hitler implicitly links the roots of German nationality with the
establishment of the Christian faith and associates the rise of the German nation
with the fall of Rome, in which the Germans played a part, he says ! The fool
evidently had no idea what these relationships mean, and why these historical
events occurred as and when they did. He does not realise that the collapse of
Rome was a predetermined facet of the superorganic process whereby the Jewish
slave making identity extended itself in the form of a global superorganism. The
same applies to the rise of the Spanish or the English empire, as should be perfectly
obvious, these empires have long gone but Judaism goes from strength to strength.
Science tells us that the presiding empire, existing as the current Jewish phalange of
America, which takes the form of a sole superpower rather than actually occupying
territory as an imperial authority — a change of form occurring due to the evolution
of exoskeletal structure that makes military domination of the whole planet possible
from one fixed territorial domain ; IBM's for example (intercontinental ballistic
missiles) — is also doomed to the same fate as all other preceding Jewish phalanges
when its job is done. In the case of the American figmental empire its job can be
considered done when the place of Israel is normalised to the same degree that the

place of any established European country is settled today. This position may take
500 years, give or take a century or two, but it will come to pass. Humanity is not
going anywhere, and neither are the Jews, we are stuck with this tragic and
primitive mode of existence for aeons to come. And we should note that the
initiation of the global war of terror in the name of Islam is in reality the initiation
of the war of Israeli normalisation ; this is the true nature of the war on terror that
the theocracy that rules us has only just begun to organise. The collapse of the
Roman empire was part of the organic process whereby Judophilic political
structures like Germany came into being to fulfil the Jewish destiny. Roman
culture was a phalange acting as a tool of Judaism, and given that we have just seen
how Hitler liked to talk about the way Judaism utilised states to serve as tools in the
globalising plan it is a wonder how he managed to see only enough of this natural
scheme of things to serve his own political purposes. We see from this self serving
myopia that Hitler did not object to there being a master, he only objected to the
master being in the form of the Jews. It is this fact that makes Hitler a Jew serving
Judaism, just as much as any other feature of the human world could ever be so
described—Hitler was a tool of Judaism. Hitler separates himself from the other
tools of Judaism however by choosing to make democracy the mechanism of
Jewish imperialism and by making himself the sworn enemy of democracy. But
this selective manipulation of reality through the power of words used to delineate
social structure is just another example of the method of knowledge manipulation
we have already seen utilised by Darwin when he chose to focus upon the substance
of a form while completely disregarding the nature of a form. Hitler and Darwin
are of course intimately linked in the Zionist process, it being well known that
Hitler makes plentiful use of the Darwinian logic of survival of the fittest. Without
Darwin's theophilic myth of evolution based on the survival of the fittest individual
there could of been no Hitler, and the Jews would of been doomed. Hitler then is
obeying the law of propaganda that we said he himself correctly pointed out when
he said the message can take many forms but the slogan must always be the same.
The Nazis were just another message ending in the eternal slogan—there can be
only one ! The slogan in this case must always be a political expression of the idea
that there can only be one master, and by expressing this slogan in a political form
as German nationalism Hitler serves the leading power, which was Judaism, by
ensuring that he too, in the end, delivered the same slogan as that which lay at the
core of the Jewish philosophy of life.
The idea that Hitler was a tool of Zionism, as Al Qaeda is also, is so
provocative that it is worthwhile trying to reduce these statements to a mechanistic
format intended to cleanse our language of emotive bias. We use words to place
our activities in a value laden context the expresses our personal interests. By this
means the same actions are given different meanings depending upon whether we
are responsible for them or someone else is responsible for them. Thus killing in
war is heroic and killing in the ordinary course of daily life is murder, this is how
the collective authority differentiates between uniform activities thus directing the
linguistic force toward a delineation of social structure that simultaneously defines
the authority's associated being. Thus what is OK without is the opposite within.
The same process of contextualising through the imposition of meaning applies at
the mechanistic level, but less emotively. The general idea that humans are unique
animals that have a special gift of consciousness, free will and the power of self
determination, and the sense of purpose, is imbued into otherwise mechanistic
processes. This is why we have words like tool and slogan that evoke a sense of
purpose in man, we would never say that part of a machine served the machine as a
tool, a drive shaft is not a car's tool, this would imply the car had a purpose of its
own. It is of course implicit in the idea of the social organism, when literally taken

to mean that humans are formed entirely in obedience to natural laws, that however
we perceive our activities they can only ever be tools operating in a mechanistic
sense otherwise our daily actions would as often as not be meaningless as they
would fail to serve the hidden forces of nature that created us, forces that we are
only faintly aware of most of the time. Our activities can never really have a
purposeful meaning, where purposeful refers to a meaning that we are fully
conscious of, because we do not know that we are a superorganism, therefore we do
not know what the purpose of our actions really are. We may know that after tribal
warfare a dance gathering in which all tribes take part serves the peace making
process, but this is the most superficial political understanding of the purpose lying
behind these behaviours, it does not account for the biological foundations that
make these social arrangements both possible and necessary. We may know that
girls dressing up and boys showing off is about making love and having sex, and we
may know that this leads to babies, we still do not know as a matter of course what
conception is, this is advanced biological knowledge requiring at the very least a
microscope to have any chance of being understood in detail and evidently making
the connection between the sex and childbirth required the kind of deeper thought
that we associate with scientific enquiry and it is the kind of knowledge an early
priesthood would of intuitively recognised. All the biological knowledge
underpinning our mating behaviour is hidden from us, and it was the norm for pre-
civilised people to be ignorant of the fact that babies were conceived as a result of
having sex ! Chapter seven, Physiological Ignorance on the Subject of
Conception., in Primitive Paternity by Hartland, 1910, opens with this summary

"The forgoing considerations lead to the conclusion that paternity

was not understood by early man, and even yet the cause of birth is more or
less of a mystery to some peoples in the lower culture. Reasons for this
ignorance : among others the disproportion of births to acts of sexual union.
Every woman in the lower stages of culture is accustomed to intercourse.
Premature intercourse very widespread. It is not only unproductive, but it
impairs fertility. Even where the true cause of birth has been discovered it
has been nowhere held invariable and indispensable. In Australia and a few
other countries it is still unrecognised."

(Volume 2, Page 249)

Hartland indicates that there are major implications for social structure
arising from this state of ignorance regarding the nature of birth for "If paternity
carried the value, the social and legal importance, assigned to it among the highly
civilised peoples of Europe and America, it is inconceivable that husbands would as
a more or less ordinary incident of social life sanction or submit to the bestowal by
their wives on other men of the favours which ought to be reserved to themselves
alone." (Page 249). Which gives us some idea why the religious identity
programmes implanted into us make so much fuss about sexual mores, marriage,
and such like, and hence why there should be modes of dress signifying sexual
decorum amongst the mechanisms used by these identity implants to organize
superorganic physiology. And furthermore we can intuitively understand why such
changes in behaviour induced by a religious identity programme imposed upon a
mass of people transforms the whole nature of society, and additionally we can see
how the ability to effect such a change requires a controlling authority and
knowledge based class, a priesthood that is, and how the development of a
priesthood only comes about as an agricultural mode of subsistence evolves that can

support the class that creates and imposes the knowledge that organizes an
increasingly massive biomass. And we might note in passing that as unbelievably
idiotic as the idea of Jesus' virgin birth must appear to civlized people we see in
Hartland's words the basis for the success of this idea amongst deeply primitive and
uneducated people such as we find populating the advanced societies of the world
in Europe, America, Japan, China, Australia and so on today ; where uneducated
does not mean without having had an education, it just means that educational
forms that are nothing more than indoctrination programmes are not regarded as
education. In terms of self understanding there is no education in our world today,
a person who wants to be educated in the nature of existence as it applies to humans
must educate themselves, or be educated by one who has provided this service to
their own self already. And from all of this it follows, coming to our own concerns,
that whether our behaviours are primitive in kind or advanced, in either case, the
individual actors are equally oblivious of the underlying biological principles that
are the cause of their behaviour, whether it is a question of Where do babies come
from ? or Why do I wear a veil ? the individuals involved in these activities are
powerless do know anything more than the most superficial reasons for their
understanding of the answer they give to these questions. We cannot ask a Muslim
women why she wears a veil because she has not got the faintest idea why she
wears the veil, she only knows, and can only know, what she has been programmed
to know. She knows it has to do with Islam and being chaste, but then if we are not
Muslims and we are not chaste we want to know what Islam is and why whatever
Islam is it should concern itself with chasteness. We cannot ask a Muslim to tell us
what a Muslim is because no Muslim has any way of understanding the meaning of
our question. They can only tell us what they know and they only know that they
are a Muslim. They know Muslims are, or should be, holy, Muslims worship God
and honour the prophet, but this tells us nothing, it is like telling us that a tiger is
furry, and has stripes and sharp teeth, so what, What is a tiger ? What is a Muslim ?
Why do Muslims exist ? Where do Muslims come from ? Why are some people
Muslims and not others, is it genetic, or what ? What is a Muslim ? The answers a
Muslim would give tell us nothing. Why are there tigers and lions, why not just
lions ? What is a tiger ? Why are there Muslims and non-Muslims, why not just
Muslims ? What is a Muslim ? Clearly we are seeking deeper underlying answers
to these questions and we cannot expect to discover the answers by simply
addressing surface appearances. Science tells us there are underlying realities and it
is the job of science to discover them, hence science is not allowed to apply itself to
people in our uneducated world that is ruled by an absolute theocracy ; no scientist
would dare ask What is a Muslim ? Those academics who fill the void where
science should be, the charlatans who call themselves sociologist, assert the exact
opposite of what we have just said, if they addressed the question What is a Muslim
? they would say that we have the special and unique search tool available to us
when we want to know something about people, we can ask them to tell us about
themselves and thus we can know what a Muslim is by asking a Muslim to tell us
about Islam and what being a Muslim means to them ! Farce, nothing but farce.
Muslim women who choose to show purity in accordance with ideas derived
from their acquired religious dogma by wearing a veil, have no idea of the
underlying superorganic biology that is behind this commandment that causes
people to serve the organic purpose that we described earlier, whereby the display
of such uniformity serves the process of cultural occupation that is being organised
by the ruling social authority which serves the same organic process by seeking to
maintain control of the biomass by following the rules written into a religious code
that directs the linguistic force that is responsible for the creation of superorganic
structure, or what we consciously call social structure. Purpose implies

consciousness and clearly Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler could not
possibly know, or of known, that they exist for one reason and one reason only, to
serve the Jewish cause, yet it is perfectly obvious that this is the purpose that these
sworn enemies of Judaism did, and do serve. We can only see this via an overall
scheme that allows us to recognise mechanistic connections existing beneath the
skin of consciouness created by the linguistic web that covers the body of the
superorganism in an image that is connected to reality by the philosophy of life
emerging from Judaic identity.
So we imply no sense of awareness in either Hitler or any Jews when we say
Hitler was a tool of Zionism. We are saying that the human superorganism is
composed of a complex array of structures that work toward a common end. To
reduce this emotive mode of expression to a mechanistic form we can weave a
linguistic image to dress an inert machine, a watch. Previously we said that even
the cogged wheel of a watch constituted an engine because of its relationship to
energy which it served to transmit from a source to an end point. Alternatively,
instead of thinking of this structural element in terms of its relationship to energy,
we can think of the cogged wheel in terms of its relationship to the purpose of a
watch. In this case the cogged wheel becomes a tool of the purpose and the purpose
is telling time. Considered in this context the purpose of a watch acquires the
abstract quality of a unifying end point toward which the actions of all component
parts are directed, therefore, according to our prior understanding of messages,
which tools carry or transmit, and which we said must all end in a common slogan,
telling the time becomes the slogan toward which each part of the watch is directed.
It is in this sense that the enemies of Judaism all work toward the generation of a
Jewish superorganism, whether they perform their duty as a loyal Jew living in
Israel or they perform their duty as a terrorist killing people in Western cities in the
name of Islamic jihad.
This is the general theory of the process, it may still be asked what the
evidence for this theory is given that the enemies of Judaism are sworn enemies and
they do attack Jews and those politically allied to Jews. Again, we recognises no
such thing as independent components of a society, anymore than we would accept
that the parts of a watch have any meaningful independent existence of their own.
Our consciousness derives from our linguistic facility and as such it provides a
superficial skin of purpose that does not reveal the underlying tissue of mechanistic
intent ; this is as nature intended it should be, otherwise a true mammalian
superorganic species could not exist, but we do exist. Nonetheless we should be
able to point to evidence supporting our mechanistic conception of social action.
The fact that Jews are made the focus of all things, both by themselves and by their
enemies, is one telling fact, why do the enemies of Jews not just ignore the Jews ?
Because they cannot, the superorganic physiology of which all are a part force any
would be masters to take cognizance of Judaism. Secondly, the Jews are eternal
while all other social forms, from the Babylonians of three thousand years ago to
the Soviets of fifteen years ago, fall by the wayside. It would make no sense to
expect to find any more telling evidence of the functional nature of the relationship
between anti-Semites and Jews than this, for such explicit evidence would
contradict the basic organicist argument that says the individual is an unwitting
element operating within an organic structure that directs individual behaviour. So
there can never be evidence that enemies of Judaism serve Judaism in any
conscious sense because such service is unwitting, individuals are blinded to the
real meaning of their actions by a state of awareness that is fixed upon their own
culturally acquired, and hence socially localised identity. Having said that I did
think there was a brilliant image of Zionist intent displayed in one of Saddam's
palaces revealed after his fall. In one palace there were two huge murals, one was

of the golden dome in Jerusalem, under which was a throne, and on the facing wall
there was an equally massive and brightly coloured image, this time of three IBM's
blasting off into space ! What more potent image of Zionism could anyone ever
wish for ?


The German army is conceived as an organism and the practice of

conscription is seen as a vital means of galvanising the self serving individuals,
making up the German nation, into one organic formation thereby improving the
character of the German nation. The herd community instinct is developed through
militarism. There are no doubt some very salient observations here but as
scientifically minded observers we must understand that this militaristic type of
pliability is an expression of human corporate nature wherein the individual form
has evolved expressly to facilitate this kind of organic outcome. Hitler's insights
here are of interest because he is giving us a way of understanding why organised
warfare has been a universal feature of human societies that developed on the back
of agriculture which supported the expansion of the social organism onto a massive


"In Russian Bolshevism we must see the attempt undertaken by the

Jews in the twentieth century to achieve world domination. Just as in other
epochs they strove to reach the same goal by other, though inwardly related
processes. Their endeavour lies profoundly rooted in their essential nature.
No more than another nation renounces of its own accord the pursuit of its
impulse for the expansion of its power and way of life, but is compelled by
outward circumstances or else succumbs to impotence due to the symptoms
of old age, does the Jew break off his road to world dictatorship out of
voluntary renunciation, or because he suppresses his eternal urge."

When I ask What is a Jew ? this is the answer I am looking for, brilliant !
Or at least as brilliant as we can get within our absolute theocracy, that will not
allow any real knowledge to exist that conflicts with the preservation of the cause.
The thought expressed here echoes the anti-Semitic outpourings of Wells, the plea
Wells made for the Jews to give up their claim to be the chosen people, a claim
responsible for so much misery right down to the present day.
But what we must note is that Hitler stops the process of analysis too soon,
he fails to see that the pattern of national territories is a feature of Jewish culture. It
is the organisation of territorial domains into states organised according to patterns
of Jewish law (Roman law), as an expression of the linguistic force that is
responsible for all human social structure, that provides the Judophilic cultural
fabric that the Jewish core organ of superorganicism evolved to generate and
exploit. Hitler fails to see this despite having just mentioned that the European
states are the tools of Judaism ; although we just saw how he allowed himself to be
so selectively blind by making the democratic mode of political organisation the
key to Jewish machinations. But when we think that democracy was said to
originate in British politics as embodied in the battle between the monarchy and
parliament a few hundred years ago there is simply no reason to support the view

that democracy has the defining role in determining who is distinct from Judaism
and who is a tool of Judaism because the Jews are vastly more ancient than
democracy, modern or otherwise, and Hitler has just said himself, in the quote
taken, that communism is just the latest ploy ; so he knew democracy was a ploy —
why did he not see that National Socialism and its core philosophy of race were
ploys of Judaism too ? Why did Hitler, who knew so much, who saw so much, not
see this ?


We no longer use the word Aryan to represent any aspect of white or

European culture so it is difficult to discover just why this word meant so much to
Hitler. The importance of the Aryan race stems from one of the most miraculous
scientific discoveries of the late eighteenth century when the Indo-European
languages were discovered and found to be distinct from the Semitic languages.
This is of major importance and highly suggestive in respect to the domination of
Aryan culture by the Semitic culture. The burial of this knowledge of Aryan race
versus the Semitic race in Mein Kampf is therefore useful in the context of the
evolution of a global superorganism where there can only be one authority. Herein
Mein Kampf is made to contain yet another dangerous fragment of knowledge. The
chapter Race and Nation is everything the Jews could of hoped for and exactly what
they, as the master race, needed someone to say, most especially the Jews needed a
Hitler to say this. What the Jews do not need is for anyone to say what I am saying
here. In saying this we do not mean to infer that some Jews conspired to fashion
Hitler, the Nazis, the holocaust and the two world wars, although this is precisely
the sort of talk Hitler employed in respect to the First World War. We are saying
that humans are superorganisms and a natural force we call the linguistic force is
responsible for all social forms and actions and therefore we see the manner in
which this natural force expresses itself on route to creating social structure. So
Hitler emerged as a perfect defence for Judaism in the war against science by way
of a natural process that is related to the formation of social structure, and we can
see precisely how this linguistic process worked by reading Hitler's social
philosophy that was shaped by the theocracy which subverted science thus
inevitably leading to the to production of Hitlerian philosophy as a monstrous
misrepresentation of the true knowledge of human nature that served the interests of
the religious power centred on the eternal Jew.


To the extent that Hitler takes on the persona of a genuine philosopher he is

of the Machiavellian school, in the sense that he advocates highly amoral notions in
support of the one true objective, the pursuit of power. Although having said that I
just found a book on Machiavellian philosophy, The Machiavellians by James
Burnham, that claims the overarching quality of Machiavellian philosophy is the
relentless search for truth, somehow, without actually pursuing the matter, I doubt
this very much. Hitler found truth, sure enough, but he certainly does not reveal
truth. Hitler, like Machiavelli, is out to understand truth in order to use it, this
practical approach to knowledge cannot be characterised as a search for truth for
truth's sake and therefore it is not a search for truth at all, it is a search for power.
Hitler's logic is essentially that of a theologian, he says beauty is that which
serves the end of the state, thus any act of horror can be deemed a beautiful act.
This equates to the theologian's use of the word truth to describe the lies woven into
a religion whose end is the production of a church and all that goes with it. In the
lingo of Hitler and the priest adjectives describing the quality of things derive their
meaning from the outcome arising from the things described. If torture makes
someone repent in the act of taking their last breath then cruel torture is a beautiful
and lovely thing for this means that instead of hell the sinner can now appear before
God ! In chapter six War Propaganda we have the philosophy of propaganda and I
must say I find this immensely interesting for he makes this comment "a slogan
must be presented from different angles, but the end of all remarks must always and
immutably be the slogan itself." (Page 169). This delights me in a most unpleasant
way because empowered by my knowledge that there is no such thing as an
individual, that there is only the superorganism, I was enabled to see the true nature
of television advertising, something we all hate with a passion but can do nothing to
put a stop to, something that absorbs an immense amount of money and that is paid
for by the most powerful organizations in society. Just as there is no such thing as
an individual person so there is no such thing as an individual advert ! How so ?
Adverts are not really advertising the individual products that each advert show us,
nature has produced an advertising industry as part of the exploitation of the
linguistic force that makes social structure. Individual adverts are actually links in a
chain constituting a message stream acting as a tractor beam focused upon our
brains. This beam of information delivers a simple subliminal slogan, always the
same, no matter what the advert, always ending in a punch line — WANT THIS !
That is all, want this, want this, want this, want this, and so on ad infinitum. But the
slogan want this is not about the individual items, the holidays, cars, women,
unexpected wealth due to injury claims etc., the slogan is about society, want this
society, want this society, want this society. That is what each and every advert is
really saying to you, the rest is a foregone conclusion. As long as you want to be
part of this society you cannot very well avoid being a consumer of the various
objects and services actually advertised. The real trick is to get you to want this life
style in the first place for if we ever got a chance to stop and think about the way we
live we would all pretty soon start saying, want this ? What the fuck for ? Who the
fuck WANTS THAT ! and in this chapter Hitler actually provides a very good guide
for the would be autocratic masters of society in respect to the control of the masses
through this simple method of the directed message. Very nice, good job Adolf.

Another important point concerning the idea of creating artwork in various

forms to keep people interested while always ensuring the item ends by delivering
the same slogan comes into play in the world of philosophy. At the root of my life's
journey was the realisation, as a child, that religion was nonsense so that as I grew I
knew science had to be the repository of real knowledge. Upon discovering the
correct scientific solution to the problem of understanding human nature and
therefore the nature of existence, some five years ago, I immediately found myself
in possession of the key to understanding all things at a glance so that I immediately
recognised the true nature of all intellectual materials whenever I looked at them. I
began to recognise that all books were the same, no matter what their form or
subject matter all books were pure unadulterated religion. And here, in Hitler's
magnificent work, we find the explanation stated plainly, all items of propaganda
must deliver the same slogan. Thus all books written assume the Biblical position
—humans are unique, and special, the individual is the animal, the individual is the
human. As long as this entirely false position is adopted God is safe and the
priesthood that guards this lie can count itself eternal as long as this slogan is the
only message given the oxygen of public recognition. There was no greater
advocate of the slogan that says the individual is supreme than Hitler, it follows that
Hitler was an agent of the theocracy created by nature. He simply existed to serve a
particular purpose at a particular moment in time. So we see, Hitler really did see
the truth, but then he used the truth to serve ends focused upon himself in obedience
to the truth's eternal use. True knowledge does not exist as some effervescent
flourish that we happen to savour for the amusement it gives us, truth is as
deliberate a product of biological evolution as gastric juices, and truth exists for
equally functional biological reasons. It is the priest's job to possess truth by
ensuring that truth is not known, Hitler is one example of the priest acting on this

Hitler even gives us something of a philosophy of monster making would

you believe ! Full of praise for the English use of propaganda in the First World
War he describes how the main trick of keeping it simple and focusing the
necessary venom of the people's hatred upon an individual character was displayed
in 1915 when the British spread the idea that while the German people longed for
peace the Kaiser was set on war (see Chapter 7, The Revolution, Page 171). So, the
argument went, war was not being waged against the people of Germany but only
against the Kaiser, and the world looked forward to the day when it could embrace
the German people once again. And all the fighting was in the name of freedom
and democracy. So where have we heard this before ? 2003 ? The name Saddam
ring a bell ? And the war goes on to help the good people of Iraq now we have the
tyrant in chains. Nothing new under the sun, but we see from Hitler's
Machiavellian philosophy many of the ruses that our masters use to pull our strings
today. Hitler evidently new a thing or two but he could not teach our masters
anything for our masters were in truth his master. And what applies to people and
adverts also applies to wars. There is no such thing as an individual war, all wars
are linked to the one unified ongoing process of making the Jews the sole master of
all earth in the process of forming one global superorganism. Each war forms a link
in a chain constituting an ongoing behavioural response delivering superorganic
growth. And in noting all this we see just how powerful Hitler's ideas were made
by virtue of his application of organicism to all his reasoning about the nature of
society. Powerful, but worthless, worthless simply because although Hitler saw
much, ultimately, he knew nothing. In seeing so much and choosing to emulate
what he saw that he despised in the hands of others Hitler just attached himself to
the yoke of human nature and began bobbing like a puppet. It is not the name of
the puppet that has to be changed, it is the dance that is played upon the strings
from which the puppets hang that must be changed, if change is what is wanted. To
liberate ourselves from absolute obedience to the dictates of human nature we have

to know what human nature is, otherwise any thoughts of freedom can only be the
product of deception. It is therefore, to use a hot example, the height of absurdity
for a Muslim women to say she is accessing freedom by obeying religious
doctrine !
We may not know exactly how the monster was made but we have a precise
idea of why the monster was made—to protect the Jewish core from decaying due
to the emergence of an alternative focal point of authority. Hitler describes how
this defensive process should be organized in terms of principles that involve
uniting physical action with a ideological programme. And he tells us the exercise
of control must be applied at a suitably early stage in the lifecycle of an alternative
focal point of authority. Hitler describes this process of control when discussing
how his movement was threatened by the ruling state authorities, but in reality his
movement was serving as a device allowing the theocracy to crush the emergence
of truth as it had become embodied in organicist sociology. If we follow the
progress of National Socialism after Hitler's public career in politics began we see
that the ideology of this movement was very much based upon the organic
conception of society and the primary expression of identity derived from this
organicist model was centred upon race wherein the white European was the master
and the Jew was the enemy to be despised. And it must be said that as race is the
antithesis of Judaism so Judaism is the nemesis of race.
Obviously it cannot of been Hitler's intention to help the Jews by destroying
the science which had created in him ideas about the nature of existence, but this
was the consequence for Hitler took upon himself the mantle of organicist thinking
and then set about waging war against the whole of mankind in such a manner that
there could only be one outcome, defeat, and thus he created the circumstances in
which organicism would be linked with a momentous catastrophic event that would
cast science, the ultimate enemy of religion, and the antithesis of Jewish power,
beyond the reach of humanity for aeons to come. This is a curious result, and very
difficult to make sense of in any clear manner, but what we do know for sure is that
the principles of knowledge control enunciated by Hitler were correct and they were
carried out on behalf of the master race, the master race being the Jews, and they
were carried out by Adolf Hitler. There is no denying this, the facts are plain to see,
science is dead and religion is very much alive—roll on the global war on terror,
roll on the war.

The moral of this story is that if we are to take on the challenge of our
current predicament in respect to the role of religion in our world we must apply the
familiar principle of sound political behaviour, that of constructive criticism,
wherein we acknowledge the wonder of our modern society and recognise it has
only been possible because of the organizational qualities of the Jewish religion
which gives our social world its character and form. By praising Judaism even as
we make Judaism the ruling bloc in our world we can at least hope that the question
of how we are to live in the future might include a debate about whether or not we
can live in a truly secular society without any religion providing the galvanising
element. Or, whether there is nothing we can do but let nature take its course and
unite the world under the Jews and then we can move on toward a civilised human
mode of existence, maybe.
Hitler specifically rejects the idea of positive, or constructive criticism, in
the part where he discusses the role of the various parties seeking to oppose the
Marxists that were beaten into submission by Marxist terror tactics. In saying this
he declares that you can only fight terror with terror and as such he developed the
storm troops to protect the gatherings of his clan. There is some truth in his
argument but what terror is always aimed at is silencing people, so the first thing

you have to have if you want to take on the Nazis of this world, the masters that is,
is a message. Knowledge is power, and once we have fixed the message that we
want to send and succeeded in getting the message out then, and only then, terror
will not know where to turn.


I am all too well aware of the limitations of a one man crew on a job like
this, and accordingly I am not pretending to anyone, least of all myself, that this
offering bears the hallmark of quality, consistency or depth that could be realised
with the benefit of a well organised cooperative effort. As I have said, this can only
be a work of experimental philosophy intended to sound out the social world to see
what possibilities there may be of finding intelligent life out there.
In the opening pages I declared that what I offered was unwelcome, and as
such it was put before the world in anticipation of opposition, in expectation of tight
lips and biting teeth, resisting the spoonful of wisdom I want to force down
humanity's throat. Like any pill worth taking this philosophical tablet consists
mostly of chalky matter that is not in itself potent, the bulk is made up and mixed in
as and when required to bind the really active ingredients delivering the prescriptive
force. This work is a matrix of thought directed toward a very exact purpose stated
in my closing words, so that by reading this work the matrix of my living thoughts,
transferred to the inscribed tablet put before you now, are intended to be adsorbed
into the reader's stream of consciousness allowing the matrix of my ideas to become
the matrix of another's thoughts, whereupon elements relevant to themselves can
serve as the base to which the vital ingredient of rationality informed by science can
be added, enabling them to understand the world as I do, according to a real sense
of what existence is that will give definite answers to any questions about human
organic nature, answers that follow a true path and as such may be useful to the
development of a genuinely individual sense of purpose. To this end, like chalk in a
pill, the less active pap nonetheless has an essential role to play in facilitating the
delivery of the essential essence of my ideas at a rate permitting adsorption to take
place effectively. I cannot just offer concentrated statements of glaring fact like a
microdot of philosophical acid empowered to rocket the readers mind onto another
plane because the intellect does not work in this manner. The intellect evolved to
act as a robotic controller, the mind resists, the mind has ideas of its own derived
from the basic biological programme that seeks to undermine true individuality by
imposing a pseudo sense of individuality via an elaborate process of subterfuge that
brings the superorganism into being by capturing individuals and securing them to
its own corporate identity. If you want real individuality then you must first of all
know who and what you really are, there is no alternative to this precondition. Thus
I trot out talk of this and that, and repeatedly throw in key phrases about social
organisms, exoskeleton, superorganic physiology, and try to hammer home that this
is science, science, science. These latter, unfamiliar terms, are the acid elements
intended to burn a conceptual pattern into your brain, but they must do so by being
infused into a range of thoughts which the acid elements, the active elements of
thought, combine convincingly. And it is for this reason that I must let loose with
some searing ideas in respect to religion in general, historical horrors that are still
smarting, and Judaism in particular. The active ingredient — that is rational science
— has to do its work or there is no point in making up the tablet.
Science is a good thing, science is real, science does not take away the
magic and the mystery, science tells us why we love magic and mystery, science
makes sense of our magical gift for creating and enjoying art, music, maths and for
our ability to do science itself. True, science reduces these gifts to devices that

serve to enslave us like idiots, but if that is what we evolved these talents for, to
turn us into more efficient robots, then it is best that we know this so that we can
fight against the insidious exploitation of these instincts, such as we see fuelling the
power capitalists have to rule our lives, so that we can try and preserve the pleasure
of personal creativity and intimate social structure — fat chance of that. Why is
there an obesity epidemic today ? Because the feed the farmers put in our trough
induces this condition. Why is binge drinking a new problem ? Because the
capitalists who farm us have attacked the fabric of our social structure and
destroyed the network of social drinking venues and reduced them to a uniform
plumbing system channelling their piss into our veins. The farmers do not give a
shit about our experience, they just want to sell us a product, and to that end they
design an experience suited to the product that their manufacturing programme can
produce most efficiently ; and we are just one element of that manufacturing
process, exactly as pigs are just one component in a bacon manufacturing process.
We have no choice. Both of these modern devices, fast food and uniform alcohol
products, allow the more efficient farming of humans and people need to be attuned
to these devices by means of slick advertising campaigns. So, having caused the
problem through modern farming techniques, the master, in the shape of politicians
whose job it is to trick us into thinking we are free and independent individuals,
then tells us we should not do this, and we should do that. And we wander around
our pens, and wander around our pens, and wander around our pens.
And 'pens and troughs' are the nub of the question. Homogenised products
make us fat and the soulless presentation of alcohol encourages the mindless over
indulgence we call binge drinking, but it is not the end products of the feeding
process that are the real issue here, it is the control of the social fabric. The
consumed products have to be made the way they are to make the global ownership
of all the world's social fabric through the sole medium of the stock exchange
possible. And in saying this, having just read Mein Kampf, I cannot help but recall
that this destructive homogenisation of culture by international Jewry, as Hitler has
it, through the device of stock exchange control was a major bugbear for this man.
However Hitler did not explain the situation properly nor offer useful solutions to
the problem, he just became part of the problem, and I can only say that the idea of
doing anything to combat the tragic effect of the stock exchange mechanism which
turns our own social fabric into an organic resource to be farmed is like trying to
control the weather or turn back the tide. Global capitalism is a naturally occurring
phenomena produced by nature and we are powerless to do anything about it, still,
like the weather and the tides we never tire of observing these uncontrollable forces
of nature that impose themselves upon us, and to that end I note the economic
forces effecting us today according to a scientific logic which the priests never
allow us to know because they want us to think that we are in control and they are
not responsible for our woes that they like to use to manipulate us. Society is
controlled from the top down, this is an absolute law of nature.
The challenge of freeing the grip these people have on our minds is a severe
one, yes, no one wants to know, but I think everyone should be told, and if it must
be so then it must be told like it is. For all the offence offered in the above there is
really no offence intended, quite the opposite in fact, they say the world changed
after 9/11, and so it did, and by this they mean we have to get use to all sorts of new
discomforts like the insult of ID cards, intrusive searches, loss of privacy, a secret
police force dispersed throughout all our communities, not to mention the random
acts of terror ! We are called upon to brace ourselves for a tougher time ahead, well
tough times call for tough philosophers, and tough times evoke the popular
philosophical adage — you have to be cruel to be kind — in being cruel I mean to
be kind — I wish humanity well.

This is a time to get to know ourselves better, a time to let the genius of
science deliver the miraculous benefits which await within the magic lantern of
science. Yes, this means the death of religion, eventually, the end of the Zionist
programme, an end to Christian imperialism and Islamic fanaticism, but do we
really want to look forward to a future in which we base our sense of self upon
these pathetic, grovelling, primitive notions of reality that seem more fitting to the
mind of a worm buried in the dirt than the mind of a man or women able to think
meaningfully of wandering through galaxies far and wide ? What more pathetic
idea of existence could we ever conceive of than those imposed upon us by the
priest ? Such ideas are not about how we want to live, they are about how social
power has been driven by the linguistic force of nature, and it is time we took full
control of the force of nature that has made us human, and instead of being farmed
like human cattle as we are today by the expression of linguistic force that we call
capitalism, it is time we did decide to live as we want to live, in full awareness of
who and what we are on this planet.


The book I bought today, 23/11/06, simply in order to clarify the details
used in my discussion of early hominids, concludes thus ;

"What if the creation of the Himalayas had never taken place ?

Would there be any hominids at all ? Would a creature like afarensis ever
have evolved if there was no need to travel efficiently on two legs ? Would
apes still rule the vast forests of Africa ? It could so easily have been that
And what if there had been no ice ages, no periods of cooling that
helped create the vast savannahs ? Without the creation of new habitats, the
early australopithecines would not have evolved into so many different
species. There would of been no Homo habilis or ergaster. No pressure to
evolve big brains or invent stone tools..........
It is humbling to think that, despite our intelligence and ingenuity,
our evolution has depended so heavily on a succession of chance events ; a
slightly larger fluctuation in the Earth's temperature or a greater tilt in the
angle of the Earth's rotation and we may never have evolved at all."

This pathetic logic characterises all science focused on the study of human
nature, above all else so called scientists are concerned to make our nature a
supreme mystery and to emphasise that while we will continue to search longingly
for the answers there is no reason to think that this most inscrutable of all questions
can ever be known.


"Our journey has given us some of the answers to who we are and
where we came from but, for the scientists who patiently sift through the
fragments of our past, the mystery tour continues."

(Walking with Cavemen, page 221)

The contrast with the argument presented in our work could not be more
obvious. We have all the answers, and our answers are entirely inclusive of every
facet of human existence as it is known today, down to the last detail—there is no
mystery, none whatsoever, not only can we prove absolutely that God does not exist
by showing what God is (the social organism), we can even state precisely what the
function of each religion is and we can define the exact nature of a religious form
like Nazism, revealing such phenomenon to be inverted representations of the
religious structures they set themselves up to oppose, so that these opposites are but
polarities of one structural form. We know that there have been no significant
chance events determining the evolution of humanity as we exist today, we know
that life evolves in accordance with physical laws of nature, so that life forms
evolve to exploit potential energy, and that basic physiological forms represent
engines relative to energy sources, and that broadly defined ecosystems represent
specific types of latent energy pool determining the variation that must be drawn
from each basic type of physiological engine, resulting in several categories of life
form : aquatic, terrestrial, aerial and superorganic. So there is no question whether
or not a superorganic form of mammal would evolve, this was inevitable once
mammalian physiology had become established as the latest engine type, unless
some chance event intervened to put an end to mammalian existence all together.
Chance, by definition, cannot act as the carrier of an evolutionary process, only a
lunatic, an intellectual criminal or a robotic object could think otherwise. Chance
can only impact significantly on an evolutionary process by stopping it in its
tracks ; to call such an intercession a feature of an evolutionary process is like
calling a fatal car accident part of a journey. Modern scientists therefore argue that
the process of evolution, as it applies to humans, equates to a touring holiday whose
route is determined by an infinite series of fatal accidents in which, presumably, no
one ever dies ! We have seen that the idea of the social organism presented here
was the very first idea that any scientifically inspired thinkers came up with and that
this idea went from strength to strength for a century before it was finally erased by
the combined efforts of academic priests working in conjunction with military
figures who obliterated the fabric of society selectively whilst at the same time
associating the genuine science of humanity with a monster, putting science out of
bounds for all eternity. We have seen that this outcome is consistent with the idea
that was erased ; truth about human nature can never be known.
Perhaps the greatest enemy of evolutionary science working within the
establishment is Stephen Gould, an extremely prolific and popular writer who never
tires of disseminating Darwinian style poison, corrupting true science while
exonerating the lunatic fringe religious fanatic who seeks to attack evolutionary
science head on. Gould loves writing critiques on eugenics but he never tells us
that eugenics derives from the theocracy's Darwinian subversion of science that
makes the fitness of the individual the key to evolution. Organicism, as we have
seen, reveals that the dependence of the individual upon the community serves the
development of a complex superorganism. Although we have not discussed the
matter this fact applies especially to the implicit sterility of homosexuality, where
we can see that if males tend to form a social hierarchy in most species as they seek
the right to breed, then in a superorganism where a 'queen' body is required that is
dedicated exclusively to the formation of a core authority it is inevitable that males
who love males will evolve to form the basis of an elite that has minimal attachment
to mundane facets of existence and maximal affinity for more flamboyant interests ;
and what could describe the personality of many a 'queer boy' better ? In On
Human Nature, the book written by Edward Wilson in a desperate attempt to
backtrack after his fellow scientists declared war upon him when he proposed a

scientific conception of life embracing humanity, we have these interesting, albeit
conflicting statements ;

'There is I wish to suggest, a strong possibility that homosexuality is

normal in a biological sense, that it is a distinctive beneficent behaviour that
evolved as an important element of early human social organization.
Homosexuals may be the generic carriers of some of mankind's rare
altruistic genes.'

(Page 137-8)

The reason given sounds fairly stupid, but never mind, then we have this ;

'The juxtaposition of biology and ethics in the case of homosexuality

requires sensitivity and care. It would be inappropriate to consider
homosexuals as a separate genetic caste, however beneficent their historic
and contemporary roles might prove to be. It would be even more illogical,
and unfortunate, to make past genetic adaptedness a necessary criterion for
current acceptance.'

(My italics)

(Page 141)

So, as usual, Wilson prevaricates and consequently fails to tell us anything

worth a toss. Clearly there have to be castes in human superorganisms, just as there
are in insect superorganisms, if these creatures are to evolve to any considerable
extent as our global Jewish organism has. Wilson dare not draw the natural
conclusion of his observations in this regard but I can refer you to a book written by
a homosexual which discusses the division between gays and the wider community
in terms that accord with the idea that homosexuality evolved to create a specialised
caste ;

'Childless men and women have many things to offer a society.

They can transfer their absent parental instincts into broader parental roles :
they can be extraordinary teachers and mentors, nurses and doctors, priests,
rabbis, and nuns ; .....
One of their critical roles in society has also often been in the
military. Here is an institution which requires dedication beyond the calling
to the biological, nuclear family, that needs people prepared to give all their
time to the common endeavour, that requires men and women able to
subsume their personal needs into the formal demands of military discipline.
Of all the institutions in our society, the military is perhaps the most
naturally homosexual, which is part of the reason, of course, why it is so
hostile to their visible presence. The displacement of family affection onto a
broader community also makes the homosexual an ideal person to devote
him- or herself to a social institution : the university, the school, the little
league, the Boy Scouts, the church, the sports team. Scratch most of these
institutions and you'll find a homosexual or two sustaining many of its vital

(Virtually Normal, Sullivan, Page, 201)

The Greek warrior society based on a slave biomass and a homosexual elite
is the most famous fighting force in history, the Spartans. The reason Judaism
rejects homosexuality is because it is a linguistically formulated corporate identity
that defines social structure through a series of religious identity implants bearing a
common structure but differentiated sufficiently to provide the required
superorganic physiology. We have seen that Judaism is anathema to race, as Hitler
said, and likewise, since homosexuality is firstly a genetically induced condition,
which may well be reinforced culturally once established in a society, which means
homosexuality falls into a category somewhat bridging the gap between race and
religion, and as such Judaism had to reject homosexuality in order to advance
beyond a mode of forming core authorities which prevailed two millennia ago in the
shape of homosexuality. This is why modern, that is Jewish military organizations,
have until recently rejected homosexuality. Nothing then could be more natural
than homosexuality in humans.

There are many essays by Gould revealing the poisonous nature of his pen,
in The Smoking Gun of Eugenics he rails against the Nazi evil—fair enough—
weeps for the poor Jews—OK—while telling us nothing from a detached scientific
point of view about why these behaviours occur. In another essay I have read, but
cannot find, I recall a discussion about an early nineteenth century creationist,
creationism being another popular subject for Gould, who said God put fossils in
the ground to test us, something Gould, if I remember rightly, excused for some
reason or other.
If the latter condition presented in the argument above, which says the truth
must be placed beyond legitimate access, had not been put in place then today we
would at least expect an organicist school of sociology to persist and to be
represented throughout the academic world just as it had been prior to the outbreak
of world war that was focused upon Europe in 1914 ; after all, as our so called
contemporary scientists love to admit, we have no really conclusive alternative
answers, so why not take the biological route ? Because it led to such trouble
before. We have scientists like Gould moaning on about eugenics, but we have no
scientists extolling the idea that humans are the missing mammalian superorganism.
So we do not see the organicist school of thought applied to people today, although
we have seen that the force of this exclusively realistic idea is irresistible and it
keeps forcing its way into the public domain, as exemplified in the eruption of
sociobiology in 1975 which caused a massive rush of academic blood to the wound
which recovered the situation so that today the unadulterated theophilic garbage that
we see touted in BBC propaganda of the kind so sweetly presented in Walking with
Cavemen has continued to pour forth unimpeded. Nothing can stop this, but it is
nonetheless fun to try and mount some kind of opposition if only for the sake of
experiencing a moment of personal sanity in an otherwise uniformly insane world.




As I stood alone, as is my wont, hanging on a ledge and watching the world

go by last night, Saturday, 25 November 2006, a gang of local youths accosted me,
so to speak, with a barrage of questions, the females had evidently become bold
about this strange old git lurking near them. But a couple of young lads emerged
from the group to rescue me and while the girls continued their taunts I had a more
normal conversation with the two young men. I asked if they were at school doing
A'levels and they said they were soon to attend university, the first said he was
going to do architecture, I asked if it was still a seven year course and he said yes, a
seven year party, rich Mummy and Daddy I said and he showed me his chunky gold
ring. But it is the second youth that has set me to now, he is going to study
anthropology, another rich looking kid, I asked him why anthropology ? And do
you know what he said ! To learn about the duck billed platypus, the duck billed
platypus ! I ask you ! What the hell is that all about ? I shall tell you, the games go
on. I have just been saying that the priests love the idea that we evolved from apes,
this is safe territory, no questions about spirit here, all meat and bone. And this is
it, this is the latest extension of the ruse, moving on from the specificity of ape
origins to the generality of mammalian origins in search of the question where we
came from. Bloody insane. You can study these questions till kingdom come and
you'll never learn anything about human nature and hence the origin of modern
humans as we know ourselves with all our various abilities. I tried to prompt a
more substantial answer from this young man, I said never mind where duck billed
platypus came from how about where humans came from? but I got no reply. At
this tender age a person is simply responding to the flux of information
reverberating through society and as such this fella was tuning into one wavelength,
the question was not his, it was what his trainers had implanted in him in
accordance with their own training schedule. Fascinating thought none the less,
worth all the grief from those pretty girls, even if it did get a bit nasty at the end
with a threat of violence from unknown assailants from one young witch.
All of this group behaviour of course reaffirms the alien nature of true
individuality and hence the real corporate nature of the human animal. When I
headed off to college to study anthropology as I turned twenty in 1975 the only
question on my mind was entirely spiritual, Why do humans believe in God ? But
this was my question, and I was looking for a none spiritual, substantial answer to
the question that had been bugging me all my life up to that time, no one gave me
this question. I use to wonder what made my fellow middle class students tick, why
they were interested in anthropology, for unlike me they were not anarchists raging
at a society they hated for its two-facedness, they were just ordinary middle class
people, so what interest could anthropology—the scientific study of humans as
animals—be to them ? But I never formulated my question to any point where I
asked anyone, such thoughts crystallise into clarity over the years.


Last night, 01/12/06, I put the name of a nineteenth century organicist into
the search engine and got ninety hits which has given me some up to date references
for the idea of the social organism that I should append to the above discussion.
Firstly I have newsletter from the Forum for History of Human Science from 2004
which mentions a number of authors under the title The Organic Metaphor and the
Human Sciences. It is interesting to see the word 'analogy' transformed into the
modern word 'metaphor'. Needless to say these people are only perpetuating the
subversion of science that first overthrew the real science of humanity and as such
they are not promoting the metaphor in any real sense. But it is nonetheless very
interesting to see modern academics touching on this subject—it will not go away.
The other interesting item I came upon was Social Emergence: Societies
as Complex Systems, by R. Keith Sawyer which I think was published last
year, 2005. This seems to be a modern piece of subversive academic work
which seeks to take possession of the organicist idea in a sophisticated
manner that puts the subject firmly in the hands of modern academics who
are bound to be the only people with the skills to handle the methods used
by modern scientists to study natural phenomenon. I have downloaded a
ten page exert which gives some indication of its drift. Sawyer definitely
talks the talk, but I think we can assume without bothering to check that he
does not walk the walk for to do so would mean taking the line we have
taken here, and we can be sure that no academic would even dream of
applying their insights into human society to our own society in the
uncompromising manner that we have used here, for this leads to precise
and overt statements about the nature of social action which is very personal
indeed and highly apolitical. But again it is fascinating to see academic
priests taking an interest in organicism however perverse and malign their
intentions are.
Sawyer's catchword is 'emergence' which is supposed to arise out of
complexity and in relation to the idea that society arises spontaneously he mentions
various organicist thinkers, and other sociologists that helped lead sociology away
from biology and toward a more theologically friendly political expression of the
idea that individuals somehow mix unwittingly to produce emergent social
properties that do not exist amongst randomly associated individuals—hence
emergence. But he does not refer to a forerunner of Edward Wilson, William
Morton Wheeler, who was also a student of ants who in addition had an interest in
human society, Wheeler published a small book called Emergent Evolution in 1928
which I have to say that, despite tantalising me with the promise of a rational
account of human evolution, does not really make anything new of the idea of
emergence. The idea of emergence is perfect for a scientific conception of human
society that seeks to place humans entirely within the remit of nature, but evidently
scientists manage to skilfully apply correct ideas like emergence in such a way as to
make them a means of obfuscation rather than revelation.


Allen, Peter M. Cities and Regions as Self-Organizing Systems :

Models of Complexity, Gordon and Breach, 1997.

Anesaki, Masaharu History of Japanese Religion : With Special

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

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

of the Principles of "Natural Selection" and
"Inheritance" to Political Society, D. Appleton and
Company, 1890. First Pub. 1872.

Baron, Salo Wittmayer Modern Nationalism and Religion, Harper and

Brothers, 1947.

Boulding, Kenneth E. Ecodynamics : A New Theory of Societal Evolution,

Sage Publications, 1978.

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

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

Burnham, James The Machiavellians : Defenders of Freedom,

Gateway, 1963. First pub. 1943.

Calleo, David The German Problem Reconsidered : Germany and

the World Order, 1870 to the Present, Cambridge,
1991. First pub. 1978.

Carhart, Michael Culture and the Rejection of the Organic Metaphor in

the 1780's, in Forum for the History of Human
Science Newsletter, Volume 16, Number 2, Fall
2004, Old Dominion University. See also Naomi
Beck, The Appeal of the Organic Metaphor in
Spencerism, and Daniela Barberis, A Novel Object
for Science : 'Society' as Defined by the Organic

Clifford, William Body and Mind, in Industrialisation and Culture

1830-1914, Macmillan, 1970. First pub. 1874.

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

Century Interpretations of the State as Organism or
as Person, Studies in History, Economics and Public
Law, Vol. XXXVIII, Number 2. Columbia, 1910.

Comte, Auguste The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte, Freely
translated and condensed by Harriet Martineau,
Calvin Blanchard, 1856. First pub. 1830-42.

System of Positive Polity, or Treatise on Sociology,

Instituting the Religion of HUMANITY, Vol. 2.
Social Statics, or the Abstract Theory of Human
Order, Longmans, Green and Co., 1875. First pub.

Cook, F. C. The Origins of Religion and Language Considered in

Five Essays, John Murray, 1884.

Coren, Michael The Invisible Man : The Life and Liberties of

H. G. Wells, Atheneum, 1993.

Crick, Francis Life Itself : Its Origin and Nature, Futura, 1982.

Davies, James Chowning Ions of Emotion and Political Behavior : A

Prototheory, in Biology and Politics : Recent
Explorations, Albert Somit, Mouton, 1976.

Desmond, Adrian The Politics of Evolution : Morphology, Medicine,

and Reform in Radical London, Chicago, 1989.

Draper, John William History of the Conflict between Religion and Science.,
D. Appleton and Company, 1875.

Espinas, Alfred Des Sociétés Animales, Librairie Félix Alcan, 1935.

First pub. 1877.

Feibleman , James K. Theory of Integrative Levels, in British Journal for

the Philosophy of Science, Volume V No 17, May

Forel, Auguste The Social World of the Ants Compared with that of
Man, G. P. Putnam's Sons, Ltd. Vol. 1 & 2, 1928.

Geehr, Richard "I Decide Who is a Jew!" The Papers of Dr. Karl
Lueger, University Press of America, 1982.

Gould, Stephen Jay The Smoking Gun of Eugenics, in Dinosaur in a

Haystack : Reflections in Natural History, Jonathan
Cape, 1996.

Grimke, Frederick The Nature and Tendency of Free Institutions,

Belknap Press, Harvard, 1968. First pub. 1848.

Grosse, Ernst The Beginnings of Art, D. Appleton and Company,

1899. First pub. 1893.

Gumplowicz, Ludwig The Outlines of Sociology, American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 1899. First pub. 1885.

Hartland, Edwin Sidney Primitive Paternity : The Myth of Supernatural Birth

in Relation to the History of the Family, David Nutt,
Vol. 1 1909, & Vol. 2 1910.

Haskell, Thomas L. The Emergence of Professional Social Science : The

American Social Science Association and the
Nineteenth-Century Crisis of Authority, Illinois, 1977.

Hitler, Adolf Mein Kampf : With an Introduction by D.C. Watt,

translated by Ralph Manheim, published as a Radius
Book January 1973. This edition first published
1969. First pub. Vol. 1. 1925, Vol. 2. 1926.

My Struggle, The Paternoster Library, October 1935.

First pub. October 1933.

Hobbes, Thomas Leviathan : or the matter, forme and power of a

Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, Blackwell,
1946. First pub. 1651.

Hughes, H. Stuart Consciousness and Society : The Reorientation of

European Social Thought 1890 - 1930, Macgibbon &
Kee, 1959.

Kaye, Howard L. The Social Meaning of Modern Biology : From

Darwinism to Sociobiology, Yale, 1986.

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

Lindenberg, Christoph Die Mitte des sozialen Organismus, in Der Mensch in

der Gesellschaft : Die Dreigliederung des sozialen
Organismus als Urbild und Aufgabe, Stefan Leber,
Verlag Freies Geistesleben, 1977.

Lynch, John &

Barrett, Louise Walking with Cavemen : Eye-to-Eye with your
Ancestors, DK Publishing, 2003.

Marais, Eugene N. The Soul of the White Ant, Methuen & Co. Ltd.,
Fourth Edition, 1939.

Marsh, Clive Christianity in a Post-Atheist Age, SCM Press, 2002.

May, Tim and

Bauman, Zygmunt Thinking Sociologically, Blackwell, Second edition,
2001. First Pub. 1990.

Morgan, Lewis H. Ancient Society : Researches in the Lines of Human

Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to
Civilization, Charles H. Kerr & Company, 1877.

Moritz, Robin F. A. &

Southwick, Edward E. Bees as Superorganisms : An Evolutionary
Springer-Verlag, 1992.

Mulford, Elisha The Nation : The Foundations of Civil Order and

Political Life in the United States, Houghton, Mifflin
and Company. 1887.

Needham, Joseph Matter, Form, Evolution and Us : Modern science

looks at living matter and its origins and how we
ourselves come into the picture, in This Changing
World : a series of contributions by some of our
leading thinkers, to cast light upon the pattern of the
modern world, J. R. M. Brumwell, Ed., Scientific
Book Club, 1945. First pub. 1944.

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

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

Parsons, Talcott The Structure of Social Action : A Study in Social

Theory with Special Reference to a Group of Recent
European Writers, Free Press, 1949. First pub. 1937.

Peters, F. E. Judaism, Christianity and Islam : The Classical Texts

and their Interpretation, Vol. 1, From Covenant to
Community, Princeton, 1990.

Rawie, Henry The Social Organism and its Natural Laws, Williams
and Wilkins Company, 1926.

Sawyer, R. Keith Social Emergence: Societies as Complex

Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Seeley, Thomas D. The Wisdom of the Hive : The Social Physiology of

Honey Bee Colonies, Harvard, 1995.

Segerstråle, Ullica Defenders of the Truth : The battle for science in the
sociobiology debate and beyond, OUP, 2000.

Spencer, Herbert First Principles, Williams and Norgate, Fifth edition,

1898. First Pub. 1862.

Sprague, Franklin M. The Laws of Social Evolution : A Critique of

Benjamin Kidd's "Social Evolution" and a statement

of the True Principles which Govern Social Progress,
Lee and Shepard Publishers, 1895.

Sullivan, Andrew Virtually Normal : An Argument About

Homosexuality, Picador, 1995.

Sumner, William Graham Folkways : A Study of the Sociological Importance of

Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals, Ginn
and Company, 1927. First Pub. 1906.

Thomas, Lewis On Societies as Organisms, in The Lives of a Cell :

Notes of a Biology Watcher, Allen Lane, 1980. First
pub. 1974. All articles in this book originally
appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine

Walker, Charles The Encyclopedia of Secret Knowledge, Rider, 1995.

Ward, John William Red, White & Blue : Men, Books, and Ideas in
American Culture, OUP New York, 1969.

Wells, H. G. Men Like Gods, Cassell and Company, 1923.

Wheeler, William Morton Emergent Evolution and the Development of

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

White, Andrew Dickson A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in

Christendom, Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1896.
Vol. 1 & 2.

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

Harvard, 1978. First pub. 1975.

On Human Nature, Penguin, 2001. First pub. 1978.

Worms, René Philosophie des Sciences Sociales, Vol. I, Objet des

Sciences Sociales, Second Ed. M. Giard & E. Brière,
1913. First pub. 1903.